No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/18/2016 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann City Attorney City Manager City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Regular Meeting October 18, 2016 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring October 2016 as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. B. Proclamation Declaring the Month of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. C. Proclamation Declaring October 2016 as Conflict Resolution Month. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  CALL MEETING TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER  City Manager Review of Agenda. City of Fort Collins Page 2  Consent Calendar Review This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. o Council-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before Discussion Items. o Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after Discussion Items.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar and items not specifically scheduled on the agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to the Council.  Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the table in the lobby (for recordkeeping purposes).  All speakers will be asked by the presiding officer to identify themselves by raising their hand, and then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for those who are not able to stand while waiting).  The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.  Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and to keep comments brief. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be provided to the City Clerk.  A timer will beep once and the timer light will turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain, and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. [**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development, citizens should consult the Development Review Center page on the City’s website at fcgov.com/developmentreview, or contact the Development Review Center at 221-6750.]  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP Consent Calendar The Consent Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by City Council with one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of: ● Ordinances on First Reading that are routine; ● Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine; ● Those of no perceived controversy; ● Routine administrative actions. City of Fort Collins Page 3 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 27, 2016 Adjourned Council Meeting. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 27, 2016 Adjourned Council meeting. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2016, Authorizing Execution of the Cribari-Gheen/Schuman Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2016, authorizes the execution of the amended and restated Cribari/Gheen/Schuman conservation easement. The Cribari property was a 72 +/- acre property south of Timnath in unincorporated Larimer County that was conserved by the City with a conservation easement in 2005 with Chris Cribari. Cribari subdivided the parcel, then sold the subsequent two parcels to Ken and Deborah Gheen and Michael and Taryn Schuman. After the Gheens placed their parcel on the market, ambiguities were identified in the original conservation easement deed, including lack of clarity on residential development potential and approved land uses and activities for each parcel, in addition to a shared liability for each other’s parcels. This amended and restated conservation easement has addressed and clarified all the issues presented with no net-loss to the conservation value of the parcels. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2016, Designating the H. W. Schroeder Property Located at 419 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(e) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2016, designates the H. W. Schroeder property located at 419 Mathews Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of this property, the Carol Johnson Trust and the John McGowan Trust, are initiating this request. 4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2016, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts between Funds or Projects The purpose of this Annual Budget Adjustment Ordinance is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2016 annual budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. This item was reviewed by the Council Finance Committee on September 30, 2016 and recommended moving forward for Council consideration. 5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2016, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to Be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related Activities. The purpose of this item is to refund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for public services and facilities received from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in 2015 with respect to a HUD financed Public Housing Program that provides low income rental units. The Authority paid the City of Fort Collins PILOT of $10,906 in 2015 under a previously approved Cooperation Agreement and requests that the City return the PILOT to fund needed affordable housing related activities. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has returned the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992. City of Fort Collins Page 4 6. Resolution 2016-080 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Updated Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Regarding Vehicle Maintenance and Human Resource Services. The purpose of this item is to authorize the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement with the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the City to provide vehicle maintenance and Human Resource services to the MPO. END CONSENT  CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.  STAFF REPORTS  COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS  CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Discussion Items The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ● Staff presentation (optional) ● Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (three minute limit for each citizen) ● Council questions of staff on the item ● Council motion on the item ● Council discussion ● Final Council comments ● Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. 7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2016, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Additional Real Property Interests Necessary to Construct Public Improvements as Part of the Prospect Road and College Avenue Intersection Improvements Project. (staff: Dean Klingner, Laurie Kadrich; 10 minute staff presentation;1 hour discussion) The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from City Council to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire property interests needed to construct improvements to the intersection of Prospect Road and College Avenue. This authorization is for a partial acquisition affecting 1535 Remington Street at the east end of the project. On July 5, 2016 City Council did not pass the second reading of Ordinance No. 73, 2016 which would have authorized staff to move forward with an acquisition based on the original preferred City of Fort Collins Page 5 alternative. Council directed staff to work with the property owners for approximately four months in good faith negotiation to find a compromise alternative. Staff worked with the property owner extensively over the last several months and developed the following alternatives in addition to the Original Dual Left Alternative (Option 1):  Option 2 - Modified Dual Left Alternative  Option 3 - Single Left Alternative At the July 5 Council meeting, Council discussed the desire for a compromise that does not impact the wall or tree to the east of the driveway and still maintains the congestion benefit. Option 2 accomplishes this by making significant design modifications to the original alternative, including:  Shortening the eastbound left turn lane onto Remington  Utilizing an 8-foot (on asphalt) westbound travel lane on the north side of the roadway  Shortening the tangent and transition into the intersection at College  Narrowing the sidewalk to a “pinch point” of 5 feet just to the east of the driveway and widens to the existing width towards Remington-a 10-foot walk is proposed for the area to the west of the driveway Timely acquisition of the property is necessary to meet the anticipated construction schedule. Staff will continue to negotiate in good faith with the affected owners and is optimistic that all property negotiations can be completed prior to the start of the Project. Staff is requesting authorization of eminent domain for partial property acquisition on 1535 Remington Street for the Project only if such action is necessary in order to keep the project on schedule. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2016, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Stormwater Easement on City Property at the Gardens on Spring Creek to Colorado State University. (staff: Jon Haukaas, Helen Matson; 5 minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to authorize the conveyance to Colorado State University of a permanent stormwater easement on City property at the Gardens on Spring Creek. Colorado State University (CSU) needs to construct a water quality pond to handle the flows from its new construction at CSU, including the new stadium. The Center Outfall Water Quality Pond (Pond) will be constructed on land owned by CSU, as well as on a portion of the City's property at the Gardens on Spring Creek previously identified as the location of a City Water Quality Pond in the 2013 Water Quality Master Plan. The Pond will handle flows from both entities. 9. Resolution 2016-081 Approving the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. (staff: Laurie Kadrich, Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont; 10 minute staff presentation; 20 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to request Council adoption of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Plan. The West Elizabeth ETC Plan covers the area between Overland Trail and Shields (as well as the CSU Foothills and Main Campuses) and between Mulberry and Prospect. The Plan has a special focus on addressing existing deficiencies, such as inadequate transit service for the area’s demands, incomplete bike and pedestrian networks, and higher than expected numbers of crashes in certain locations, as well as accommodating needs related to future growth and development in the project area. The project has developed recommended short and long term improvements for the corridor, with the intent of improving safety and functionality for all users. 10. Resolution 2016-082 Directing the Mayor to Submit a Letter to the United States Secretary of the Treasury Urging the Adoption of Internal Revenue Service Regulations or Other Laws to Exclude Water Conservation Rebates Provided by Water Utilities from the Taxable Gross Income of Individuals Under the Federal Income Tax. (staff: Travis Storin, Travis Paige; 5 minute staff presentation;10 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to demonstrate official support for the exclusion of water conservation rebates from a residential utility customer’s taxable gross income under federal tax law. City of Fort Collins Page 6  CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS  OTHER BUSINESS A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers (Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.)  ADJOURNMENT Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM), also referred to as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM), is an annual international health campaign organized every October to increase awareness of the disease and to raise funds for research into its cause, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and cure; and WHEREAS, breast cancer is more commonly found in women than men, but transcends racial and ethnic backgrounds, sex, age, socio-economic status, or familial status. Breast cancer can develop in anyone, and affects many citizens whether directly, or indirectly through a loved one; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins recognizes the importance in identifying, and educating its citizens on the medical resources within Fort Collins, as well as nationally recognized ways of early detection to better assist those individuals who may be suffering from the disease; and WHEREAS, “Beyond the Shock” is a free, comprehensive, online guide to understanding breast cancer. It is a resource for women and men who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, a place for loved ones to gain a better understanding of the disease, and a tool for doctors to share information. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim October 2016 as NATIONAL BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH and encourage all citizens to learn about early detection practices, and educational resources provided to those who are affected by this disease in order to better maintain and assist our citizens in leading healthy, long lives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 7 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, across our state and our nation, one in four women and one in 14 men suffer at the hands of someone who is supposed to love them and more than 15 million children are exposed to domestic violence each year; and WHEREAS, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, almost half of all murders in Colorado are committed by an intimate partner; and WHEREAS, during National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we renew our commitment to prevent domestic violence, hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, support survivors and bring hope and healing to those affected by it; and WHEREAS, Colorado law defines domestic violence as: “an act or threatened act of violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship.” and WHEREAS, in 2015, 432 Domestic Violence related cases were reported to Police Services, and the state law was used as the basis for charges 410 times; and WHEREAS, in Fort Collins, Crossroads Safehouse provides safety, support and hope to survivors and their children. In 2015 Crossroads Safehouse provided emergency shelter to 525 men, women and children and responded to more than 10,000 crisis calls from individuals and families in need; and WHEREAS, Crossroads Safehouse and other local nonprofit agencies and their volunteers offer critical assistance and support to victims in need—help that might otherwise not be available. Victims and their children receive potentially lifesaving crisis intervention and shelter, food, clothing, advocacy and counseling, longer-term housing options, and legal resources, as well as referral and other supportive services to rebuild their lives free from violence and abuse. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim the month of October as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH in the city of Fort Collins and ask the citizens of this community to help raise awareness about how to prevent, recognize, and stop domestic violence. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ ATTEST: Mayor _________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 8 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the month of October is celebrated across the State of Colorado as Conflict Resolution Month, and October 20, 2016, will be celebrated both nationally and internationally as Conflict Resolution Day; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, in conjunction with other local entities, is recognizing this celebration; and WHEREAS, conflict resolution encompasses mediation, restorative practices, facilitation, collaborative decision-making, and other respectful responses to differences, and WHEREAS, conflict resolution processes empower individuals, families, communities, neighborhoods, organizations, schools, and businesses to foster communication and devise solutions that are acceptable to the needs and interests of all parties involved; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins provides conflict resolution services to the community through both the Mediation Program and Restorative Justice Services; and WHEREAS, community-based programs fairly and equitably resolve neighborhood and community conflicts, thereby repairing, creating, and strengthening relationships; and WHEREAS, I, along with the entire City Council, encourage Fort Collins residents to seek peaceful and collaborative resolutions to conflicts and hence contribute to creating an exceptional, world-class community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim October 2016 as CONFLICT RESOLUTION MONTH IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 27, 2016 Adjourned Council Meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 27, 2016 Adjourned Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. September 27, 2016 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 10 City of Fort Collins Page 109 September 27, 2016 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting – 6:00 PM  CALL MEETING TO ORDER  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Staff present: Atteberry, Daggett, Winkelmann 1. Public Hearing and Resolution 2016-075 Approving the Block 23 Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2 Service Plan. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to consider the Consolidated Service Plan for Block 23 Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2. The intent of the proposed Block 23 Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2 (jointly, the Districts) is to eventually provide public improvements (primarily a parking structure) that facilitates and makes possible a mixed-use project on Block 23 that is in keeping with planning and community objectives for a development in downtown Fort Collins. The primary purpose of the Districts is to finance, construct, acquire, own, operate, and maintain those public improvements. This action establishes a preliminary framework service plan to allow the Districts to be created, but not to begin financing and construction of the proposed public improvements. This approach provides limited authorization that allows the proposed Districts to move forward with a November election, while preserving and calling for future review and consideration by the City Council of an amended service plan. Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Program Coordinator, stated Block 23 is located north of 281 North College. The proposal for the property is for a 7-story mixed-use project, which would include retail, office and residential uses, as well as a parking structure. A metro district is a quasi-governmental entity that has the authority to levy property taxes, issue debt and charge for services. Metro districts are commonly used in development as a public financing tool to aid in financing gaps and alleviate development constraints. The organization of a metro district is conducted within district court and is started via a petition for organization. An organization and TABOR election will then be conducted. The purpose of the Block 23 Metro District is to address site constraints and provide enhanced development outcomes consistent with City plans. The initial service plan received by the City included proposed improvements such as potable water, sewer storm systems, streets, parking structure and park and trail improvements, with an initial cost estimate of approximately $15 million, $10 million of which is for the parking structure. The project is slated to be 85.5% commercial and 14.5% residential, which exceeds the City's preference of no more than 10% residential. Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, discussed the initial service plan received by the applicant and noted staff is proposing a limited, or shell service plan primarily due to the amount of time staff had to review the full application, and due to some of the open questions. Moving forward with a limited service plan allows for more time to address the parking issue and to complete a more thorough financial and engineering review. The limited service plan would allow the applicant to move forward with an organizational election to be held at a TABOR-qualified election this fall. This limited plan does not allow for the metro district to levy any tax, impose any fee, incur any debt, or build any public improvements at this time. 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: September 27, 2016 (4894 : minutes-9/27) September 27, 2016 City of Fort Collins Page 110 Eric Sutherland discussed the placement of a metro district inside a TIF area and stated half of any property tax levied by the metro district would go to the DDA. Councilmember Overbeck asked about the overlap between the URA and the metro district. Birks replied staff is aware that 50% of any collected property tax would be remitted to the DDA. The City and the DDA could consider participating in a project that would take place on Block 23, particularly to achieve public parking. Councilmember Overbeck asked how many residential units are proposed. Birks replied about 180 units are currently planned; however, the project is still in a conceptual design phase. Councilmember Overbeck asked about the parking lease price and duration. Birks replied those items have not yet been determined. Councilmember Overbeck asked how boards and commissions will interact with metro districts. Birks replied boards and commissions have not historically had a role interfacing with the metro district boards themselves; however, it will be recommended that appropriate boards and commissions are addressed as part of the service plan amendment. Councilmember Overbeck discussed the importance of including input from several boards and commissions so as to keep metro districts from creating disconnected enclaves within the city. Birks noted metro districts must comply with all applicable Land Use Code and City Code standards for any type of development, including cell towers. Councilmember Overbeck asked if metro districts set their own policies with respect to mosquito control. Birks replied the service plan dictates what a metro district can and cannot do; Council ultimately approves the service plan which guides the metro district. Councilmember Overbeck asked how affordable housing will be part of the metro district. Birks replied the metro district would be subject to the same requirements as any other development in the city. There is currently no affordable housing requirement; however, that could possibly be stipulated in the service plan. Councilmember Cunniff asked if removing this area from the DDA has been contemplated. Birks replied it has not been contemplated but could be examined. Councilmember Cunniff encouraged the consideration of that possibility as it may help better achieve the purposes of the district. Councilmember Cunniff asked about the difference in assessment rate between the residential and commercial uses. Birks replied commercial uses are assessed at close to four times as much as residential uses and the City's policy requires a financial plan as part of the full service plan. Councilmember Cunniff asked who are eligible electors for the election. Birks replied the land holders are the eligible electors. John Duval, Deputy City Attorney, replied the property owners are the only eligible voters at this time; however, once residents move in, they would be eligible to vote in future elections. Councilmember Cunniff asked about the form of government for metro districts. Duval replied this limited service plan form of government gives the metro district the ability to exist and move forward with an election to form the district; however, no taxes can be imposed or debt issued 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: September 27, 2016 (4894 : minutes-9/27) September 27, 2016 City of Fort Collins Page 111 until the amended service plan is approved by Council. The governing board would be elected by the eligible electors of the district. Councilmember Campana stated this could be a creative way of accomplishing goals of the city. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to adopt Resolution 2016-075. Councilmember Overbeck stated he would support the motion but encouraged consideration of the metro district supporting the transportation system, appropriately handling waste and recycling, and maintaining the City's gold standards in terms of neighborhood beauty. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he would support the motion and suggested the examination of metro district policy objectives and boards and commissions engagement. Councilmember Overbeck suggested the formation of a metro district committee. RESULT: RESOLUTION 2016-075 ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak 2. Public Hearing and Resolution 2016-076 Approving the Consolidated Service Plan for Harmony I-25 Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to consider the Consolidated Service Plan for Harmony I-25 Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3. The intent of the proposed Harmony I-25 Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3 (collectively, the Districts) is to eventually provide public improvements that enable a 260-acre coordinated development project that will feature residential, retail, office, warehouse/flex space, and hotel components. The primary purpose of the Districts is to finance, construct, acquire, own, operate, and maintain those public improvements. This action establishes a preliminary framework, but limited, service plan to allow the Districts to be created, but not to begin financing and constructing the proposed public improvements. This approach provides limited authorization that allows the proposed Districts to move forward with a November election, while preserving and calling for future review and consideration by the City Council of an amended service plan. Patrick Rowe, Redevelopment Program Coordinator, stated this is a multi-district plan for the southwest corner of Harmony and I-25 which is currently a greenfield property, formerly a gravel mining site. A variety of uses are planned for the 260-acre coordinated development, including residential, office, warehouse and hotel components. The purpose of the metro district is to address site constraints and to deliver an enhanced development outcome which is consistent with City plans. The proposed land use mix between commercial and residential is approximately 91.5% commercial and 8.5% residential. Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, stated the item before Council is a consolidated, or shell, service plan, as there is currently little specificity in terms of development proposals and a concern that the conceptual plan does not necessarily align with the currently land use on the southern portion of the property. 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: September 27, 2016 (4894 : minutes-9/27) September 27, 2016 City of Fort Collins Page 112 Rowe stated this limited service plan does not allow for taxes or fees to be imposed, debt to be incurred, or improvements to be built. The service plan amendment is required to be initiated within three years. Councilmember Cunniff asked why there appears to be some urgency in getting the TABOR election completed in this two-year cycle as the next opportunity is within the three year period. Birks replied the developer and applicant feel it is important to move forward under this particular timeline. Mayor Troxell requested one of the applicants address the question asked by Councilmember Cunniff. Robert Rogers, White, Bear and Ankele, replied the applicant is attempting to achieve some economies of scale by having both TABOR elections this fall. Additionally, an overall development plan (ODP) has already been approved for the property and the applicant would like the flexibility to move forward and push the ready pieces of the development forward. The service plan has enough flexibility to allow for an initial amended service plan and subsequent amended service plans as needed. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the existing ODP is concentrated in any one of the three district areas. Mr. Rogers replied it is entirely in District No. 1. He noted there are some significant advantages to financing and coordinating the construction of public improvements if the entire project can be organized at once. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to adopt Resolution 2016-076. Councilmember Cunniff stated he is not convinced a metro district is a necessary tool in this case. Councilmember Overbeck stated he would not support the motion. Councilmember Martinez requested additional detail from Councilmember Overbeck. Councilmember Overbeck stated the acreage is too high for his comfort level. Councilmember Campana asked about any financial risk to the City in terms of metro districts. Birks replied metro districts issue their own debt and collect their own taxes to fund that debt; the City has no financial responsibility for that debt. The disadvantage, should a metro district fail, is political in nature for the citizens who live within the metro district. Councilmember Campana supported metro districts as a viable tool that do not expose the City to financial risks. Councilmember Overbeck stated he prefers a slower approach and questioned the political and legal ramifications to the City of a metro district failure. Birks replied the bond holders only have recourse against the revenue collected from the imposed mill levy; the City has no responsibility for repaying that debt. Politically, the citizens could ask Council to intervene; however, Council would only do what it is willing in the event of a failure. Typically, one of the benefits to a phased approach is that the metro district does not take on all the debt early on; therefore, the metro district is at a lower risk of over-extending itself. City Attorney Daggett replied the one thing not spelled out at this stage, because of the preliminary status of the plan, is that there are improvements that are constructed that, in some cases, can be turned over to the 1.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: September 27, 2016 (4894 : minutes-9/27) September 27, 2016 City of Fort Collins Page 113 City for its ownership and operation. In other cases, the district maintains ownership and operation of those improvements. As the amended service plan comes forward, questions regarding improvements and potential City ownership will need to be answered and, depending on the structure of the plan, there may be City-owned public improvements in the district area that may be necessary for the continued occupation of the property and continued operation and maintenance of those would be a question. Birks noted most greenfield development takes place in the same manner. Councilmember Campana noted the main aspects and details will be flushed out at a future time with the amended service plan. Councilmember Overbeck stated the affordable housing outcomes desired by the City did not come to fruition as part of the Foothills Mall metro district. Councilmember Cunniff agreed there is no financial risk to the City, and agreed metro districts can be a useful tool; however, he stated he is not convinced it is a necessary tool in this case. Mayor Troxell stated he would support the motion. RESULT: RESOLUTION 2016-076 ADOPTED [5 TO 2] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Campana, Troxell, Horak NAYS: Overbeck, Cunniff  OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Cunniff stated the Finance Committee is an appropriate body to discuss details regarding the service plans moving forward rather than creating another committee. Councilmember Overbeck commended the work of the Mall redevelopment committee. Councilmember Campana suggested the creation of a matrix comparing the metro districts at Foothills Mall, the Harmony Tech Park, and the two created this evening.  ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:55 PM. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: September 27, 2016 (4894 : minutes-9/27) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Justin Scharton, Environmental Planner John Stokes, Natural Resources Director SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2016, Authorizing Execution of the Cribari-Gheen/Schuman Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2016, authorizes the execution of the amended and restated Cribari/Gheen/Schuman conservation easement. The Cribari property was a 72 +/- acre property south of Timnath in unincorporated Larimer County that was conserved by the City with a conservation easement in 2005 with Chris Cribari. Cribari subdivided the parcel, then sold the subsequent two parcels to Ken and Deborah Gheen and Michael and Taryn Schuman. After the Gheens placed their parcel on the market, ambiguities were identified in the original conservation easement deed, including lack of clarity on residential development potential and approved land uses and activities for each parcel, in addition to a shared liability for each other’s parcels. This amended and restated conservation easement has addressed and clarified all the issues presented with no net-loss to the conservation value of the parcels. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 4, 2016 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 16 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 4, 2016 City Council STAFF Justin Scharton, Environmental Planner John Stokes, Natural Resources Director SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2016, Authorizing Execution of the Cribari-Gheen/Schuman Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to authorize the execution of the amended and restated Cribari/Gheen/Schuman conservation easement. The Cribari property was a 72 +/- acre property south of Timnath in unincorporated Larimer County that was conserved by the City with a conservation easement in 2005 with Chris Cribari. Cribari subdivided the parcel, then sold the subsequent two parcels to Ken and Deborah Gheen and Michael and Taryn Schuman. After the Gheens placed their parcel on the market, ambiguities were identified in the original conservation easement deed, including lack of clarity on residential development potential and approved land uses and activities for each parcel, in addition to a shared liability for each other’s parcels. This amended and restated conservation easement has addressed and clarified all the issues presented with no net-loss to the conservation value of the parcels. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Cribari parcel, an approximately 72 acre property south of Timnath in unincorporated Larimer County, was conserved by the City of Fort Collins with a conservation easement (CE) in 2005 (Attachment 1). Chris Cribari exercised the reserved right in the original conservation deed to subdivide the property into two parcels of at least 35 acres each, resulting in one developed parcel and one undeveloped parcel, both subject to the 2005 CE (Attachment 2). In 2006 Cribari sold the northern parcel subject to the 2005 CE to Ken and Deborah Gheen and the southern parcel to Michael and Taryn Schuman. The Schuman parcel was previously developed and includes a residence, numerous outbuildings and stables. The Gheen parcel is farmed by the Gheens but remains undeveloped to present day. Issues with the existing CE deed In 2013 the Gheens placed their parcel for sale and the City was contacted by several realtors and potential buyers with questions about whether their specific development plans and land use activities would be allowed by the CE deed. It became evident to staff that there was some ambiguity in the language in the original CE deed and that the CE could better address some of the legal consequences of two separate landowners under the existing CE deed. ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 4, 2016 (w/o attachments) (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 Amending the CE deed The Conservation Easement Amendment Policy and Procedure (2011) provides guidance to the Natural Areas Department (NAD) on amending conservation easements. Further, the Policy outlines under what scenarios an amendment to an existing CE is appropriate. The overall philosophy of the Policy is to maintain the conservation value which was identified in the original CE (i.e., net-neutral conservation value). Amending the CE deed in this case would clarify:  what type of activities could take place on the parcels;  the extent and location of where the reserved residential development could take place; and  the shared liability each landowner had for the other’s parcel in the current deed. Staff determined these reasons met the standards of the amendment policy and began working with the Gheens and Schumans on the amendments. Amendment Details The significant amendments to the new CE deed include clarification on location and extent of development within the parcels. The available square footage of residential development remains the same for both parcels as in the original deed, with the amended version providing more detail. Additionally, there has been clarification about the types of land use activities that can take place on the parcels, specifically agricultural uses, that were unclear in the original deed. Sections related to oil and gas royalties, commercial and industrial use, granting of utilities, and hunting were also updated to current City standards as defined by the City Attorney’s Office. Finally, language was added to provide clarification regarding the City’s interest in the parcels’ value and the structure of the document was changed slightly to reflect the current nature of two landowners instead of one. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The goal of the amendment to the Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE is to lessen enforcement efforts by the City caused by ambiguous language in the conservation deed. Over time this should result in less staff time spent enforcing the terms of the CE on these parcels and therefore a modest cost savings to the City. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its September 14, 2016 meeting, the Land Conservation Stewardship Board unanimously recommended this item to City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. Cribari-Gheen-Schuman Parcels (PDF) 3. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board minutes, September 14, 2016 (PDF) 2.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 4, 2016 (w/o attachments) (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 112, 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE CRIBARI-GHEEN/SCHUMAN AMENDED AND RESTATED DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT WHEREAS, in 2005 Chris Cribari (“Cribari”) granted the City a conservation easement (the “Conservation Easement”) on a parcel of property he owned south of Timnath (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Conservation Easement is managed by the City’s Natural Areas Department; and WHEREAS, in 2006, Cribari divided the Property into two parcels and sold one parcel (“Parcel I”) to Paradise Ranch, LLC, a company owned by Alex Schuman (“Schuman”), and the other parcel (“Parcel II”) to Kenneth and Deborah Gheen (“Gheens”), with both sales being subject to the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the Gheens put Parcel II up for sale, and through that process the City and the Gheens became aware that some aspects of the Conservation Easement were unclear as they related to the management issues and consequences of the Property being owned by two separate parties instead of just one owner; and WHEREAS, Natural Areas staff has been working with Schuman and the Gheens to revise the Conservation Easement to clarify the activities permitted on each parcel; the extent and location of where residential development could occur on each parcel; and to clarify that each parcel can be managed separately, rather than having either parcel owner responsible or liable to the City for actions or activities of the other parcel owner; and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement for the Property is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference (the “Amended Conservation Easement”); and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Department’s Conservation Easement Amendment Policy and Procedure requires that proposed amendments to City-owned conservation easements receive formal review and a recommendation by the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board and approval by the City Council by ordinance after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 14, 2016, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Amended Conservation Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: 2.2 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Amended Conservation Easement in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A, along with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the parcels conserved by the Amended Conservation Easement, as long as such changes do not materially reduce the size or change the character of the property. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 2.2 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 1 AMENDED AND RESTATED DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT “Cribari Property” THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Amended Conservation Easement” or “Deed”)) is made this _____ day of _____________, 2016, by PARADISE RANCH, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company (“Paradise”) as to Parcel I, and KENNETH M. GHEEN AND DEBORAH F. GHEEN (“Gheen”) as to Parcel II (collectively, “Owners”), in favor of the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (“City”). R E C I T A L S : WHEREAS, Paradise is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property in Larimer County more particularly described as Parcel I in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and Gheen is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property in Larimer County, more particularly described in Exhibit “A” as Parcel II. Parcel I and Parcel II are hereafter referred to collectively as “Parcels” or the “Property”; and WHEREAS, the Property possesses scenic, open space, agricultural and natural values (collectively, "Conservation Values") of great importance to the City and to the people of Fort Collins and the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS,; the total acreage protected by this Conservation Easement is 76 acres; and WHEREAS, by a deed of Conservation Easement dated March 16, 2005 and recorded in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder on March 21, 2005 at Reception No. 2005-0021923, CHRIS CRIBARI, the Owners’ predecessor in title to the Property, (“Cribari”) conveyed to the City the right to preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property in perpetuity in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. §38-30.5-101, et seq. (the "Easement"); and WHEREAS, the Property was subsequently divided into Parcel I and Parcel II via the Jack Hahn M.R.D. S-6-87 plat recorded July 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, Paradise took ownership of Parcel I by Quit Claim Deed dated June 11, 2013 and Gheen took ownership of Parcel II by Warranty Deed dated April 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Owners intend that the Conservation Values of the Property be preserved and maintained in perpetuity by continuing the land use patterns of agriculture and existing or lower density residential use on the Property; and EXHIBIT A 2.2 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 2 WHEREAS, the Owners and the City intend by this Deed to serve the governmental, conservation and agricultural policies set forth in 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq., C.R.S. §35-1-101, et seq., C.R.S. §38-30.5.101, et seq., and C.R.S. 33-1-101, et seq.; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to amend the Easement in order to clarify and refine certain terms within the Easement including but not limited to: the location of and allowable types of structures within the second building envelope, updating the Exhibits, the process of termination and extinguishment, the terms of subdivision, the oil and gas provisions and facilitate management of the Easement on each of the Parcels by treating the Parcels separately for purposes of the Easement; and WHEREAS, Section 22.J. of the Easement permits the parties to amend the Easement as long as the amendment does not affect the qualifications of the Easement under any applicable laws, is consistent with the conservation purposes in the Easement, and does not affect its perpetual duration. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado, and in particular C.R.S. §38-30.5-101, et seq., the parties hereby agree that the terms of the Easement are hereby amended and restated to read as follows: 1. Purposes. A. The purposes of this Easement are to ensure that the Property will be retained predominately in its scenic, open space, and agricultural use and to prevent any use of the Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property. The Owners intend that this Deed will confine the use of the Property to activities that are not inconsistent with these purposes of this Easement. This Easement is intended to preserve the Property so as to maintain the Conservation Values of the Property. The Property shall not be used for activities that significantly diminish the Conservation Values or which significantly impair the ability of the Property to be used for cropland, animal grazing, or restoration to native vegetation. B. The specific Conservation Values of the Property, as generally described above, are documented in an inventory of relevant features of the Property to be kept on file in the offices of the City and incorporated by this reference (“Baseline Documentation”), which consists of a report, maps, photographs, and other documentation that Cribari and the City agreed provided, collectively, an accurate representation of the condition of the Property at the time of the original grant of the Easement and which is intended to serve as an objective, thorough nonexclusive, information baseline for monitoring compliance with terms of this Easement. 2.2 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 3 2. Rights of the City. To accomplish the purposes of the Easement, the following rights are conveyed to the City by this Deed: A. To preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property; B. To enter upon the Property at reasonable times in order to monitor the Owners’ compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Deed. Such entry shall be upon prior reasonable notice to the Owners except when the City has a reasonable basis to believe that a use of or activity on the Property constitutes a violation of any of the terms of this Easement Agreement, in which case the City may gain immediate access to the Property without notice to document or prevent such violation. The City shall not interfere with the Owners’ use and quiet enjoyment of the Property except as reasonably necessary to enforce this Easement Agreement and exercise the City’s rights hereunder; and C. To prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is significantly inconsistent with the purposes of the Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by inconsistent activity or use pursuant to paragraph 4 below; and D. To require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by any inconsistent use or activity; and E. To consult with the Owners regarding the negotiations of any and all agreements between either or both of the Owners and third parties that may impact or disturb any portion of the surface of the Property including, but not limited to, easement agreements, utility easements, rights-of-way agreements, surface use agreements, and lease agreements, but not including agreements for services specifically related to the agricultural and recreational operations of the Property. The Owners shall be responsible for ensuring that any lessees comply with all terms of this Easement while on the Property. Owners agree that the City shall have the right to approve any such agreement described in the preceding sentence prior to such agreement being executed. Nothing herein is intended to require the City to approve any action or agreement that is inconsistent with the terms of this Easement Agreement. 3. Land Management. Each Parcel of the Property shall be operated and managed in accordance with a Land Management Plan for such Parcel prepared and accepted with the mutual consent of the Owner of such Parcel and the City, which plan shall be updated as necessary to reflect improved knowledge of conservation of land and the Conservation Values and substantial 2.2 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 4 new or changed conditions. Each Owner shall provide to the City each year a Land Management update describing the status of operations and management of such Owner’s Parcel in relation to the approved plan, and advising the City of any changes in the management of such Parcel or issues that the Owner has identified or anticipates may reasonably arise with regard to such Parcel and the preservation of the Conservation Values. If nothing has changed since an Owner’s prior report, in lieu of providing the update, such Owner may notify the City that nothing has changed with regard to the management of such Owner’s Parcel and that no new issues have arisen or are anticipated to arise with regard to such Parcel and preservation of the Conservation Values. 4. Use and Management of the Property. Any activity on or use of the Property significantly inconsistent with any of the purposes of the Easement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited: A. Construction of Buildings and Other Structures – Parcel I. i. Single-Family Residential Dwellings. There is one existing primary single-family residential dwelling with an attached garage on Parcel I, located within a six (6)-acre building envelope in the northwest corner of Parcel I and described on Exhibit “B”, attached to and incorporated herein (the "Parcel I Building Area"). There is one existing secondary residential dwelling on the Parcel. No additional residential dwellings are permitted. Infrastructure normally associated with a single- family residence may also be constructed within the Parcel I Building Area, including but not limited to the following: driveway, sewage disposal system, water supply, electric and phone transmission, propane, and other similar residential services. Wherever practical, existing roadways shall be used, and new roadways shall be limited to the minimum reasonably necessary to serve the Parcel I Building Area, and shall be located so as to preserve scenic views, protect natural resources, minimize negative impact on agricultural operations, and prevent erosion. ii. Repair and Replacement of Single Family Residential Dwelling. The existing residential buildings described in Paragraph 4.A.i. may be repaired and replaced at their permitted location without further permission from the City. Owner shall have the right to expand the existing primary and secondary residential dwellings on the Parcel to a total square footage of no more than 3,720 square feet combined. The total square footage limit of the residences does not include any basement area or attached garages. .Permitted single-family residential dwellings may also be relocated anywhere within the boundaries of the Parcel I Building Area without further permission of the City. Prior to any such relocation of 2.2 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 5 a single-family residential dwelling, the Owner shall notify City of such relocation and provide the City with written plans describing the relocation so that the City can update its records with at least thirty (30) day advance notice prior to planned construction. iii. Agricultural Structures and Improvements. a. Major Agricultural Buildings. All existing major agricultural buildings and structures (the “Agricultural Improvements”) are located within the Parcel I Building Area. There are six agricultural buildings, including: a stable/horse barn, horse arena/large barn, hay shed, and three garage/shops/outbuildings. Construction, maintenance, and replacement of the Agricultural Improvements are permitted according to the Land Management Plan, or upon prior written approval of the City. The Agricultural Improvements are only permitted within the Parcel I Building Area. The Owner will notify the City prior to any construction within the Parcel I Building Area. Examples of Major Agricultural Buildings include barns, greenhouses, arenas, shops, large sheds, grain and feed storage facilities, etc. b. Minor Agricultural Buildings. Construction of minor agricultural structures solely designed for management or protection of livestock or reasonably advantageous for agricultural operations on Parcel I (such as small loafing sheds, water lines, water tanks, pumps and/or well houses and other minor agricultural structures and improvements) is permitted, provided that any such agricultural structure requiring a building permit or exceeding 1,000 square feet in total floor area and not expressly provided for in the Land Management Plan shall require prior written approval by the City, in its reasonable discretion. B. Construction of Buildings and Other Structures – Parcel II. i. Single-Family Residential Dwellings. There is no existing single- family residential dwelling on Parcel II. Not more than one (1) new primary and one (1) secondary single-family residential dwellings may be built on Parcel II within a four (4)-acre building envelope in the northern half of Parcel II and described on Exhibit “C”, attached to and incorporated herein (the "Parcel II Building Area"). Until any structure is constructed within the Parcel II Building Area, its location may be moved, with approval by the Grantee, but must be located primarily on the northern 2.2 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 6 half of the parcel. One primary residence and one secondary residence can be built within the Parcel II Building Area with the total square footage of the footprint for the residences not exceeding 6,000 square feet. The total square footage limit of the residences does not include any basement area or attached garage. The two residential dwellings may be one-story or two- story structures. No additional residential dwellings are permitted. Infrastructure normally associated with a single-family residence may also be constructed within the Parcel II Building Area, including but not limited to the following: Driveway, sewage disposal system, water supply, electric and phone transmission, propane, and other similar residential services. Wherever practical, existing roadways shall be used, and new roadways shall be limited to the minimum reasonably necessary to serve the Parcel II Building Area, and shall be located so as to preserve scenic views, protect natural resources, minimize negative impact on agricultural operations, and prevent erosion, and shall not be paved except as allowed in Paragraph E below. ii. Agricultural Structures and Improvements. a. Major Agricultural Buildings. There are no existing major agricultural buildings and structures (the “Agricultural Improvements”) located on Parcel II. Examples of Major Agricultural Buildings include barns, greenhouses, shops, large sheds, grain and feed storage facilities, detached garage, etc. Construction, maintenance, and replacement of Agricultural Improvements are permitted according to the Land Management Plan, or upon prior written approval of the City. The Agricultural Improvements are only permitted within the Parcel II Building Area. The Owner will notify the City prior to any construction within the Parcel II Building Area. b. Minor Agricultural Buildings. Construction of minor agricultural structures solely designed for management or protection of livestock or reasonably advantageous for agricultural operations on Parcel II (such as small loafing sheds, water lines, water tanks, pumps and/or well houses and other minor agricultural structures and improvements) is permitted, provided that any such agricultural structure requiring a building permit or exceeding 1,000 square feet in total floor area and not expressly provided for in the Land Management Plan shall require prior written approval by the City, in its reasonable discretion. 2.2 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 7 c. Water feature. Development of a water source for cattle and other livestock, such as a small pond, is permitted outside the Building Areas. C. Grazing. Livestock grazing shall be conducted in accordance with sound stewardship and management practices. Grazing shall be managed so that the overall condition of the Property is preserved at its baseline condition or better and in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide. For the purposes of this Easement, “livestock” shall mean cattle, horses, sheep, goats, llamas, alpaca, poultry and bison. The raising of other livestock and/or game animals shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by the City and described in the Land Management Plan. Domestic pets such as dogs and cats are allowed on the Property. The City reserves the right to limit the stocking rate and/or grazing rotation on the Property, including removing grazing livestock from the pastures, if the range condition is below a “fair” rating, until such time as the range condition is returned to an acceptable condition. As necessary, grazing rotation, monitoring methods and requirements, and stocking rates will be detailed in the Land Management Plan. In times of drought or other natural disasters, City and the Owners will work together to manage the range to the best of their ability, even if the condition would be rated below “fair”. D. Fences. The Owners may repair or replace existing fences, and new fences may be built for purposes of reasonable and customary management of cropland, livestock, and wildlife. Gates wide enough for emergency access may be installed where necessary for cropland, pastureland, and wildlife habitat maintenance vehicles. Construction of wildlife friendly fencing is preferable whenever possible. E. Paving and Road Construction. No portion of the Parcels shall be paved or otherwise covered with concrete, asphalt, or any other permanent paving material, except; within the defined building envelopes and to provide one access drive from the nearest County Road to each building envelope; and for such public improvements as may be placed on the Property in accordance with Paragraph 4.O. Unimproved access entrances off County Road 5 for farm and emergency vehicles may remain in the location and general form and condition as in the past; new internal dirt roads for cropland management may be created or converted to cropland as necessary, provided that such internal roads are only for the use of the Owners, residents and their guests. Said internal roads shall be minimized in combination with any roads or access entrances otherwise constructed on the Parcels, whether by the Owners or as public roads. 2.2 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 8 F. Subdivision. Any further division or subdivision of title to the Parcels is prohibited, other than conveyances to public entities for public roads or other public improvements consistent with this Conservation Easement. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to prohibit joint ownership of the Parcels or ownership of the Parcel(s) by an entity consisting of more than one member. G. Timber Harvesting. Trees may be cut to control insects and disease, to control invasive non-native species, and as necessary to prevent personal injury and property damage. Commercial timber harvesting, except with regard to a tree farm or tree nursery operation, on the Property shall be prohibited. Any tree farm or tree nursery operation shall be permitted but shall not exceed five (5) acres in land usage per Parcel without the prior approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. H. Mining. The mining or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, rock, or any other mineral substance (including moss rock and flagstone) using any surface mining method is prohibited, except for limited mining to the extent that the materials mined for are used for agricultural operations on the Property, and except for oil and gas exploration and extraction as permitted in paragraph I below. Where extraction is permitted, the method of extraction must have a limited, localized impact on the Property that will not substantially impair or impact the Conservation Values of the Property, whether on a temporary or permanent basis. No extraction permitted pursuant to this paragraph shall occur without prior written notice to and approval of the City, which notice shall include a description of the type of extraction, the areas within which such extraction shall occur, and the anticipated impact thereof. Any agreement of the Owners with a third party related to mining on the Property subsequent to the date of recording of this Easement Agreement shall be expressly subject to the restrictions of this Easement Agreement and shall contain terms consistent with the provisions of this Easement Agreement, and any such agreement shall be provided to the City in advance for the City’s review and approval. This paragraph shall in any event be interpreted so as to be no less restrictive than required by Section 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations adopted pursuant thereto. I. Oil and Gas. Oil and gas exploration and extraction is allowed if the method of extraction is from another parcel, or is limited to the amount of disturbance associated with such well, including access roads, does not exceed one (1) acre of permanent disturbance and three (3) acres of temporary disturbance, and thus has minimal impact on the Property. The Owners must consult with the City on negotiation of any surface use agreement between the Owners and any owner or lessee of mineral rights. For any oil and gas leases in effect as of the date of this Easement, the Owners shall notify the City when 2.2 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 9 beginning negotiations of surface use agreements or any other agreements with the lessee regarding any new oil and gas operations on the Parcels, primarily so that the City may help ensure that none of the Parcel’s Conservation Values are substantially diminished, materially impaired, or adversely impacted by the operations, but also so that the City may share in surface impact payments to be made by the lessee for its operations on the Parcel, since any operations by the lessee will impair the Parcel’s Conservation Values that are protected by this Easement, regardless of whether any such payments are due and payable by the lessee pursuant to an agreement or pursuant to an award of damages resulting from the lessee’s use of the Parcel. (Note: The City does not receive a share of any royalty payments from the production of oil or gas on the Property, only those payments made as a result of damages to the surface or for any permanent/semi- permanent impacts to the surface such as new roads or wellpads. The portion of these applicable payments due to the City shall be proportionate to the City’s real property interest in the property, detailed in Paragraph 17.) Any drilling plan and restoration plan must be acceptable to the City. Any future oil and gas leases by the Owners or severed ownership interests must be subordinated to and made subject to the requirements of this Easement. J. Trash. The dumping or uncontained accumulation of any kind of trash or refuse on the Property is prohibited. This subparagraph shall not be construed to preclude the storage or disposal of agricultural products and byproducts on the Property, provided such storage or disposal is performed in accordance with all applicable governmental laws and regulations. K. Commercial or Industrial Activity. No industrial or commercial uses shall be allowed on the Property, except for agricultural related activities that don’t negatively impact the Conservation Values, all in accordance with all local and federal regulations. Residences on the Property may be used for single-family residential use only. Nothing in this Deed shall be construed to prohibit the Owners from engaging in agricultural related activities or leasing a portion of the Property for crop production, training and boarding of horses, or for the grazing of animals owned by others. The Owners or residents of the Property may carry out in-home business activities on the Property provided that such activities are contained within the existing buildings on the Property and provided that any home business is in compliance with applicable governmental regulations. L. Hunting. Commercial hunting, shooting and trapping are prohibited. Owners and their invited guests are permitted to engage in non-commercial hunting, shooting or trapping that is in compliance with Federal, state and local law, or hunting or trapping as required and conducted by Colorado Parks and Wildlife for nuisance, dangerous, or diseased animals. Owners retain the right to 2.2 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 10 maintain and use on the Property a non-commercial shooting range or target practice area in compliance with Federal, state and local law. M. Pest and Weed Control; Signage. Requirements for the control and eradication of weeds, prairie dogs, and other pests, and for the placement of signage on the Parcels, shall be in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations of Larimer County, except as expressly set forth herein. Only billboards or advertisements identifying the agricultural operation and consistent with the character of other signage in the area are allowed on the property. A sign identifying the site as a Conservation Easement is required and will be supplied by the City. Noxious weeds will be controlled on the property through various techniques, which may include herbicides, mowing, or introduction of biological control measures (e.g., thistle-eating insects) subject to the requirements of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and Larimer County Noxious Weed regulations. The use of chemicals for weed and pest control shall be addressed in the Land Management Plans for the Property, and Owners agree to cooperate with the City in order to investigate and consider the use of possible mutually beneficial alternatives for control of weeds and pests on the Property, taking into account the environmental impacts as well as effectiveness of such alternatives. In any event, the application of any fungicide, insecticide, herbicide, rodenticide, or other chemicals shall be conducted strictly in accordance with any applicable local, state, or federal laws. N. Granting of Easements for Utilities and Roads. There are existing easements on the Property as of the date of execution, and except as provided in subparagraph O below, granting of easements on the Parcels for utilities or roads is prohibited if the utility or road will materially impact, impair or interfere in an adverse manner with, the Conservation Values of the Parcel(s), including the use of the Parcels for agriculture. Pursuant to paragraph 18 below, the City must be notified in writing not less than thirty (30) days in advance of the proposed conveyance of any easement on the Parcel. All such conveyances are subject to the City's approval, which will not be unreasonably withheld. O. Public Roads and Other Public Improvements. The installation or construction of public road or street improvements, storm drainage culverts, swales or other drainageways, or underground public utility improvements are not prohibited by this Easement, provided that any such improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the adopted plans and policies for such improvements of a governmental entity with the related jurisdiction and authority over the Parcel and further provided that City is provided notice of such installation or construction in accordance with the notice procedures set out in Paragraph 6. 2.2 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 11 P. Seeding and Planting. The parties acknowledge and agree that seeding and planting on the Property with other than native grasses or other native plants, shall be prohibited with the exception of crop plantings, wildlife plantings (non- native tree and shrub species must be approved by the City). The Owners shall be required to maintain the cropland and range condition of their respective Parcels in a manner consistent with the Land Management Plan for such parcel and otherwise consistent with generally accepted management practices for conservation and sustenance of agricultural or grazing land. 5. Reserved Rights. The Owners reserve unto themselves and to their beneficiaries, trustees, successors and assigns, all rights accruing from their ownership of the Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Property that are permitted hereunder and are not inconsistent with any of the purposes of the Easement or with the conditions, restrictions or other terms of this Easement. Owners shall be and hereby are permitted to engage in agricultural related activities that don’t negatively impact the Conservation Values of the Property. 6. Notice of Intention to Undertake Certain Permitted Actions. The purpose of requiring the Owners to notify the City prior to undertaking certain permitted activities is to afford the City an opportunity to ensure that the activities in question are designed and carried out in a manner consistent with all the terms and purposes of the Easement and the Conservation Values of the Property. Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever notice is required, an Owner shall notify the City in writing not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date such Owner intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit City to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purposes of the Easement. 7. City's Approval. Where the City's approval is required hereunder, the City shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of an Owner’s written notice therefor. The City's approval may be withheld upon a reasonable determination by the City that the action as proposed would be inconsistent with any term or purpose of the Easement. 8. Enforcement. The City shall have the right to prevent and correct or require correction of violations of the terms of this Deed and the purposes of the Easement. The Owner of one (1) Parcel will not be held liable for violations located entirely on the other Parcel, so long as such violations were not caused by the non-occupying Owner. The City may enter either or both Parcels for the purpose of inspecting for violations. If the City finds what it believes is a violation, the City shall notify, in writing, the Owner of each Parcel upon which the violation is located of the nature of the alleged violation. Upon receipt of this written notice, the Owner shall either: (a) restore the Parcel to its condition prior to the violation; or (b) provide a written explanation to the City of the reason why the alleged violation should be permitted. In the event 2.2 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 12 that the parties are in dispute as to the actions required of an Owner hereunder, the Owner and City will meet as soon as possible to resolve the difference. If either the City or the Owner(s) determines that mediation would be advantageous in connection with such meeting, or if a resolution of this difference cannot be achieved at the meeting, both parties agree to make a reasonable effort to work through and with a mutually acceptable mediator to attempt to resolve the dispute. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when, in the City's opinion, an ongoing or imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the Conservation Values of the Property or will not otherwise be resolved in a sufficiently prompt and effective manner, the City may, at its discretion, take such legal action and seek such legal or equitable remedies as it determines to be appropriate or necessary. Such remedies may include, without limitation, an injunction to stop an alleged violation, temporarily or permanently, or an order requiring the Owner to restore its Parcel to its condition prior to the alleged violation. Such Owner shall discontinue any activity which could increase or expand the alleged violation during any mediation process or any legal proceeding pertaining to the alleged violation. 9. Costs of Enforcement. Any costs incurred by the City in enforcing a breach of the terms of this Deed against an Owner, including, without limitation, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by such Owner’s violation of the terms of this Deed, shall be borne by such Owner. If the Owner prevails in any action to enforce an alleged breach of the terms of this Deed, the Owner’s costs of suit, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be borne by the City. 10. City's Discretion. Enforcement of the terms of this Deed shall be at the discretion of the City, and any forbearance by the City to exercise its rights under this Deed in the event of any breach of any term of this Deed by either Owner shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by the City of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term of this Deed of any of the City's rights under this Deed. No delay or omission by the City in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by either Owner shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver with respect to either Owner. 11. Waiver of Certain Defenses. Each of the Owners hereby waives any defense of laches or prescription. 12. Acts Beyond Owners’ Control. Nothing contained in this Deed shall be construed to entitle the City to bring any action against the Owners for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from causes beyond the Owners’ control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, drought, storm, landslides and seismic activity, or from any prudent action taken by the Owners under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Parcel resulting from such causes. 13. Access. No right of access by the general public to any portion of the Property is conveyed by this Deed. 2.2 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 13 14. Costs and Liabilities. The Owners retain all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep, repair, and maintenance of their respective Parcels, including the maintenance of adequate comprehensive general liability insurance coverage. The Owners shall keep their respective Parcels free of any liens arising out of any work performed for, materials furnished to, or obligations incurred by the Owners (not including mortgages made subject and subordinate to this Deed.) 15. Taxes. Each Owner shall pay before delinquency all taxes, assessments, fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed against their respective Parcels by competent authority. 16. Liability. A. General Indemnification. Each Owner shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City and its members, directors, officers, employees, agents, and contractors and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (collectively “Indemnified Parties”) from and against all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands, or judgments, including, without limitation, legal costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or in any way connected with: (1) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about such Owner’s Parcel, regardless of cause when the indemnified party performs a duty under this Easement Agreement, unless and only to the extent the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties was a proximate cause; (2) the obligations specified in paragraph 14, Costs and Liabilities, and paragraph 8, Enforcement, herein; and (3) the presence or release of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or about such Owner’s Parcel, unless caused or released by the Indemnified Parties. For the purpose of this paragraph, hazardous or toxic substances shall mean any hazardous or toxic substance that is regulated under any federal, state or local law. Without limiting the foregoing, nothing in this Deed shall be construed as giving rise to any right or ability in the City, nor shall the City have any right or ability to exercise physical or managerial control over the day-to-day operations of the Property, or otherwise to become an operator with respect to the Property within the meaning of The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. B. No Waiver of Governmental Immunity. Anything else in this Easement Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, no term or condition of this Easement Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, either express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits or protection provided to the City under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. §24-10-101, et seq., as amended or as may be amended in the future (including, without limitation, any 2.2 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 14 amendments to such statute, or under any similar statute which is subsequently enacted) (“CGIA”), subject to any applicable provisions of the Colorado Constitution and applicable laws. The City acknowledges that liability for claims for injury to persons or property arising out of the negligence of the City, its members, officials, agents and employees may be controlled and/or limited by the provisions of the CGIA. The parties agree that no provision of this Easement Agreement shall be construed in such a manner as to reduce the extent to which the CGIA limits the liability of any governmental party, its members, officers, agents and employees. C. Environmental Warranty and Indemnification. Each Owner warrants that it is in compliance with, and shall at all times remain in compliance with, all applicable Environmental Laws. Each Owner hereby promises to hold harmless and indemnify the City against all litigation, claims, demands, penalties and damages, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising from or connected with the release or threatened release of any Hazardous Materials on, at, beneath or from their respective Parcel, or arising from or connected with a violation of any Environmental Laws by such Owner or any party authorized or permitted on their respective Parcel by or through such Owner. “Environmental Law” or “Environmental Laws” means any and all Federal, state, local or municipal laws, rules, orders, regulations, statutes, ordinances, codes, guidelines, policies or requirements of any governmental authority regulating or imposing standards of liability or standards of conduct (including common law) concerning air, water, solid waste, hazardous materials, worker and community right-to-know, hazard communication, noise, radioactive material, resource protection, subdivision, inland wetlands and watercourses, health protection and similar environmental health, safety, building and land use as may now or at any time hereafter be in effect. “Hazardous Materials” means any petroleum, petroleum products, fuel oil, waste oils, explosives, reactive materials, ignitable materials, corrosive materials, hazardous chemicals, hazardous wastes, hazardous substances, extremely hazardous substances, toxic substances, toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, infectious materials and any other element, compound, mixture, solution or substance which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. 17. Real Property Interest. This Easement constitutes a real property interest vested in the Grantee. The parties stipulate that this Easement has a fair market value equal to Seventy One percent (71%) of the full fair market value of the Property (not including building improvements), as unencumbered by the Easement, as of the Effective Date. (Note: The fair 2.2 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 15 market value of the Easement was established by an independent third party appraisal at the time the original conservation easement was granted and did not include valuation of any existing structures on the property.) For the purposes of this Easement Agreement, the ratio of the value of the Easement to the value of the Property as unencumbered by the Easement shall remain constant. 18. Subsequent Transfer, Condemnation and Extinguishment. A. Subsequent Transfer. An Owner shall notify the City in writing at least thirty (30) days in advance of the proposed conveyance of any interest in all or any portion of their Parcel, including any conveyance under threat of condemnation, and shall incorporate the terms and conditions of this Easement Agreement in any deed or other legal instrument by which an Owner divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of their Parcel, except conveyance of a leasehold interest that is no longer than one year in duration or an agricultural lease and is otherwise consistent in all respects with the terms of this Easement Agreement. The failure of an Owner to perform any act required by this paragraph shall not impair the validity of the Easement or limit its enforceability in any way. B. Condemnation. If condemnation of a part of the Property or of the entire Property by public authority will render it impossible to fulfill any of the purposes of this Easement, the Easement may be terminated through condemnation proceedings, or by action of the City if the condemnation proceeding is resolved through a conveyance or stipulated settlement that includes the City. Owners and the City shall act jointly to recover the full fair market value of the affected portion of the Property and all damages resulting from the condemnation. All expenses reasonably incurred by the Owners and the City in connection with the condemnation shall be paid out of the total amount recovered prior to the allocation of such damages award between the Owners and the City, as described in paragraph 18.D. C. Extinguishment. If circumstances arise in the future that render the purpose of the Easement impossible or undesirable to accomplish on all or a portion of the Property, the Easement can be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by action of the City. A party that learns of any such circumstances shall promptly notify the other party. D. Compensation to the City. The City shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with applicable law, after the satisfaction of prior claims, from the proceeds of any sale, exchange, condemnation, extinguishment, termination, or other involuntary or voluntary conversion of all or any portion of the Property that 2.2 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 16 is not made subject to and in accordance with the terms of this Easement or that reduces the scope or value of the Easement. The City’s compensation shall be an amount equal to the Easement value percentage listed in paragraph 17 above, multiplied by the full amount of the proceeds from any sale, exchange, condemnation, or other involuntary or voluntary conversion of all or a portion of the Property (not including the value of any building improvements) or, in the case of extinguishment or termination, the full fair market value of the Easement calculated as described below. E. Calculation of Fair Market Value. Should the parties agree to terminate the Easement as to all or a portion of the Property, and if the parties cannot agree on the fair market value (FMV) at the time of termination, then the parties shall make a good faith effort to select an appraiser that is acceptable to all parties to determine the FMV. If the parties cannot agree on one appraiser, then the FMV shall be calculated as follows: each Owner and the City shall obtain an independent written appraisal, at their own cost and expense, from the appraisers of their choice, subject to the requirements of the next sentence. Each person designated to participate in the appraisal of the Easement shall (a) be a professional appraiser with at least five (5) years’ experience and prior experience appraising conservation easements; (b) be a member of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers; and (c) have no other material, financial or other business interest in common with a party to this Easement. If the parties still cannot agree on a purchase price within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the last of the written appraisals, the parties shall cause their respective appraisers to select another appraiser within ten (10) days thereafter. This additional appraiser shall provide a written appraisal within thirty (30) days of appointment (“Final Appraisal”), the cost of which shall be split by the parties. The fair market value of the Easement will be deemed to be the average of the Final Appraisal with the previous appraisal that is closest to the Final Appraisal, and the appraisal(s) being the furthest away from the Final Appraisal will be disregarded. The determination as to purchase price (as determined by averaging the two appraisals as provided above) shall be final and binding on the parties, absent fraud or gross error. 19. Assignment. The Easement is transferable, but the City may assign its rights and obligations under this Deed only to an organization that is: (a) a qualified organization at the time of transfer under Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (or any successor provision then applicable), and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder; (b) authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements in gross under Colorado law; or (c) a governmental entity. In the event that the City seeks to assign this Easement, City agrees that it will make reasonable efforts to identify two or three potential conservation organizations that meet the requirements of this Paragraph and have a strong basis in Larimer County to receive assignment of the conservation easement, to be presented to the Owners or their successors-in- 2.2 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 17 interest, from which the Owners will select the organization to which City may assign this Easement. If the Owners cannot agree, the City will select such organization. 20. Recordation/Subsequent Transfers. The City shall record this instrument in timely fashion in the official records of each county in which the Property is situated, and may re-record it at any time as maybe required to preserve its rights in this Deed. 21. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other under this Deed shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows and shall be deemed given when personally served or on the third business day after being so mailed: If to the Owner of Parcel 1: Alex Schuman 2950 S. CR 5 Fort Collins, CO 80525 If to the Owner of Parcel II: Kenneth and Deborah Gheen P.O. Box 270685 Fort Collins, CO 80527 If to the City: Director, Natural Areas Department 1745 Hoffman Mill Road P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 or to such other address as either party from time to time shall designate by written notice to the other. 22. General Provisions. A. Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of the Easement and this Deed shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. B. Liberal construction. Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding, the Easement and this Deed shall be liberally construed in favor of the grant to effect the purpose of the Easement and the policy and purpose of C.R.S. §38-30.5-101, et seq. If any provision in this Deed is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purposes of the Easement that 2.2 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 18 would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid. C. Severability. If any provision of this Deed or application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Deed, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. D. Entire Agreement. This Deed sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the Easement, all of which are merged herein. E. No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein shall result in a forfeiture or reversion of an Owner’s fee title to its Parcel. F. Joint Obligation. In the event that there is more than one owner of a Parcel at any time, the obligations imposed by this Deed upon the Owners shall be joint and several upon each of the owners of such Parcel. The owners of one Parcel are not liable for the obligations of the owners of the other Parcel. G. Successors: Third Party Beneficiaries. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Deed shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective personal representatives, heirs, beneficiaries, trustees, successors, and assigns and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the Property. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Deed and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the parties. Nothing contained in this Deed shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other third person, or by the Owner of one Parcel against the Owner of the other Parcel. It is the express intention of the Parties that any person or entity, other than the parties, receiving services or benefits under this Deed shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only, and that the Owner of one Parcel is not a beneficiary of the rights or responsibilities of the Owner of the other Parcel under this Deed. H. Termination of Rights and Obligations. A party's rights and obligations under this Deed terminate upon transfer of the party's interest in the Easement or the Property, except that liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer. 2.2 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 19 I. Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or interpretation. J. Amendment. If the circumstances arise under which an amendment to or modification of this Deed with respect to either Parcel would be appropriate, the Owner of such Parcel and the City are free to jointly amend this Deed with respect to such Parcel without the consent of the Owner of the other Parcel; however, any amendment or modification affecting the entire Property must be approved in writing by all parties. No amendment shall be allowed that will affect the qualifications of this Deed under any applicable laws. Any amendment must be consistent with the conservation purposes of this Deed and may not affect its perpetual duration. Any amendment must be in writing, signed by the duly authorized officials of each affected party, and recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County in which the Property is located. K. Obligations Subject to Annual Appropriation. Any obligations of the Grantee under this Easement Agreement for fiscal years after the year of this Easement Agreement are subject to annual appropriation by the Fort Collins City Council, in its sole discretion, of funds sufficient and intended for such purposes. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the City and its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owners and the City have executed this Amended Deed of Conservation Easement on the day and year first above written. 2.2 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 20 OWNER PARCEL I: PARADISE RANCH, LLC a Colorado Limited Liability Company Date: By: Alex Schuman, Member STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ____________, 2016, by Alex Schuman, as Member of Paradise Ranch, LLC. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: ______________ ____ Notary Public 2.2 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 21 OWNER PARCEL II: Date: Kenneth M. Gheen Date:____________________ _________________________________ Deborah F. Gheen STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _________, 2016, by Kenneth M. Gheen and Deborah F. Gheen. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: __________________________ Notary Public 2.2 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 22 CITY: THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO a Municipal Corporation Date: By: Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ___________, 2016, by Darin A. Atteberry as City Manager of the City of Fort Collins. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Notary Public 2.2 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 23 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of the Property Parcel I: Parcel II: 2.2 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) DRAFT October 4, 2016 24 2.2 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Ordinance No. 112, 2016 (4901 : SR 112 Cribari-Gheen/Schuman CE) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2016, Designating the H. W. Schroeder Property Located at 419 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(e) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 4, 2016, designates the H. W. Schroeder property located at 419 Mathews Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of this property, the Carol Johnson Trust and the John McGowan Trust, are initiating this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 4, 2016 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 114, 2016 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 45 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 4, 2016 City Council STAFF Cassandra Bumgarner, Historic Preservation Planner SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2016, Designating the H. W. Schroeder Property Located at 419 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(e) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. The purpose of this item is to designate the H. W. Schroeder property located at 419 Mathews Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of this property, the Carol Johnson Trust and the John McGowan Trust, are initiating this request. The 1901 Queen Anne-style residence is eligible for recognition as a Landmark due to its historic integrity and significance to Fort Collins under Designation Standard B, Persons/Groups, and Standard C, Design/Construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The H. W. Schroeder Property is an excellent example of a Queen Anne-style residence. Constructed in 1901, the residence exhibits many character-defining architectural features, including the wrap around porch, pediment with sunburst-imbricated shingles, asymmetrical facade, and projecting gable ends. The detached garage is noncontributing due to its age. Undated alterations to the residence undertaken are subordinate with compatible design and do not adversely impact the building’s overall integrity. The H. W. Schroeder Property is located on the west side of the 400 block of Mathews Street, which has retained its overall historic character and pattern of development. The property is already listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places as a contributing property in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Recognition of this property as a Fort Collins Landmark enables its owners to qualify for local financial incentive programs available only to Landmark designated properties. Based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the property will likely see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this increase to the fact that current and future owners qualify for financial incentives; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark; and the assurance of predictability that design review offers. ATTACHMENT 1 3.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 4, 2016 (w/o attachments) (4902 : SR 114 419 Mathews Landmark) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) recommends that City Council designate the H.W. Schroeder property as a Fort Collins landmark. At a public hearing held on September 14, 2016, the Landmark Preservation Commission adopted a motion on a vote of 6-0 to recommend that City Council designate the H. W. Schroeder Property as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 14, based on the property’s significance under Standards B and C, and its exterior integrity based upon all seven aspects of integrity. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map (PDF) 2. Landmark Designation application, with photos (PDF) 3. Staff report to Landmark Preservation Commission (PDF) 4. Landmark Preservation Commission Resolution 3, 2016 (PDF) 3.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, October 4, 2016 (w/o attachments) (4902 : SR 114 419 Mathews Landmark) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE H. W. SCHROEDER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 419 MATHEWS STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARKPURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated September 14, 2016, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the “Commission”) has determined that the H. W. Schroeder Property located at 419 Mathews Street in Fort Collins as more specifically described below (the “Property”) is eligible for Landmark designation for its high degree of exterior integrity, and for its significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Standard B (Persons/Groups) and Standard C (Design/Construction) as contained in Section 14-5(2)(c) of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that the Property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in City Code Section 14-5 and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that the Property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owners of the Property have consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the Property’s significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate the Property as a landmark; and WHEREAS, designation of the Property as a landmark is necessary for the prosperity, civic pride, and welfare of the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Property located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: 3.2 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Ordinance No. 114, 2016 (4902 : SR 114 419 Mathews Landmark) -2- LOT 4, BLOCK 134, FORT COLLINS be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Code. Section 3. That alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the Property will be reviewed for compliance with City Code Chapter 14, Article III, as currently enacted or hereafter amended. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of October, A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 3.2 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Ordinance No. 114, 2016 (4902 : SR 114 419 Mathews Landmark) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director Darin Atteberry, City Manager Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2016, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts between Funds or Projects EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Annual Budget Adjustment Ordinance is to combine dedicated and unanticipated revenues or reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2016 annual budget appropriation. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. This item was reviewed by the Council Finance Committee on September 30, 2016 and recommended moving forward for Council consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds, and authorizes the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds. The City Charter permits the City Council to provide, by ordinance, for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources. Additionally, it authorizes the City Council to transfer any unexpended appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon recommendation of the City Manager, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. The transfers proposed here satisfy this requirement. If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures. The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested appropriations. Also included are intra-fund transfers which do not increase total appropriations, but per the City Charter require City Council approval to make the transfer. A table with the specific use of prior year reserves appears at the end of the AIS. 4 Packet Pg. 50 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 2 Funding Unanticipated Revenue Prior Year Reserves Transfers between Funds TOTAL General Fund $1,194,410 $2,093,657 $0 $3,288,067 Sales & Use Tax Fund 0 2,137,074 0 2,137,074 Capital Projects Fund 121,591 0 0 121,591 Cemetery Fund 5,000 0 0 5,000 Conservation Trust Fund 220,000 0 0 220,000 Equipment Fund 123,200 0 0 123,200 Natural Areas Fund 20,000 0 1,068,537 1,088,537 Neighborhood Parkland Fund 92,458 0 0 92,458 Perpetual Care Fund 0 0 5,000 5,000 Storm Drainage Fund 19,556 0 0 19,556 Transit Services Fund 69,000 0 0 69,000 Transportation Fund 725,000 0 0 725,000 Transportation Fund (Snow Removal) 0 875,000 0 875,000 Water Fund 390,491 0 0 390,491 KFCG 0 0 2,100 2,100 GRAND TOTAL $2,980,706 $5,105,731 $1,075,637 $9,162,074 A. GENERAL FUND 1. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received revenue from various sources which are being requested for appropriation to cover the related expenditures. A listing of these items follows: a. $7,000 - In 2016, Police received a grant award from the Internet Crimes Against Children from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention. The funding was used to offset some of the costs of programs to develop effective responses to technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and Internet crimes against children. b. $4,940 - 2016 Seatbelt Grant - In 2016, Fort Collins Police received a grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation for Seatbelt Enforcement. The grant paid for officers to work overtime to conduct enforcement activities. c. $12,036 - 2016 High Visibility DUI Grant - In 2016, Fort Collins Police received grant funds from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement during specific holiday time periods. d. $7,788 - 2016 Law Enforcement Assistance Funds (LEAF) DUI Grant - In 2016, Fort Collins Police received grant funds from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for overtime for DUI enforcement. e. $500 - 2016 Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) Grant - In 2016, Fort Collins Police received grant funds from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety for a scholarship for travel expenses for victims’ advocates. f. $192,226 - Police Overtime and Straight Time Reimbursement - In 2016, Police Services received reimbursement from various entities for overtime expenses including: CSU football traffic control, Tour De Fat, Brew Fest and New West Fest. Additionally, in 2016 FCPS partnered with Larimer County to staff events at The Ranch. g. $370,616 - Larimer County Share of CRISP Maintenance Costs - The IGA between The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County states that Larimer County will pay for 50% of the annual maintenance 4 Packet Pg. 51 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 3 agreement for the Tiburon/CAD system. In prior years, the City only expensed half the contract cost, as that was the net expense to the City. Starting with 2015, the City recognized the full expense for the contract, as well as the revenue from the County. This change was made after the adoption of the 2016 budget, therefore additional appropriation is requested to allow the City to pay the full amount. h. $153,347 - Insurance Claim Proceeds - The FCPS received unanticipated revenue from insurance claims for three damaged vehicles. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Internet Crimes Against Children Grant) $7,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 Seatbelt Grant) $4,940 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 High Visibility DUI Grant) $12,036 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 LEAF DUI Grant) $7,788 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 VALE Grant) $500 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Revenue) $562,842 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Insurance Proceeds) $153,347 FOR: Internet Crimes Against Children Grant $7,000 FOR: Seatbelt Grant $4,940 FOR: High Visibility DUI Grant $12,036 FOR: LEAF DUI Grant $7,788 FOR: VALE Grant $500 FOR: Police Services $192,226 FOR: Tiburon/CAD system $370,616 FOR: Police Vehicle Purchases $153,347 2. Operation Services is requesting funds for: a. $36,125 - Energy Management - Funds were received as a lighting rebate from Platte River Power Authority and will be used for lighting upgrade projects this year. b. $200,000 - Building Repair and Maintenance (BRM) Additional Revenue and Expense - Unanticipated revenue from work that was not planned in non-general fund departments. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (PRPA Grant) $36,125 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (BRM) $200,000 FOR: Lighting Upgrade Projects $36,125 FOR: Building Repair and Maintenance $200,000 3. This request is to appropriate $699,126 to cover the payment of 2014 Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax rebates (MUTR) made in 2016 and $1,380,231 to cover the payment of 2015 MUTR made in 2016. In accordance with Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebates were paid out in July 2016 for the 2014 rebate program and will be paid out for the 2015 rebate program later in 2016. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by local firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate) $2,079,357 FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $2,079,357 4. This request appropriates insurance reimbursements for Parks infrastructure damaged by others during 2016 ($15,497) and the donation for the 4th of July celebration at City Park ($23,000). FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $38,497 FOR: Parks 4th of July celebration expense $23,000 FOR: Repair and/or replacement of damaged infrastructure expense $15,497 4 Packet Pg. 52 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 4 5. The Gardens on Spring Creek requests appropriations of unanticipated revenues from increased program activity such as the Spring Plant Sale and Youth Summer Camps, and increased donations due to the popularity of the Gardens. Appropriations are needed for the additional cost of expanded programs including staffing, supplies, credit card fees, etc. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $52,000 FOR: Gardens on Spring Creek Programs and Operations $52,000 6. Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung cancer risk from in-home radon exposure. This appropriation would use test kit sales revenue for the purpose of restocking radon test kits. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (from radon kit sales) $5,942 FOR: Radon Test Kits $5,942 7. This request is intended to cover expenses related to land bank property maintenance needs for 2016. As expenses vary from year-to-year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these costs. Expenses for 2016 include general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses, and electricity. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank Reserve) $14,300 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $14,300 8. The Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (FCCVB) has been awarded an $87,764 grant from the Colorado Welcome Center through the State of Colorado. These funds will be disbursed by the State of Colorado and directed through the City of Fort Collins, pursuant to State of Colorado requirements, then paid to the FCCVB. The grant period will run from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $87,764 FOR: Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $87,764 9. The City received two separate metropolitan district applications for its review and consideration. As per City policy, each application was accompanied by a non-refundable application fee of $2,000 and a deposit of $10,000 to be utilized for the reimbursement of staff, legal and consultant expenses. In order for the funds to be used as such they must be appropriated by City Council. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $24,000 FOR: Metropolitan District Application Staff, Legal and Consultant Expenses $24,000 10. The Multicultural Community Retreat in 2016 will be hosted by the City of Fort Collins Social Sustainability Department, Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, Fort Collins Community Action Network (FCCAN), Poudre School District, Diversity Solutions Group, and community members. The City collected participant revenue for the retreat, which will partially offset event expenses. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $1,590 FOR: Multicultural Community Retreat Expense $1,590 B. SALES AND USE TAX FUND 1. The sales and use tax revenue received in 2015 was higher than projected and existing appropriations were not adequate to make the full transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax, and to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax. Adjustments to other funds are not needed because the tax revenues are recorded directly into those funds. This item appropriates additional funds in the amount of $2,137,074 from prior year reserves for transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics tax of $1,068,537, and for transfer to the Natural Areas Fund for the Natural Areas tax of $1,068,537. 4 Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 5 FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $2,137,074 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects Fund - Building on Basics $1,068,537 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $1,068,537 C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1. As part of the Lincoln Avenue Improvements Project, additional funds have been received from two developers, Fort Collins Brewery and Buckingham Place 2nd filing, lots 1 & 2, as payment to construct the local street improvements for Lincoln Avenue adjacent to Fort Collins Brewery and Buckingham Place 2nd filing, lots 1 & 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions in Aid) $101,057 FOR: Construction of local street improvements for Lincoln Avenue $101,057 adjacent to Fort Collins Brewery and Buckingham Place 2nd filing, lots 1 & 2. 2. As part of the North College Avenue Improvements Project, additional funds have been received from the property owner at 920 N. College Ave., as payment to construct the local street improvements for North College Avenue adjacent to 920 N. College Ave. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions in Aid) $20,266 FOR: Construction of local street improvements for the North College $20,266 Avenue adjacent to 920 North College Avenue D. CEMETERY FUND 1. This request appropriates an increase in the transfer of Perpetual Care interest earnings to the Cemetery Fund due to interest earnings being slightly higher than anticipated in 2016. Perpetual Care interest earnings are transferred to the Cemetery Fund for cemetery maintenance. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (transfer from another fund) $5,000 FOR: Cemetery Maintenance Expense $5,000 E. CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 1. Additional 2016 lottery proceed revenue in the Conservation Trust Fund would be used for the construction of the Fossil Creek Trail segment between College and Shields. The project includes a tunnel under the BNSF railroad, several pedestrian bridges, and a trail segment that will provide a key connection between the Fossil Creek Trail at Cathy Fromme Prairie and the Mason Trail. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $220,000 FOR: Trail Construction Expenses $220,000 F. EQUIPMENT FUND 1. Appropriation of unanticipated grant revenue from the Regional Air Quality Council to purchase compressed Natural Gas vehicles: two semi-tractors, one tandem dump truck, and two utility line trucks. The total amount of grant funding is $123,200 with a 20% match covered by the departments’ existing appropriations. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $123,200 FROM: CNG Vehicles $123,200 4 Packet Pg. 54 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 6 G. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. The sales and use tax revenue received in 2015 was higher than projected and existing appropriations were not adequate to make the full transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax. (See Sales & Use Tax Fund Item #1) This item appropriates funds in the amount of $1,068,537 transferred from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Natural Areas Fund for Land Conservation expenses. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (transfer from another fund) $1,068,537 FOR: Natural Areas Expenses $1,068,537 2. The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department has been awarded a grant of $10,000 from the History Colorado State Historical Fund. This grant supports the research, analysis, and preparation of a Historic Structure Assessment for Graves Camp near Graves Creek in the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. The findings of the report will guide future restoration work and will enable the Natural Areas Department to seek additional funding to implement recommended improvements. This is a reimbursement type grant; revenue will be received upon submission of the final report. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $10,000 FOR: Historic Structure Assessment for Graves Camp $10,000 3. Appropriation of funds from the Downtown Business Association and the Community Foundation to support fundraising activities on behalf of the Poudre River Downtown Project, Phase I, kayak park. Fundraising is complete. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $10,000 FOR: Poudre River Downtown Project, Phase I, kayak park $10,000 H. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND 1. This request appropriates miscellaneous revenue from contributions, donations and intergovernmental funds received for Avery Park Improvements, Maple Hill Park and Side Hill Park. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer In) $92,458 FOR: Avery Park, Maple Hill Park and Side Hill Park Expenses $92,458 I. PERPETUAL CARE FUND 1. This request appropriates an increase in the transfer of Perpetual Care interest earnings to the Cemetery Fund due to interest earnings being higher than anticipated in 2016. Perpetual Care interest earnings are transferred to the Cemetery Fund each year for cemetery maintenance. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $5,000 FOR: Transfer to Cemetery Fund $5,000 J. STORM DRAINAGE FUND 1. The City of Fort Collins, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Woodward, Inc. entered into a mutually beneficial agreement to jointly fund the consulting services necessary to prepare and submit a Letter of Map Revision to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to revise the Poudre River floodplain from Lincoln Avenue to Lemay Avenue. This floodplain revision will account for and document floodplain impacts resulting from construction of the Woodward Business Campus/Homestead Natural Area, the Mulberry (State Highway 14) Street Widening and Bridge Replacement, the Lemay Pedestrian Trail/Bridge Re-alignment and the Lemay Avenue Overtopping Mitigation Improvements. The City is contracting with the engineering consultant and CDOT is reimbursing the City for CDOT’s share ($19,556) of the consulting and FEMA review fees which totals $48,890. 4 Packet Pg. 55 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 7 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (CDOT reimbursement) $19,556 FOR: Consulting and FEMA fees for Poudre River Floodplain $19,556 K. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND 1. Transfort has entered into an agreement with CSU to provide additional service for the Foothills Campus Shuttle. This request will fund the first half of the 2016-2017 school year. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (CSU) $69,000 FOR: Foothills Campus Shuttle Bus Route Service $69,000 L. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. As part of the Fort Collins Bike Share Program, Kaiser Permanente committed to sponsoring the program at $25,000 for one year, with the possibility of renewing for a second year. Kaiser Permanente is directing its sponsorship to Zagster, Inc. (bike share service provider) through the City. This $25,000 contribution will support three bike share stations, 13 bikes and helmets. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $25,000 FOR: FC Bike Share Program $25,000 2. The Planning, Development and Transportation Work for Others is a self-supported program for all “Work for Others” activities within Streets, Traffic and Engineering. Expenses are tracked and billed out to other City departments, Poudre School District, CSU, CDOT, Larimer County, developers and other public agencies. The original budget of $2,217,369 was an estimate based on scheduled projects. Additional unanticipated projects were added in 2016. In addition, the Streets Department is anticipating traffic control and patching projects for other departments similar to 2015. Additional appropriations of $700,000 will be used to cover labor, material and equipment costs that will be recovered upon completion of the various projects. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (WFO) $700,000 FOR: Traffic Construction $100,000 FOR: Streets WFO $600,000 3. Due to the snow storms in January, February and March 2016, the 2016 snow budget has been depleted. There were five storms and approximately 47" of snow in this timeframe which required residential plowing for the first time since 2007. Extensive ice cutting was required because of the weather pattern. Warmer days, bitter cold nights, and waves of snow every few days caused ice to build up in gutters blocking drainage and causing ice dams and ice potholes. Clearing sidewalks and pedestrian access ramps also significantly impacted the snow removal budget with an increase of 62% from 2015. Downtown snow removal was performed five times requiring snow to be hauled off by trucking contractors. Additional funding of $875,000 will be used to provide snow removal services during the winter months of October through December 2016. This will cover labor, equipment and materials. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $875,000 FOR: Snow Removal $875,000 M. WATER FUND 1. Water received $390,491 of additional revenue from the Parks Department for the Rigden Reservoir project that needs to be appropriated for Water Supply projects in 2016. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $390,491 FOR: Water Supply Projects $390,491 4 Packet Pg. 56 Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 8 N. KFCG FUND 1. Adjustment of transfer to Cultural Services Fund for Art in Public Places for Bicycle Parking Facility at Downtown Transit Center. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (transfer from another fund) $2,100 FOR: Art in Public Places $2,100 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This Ordinance increases total City 2016 appropriations by $9,162,074. Of that amount, this Ordinance increases General Fund 2016 appropriations by $3,288,067 including use of $2,093,657 in prior year reserves. Funding for the total City appropriations is $2,980,706 from unanticipated revenue, $5,105,731 from prior year reserves and $1,075,637 transferred from other funds. The following is a summary of the items requesting prior year reserves: Item # Fund Use Amount A3 General Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $2,079,357 A7 General Land Bank Property Maintenance 14,300 B1 Sales & Use Tax Transfer of 2015 sales tax revenue for BOB & Natural Areas 2,137,074 K4 Transportation Snow Removal 875,000 Total Use of Prior Year Reserves: $5,105,731 ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Finance Committee presentation (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 57 2016 Annual Adjustment Ordinance Mike Beckstead - CFO September 19, 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 4.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Council Finance Committee presentation (4882 : Annual Budget Adjustment) 2016 Annual Adjustment Ordinance 2 The recommended 2016 Annual Adjustment Ordinance is intended to address: • 2016 unanticipated revenues (e.g. grants) • Appropriation of unassigned reserves to fund unanticipated expenditures associated with approved 2016 appropriations • Should be routine and non-controversial • Items approved by the ordinance need to be spent within the calendar year (i.e. by December 31, 2016) 4.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Council Finance Committee presentation (4882 : Annual Budget Adjustment) 3 Citywide Ordinance No. 115, 2016 increases total City 2016 appropriations by $9,162,074 • This Ordinance increases General Fund 2016 appropriations by $3,288,067 including the use of $2,093,657 in prior year reserves • Funding for the total City appropriations is: o $2,980,706 from additional revenue o $5,105,731 from prior year reserves o $1,075,637 transferred between funds 2016 Annual Adjustment Ordinance 4.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Council Finance Committee presentation (4882 : Annual Budget Adjustment) 2016 Annual Adjustment Ordinance Offer Summary 4 Funding Unanticipated Revenue Prior Year Reserves Transfers between Funds TOTAL General Fund $1,194,410 $2,093,657 $0 $3,288,067 Sales & Use Tax Fund 0 2,137,074 0 2,137,074 Capital Projects Fund 121,591 0 0 121,591 Cemetery Fund 5,000 0 0 5,000 Conservation Trust Fund 220,000 0 0 220,000 Equipment Fund 123,200 0 0 123,200 Natural Areas Fund 20,000 0 1,068,537 1,088,537 Neighborhood Parkland Fund 92,458 0 0 92,458 Perpetual Care Fund 0 0 5,000 5,000 Storm Drainage Fund 19,556 0 0 19,556 Transit Services Fund 69,000 0 0 69,000 Transportation Fund 725,000 0 0 725,000 Transportation Fund (Snow Removal) 0 875,000 0 875,000 Water Fund 390,491 0 0 390,491 KFCG Fund 0 0 2,100 2,100 GRAND TOTAL $2,980,706 $5,105,731 $1,075,637 $9,162,074 4.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Council Finance Committee presentation (4882 : Annual Budget Adjustment) 5 2016 Annual Adjustment Ordinance Larger Requested Amounts General Fund Sales & Use Tax Fund Transpor- tation Fund Other TOTAL  Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate $2.1 $2.1  Sales & Use Tax Fund - BOB & Natural Areas Transfer 2.1 2.1  Traffic Construction - additional revenue from Work for Others (WFO) 0.7 0.7  Snow Removal 0.9 0.9 Sub-Total $2.1 $2.1 $1.6 $0.0 $5.8 All Other Recommended Items 1.2 - 0.0 2.1 3.4 $3.3 $2.1 $1.6 $2.1 $9.2 Offer TOTAL 4.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Council Finance Committee presentation (4882 : Annual Budget Adjustment) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 115, 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN VARIOUS CITY FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS BETWEEN FUNDS OR PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City has unanticipated revenue and prior year reserves available to appropriate; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter also permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged, and the transfers proposed here satisfy this requirement; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for the expenditures listed below and the City Manager recommends that the Council appropriate the funds for these expenditures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the following funds are hereby authorized for transfer and appropriated for expenditure for the purposes stated below. A. GENERAL FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Internet Crimes Against Children Grant) $7,000 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 Seatbelt Grant) $4,940 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 High Visibility DUI Grant) $12,036 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 LEAF DUI Grant) $7,788 Packet Pg. 63 -2- FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (2016 VALE Grant) $500 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Revenue) $562,842 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Insurance Proceeds) $153,347 FOR: Internet Crimes Against Children Grant $7,000 FOR: Seatbelt Grant $4,940 FOR: High Visibility DUI Grant $12,036 FOR: LEAF DUI Grant $7,788 FOR: VALE Grant $500 FOR: Police Services $192,226 FOR: Tiburon/CAD system $370,616 FOR: Police Vehicle Purchases $153,347 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Platte River Power Authority Grant) $36,125 FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Building Repair and Maintenance) $200,000 FOR: Lighting Upgrade Projects $36,125 FOR: Building Repair and Maintenance $200,000 3. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate) $2,079,357 FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $2,079,357 4. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $38,497 FOR: Parks 4th of July celebration expense $23,000 FOR: Repair and/or replacement of damaged infrastructure expense $15,497 5. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $52,000 FOR: Gardens on Spring Creek Programs and Operations $52,000 6. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (from radon kit sales) $5,942 FOR: Radon Test Kits $5,942 7. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank Reserve) $14,300 FOR: Land Bank Expenses $14,300 8. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $87,764 FOR: Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau $87,764 9. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $24,000 FOR: Metropolitan District Application Staff, Legal and Consultant Expenses $24,000 10. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $1,590 FOR: Multicultural Community Retreat Expense $1,590 Packet Pg. 64 -3- B. SALES & USE TAX FUND 1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $2,137,074 FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects Fund - Building on Basics $1,068,537 FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $1,068,537 C. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions in Aid) $101,057 FOR: Construction of local street improvements for Lincoln Ave. $101,057 adjacent to Fort Collins Brewery and Buckingham Place 2nd filing, lots 1 & 2. 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Contributions in Aid) $20,266 FOR: Construction of local street improvements for the North College $20,266 Avenue adjacent to 920 N. College Ave. D. CEMETERY FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (transfer from another fund) $5,000 FOR: Cemetery Maintenance Expense $5,000 E. CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $220,000 FOR: Trail Construction Expenses $220,000 F. EQUIPMENT FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $123,200 FROM: CNG Vehicles $123,200 G. NATURAL AREAS FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (transfer from another fund) $1,068,537 FOR: Natural Areas Expenses $1,068,537 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $10,000 FOR: Historic Structure Assessment for Graves Camp $10,000 3. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $10,000 FOR: Poudre River Downtown Project, Phase I, kayak park $10,000 Packet Pg. 65 -4- H. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer In) $92,458 FOR: Avery Park, Maple Hill Park and Side Hill Park Expenses $92,458 I. PERPETUAL CARE FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $5,000 FOR: Transfer to Cemetery Fund $5,000 J. STORM DRAINAGE FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (CDOT reimbursement) $19,556 FOR: Consulting and FEMA fees for Poudre River Floodplain $19,556 K. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Colorado State University) $69,000 FOR: Foothills Campus Shuttle Bus Route Service $69,000 L. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (grant) $25,000 FOR: FC Bike Share Program $25,000 2. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (WFO) $700,000 FOR: Traffic Construction $100,000 FOR: Streets WFO $600,000 3. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $875,000 FOR: Snow Removal $875,000 M. WATER FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $390,491 FOR: Water Supply Projects $390,491 N. KFCG FUND 1. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (transfer from another fund) $2,100 FOR: Art in Public Places $2,100 Packet Pg. 66 -5- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 67 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Beth Sowder, Director of Social Sustainability SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2016, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund to Be Remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to Fund Affordable Housing and Related Activities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to refund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for public services and facilities received from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in 2015 with respect to a HUD financed Public Housing Program that provides low income rental units. The Authority paid the City of Fort Collins PILOT of $10,906 in 2015 under a previously approved Cooperation Agreement and requests that the City return the PILOT to fund needed affordable housing related activities. The City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if the Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose. The Council has returned the PILOT payment to the Authority since 1992. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On December 16, 1971, the City and the Authority entered into a Cooperation Agreement which provided that the Authority must make annual PILOT payments to the City for the public services and facilities furnished by the City. In 1986, upon request of the Authority, the City Council adopted Resolution 1986-177 which relieved the Authority of its obligation to make the PILOT payments. Based on that resolution, the Authority did not make PILOT payments from 1987 through 1990. The Authority also received a refund from the City of PILOT payments for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. In 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution 1992-093 reinstating the requirement that the Authority pay the annual PILOT payment. The change was made to assure compliance with Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. Since that time, the City has returned the annual PILOT payments to the Housing Authority. Staff recommends that the 2015 PILOT payments of $10,906 be appropriated as unanticipated revenue in the General Fund and remitted to the Authority in accordance with a letter agreement between the City and the Authority requiring the Authority to use the funds for creating or maintaining affordable housing in a manner consistent with the guidelines of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City received unanticipated revenue from the Fort Collins Housing Authority in the amount of $10,906 as 2015 payments for public services and facilities. The revenue was placed in the General Fund. This Ordinance will return the funds to the Housing Authority to be used for affordable housing and related activities. 5 Packet Pg. 68 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. FCHA Request Letter (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 69 ATTACHMENT 1 5.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: FCHA Request Letter (4868 : FCHA PILOT Payment) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 116, 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND TO BE REMITTED TO THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, the City has received a payment from the Fort Collins Housing Authority (the “Authority”) of $10,906 as a payment in lieu of taxes (“PILOT”) for public services and facilities under a Cooperation Agreement dated December 16, 1971, pertaining to a HUD financed public housing program; and WHEREAS, since at least 1992, the City has remitted such PILOT payments to the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the 2015 PILOT payments be appropriated by the City Council for return to the Authority to fund much-needed affordable housing related activities and to attend to the housing needs of low-income Fort Collins residents; and WHEREAS, said payment of $10,906 was not projected as a revenue source in the 2015 City budget; and WHEREAS, the City may spend the PILOT revenues as it deems appropriate in accordance with law, including remitting the funds to the Authority if Council determines that such remittal serves a valid public purpose; and WHEREAS, it is a City Council priority to support programs for providing additional affordable housing in the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the provision of affordable housing serves an important public purpose and is an appropriate use of these funds; and WHEREAS, as a condition of receiving these funds, the City will require the Authority to sign a letter agreement obligating the Authority to spend the funds for creating or maintaining affordable housing in a manner consistent with the guidelines of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Authority PILOT payment as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. Packet Pg. 71 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the General Fund the sum of TEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIX DOLLARS ($10,906) to be remitted to the Fort Collins Housing Authority to fund affordable housing and related activities for Fort Collins residents consistent with the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 72 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director Janet Miller, Assistant Human Resources Director SUBJECT Resolution 2016-080 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Updated Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization Regarding Vehicle Maintenance and Human Resource Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to authorize the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement with the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the City to provide vehicle maintenance and Human Resource services to the MPO. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2001, the City entered into an agreement with the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council (MPO) which provided vehicle maintenance services. The 2001 agreement was terminated by the 2003 agreement. In 2005, the agreement was amended to include Human Resources services. The scope of the services provided to the MPO by the City has changed significantly over the last 11 years; thus, the proposed agreement terminates all earlier agreements while incorporating existing portions of the previous agreements and clarifying the current a future rights and responsibilities of each party. This agreement states that the City will provide the following services:  Fleet Services  Human Resources Services The actual cost for these services will be paid by the MPO on a monthly basis or as established in the agreement. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This agreement will not create a negative financial burden on the City. It establishes a reasonable fee-for- service model. 6 Packet Pg. 73 -1- RESOLUTION 2016-080 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN UPDATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE NORTH FRONT RANGE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION REGARDING VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES WHEREAS, since 1988, the North Front Range Planning Organization (“MPO”), comprised of 15 member governments, has worked to promote a regional perspective on some of the most pressing issues facing the North Front Range, specifically transportation and air quality; and WHEREAS, the MPO was established pursuant to the powers set forth in Article XIV, Section 18 (2) of the Colorado Constitution and Part 2 of Article 1 of Title 29, C.R.S., as amended; and WHEREAS, the MPO is charged with the duty to undertake comprehensive, regional transportation and transportation-related air quality planning; and WHEREAS, the MPO is the designated entity for the purpose of receiving local, state, and federal assistance for the purposes of undertaking transportation planning, air quality planning, and other purposes authorized to the MPO; and WHEREAS, the City participates in regional vanpooling through VanGo™, a regional alternative transportation program provided by the MPO; and WHEREAS, the City entered into agreements with the MPO in 2001, 2003, and 2005 describing services the City would provide for VanGo™, and the City and the MPO wish to continue in relationship with one another; and WHEREAS, the 2001 agreement was terminated by the 2003 agreement, and the 2003 agreement was amended in 2005; and WHEREAS, the City and the MPO intend to create a new agreement which terminates all earlier agreements while incorporating existing portions of the previous agreements and clarifying the current and future rights and responsibilities of each party; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes Section 29-1-203, governments may cooperate or contract with another to provide any function, service or facility lawfully authorized to each of the respective units of government; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of both the City and the MPO to provide services to one another for the purpose of providing regional vanpooling services to the citizens of the City; and Packet Pg. 74 -2- WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed agreement between the City and the MPO is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement covers the scope of services each party will provide in connection to vehicles for regional vanpools traveling into or out of Fort Collins and for certain Human Resources services provided to the MPO by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that that the Mayor be authorized to execute the IGA between the City and the MPO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement between the City and the MPO, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” together with such modifications and additions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or further the purposes of this Resolution, as set forth above. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 75 1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ____ day of ________, 20__, made by and between the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO (the “City”), and the NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING COUNCIL, a Metropolitan Planning Organization, (the “MPO”). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the MPO was created on January 27, 1988, to promote regional transportation and transportation-related air quality planning, cooperation, and coordination among federal, state, and local governments in the North Front Range area; and WHEREAS, the MPO’s activities are of a regional and multi-governmental nature and the MPO performs regional functions which are authorized by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act and the Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended, as well as Colorado legislation which requires a regional and a statewide transportation plan; and WHEREAS, the MPO is charged with the duty to undertake comprehensive, regional transportation and transportation-related air quality planning; and WHEREAS, the MPO is the designated entity for the purpose of receiving local, state, and federal assistance for the purposes of undertaking transportation planning, air quality planning, and other purposes authorized to the MPO; and WHEREAS, the MPO was established pursuant to the powers set forth in Article XIV, Section 18 (2) of the Colorado Constitution and Part 2 of Article 1 of Title 29, C.R.S., as amended; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins participates in regional vanpooling through VanGo™, a regional alternative transportation program provided by the MPO; and WHEREAS, the parties entered into agreements in 2001, 2003, and 2005, and wish to continue in relationship with one another; and WHEREAS, the 2001 agreement was terminated by the 2003 agreement, and the 2003 agreement was amended in 2005; and WHEREAS, the parties intend to create a new agreement which terminates all earlier agreements while incorporating existing portions of the previous agreements and clarifying the current and future rights and responsibilities of each party; and EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 2 WHEREAS, in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes, §29-1-203, governments may cooperate or contract with another to provide any function, service or facility lawfully authorized to each of the respective units of government; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of each of the parties that they may have service of and from the other party to aid and assist them for the purpose of providing regional vanpooling services to their citizens; and WHEREAS, this Agreement covers the scope of services each party will provide in connection to vehicles for regional vanpools traveling into or out of Fort Collins and for certain Human Resources services provided to the MPO by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties as hereafter set forth, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Termination of Agreement(s). That certain intergovernmental agreement dated March 5, 2004, and the amendment to that agreement dated July 19, 2005, between the City and the MPO are hereby terminated. 2. Services/Term. The City agrees to provide support services to the MPO as said services are described in Paragraph 4 hereof upon the terms and conditions as are hereafter set forth. The term of service to be provided by the City to the MPO under this Agreement shall continue indefinitely but may be terminated by either party with or without cause, upon the giving of not less than sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party. 3. Compensation. a. Fleet Services. In consideration of the services to be provided by the City to the MPO hereunder, the MPO agrees to pay the City such amounts as are necessary to compensate the City for its reasonable costs incurred and as described in paragraph 4 hereof. Said services shall be invoiced by the City and shall be paid by the MPO within the terms outlined on the invoices, net 30 days unless otherwise provided in Exhibit A. In the event of termination, such compensation shall be prorated to the day of termination. The MPO and the City agree that costs for services provided may be adjusted year-to-year. b. Human Resources. The City shall provide those human resources services to the MPO as set forth in the attached Exhibit D. The MPO shall pay the City an amount determined by taking the annual total compensation payroll cost for the City’s Human Resources Benefits Division staff and multiplying that amount by the percentage of MPO employees compared to City employees. For this purpose, employee counts will be limited to classified, unclassified management, and contractual FTE’s. For example, for calendar year 2017 it is estimated that the 1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 3 annual total compensation payroll cost for the City’s Human Resources Benefits Division staff will be $447,220.00. With 1,338 City employees and 10 MPO employees, the MPO employees comprise .74% of the number of City employees. The annual total compensation payroll cost would then be multiplied by this percentage of .74% to arrive at $3,307.84 from the date of the contract through 2017. In addition to the above payments, the MPO shall pay the City for all actual benefit insurance premiums related to MPO employees. Such benefit payments shall be made monthly upon invoice from the City. 4. City’s Responsibilities. In providing support services to the MPO, the City agrees to perform, and invoice for, the following: See Exhibits A and B. 5. MPO’s Responsibilities. The MPO agrees to perform the following: See Exhibit C 6. Reports and Information. As a part of the services provided by the City under this Agreement, the City will prepare and report to the MPO supporting documentation for any amounts payable by the MPO to the City. 7. Notice. Any notice required to be delivered in writing pursuant to this Agreement shall be delivered as follows: If to the MPO: If to the City: NFRT & AQPC City of Fort Collins Executive Director City Clerk 419 Canyon Ave, Suite 300 PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0582 8. Financial Obligations. All financial obligations of both the City and the MPO incurred pursuant to this Agreement are expressly contingent upon the appropriation of funds therefor by the City Council of the City and the MPO Council, respectively. Individual members of both the City Council and MPO Council are not assessable and have no fiscal responsibility to meet the financial obligations of this agreement. 9. Entire Understanding. This Agreement, including all Attachments, shall be construed according to its fair meaning, and as if prepared by both parties hereto, 1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 4 and constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the matters addressed in this Agreement. Signed and dated this day of , 2016. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By: __________________________ Wade Troxell, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE: By: By: _________________________ City Clerk City Manager Wanda Winkelmann Darin Atteberry AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: ________________________ Director of Finance Assistant City Attorney Jody A. Hurst NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSPORTATION & AIR QUALITY PLANNING COUNCIL By: Terri Blackmore Executive Director 1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 5 EXHIBIT A CITY OF FORT COLLINS RESPONSIBILITIES 1. As of the date of this agreement, the City will provide vehicle maintenance and emergency mechanical support as described in this Exhibit A and Exhibit B, on - vehicles belonging to the MPO. 2. Preventive Maintenance Servicing, Clean Air Inspections, and Safety Checks. Preventive maintenance, clean air inspections, and safety checks have set schedules based on the unique requirements of the vehicle’s individual class. Since fueling generally takes place off site and current meter readings are difficult to obtain, Fleet Services will install reminder stickers after every service. Safety checks reasonably requested by MPO Staff for reasons other than the normal schedule will generally be performed on demand. The City will provide maintenance for the vans in accordance with the manufacturers’ suggested schedules of maintenance, and will document the maintenance process including hours of operation and after hours emergency support information. Upon completion of required maintenance, the technician will place a sticker in full view noting the mileage of the next required maintenance. It is the responsibility of the van coordinator to schedule any required maintenance. The City shall notify the MPO of any vehicles not presented for service within the established guidelines. 3. Non-Scheduled Maintenance or Repair Services. After notification from the Van Pool representative of necessary services, Fleet Services will determine the nature of repairs and schedule them into the shop on a priority basis. Mechanics will communicate regularly with the Fleet Services Supervisor, who will in turn keep MPO Staff reasonably informed of the status of repairs and the expected date of the vehicle’s return to service. 4. Timeliness of Repairs and Service. The turnaround time for preventive maintenance servicing, clean air inspections and safety checks is generally one day or less. If during inspections deficient items are noted, they will be completed as schedules permit. These additional repairs will be reported to the MPO by Fleet Services and an estimated time of returning to service will be given. If the repair involves the securing of parts not stocked by either Fleet Services or by local private parts vendors, the downtime can be several days. In any case, Fleet Services will 1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 6 reasonably communicate any delays to the MPO Staff. MPO owned vehicles will be available while maintenance is being performed. 5. Quality of Service. Quality of service for the above services is measured by feedback received from the MPO and comeback reports from our computerized fleet management system. The MPO will send out annual surveys which will include a section on maintenance which will be shared with Fleet Services. 6. Repair Approval. All repairs, other than routine preventative maintenance and windshield repairs, must be approved by the MPO prior to any work being performed on the vehicles. 7. Charges for Services and Billing. Fleet Services administration will bill MPO monthly using the Fleet Services in-house data management system. MPO billing will be based on a shop labor rate. The rate will be adjusted annually if necessary based on variables and labor rate surveys conducted by Fleet Services. Two labor rates will be utilized; the lower rate will be used for A service levels and other less technical work. The higher rate will be used for mechanical repairs and more complicated pm services. Fort Collins will bill MPO for all repairs on a monthly basis, including any maintenance or repair on any third-party vehicles delivered or requested by the MPO. These costs will include parts, supplies, sublet, labor and equipment maintenance services overhead applicable to maintenance and repair of vans. The maintenance service charges will be renewed and negotiated in January of each year. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the reasonable cost of labor, either party may choose to continue at the current price or exercise its right to cancel the agreement under Paragraph 8 of the Agreement. 8. Fueling and Car Washes. Fleet Services will process all car wash and fuel transactions from fuel cards and from City-owned fuel sites and bill transactions monthly. Transfort will bill MPO on a monthly basis for washes performed at the Transfort bus wash facility. Rates are subject to change. 9. Service Warranty. All services provided by Fleet Services shall be performed at a level equal to prevailing industry standards. Parts warranty is limited to the parts manufacturer’s warranty which may or may not include labor. 1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 7 EXHIBIT B Effective September 2016 * ** Time Labor Rate Labor Parts Total *subject to change annually **parts costs may vary PMA Service 7k miles 1hr $70.00/hr $70.00 $33.00 $103.00 Change oil, rotate tires, check over vehicle. PMB Service 28k miles 1hr $70.00/hr $70.00 $54.00 $124.00 Change oil, rotate tires, check over vehicle, replace cabin air filter. PMC 119k miles Dodge vans Change oil, rotate tires, 2.3hr $94.00/hr $ 216.20 $72.00 $288.20 check over vehicle, replace cabin air filter. service transmission. PMC Service 56k/112k miles 2.8hr $94.00/hr $263.20 $67.00 $330.20 Change oil, rotate tires, check over vehicle, replace cabin air filter. service transmission. 2010 Toyotas and older only PME Service 98k miles 5.1 $94.00/hr $ 479.40 $179.10 8 Mechanical Repairs $94.00/hr Fixed Monthly Charge for 2016 $523.00 1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 9 EXHIBIT C The MPO’s Responsibilities 1. The MPO shall provide commercial liability insurance coverage for the vehicles, with limits of at least $1,000,000 (One Million Dollars) per occurrence. The MPO shall indemnify, save and hold harmless Fort Collins, its officers and employees in accordance with Colorado law, from all damages whatsoever claimed by third parties against Fort Collins; and for Fort Collins’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, arising directly or indirectly out of MPO’s negligent performance of any of the services of its drivers or provision of a faulty vehicle furnished under this Agreement. 2. The MPO shall provide Fort Collins with a maintenance history of any used vehicle that has not had prior maintenance by the City of Fort Collins under this Agreement. 3. The MPO shall monitor maintenance intervals and status of vehicles, and schedule services with Fleet Services at least two weeks in advance for routine services. 4. The MPO will be responsible for the cleanliness and general appearance of its assigned vehicles and equipment. Contracts have been put in place with local establishments for the convenience of the MPO. Personnel using these facilities must follow billing procedures in place to ensure accurate charges. 5. The MPO will coordinate all state and local emission tests for vehicles. 1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) 10 EXHIBIT D SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE MPO Department Service Components of Service CAO support needed? Comments Benefit Administration *Process all benefits changes, including addresses, family status, eligibility, and common law marriage (paperwork only). Benefits admin services with CAO HR support only. *Maintain records, files and forms. *Research benefits problems. *Interpret plans to employees *Act as liason between employees and insurance companies. *Meet with employees on insurance related issues. *Process employee terminations. *Process COBRA information to employees and NHS. *Assist with New Employee Signups *Receive, research, and adjudicate claim appeals. Surveys *Conduct customized benefit surveys of similar organizations (unlie benefit surveys of other cities). *With CAO HR support only. Bill Audits *Compare info on our reports to the vendor bills. *With CAO HR and Payroll support only. *Research and resolve any discrepancies. COBRA/Retiree *Process payments and make a spreadsheet to send to accounting along with checks. No *Benefits fund not liable for claims paid after termination as a failure to notify City HR. *Make a new spreadsheet for our records. No *Perform audit to assure no discrepancies. No Open Enrollment (OE) *Schedule OE meetings, including cablecast and video tappng. *Will provide OE services without CAO Payroll support but not without CAO HR support. *Order all printed materials and forms for open enrollment, including directories, brochures, etc from insurance companies. *Coordinate and schedule department designate meeting including recruiting designates. *Coordinate assembly of department OE boxes, including delivery. Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Dean Klingner, Engineer & Capital Project Manager Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2016, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain of Additional Real Property Interests Necessary to Construct Public Improvements as Part of the Prospect Road and College Avenue Intersection Improvements Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to obtain authorization from City Council to use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire property interests needed to construct improvements to the intersection of Prospect Road and College Avenue. This authorization is for a partial acquisition affecting 1535 Remington Street at the east end of the project. On July 5, 2016 City Council did not pass the second reading of Ordinance No. 73, 2016 which would have authorized staff to move forward with an acquisition based on the original preferred alternative. Council directed staff to work with the property owners for approximately four months in good faith negotiation to find a compromise alternative. Staff worked with the property owner extensively over the last several months and developed the following alternatives in addition to the Original Dual Left Alternative (Option 1):  Option 2 - Modified Dual Left Alternative  Option 3 - Single Left Alternative At the July 5 Council meeting, Council discussed the desire for a compromise that does not impact the wall or tree to the east of the driveway and still maintains the congestion benefit. Option 2 accomplishes this by making significant design modifications to the original alternative, including:  Shortening the eastbound left turn lane onto Remington  Utilizing an 8-foot (on asphalt) westbound travel lane on the north side of the roadway  Shortening the tangent and transition into the intersection at College  Narrowing the sidewalk to a “pinch point” of 5 feet just to the east of the driveway and widens to the existing width towards Remington-a 10-foot walk is proposed for the area to the west of the driveway Timely acquisition of the property is necessary to meet the anticipated construction schedule. Staff will continue to negotiate in good faith with the affected owners and is optimistic that all property negotiations can be completed prior to the start of the Project. Staff is requesting authorization of eminent domain for partial property acquisition on 1535 Remington Street for the Project only if such action is necessary in order to keep the project on schedule. 7 Packet Pg. 86 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff developed Option 2-Modified Dual Left Alternative as a compromise which maintains the congestion benefits and does not impact the wall or tree east of the driveway. Staff has and will continue to be supportive of our original design (Option 1) and the Modified Dual Left Alternative (Option 2). As well, staff agrees that a Single Left Alternative (Option 3) will provide some congestion relief to the existing conditions and reduces right-of-way impacts at 1535 Remington Street. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Prospect Road and College Avenue Intersection Improvements Project is a collaborative project between the City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University (CSU). The project will construct road and intersection improvements, multimodal improvements, utility improvements, and access control improvements. At the July 5, 2016 Council meeting City Council directed staff to work with the property owner over the next four months to find a compromise solution that maintains the congestion benefits of the project and minimizes private property impacts. City staff has continued to work with the property owner and developed several different alternatives. Option 1 presented is the staff original dual left design that was the basis for the acquisition on the commercial properties and was adopted on First Reading for the residential properties. Option 2 modified the original design so that it did not impact the wall or tree to the east of the driveway and still maintained the congestion benefits of the project. Design changes were made in order to not impact the wall or tree including the following roadway geometry modifications:  8-foot travel lane (8 feet of asphalt and 2 feet of concrete gutter) east of the driveway at 1535 Remington Street adjacent to the existing sidewalk  Narrowing the sidewalk down to a minimum of 5feet just to the east of the driveway and widening back out to the existing width as you approach Remington - the total length of the 5-foot width section is approximately 5-10 feet  Further reducing the transition length into the intersection with College Avenue, leaving a 110’ tangent approaching the intersection  Reducing the Remington left turn storage to a total of 60 feet  Reducing median widths to 3-5 feet Option 3 is a single left alternative that does not impact the wall or the tree to the east of the driveway and has less impact to the west of the driveway. This alternative reduces the congestion benefits of the project and has the following roadway geometrics:  Lane widths between 9-11 feet  Maintains existing sidewalk width at 1535 Remington Street  Maintains longer transition length into the intersection with College Avenue, leaving a 200-foot tangent approaching the intersection  Requires eastbound left turn at Remington to be closed  Median width of 4-6 feet  The property owners of 1535 Remington have indicated that they would be willing to sign a possession and use agreement with the City for this option. Staff has used traffic modeling software to predict the congestion benefits of each of the three alternatives. Models are a critical tool used to evaluate the operation of the intersection under different future scenarios. Model results have margins of error and are best used to compare single design changes while holding all other variables constant. For these reasons staff has represented congestion benefits of the alternatives in ranges. The congestion benefits for these alternatives are summarized in Attachment 4. 7 Packet Pg. 87 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 The necessary property interests include right-of-way and permanent and temporary easements. Given the construction schedule for the Project, timely acquisition of the property interests is necessary. Staff will continue to work with property owners prior to the acquisition to address individual site considerations while still achieving the improvements goals of the Project. The typical timeline for the City to acquire property through the eminent domain process is between 9-12 months, which allows time for property appraisals, multiple offers and negotiations. This also allows the City to ensure project delivery in that time frame. It is possible to accelerate this timeline to about 6 months and still follow the same process. If the City is purchasing property on a “willing seller” basis, staff is not able to ensure a project schedule until an agreement is reached. City Council previous actions:  Approved Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) detailing CSU and City obligations and improvements at the intersection.  Adopted Ordinance No. 139, 2015 on November 17, 2015, obligating $2.7M for design, Right-of-way and construction of the City’s improvements  Adopted Ordinance No. 043, 2016 on First Reading on April 5, 2016, authorizing eminent domain for commercial property acquisition if deemed necessary for the Project.  Council Work Session on April 12, 2016  Adopted Ordinance No. 043, 2016 on April 19, 2016 on Second Reading, authorizing eminent domain for commercial property acquisition if deemed necessary for the Project.  Adopted Ordinance No. 073, 2016 May 17, 2016 on First Reading, authorizing eminent domain for residential property acquisition if deemed necessary for the Project.  Defeated Ordinance No. 073, 2016 on Second Reading on July 5, 2016, authorizing eminent domain for residential property acquisition if deemed necessary for the Project. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The Project is funded with local funds. Council appropriated $2,700,000 through a mid-budget offer in 2015 for the design, right-of-way and construction of this Project. City of Fort Collins Utilities is planning significant stormwater improvements as a part of the Project. Colorado State University has financial responsibility for coordinated improvements generally related to the northwest corner of the intersection. The purchase of this right-of-way will allow staff to move forward with final design and construction. PUBLIC OUTREACH City staff has worked extensively with the property owner at 1535 Remington Street regarding these proposed alternatives over the past several months. ATTACHMENTS 1. College and Prospect Project Location Map (PDF) 2. Right-of-Way Exhibit Options 1 and 2 (Dual Left) (PDF) 3. Right-of-way Exhibit Option 3 (Single Left) (PDF) 4. Congestion Mitigation Comparison Table (PDF) 5. Design Alternative Comparison Matrix (PDF) 6. Project Schedule - Prospect and College (PDF) 7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 88 S College Ave BNSF Railroad ³I E Prospect Rd W Prospect Rd Remington St College and Prospect Project Location Map ³ 0 200 400 600 800 Feet Legend Railroad Lines Project Limits ATTACHMENT 1 7.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: College and Prospect Project Location Map (4887 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain) ATTACHMENT 2 OPTIONS 1 AND 2 ATTACHMENT 3 OPTION 3 CongestionMitigationTable CollegeandProspectIntersection 10/5/2016 Storage Length (feet) %CongestionBenefit ͲModelResult Storage Length (feet) %CongestionBenefit ͲModelResult %CongestionBenefitͲ Range 1.OriginalDualLeft 330 31% 430 36% 30Ͳ35% 2.ModifiedDualLeft 330 31% 430 36% 30Ͳ35% 3.SingleLeft 160 21% 240 25% 20Ͳ25% RemingtonLeftTurnOpen RemingtonLeftTurnClosed Options ATTACHMENT 4 7.4 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Congestion Mitigation Comparison Table (4887 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain) Costcompared topreferred alternative Dualleft storage* Congestion Benefit ROWWidth along1535 Remington Residential Property Opposed Commcerial Property Opposed Sidewalkwidth along1535 Remington Impactto Treeat 1535 Remington Impacttowall eastofdriveway at1535 Remington Setbackfrom ROWto1535 Remington Design Speed Lane Widths* Bike Lanes Tangent Approaching Intersection Minimum curve radius Tangent between curves ThruͲlane Transition Length Remington LeftTurn Storage* Lengthof8' asphaltlane width* Offset through intersection Median widths ConstrainedArterial COLLEGEANDPROSPECTͲMASTERSCHEDULE October10,2016 April June July Aug Sept Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Oct Council AcquisitionProcessͲ9months AcquisitionProcess 2/1ͲPreferredpossessiondate CompleteOct21 FinalDesign(Dec16) 8Weeks 6Weeks ConstructionͲ6Months** 8Weeks 8Weeks ConstructionͲ3Months 4/29Complete 8/15Studentsback 9/15Open ** ConstructionwithlimitedworkzonesͲcostincreases,scheduledelays,publicimpacts.Workwillneedtobephasedbasedonpossessionofresidentialproperties Possessionandusesignedbywillingpropertyowner Courtorderedpossessioncantakeupto9months Construction Nov Council ApprovalsandPermitting Construction Oct CSUIntersectionImprovements FinalDesign CSUStadiumConstruction Dec Sept 2016 2017 RightͲofͲway Design 65%Design(Oct21) ContractsandPermits Commercial Residential May ATTACHMENT 6 7.6 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Project Schedule - Prospect and College (4887 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain) 1 College and Prospect Intersection Improvements 10-18-16 ATTACHMENT 7 Tonight’s Proposed Council Action: • Authorizes eminent domain, if necessary, on a portion of one residential property • Three design options, with differing acquisitions 2 Background • Budget appropriation in November of 2015 initiated project • Authorization for 6 commercial properties passed on 1st and 2nd readings in April, 2016 • Authorization for residential properties did not pass on July 5, 2016 • Since that time City Staff has been meeting regularly with property owners to discuss options and design alternatives 3 Background • City and property owner (1535 Remington) have developed a design that is acceptable to property owner • City has met with second property owner (1601 Remington). These discussions are on-going and this acquisition does not affect the critical path construction schedule 4 Project Design Options • Staff has prepared legal descriptions for three design options • (1) Westbound dual left-turn lanes (as proposed in July) • (2) Compromise westbound dual left-turn lanes • (3) Single westbound left-turn lane 5 Project Design Options (Option 1) Westbound dual left-turn lanes (as proposed in July) • Dual westbound left-turn lanes • Congestion improvement of 30-35% (all improvements together) • Higher congestion relief assumes eastbound turn to Remington is closed • Wider sidewalk adjacent to 1535 Remington • Requires rebuilding the wall and removing the large evergreen tree • Requires ~1,740 sq ft of ROW from 1535 Remington 6 Project Design Options (Option 2) Compromise westbound dual left-turn lanes • Dual westbound left-turn lanes • Congestion improvement of 30-35% (all improvements together) • Higher congestion relief assumes eastbound turn to Remington is closed • Mostly leaves existing sidewalk adjacent to 1535 Remington (short section of 5’ sidewalk) • Does not impact wall east of driveway. Does not impact large evergreen tree • Requires narrow lane, shortened tangent at intersection. • Requires ~1,180 sq ft of ROW from 1535 Remington 7 Project Design Options (Option 3) Single westbound left-turn lane • Single westbound left-turn lane • Congestion improvement of 20-25% (all improvements together) • Higher congestion relief assumes eastbound turn to Remington is closed • Leaves existing sidewalk adjacent to 1535 Remington • Does not impact wall east of driveway. Does not impact large evergreen tree • Property owner supports this alternative • Requires ~623 sq ft of ROW from 1535 Remington 8 ROW Comparison 9 Congestion Relief Comparison 10 Options Comparison 11 Project Schedule 12 13 -1- ORDINANCE NO.117, 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF ADDITIONAL REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE PROSPECT ROAD AND COLLEGE AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City is scheduled to begin construction on the Prospect Road and College Avenue Intersection Improvements Project (the “City Project”) in 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Project will construct needed road and intersection improvements, multimodal transportation enhancements, utility improvements, and access control improvements; and WHEREAS, Colorado State University is also required to build certain improvements at the same intersection in conjunction with the construction of its new medical center (the “Medical Center Project”); and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to acquire certain property interests for the City Project in a timely manner in order to coordinate construction of the City Project with the Medical Center Project; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2016, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 043, 2016, authorizing the acquisition by eminent domain of property interests on certain commercial properties necessary for construction of the City Project; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2016, the City Council adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 073, 2016, which would have authorized acquisition by eminent domain of property interests on certain residential properties; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2016, the City Council defeated Ordinance No. 073, 2016 on second reading, and directed staff to work with the property owners over the next four months to find a compromise design solution that would be more acceptable to all parties; and WHEREAS, additional real property interests are needed to construct the City Project; and WHEREAS, through working with the owners of the property located at 1535 Remington Street (“Owners”), City staff identified three options for the design of the City Project, each of which requires a different property acquisition from the Owners: • Option 1, the “Original Dual Left” alternative, was originally presented to the City Council on May 17, 2016; Packet Pg. 108 -2- • Option 2, the “Modified Dual Left” alternative, would maintain the congestion benefits of Option 1, but does not impact the existing wall or tree on the Owners’ property; and • Option 3, the “Single Left” alternative, also does not impact the existing wall or tree on the Owners’ property, but results in reduced congestion benefits; and WHEREAS, the property interests to be acquired in order to complete the selected option for the Project, Option [1, 2 or 3], are hereafter referred to generally as the “Property Interests”; and WHEREAS, the Property Interests include real property to be acquired either in fee simple for right-of-way or for temporary construction easements; and WHEREAS, the City will negotiate in good faith for the acquisition of the Property Interests from the owners thereof; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Property Interests is desirable and necessary for the construction of the City Project, is in the City’s best interest, and enhances public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized under Article XX, §1 of the Colorado Constitution and Article V, §14 of the City Charter to use the power of eminent domain to acquire real property as reasonably necessary for public improvements such as the City Project; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Property Interests may, by law, be accomplished through eminent domain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. [Option 1] Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is necessary in the public interest to acquire the Property Interests for Option 1, the “Original Dual Left” alternative, as described on Exhibit “A-Option 1”, attached and incorporated herein by reference, for the purpose of constructing the City Project. [Option 2] Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is necessary in the public interest to acquire the Property Interests for Option 2, the “Modified Dual Left” alternative, as described on Exhibit “A-Option 2”, attached and incorporated herein by reference, for the purpose of constructing the City Project. Packet Pg. 109 -3- [Option 3] Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is necessary in the public interest to acquire the Property Interests for Option 3, the “Single Left” alternative, as described on Exhibit “A-Option 3”, attached and incorporated herein by reference, for the purpose of constructing the City Project. Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney and other appropriate officials of the City to acquire the Property Interests for the City by eminent domain proceedings. Section 4. The City Council further finds that, in the event acquisition by eminent domain of any of the Property Interests, or any portion of them, is commenced, immediate possession of the same is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 110 EXHIBIT A HARPER – CLEARY LEGAL OPTION 1 – ORIGINAL DUAL LEFT ALTERNATIVE EXHIBIT A-Option 1 1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 1 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 1 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 1 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 1 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 1 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) EXHIBIT A HARPER – CLEARY LEGAL OPTION 2 – MODIFIED DUAL LEFT ALTERNATIVE EXHIBIT A - OPTION 2 2 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 2 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 2 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 2 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 2 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 2 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 2 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 2 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 2 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 2 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) EXHIBIT A HARPER – CLEARY LEGAL OPTION 3 – SINGLE LEFT ALTERNATIVE EXHIBIT A - OPTION 3 3 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 3 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 3 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 3 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 3 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 3 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 3 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 3 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) 3 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Exhibit A - Option 3 (4890 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain ORD) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Helen Matson, Real Estate Services Manager Ken Sampley, Stormwater/Floodplain Program Mgr Jon Haukaas, Water Engr Field Operations Mgr SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2016, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Stormwater Easement on City Property at the Gardens on Spring Creek to Colorado State University. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to authorize the conveyance to Colorado State University of a permanent stormwater easement on City property at the Gardens on Spring Creek. Colorado State University (CSU) needs to construct a water quality pond to handle the flows from its new construction at CSU, including the new stadium. The Center Outfall Water Quality Pond (Pond) will be constructed on land owned by CSU, as well as on a portion of the City's property at the Gardens on Spring Creek previously identified as the location of a City Water Quality Pond in the 2013 Water Quality Master Plan. The Pond will handle flows from both entities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2013, the City’s Water Quality Master Plan was adopted by Council. This Master Plan included the Spring Creek Basin Water Quality Master Plan. The Master Plan included proposed improvements in the CSU Sub- basin including plans for a City Water Quality Pond on Gardens of Spring Creek property. This much smaller facility, identified as the Ropes Course Pond, was planned to manage flows from off campus areas. To more efficiently handle the area flows, staff members from the City and CSU worked together on the design of a larger pond that will accept more flows than if both entities developed smaller ponds. Most of the land area of the Pond will be on CSU land; however the flows being handled by the Pond will be approximately the same in volume for both CSU and the City. Previously the City’s Parks Planning and Development (PPD) had been included in these discussions, but PPD had not communicated with CSU for some time. Staff delayed taking this item to Council to incorporate design considerations for PPD. These changes include:  The spillway has been shortened to 35 feet long and relocated to the southeast area of the pond, which also results in a shorter spillway slope.  Spillway material will be sandstone blocks, stepped down in a pleasing fashion.  The trail spur is reconfigured to move it away from Spring Creek at the southeast portion, and possibly expansion in the southwest triangle.  The length of the trail spur, except for spillway, is above the 100-year base flood elevations 8 Packet Pg. 126 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2  Ten-foot trail and three-foot shoulders with a 3:1 side slopes works with all these changes, and allows the cut and fill in floodway to balance.  The top of the berm where the concrete trail will be built will be graded and seeded in this project. Concrete trail, fence and other trail materials will be constructed as a future project.  Additional landscaping shall be added to the project as shown in Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 113, 2016, to address concerns of screening from Center Avenue and the Spring Creek Trail. CSU will be constructing the Pond and pay the upfront costs, estimated to be between $400,000 and $500,000; CSU will then bill the City for its share. The split of the project cost will be based on flow spillage. The City will reimburse CSU out of a future budget for stream rehabilitation and water quality budget. CSU will perform the necessary maintenance on the Pond. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The total cost of constructing the pond is estimated to be between $400,000 and $500,000. The City will reimburse CSU for 48% of the costs of construction, as approximately 48% of the flows into the pond will be the City’s flows. Working together on the Center Outfall Water Quality Pond is advantageous for both the City and CSU. This combined Pond will handle more flows for the area than if each entity built a smaller pond. If the Center Outfall Water Quality Pond was not being constructed, the City would need to build more water quality ponds, which would require more land and more money. The City’s cost to build its own pond and proprietary mechanical BMP in this area would be approximately $300,000 Due to the benefits being provided by granting this easement to construct the larger Pond, staff does not recommend charging CSU for this easement. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its August 24, 2016 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board voted 8–0 to recommend approval of the easement and found it appropriate to utilize this portion of the City’s land to develop and construct the water quality pond and trail connectivity with the City’s assistance in the design and neighborhood outreach. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map (PDF) 2. Parks and Recreation Board minutes, August 24, 2016 (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 127 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY PROPERTY CITY OF FORT COLLINS PROPERTY GARDENS AT SPRING CREEK HILTON HOTEL FUTURE WATER QUALITY POND FUTURE WATER QUALITY POND BAY RD CENTRE AVE BAY DR CENTER AVE Easement Location ± Location Map of Easement to CSU at Center Outfall Water Quality Pond ATTACHMENT 1 8.1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Location map (4899 : Water Quality Pond Easement to Coloado State Land Board) Parks & Recreation Board Meeting – August 24 2016 Page 1 of 2 BE A GOOD STEWARD: Protect & Respect your Parks, Trails & Recreation Facilities Meeting Summary • The Board was informed that CSU is ready to start work on a portion of their Master Plan regarding Centre Avenue Outfall Water Quality Pond & Trail Planning which will create a water quality pond, providing a Stormwater quality benefit before water reaches Spring Creek. The development and construction of the pond would encroach into a portion of the northeast corner of City property which will be developed into Lilac Park. CSU would like to request help from the P&R Board and other boards for a positive outcome to use this portion of land for the Water Quality Pond and Bay Farm Trail extension. The timeframe is accelerated due to the neighborhood expectation to be further developed, and the challenges due to the floodway. Neighborhood meetings are planned in the near future. This Water Quality Pond and the Bay Farm Trail extension will be developed before Lilac Park. Motion: Bruce Henderson made a motion - The P&R Board finds that it would be appropriate for CSU to utilize this portion of the City’s land to develop and construct the water quality pond and trail connectivity with the City’s assistance in the design and immediate neighborhood outreach. Discussion: None Second: Ragan Adams Vote: 8:0 in favor Full Minutes AGENDA ITEMS: Lilac Park Update The Gardens on Spring Creek and the area noted as Lilac Park was land originally owned by CSU; which was a land transfer to the City in exchange for the trials garden area off of College Avenue; which was vetted through the Natural Areas Board and adopted by Council in 2012. Through CSU’s Master Plan they are ready to start work on the Centre Avenue Outfall Water Quality Pond & Trail Planning which will create a water quality pond, providing a stormwater quality benefit before water reaches Spring Creek. The pond will be northeast of the Spring Creek Trail & Gardens on Spring Creek and west of Centre Avenue, and the trail will link the Spring Creek Trail at the Gardens on Spring Creek to the Bay Farm Trail that goes through CSU campus. Along with the proposed Bay Farm trail extension would be a proposed trail underpass of the Bay Farm trail at Prospect and Centre Avenue. The development and constructions of the pond would encroach into a portion of the northeast corner of City property which will be developed into Lilac Park. CSU would like to request help from the P&R Board and other boards for a positive outcome to use this portion of land for the Water Quality Pond and Bay Farm Trail extension. The timeframe is excelerated due to the neighborhood expectation to be further developed, and the challenges due to the floodway. Neighborhood meetings are planned in the near future. This Water Quality Pond and the Bay Farm Trail extension will be developed before Lilac Park. Discussion Board – Are you working with the Gardens on Spring Creek? Staff – Yes, the Gardens has been involved and looking forward to the improvements this development will make. It will enhance the visitors’ connectivity to the Gardens; and will provide opportunities in partnering with CSU and Natural Areas for classes at the Gardens. Board – If this is a floodway how does that affect the Lilac Park? Are other Parks in floodways? Staff – Yes, there are other parks in floodway areas. The only affect is structures can’t be built in the floodway. PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting Wednesday, August 24, 2016 5:30 p.m. Board Chair: Scott Sinn - 2016 scott.sinn@ymail.com Council Liaison: Gino Campana – gcampana@fcgov.com Staff Liaisons: Mike Calhoon, 970-416-2079 – mcalhoon@fcgov.com Kurt Friesen, 970-221-6618 – kfriesen@fcgov.com Bob Adams, 970-221-6354 – badams@fcgov.com ATTACHMENT 2 8.2 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board minutes, August 24, 2016 (4899 : Water Quality Pond Easement to Coloado State Land Board) Parks & Recreation Board Meeting – August 24 2016 Page 2 of 2 Board – What do the neighbors expect? CSU – We’re not sure yet, normally we would have had outreach discussions, but those discussions are planned in the very near future. Board – What is the timeframe for constructions? CSU – Because the area is a floodway, construction would start in the fall/winter of 2016/2017 before spring runoff would be a concern. Board – What’s the size of the spillway? CSU – The berm would be 9’ maximum on the east and into the pond at 4’ it’s a 3-1 slope and about 100’ in length. The pond would only detain a 2 year storm event before flowing over the spillway. It’s not a flood control detention pond; it’s being developed for water quality control into Spring Creek. Board – What do you need from the Board? CSU – A statement that it’s appropriate for CSU to use this City land and as strong proponents work with Kurt Friesen for trail development. Board – Do we have a motion? Motion: Bruce Henderson made a motion - The P&R Board finds that it would be appropriate for CSU to utilize this portion of the City’s land to develop and construct the water quality pond and trail connectivity with the City’s assistance in the design and immediate neighborhood outreach. Discussion: None Second: Ragan Adams Vote: 8:0 in favor Additional Comments from Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development pertaining to this project after review of the minutes: There were some conditions to approval of the Lilac Park project that aren’t described clearly enough. These are: 1. The project must provide for future safe trail connections to Spring Creek Trail 2. The project will support a shared CSU/City of FC Stormwater water quality pond on a portion of the park property. 3. The future trail section must be improved from what is currently shown 4. Outreach to the surrounding neighbors will occur regarding the future park project. Board Attendance Board Members: Ragan Adams, Mary Carlson, Brian Carroll, Bruce Henderson, Kenneth Layton, Scott Sinn, Kelly Smith, Dawn Theis Staff: Bob Adams, Mike Calhoon, Kurt Friesen, Carol Rankin, Coleen Elliott, Michelle Provaznik, Clark Mapes, Ken Sampley Guest: CSU Representatives: Fred Haberecht, Landscape Architect 8.2 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Parks and Recreation Board minutes, August 24, 2016 (4899 : Water Quality Pond Easement to Coloado State Land Board) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 113, 2016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PERMANENT STORMWATER EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY AT THE GARDENS ON SPRING CREEK TO COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY WHEREAS, the City is the owner of property known as the Gardens on Spring Creek, more particularly described as Tract A, Centre for Advanced Technology 22nd Filing, Community Horticulture Center, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, the City and Colorado State University (CSU) have been working on the design of water quality pond for the Spring Creek Basin that would be located partially on the City Property and partially on CSU property, and would accept flows from both CSU’s property and other properties in the area (the “Center Outfall Water Quality Pond” or “Pond”); and WHEREAS, the Pond would be more efficient and handle more flows from the area than if the City and CSU built separate ponds; and WHEREAS, in order to construct the Pond, CSU requires an easement on the City Property in the location described and shown on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Easement”); and WHEREAS, CSU would be responsible for construction and maintenance of the Pond, and for landscaping the Pond as shown on Exhibit “B”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Landscaping”); and WHEREAS, CSU would pay the upfront costs of construction and the Landscaping, estimated to be between $400,000 and $500,000, with the City reimbursing CSU for 48% of such costs; and WHEREAS, the City’s cost to build its own pond and proprietary mechanical best management practice (BMP) would be approximately $300,000, and the fair market value of the Easement is approximately $2,130; and WHEREAS, because the cost savings to the City from not having to build its own pond exceed the amount the City will pay for construction of the Center Outfall Water Quality Pond and the value of the Easement combined, City staff is recommending that the City not charge CSU for the Easement; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property owned by the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. Packet Pg. 131 -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the City’s conveyance of the Easement to CSU as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Easement to CSU on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of November, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 132 SITUATE IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO EXHIBIT A DATE: 09.13.2016 DRAWN BY: LHG CHECKED BY: DLS www.olssonassociates.com TEL 303.237.2072 FAX 303.237.2659 4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 200 Golden, CO 80403 R PATH: F:\ Projects\ 015-2343\ 40-Design\ Survey\ Sheets\ 2016-09-13_Pond Easement.dwg SHEET 1 OF 2 EXHIBIT A: WATER QUALITY POND EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND TO BE DEDICATED AS A WATER QUALITY POND EASEMENT BEING A PART OF TRACT A, CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 22ND FILING, AS DEPICTED IN THE PLAT RECORDED APRIL 2, 2003 AT RECEPTION NUMBER 20030039524, SITUATED IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23, BEING MONUMENTED BY A 3.25" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "PLS 17497," FROM WHICH THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, BEING MONUMENTED BY A 3.25" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED "PLS 17497," BEARS S89°38'54"E WITH A DISTANCE OF 2655.63 FEET AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE S33°22'38"E A DISTANCE OF 1261.41 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT A THAT LIES S62°08'08"W A DISTANCE OF 2218.89 FEET FROM SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 23, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING S04°08'46"W A DISTANCE OF 58.35 FEET; THENCE S11°32'50"W A DISTANCE OF 201.75 FEET; THENCE S29°20'04"E A DISTANCE OF 31.25 FEET; THENCE S46°09'27"W A DISTANCE OF 22.18 FEET; THENCE S80°22'04"W A DISTANCE OF 68.98 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT A SAID POINT BEING ALSO A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT A THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: 1) 147.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 148.89 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56°41'53" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N02°33'24"E A DISTANCE OF 141.40 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; 2) N30°40'41"E A DISTANCE OF 140.40 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT; 3) 59.71 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°24'13" AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD WHICH BEARS N36°22'49"E A DISTANCE OF 59.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 19,323 SQUARE FEET OR 0.444 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. DANA L. SPERLING PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR COLORADO LICENSE NUMBER 38012 D A N A L . S P SITUATE IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO EXHIBIT A DATE: 09.13.2016 DRAWN BY: LHG CHECKED BY: DLS www.olssonassociates.com TEL 303.237.2072 FAX 303.237.2659 4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 200 Golden, CO 80403 R PATH: F:\ Projects\ 015-2343\ 40-Design\ Survey\ Sheets\ 2016-09-13_Pond Easement.dwg SHEET 2 OF 2 NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT DOES NOT REPRESENT A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY. IT IS INTENDED ONLY AS A GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION. EXHIBIT A: WATER QUALITY POND EASEMENT D A N A L . S P E R L I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L L A N D S U R V E Y Planting Legend Existing Trees Coniferous Trees and Upland Shrub Plantings Shade Trees and Upland Shrub Plantings Wetland Trees and Wetland Shrub Plantings Center Outfall Water Quality Pond - Planting Concept October 12, 2016 Existing Wetland Existing Street Trees Proposed Coniferous Trees and Upland Shrub Plantings NOTE: The plan provides for approximatley 54 added trees and 150 added shrubs Ditch Access Route Proposed Wetland Tree and Shrub Plantings Proposed Street Trees Bay Drive Stacked Sandstone Spillway Future Trail Flatten Slopes to Reduce Visual Impact of Continuous 3:1 Slopes Existing Trees Proposed Trees Existing Trees CSU Research Plots Park Boundary S p r i n g C r e e k A u t h u r ’ s D i t c h S p r i n g C r Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Amy Lewin, Senior Transportation Planner Emma Belmont, Transit Planner SUBJECT Resolution 2016-081 Approving the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to request Council adoption of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Plan. The West Elizabeth ETC Plan covers the area between Overland Trail and Shields (as well as the CSU Foothills and Main Campuses) and between Mulberry and Prospect. The Plan has a special focus on addressing existing deficiencies, such as inadequate transit service for the area’s demands, incomplete bike and pedestrian networks, and higher than expected numbers of crashes in certain locations, as well as accommodating needs related to future growth and development in the project area. The project has developed recommended short and long term improvements for the corridor, with the intent of improving safety and functionality for all users. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The West Elizabeth ETC Plan and Appendices can be found at fcgov.com/westelizabeth. Relationship to Transportation Master Plan The West Elizabeth corridor is identified as one of several future Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) in the City’s Transportation Master Plan (2011). Each ETC will have a planning document that provides a roadmap to achieve a long-term multimodal vision for each respective corridor. The focus of each plan is to emphasize transit, biking and walking in a way that serves existing and future transportation and land use needs of each area. The West Elizabeth ETC Plan has a special focus on addressing existing deficiencies, such as inadequate transit service for the area’s demands, incomplete bike and pedestrian networks, and higher than expected numbers of crashes in certain locations. Vision The vision for the West Elizabeth ETC is to be an easily accessible and reliable multimodal corridor with an emphasis on connectivity to Colorado State University’s Foothills Campus on the west and Colorado State University’s Main Campus (including MAX stations) on the east. The corridor will be well integrated and well connected within the City, with a focus on improving transit, biking and walking. The corridor will foster existing business and future infill and redevelopment to accommodate the growing number and diversity of users in the corridor, which include students, families and seniors. 9 Packet Pg. 136 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 The corridor shall:  Be unique and adaptable to the distinctive characteristics of each corridor segment.  Be safe and comfortable for all users.  Encourage and prioritize public transportation and active transportation options.  Support the interconnectivity of all modes.  Be a beautiful and vibrant corridor. Recommended Design The recommended design defines the long-term vision for the transportation network in the West Elizabeth ETC, including transit service and multimodal improvements. The following principles helped guide the development of the recommended design: 1. The recommended design should meet the project’s vision in a cost-effective way. 2. The recommended design should minimize impacts to private property owners (including limiting right- of-way acquisition). 3. The recommended design should be implemented in phases and minimize “throwaway” costs. The following summarize the improvements included in the recommended design. For People Riding Transit  Premium, high-frequency transit service on West Elizabeth Street connecting to downtown  Transit Signal Priority (TSP)  Innovative bus stop islands  CSU Foothills Campus Transit Station and Park-n-Ride For People Biking  Protected or buffered bike lanes  Intersection treatments, including green colored paint in conflict zones, two-stage left turn boxes and the pilot of a protected intersection  New or upgraded north-south crossings  Bike lane accommodations through bus stop islands For People Walking or Using Mobility Devices  Complete, ADA-compliant sidewalks  New or updated north-south crossings For People Driving  Safety improvements at locations with a demonstrated high crash history  Four travel lanes in busiest segments and center turn lanes and medians throughout the corridor  Traffic calming through medians, separated facilities for other modes and management of access to businesses  Roundabout at West Elizabeth/Overland Trail Phasing and Implementation of Improvements A key principle that guided the recommended design’s development was that it should be implementable in phases. The plan for implementation of the recommended design includes three distinct phases, although the recommended design may be implemented as multiple smaller projects depending on the availability of 9 Packet Pg. 137 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 3 funding. Additionally the Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is adaptable to future changes that may affect the corridor. The following phases are recommended as part of the Plan: 1. Phase 1-2016 Improvements - these improvements were implemented in August 2016 and included a new transit route to help serve the high demands in the area, bus stop upgrades, and an upgraded crossing at Skyline and West Elizabeth Street. 2. Phase 2-Interim Improvements - focus on completing gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian networks and transit additional transit service (possible implementation in 2-5 years depending on funding availability). 3. Phase 3-Recommended Design - this is the full package of improvements for the long-term corridor vision (possibly 10-15 years out, dependent on funding); as well as a design in the Campus West area that hinges on future redevelopment. Funding was requested in the City’s 2017-2018 Budgeting for Outcomes process for the items noted in Phase 2. The final budget will be approved in November. Elements of the Recommended Design may be implemented incrementally as opportunities arise-e.g., through redevelopment, smaller grants, or City capital projects. Shields/Elizabeth The intersection of Shields/Elizabeth is within the West Elizabeth ETC study area, and is currently under design through a joint effort under the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City and CSU. With this unique funding/partnership arrangement and a compressed timeline defined in the IGA, it has been a separate but concurrent effort to the ETC. The project teams collaborated on designs and public meetings, and coordinated community outreach efforts, and the proposed elements of the intersection project are anticipated to integrate seamlessly with the ETC recommendations. The improvements under design at Shields/Elizabeth include a bicycle/pedestrian underpass and at-grade intersection improvements. Final review of the intersection project is being conducted by all relevant City departments through a Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process. The Shields/Elizabeth project team has addressed key concerns raised by the community, which include the following:  Business access and parking (during construction and post-construction)  Driveway crossings  Connection to mid-block crossing  At-grade crosswalks CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The capital projects identified in the Plan are expected to be funded over time at the discretion of City Council and only through established procedures for funding prioritization. For West Elizabeth Street, the Plan provides a cost estimate for the conceptual designs and identifies three distinct phases of funding and implementation; this approach is typical for a capital project of this magnitude. The conceptual cost estimates for each phase are summarized in Attachment 1. A substantial federal grant may be pursued for the transit component of the Plan. Smaller capital projects (e.g., on Plum Street/Constitution Avenue) may seek to leverage opportunities afforded by grants from a variety of state and federal sources or from existing programs such as the Street Maintenance Program. Additional funding could be pursued from existing funded capital projects wherever a rational nexus allows. 9 Packet Pg. 138 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 4 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City Council The Plan was presented to City Council at a work session March 10, 2016. (Attachment 2) In response to the March 10 Work Session, the Plan reflects the direction provided by City Council in the following manner:  Interest in exploring a rapid transit solution that could be Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or express bus in nature, or a new technology.  Explore cost-effective opportunities to include sidewalk improvements beyond minimum standards in near-term implementation package.  Consider potential funding sources as part of Implementation Planning. In addition to the work session, separate memoranda were submitted to the City Council that indicated progress to date, next steps, opportunities and outcomes from community engagement. Other Boards and Commissions On October 13, 2016 the Planning and Zoning Board will meet to make a recommendation to City Council. Results of the Board’s decision will be provided to the Council prior to the Council meeting. In addition, the following boards have taken formal action to support the Plan (Attachments 3-6):  Air Quality Advisory Board  Commission on Disability  Senior Advisory Board  Transportation Board The following boards and commissions also provided input into the Plan:  Bicycle Advisory Committee  Energy Board  Dial-A-Ride Technical Advisory Committee PUBLIC OUTREACH In addition to working with individual property/business owners and citizens at-large, the following community organizations were consulted and provided input on the West Elizabeth ETC Plan: Community Organizations  ASCSU (Attachment 7)  CSU Bicycle Advisory Committee  Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advisory Group  North Front Range MPO Technical Advisory Committee  Chamber of Commerce: Local Legislative Affairs Committee  Ongoing coordination with CSU staff and students Valuable feedback was also provided by the Stakeholder Committee, which met formally five times over the last 18 months. Ideas and concepts were exchanged in a spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, with a deep dedication to the community. Membership was diverse and included various interests representing the following: 9 Packet Pg. 139 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 5  Neighborhood residents  Major landowners  Business owners  Apartment complex managers  CSU staff and students The project schedule was extended through October to give the project team time to address some questions and issues raised by property owners along West Elizabeth. In August and September, staff worked directly with these neighbors to fully understand their concerns, including in-person meetings, emails, and phone calls. A memo summarizing the additional community engagement and resulting refinements to the Plan was provided to City Council in early October. ATTACHMENTS 1. Cost Estimate Summary (PDF) 2. Work Session Summary, March 10, 2016 (PDF) 3. Air Quality Advisory Board Letter of Recommendation, July 27, 2016 (PDF) 4. Commission on Disability Minutes, July 14, 2016 (PDF) 5. Senior Advisory Board Minutes, July 13, 2016 (PDF) 6. Transportation Board Minutes, July 20, 2016 (PDF) 7. ASCSU Letter of Support (PDF) 8. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 140 West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Cost Estimate Summary 1 Phase Description Capital Costs Operations & Maintenance Costs (Ongoing) 1: Proposed for 20161 x Tweak to improve upon the existing transit service and bus stop improvements x Skyline crossing relocation/improvement x Existing budgets used for Skyline crossing improvement and bus stop improvements x An additional $160,000 per year is being shifted from an underperforming route to fund the 2016 transit service changes on West Elizabeth Street. 2: Interim Improvements x Transit service and amenity improvements x Completion of the bike network x Completion of the sidewalk network (minimum standards) x Design – $300,000 x Infrastructure costs – $1.4-$2.6 million ($2.0 million most probable cost) x Transit vehicles – one additional vehicle necessary ($400,000 each) x $2.05 million per year 3: Recommended Design x High-frequency transit service x Protected/buffered bike lanes and protected intersection x Enhance pedestrian network (detached sidewalks) x Roundabout at Overland and access management improvements x Upgraded and new north-south crossings x Design – $2-4.5 million x Infrastructure costs – $13.0-24.3 million ($18.7 million most probable cost) x Transit vehicles –four additional vehicles necessary ($400,000 each) x $7.31 million per year Planning for Redevelopment x BRT-like transit service x Changes in the Campus West Area x Infrastructure costs – $1.2-2.3 ATTACHMENT 2 9.2 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Work Session Summary, March 10, 2016 (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) 9.2 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Work Session Summary, March 10, 2016 (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.221-6600 fcgov.com/environmentalservices MEMORANDUM Date: July 27, 2016 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Mark Houdashelt, AQAB Chair CC: Air Quality Advisory Board Darin Atteberry, City Manager Re: Recommendations Regarding the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor ___________________________________________________________________________________ The Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) recommends adoption of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor (WETC) Plan. Although the air quality impacts of this Plan may be relatively small (no quantitative estimates of such impacts have been made), we expect that implementation of the Interim Improvements, as well as the Recommended Design, will reduce the emissions of both greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants, such as ozone precursors, to some extent. The AQAB therefore supports the Plan and also recommends that the Transportation Air Quality Impacts Guidance Manual, currently under development, be utilized to estimate the air quality impacts of any of the WETC Plan’s projects both before and after they are implemented. This information can be used to help prioritize elements of the plan and to compare the post-implementation impacts to those expected. ATTACHMENT 3 9.3 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Air Quality Advisory Board Letter of Recommendation, July 27, 2016 (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) COMMISSION ON DISABILITY Fort Collins City Hall: Council Information Center 12:15 p.m. Thursday, July14, 2016 COD Members Present: Marilee Boylan, Terry Schlicting, Leslie Efird, Michael Devereaux, Michelle Miller, Hettie Hueber, Michael Marr, John Morris Absent: Sherri Reichow City: Maureen McCarthy City Guests: Ginny Sawyer, Luna Martinez Guests: Misty Guregroy Call to Order: 12:20 p.m. 1. Introductions 2. Approval of Minutes: April –Schlicting moved to approve Marr seconded. 3. Open Discussion: Misty Guregroy shared with the COD her son’s story. Misty is looking for more school services, one-on-one staff and transportation to get children with special needs to after school care if parents are working. She also made the commission aware of the need for large changing tables in public bathrooms. Misty feels most of these programs need more funding. The COD brainstormed on these issues. 3. New Business: x Ginny Sawyer talked about short-term rental licensing in the City of Fort Collins and the requirements to be considered accessible. If the rentals are accessible the city will wave the licensing fee. The COD talked with Sawyer on the words that will be used to make this understood by the renters and those who apply for the waved fee. x Belmont gave a West Elizabeth study presentation. She informed the commission on the progress being made. Belmont gave the COD a project summary handout. This is a two to five year plan. Some of the bus routes changes will happen in August of 2016. The commission took a vote to approve the study and the vote was approved unanimously. ATTACHMENT 4 9.4 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Commission on Disability Minutes, July 14, 2016 (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Jason Brabson- Visitor Tim Littrell- Visitor IV. Speaker(s) Amy Lewin, Senior Transportation Planner Emma Belmont, Transit Planner- West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Reaching the end of the task timeline at which point they hope to get our recommendation on the plan which they will bring to City Council. Trying to solve the need for more buses, safety for bikers and walkers, and ease of driving for motorists. Recommended design for Transit: higher frequency transit service, enhanced transit stops, connection to MAX, and new Foothills Campus internal shuttle route. Recommended design for Biking: protected/buffered bike lanes, intersection treatments, pilot protected intersection, bus stop islands with passing lane, crossing improvements at certain intersections. Recommended design for Walking: detached sidewalks and landscaped parkways, new and/or enhanced crossings. Recommended design for Driving: four travel lanes in busiest segments, center turn lanes, median in select locations, access management around campus west, roundabout at overland trail. Going to City Council August 16, Gregory wells motions to recommend the design as presented; Gosha Croitor seconds the motion; unanimously approved by all members. V. Updates A. Bridging the Gap 2016 Date and time locked in at September 21 from 10:00 a.m., online registration beginning very soon. Will email the board to get a final list of attendees which fees are covered by Senior Advisory Board. Also plan to host a table with information during the networking portion of the event. The Senior Center's very own SOAP Troupe will be the entertainment for the event. B. Partnership for Age Friendly Communities Many of the groups are making great strides around town. In particular the Dementia training group has been making their way around town at various businesses including many City of Fort Collins departments. Upcoming volunteer appreciation event on September 22"d here at the Senior Center from 4:00p.m. to 7:00p.m. C. Senior Transportation Coalition Discussion on areas of Larimer County will be served seeing as though it is such a large area to cover. Including which parts of the unincorporated county would be realistic to serve. A suggestion of some type of website where people could post their driving plans and see if someone in a surrounding rural area wanted to join. VI. New Business- Brief Discussion on Any Issues of Concern A. Education Budgeting for Outcomes-City of Fort Collins works on 2 year budget plan working of7 outcome areas. Currently in the process ofbudgeting for 2017-2018 years. Area on the City of Fort Collins website where you can essentially put your vote in or give feedback on each of the areas. There are specific issues that SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD July 13, 2016 ATTACHMENT 5 9.5 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Senior Advisory Board Minutes, July 13, 2016 (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Thomas discussed the push to place funding for ongoing items in the KFCG fund which will expire in four years unless renewed. Brown asked when East Mulberry is likely to be annexed. Jackson replied it is not likely within the one to three year future; however, there are enclave opportunities. (**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) • Transportation Board Workplan - Shenk The Board had a brief discussion regarding the points in the Workplan and made slight wording modifications. Transportation equity and the need to bring transit infrastructure up to ADA standards were discussed. 8. ACTION ITEMS • West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan – Lewin/Belmont Belmont stated an Enhanced Travel Corridor is defined as a corridor that emphasizes high-frequency transit, bicycling and walking and aids in growth management. She noted the IGA effort through the City and CSU has placed more emphasis on the Shields and West Elizabeth intersection and that intersection is therefore not highly integrated in this Plan. This Corridor involves a huge amount of transit riders and bicyclists and the need to decrease conflicts among users is emphasized in the Plan. Phasing elements aim to address existing deficiencies sooner than later while still using public funding wisely. Three main phasing elements will begin this year and include improvements to the transit network and improvements to north-south road crossings. Interim improvements include filling in gaps in the sidewalk and bicycle network and improvements to bus stop amenities and sidewalk connections to bus stops. In terms of the long-term recommended design, which is funding dependent, looks at high- frequency transit, buffered and/or protected bike lanes, an enhanced pedestrian network, and some vehicular improvements. The importance of minimizing impacts on private property has been emphasized. Lewin detailed the proposal for additional north-south connectivity and phasing for each mode. Brown asked how protected bike lanes affect snow removal. Lewin replied it does require a different approach to snow removal and that is acknowledged in terms of maintenance considerations in the Plan. Bus stop islands and detached sidewalks, where right-of-way is available, will also be considered. Additionally, a roundabout is being proposed at West Elizabeth and Overland Trail. Thomas asked about the safety of utilizing a small curb for a protected bike lane. York stated that curb can become a hazard for both bikes and vehicles. Lewin noted protected bike lane design is rapidly changing and best practices will be examined prior to final design. She went on to present cross-section designs for the remainder of the Corridor. Belmont discussed the 2016 proposal stating funds have been identified to be moved from a low-productivity route to serve this area more effectively. She requested Board recommendation of the Plan for Council. Transporation Board July 20, 2016 ATTACHMENT 6 9.6 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Transportation Board Minutes, July 20, 2016 (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) 4 The Board had a brief discussion regarding the safety of protected bicycle lanes and suggested that design should be included in the Plan as being yet to be determined. Thomas made a motion, seconded by Jordan, to support the adoption of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan with the caveat of further study on bike lane protection. The motion was adopted unanimously. 9. REPORTS • Boardmember Reports Thomas reported on a letter he wrote to the Federal Railroad Administration regarding quiet zones. York asked about the stoppage of MAX buses near the railroad crossings. Jackson replied there is no sunset to that regulation as it was a requirement of the railroad in order to use their right-of-way. York suggested the policy be reviewed; however, Thomas and Jackson recommended against it given the difficultly of discussions with the railroad to begin with. York reported on the Coalition for Infrastructure group and the Built Environment Working Group meeting, during which Nature in the City and human-powered transit BFO offers were discussed. Berklund commented on the Laurel roundabout discussing dangerous actions by motorists. She suggested signage regarding yielding to pedestrians should be installed. • Staff Report Jackson reported on two grant applications for I-25 improvements. The FAST lane grant which had a freight corridor aspect to it was denied; however, the TIGER grant could still be successful. The West Prospect Area Plan is receiving a merit award from the American Planning Association for its community engagement, unique public outreach efforts and collaboration with land owners and CSU. The Lemay and Riverside intersection railroad improvements have been completed and the Board discussed the need for a liaison between the Parking Committee and the Transportation Board. 10. OTHER BUSINESS None. 11. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. by unanimous consent. 9.6 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Transportation Board Minutes, July 20, 2016 (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) ATTACHMENT 7 9.7 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: ASCSU Letter of Support (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) 1 Amy Lewin, Senior Transportation Planner – FC Moves Emma Belmont, Transit Planner – Transfort 10-18-16 West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan City Council Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT 8 9.8 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) What is an Enhanced Travel Corridor? Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) “Uniquely designed corridors that are planned to incorporate • high-frequency transit, • bicycling, and • walking as part of the corridor” - Transportation Master Plan (2011) Planned Network of ETCs 9.8 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Project Study Area 3 9.8 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) 4 What are we trying to solve? 9.8 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) What are we trying to solve? 5 9.8 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Community Engagement 6 High-Tech Tools & Media Public Activities & Events Small-Group & One-on-One Meetings 9.8 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Community Engagement Stakeholder Committee • Neighborhood residents • Business owners • Major landowners • Apartment complex managers • CSU staff and students Boards and Commissions • Air Quality Advisory Board* • Bicycle Advisory Committee • Commission on Disability* • Energy Board • Dial-A-Ride Technical Advisory Committee • Planning and Zoning Board* • Senior Advisory Board* • Transportation Board* *Recommendations to City Council Other Groups • ASCSU • CSU Bicycle Advisory Committee • Barrier Busters Public Transportation Advisory Group • North Front Range MPO Technical Advisory Committee • Chamber of Commerce: Local Legislative Affairs Committee • CSU staff and students 7 9.8 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Vision 8 • Be unique and adaptable to the distinctive characteristics of each corridor segment • Be safe and comfortable for all users • Encourage and prioritize public transportation and active transportation options • Support the interconnectivity of all modes • Be a beautiful and vibrant environment 9.8 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Overall Approach 1. The Recommended Design should meet the project’s Vision in a cost-effective way. 2. The Recommended Design should minimize impacts to private property owners (including limiting right-of-way acquisition). 3. The Recommended Design should be implemented in phases and minimize “throwaway” costs. 9 9.8 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Recommended Design At-A-Glance 10 • Premium, high- frequency transit • Complete bicycle and pedestrian networks • New north/south crossings • Safety improvements for motorists New Enhanced Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossings 9.8 Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Phasing Recommendations 11 Long-Term with Redevelopment BRT-like Service on West Elizabeth Additional Enhancements to Campus West Long-Term Premium, High- Frequency Transit Protected/Buffered Bike Lanes Pedestrian Enhancements Safety Enhancements Near-Term Transit Service and Stop Improvements Complete Bike Network Complete Sidewalk Network August 2016 Transit Service Changes Bus Stop Upgrades Skyline Crossing Improvement 9.8 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) For People Riding Transit 12 • Premium, high-frequency transit service on West Elizabeth connecting to Downtown and on Plum • Transit Signal Priority (TSP) • Innovative bus stop islands • CSU Foothills Campus Transit Station and Park-n-Ride 9.8 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) For People Biking • Protected or buffered bike lanes • Intersection treatments in conflict zones, two-stage turn queue box and pilot protected intersection • New or upgraded north/south crossings • Bike lane accommodations through bus stops 13 Curb Protection Buffer Striping 9.8 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) For People Walking or Using Mobility Devices • Complete, ADA-compliant sidewalks • New or upgraded north/south crossings 14 C C 9.8 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) For People Driving • Safety improvements • Four travel lanes in busiest segment and center turn lanes and medians throughout the corridor • Traffic calming through design • Roundabout at West Elizabeth/Overland Trail 15 9.8 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Shields/Elizabeth • Separate design process • Consistent goals between two efforts • Ongoing coordination • Designs will integrate seamlessly 16 9.8 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) Staff Recommendation Adoption of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan 17 9.8 Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) -1- RESOLUTION 2016-081 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN WHEREAS, for the past 18 months, City staff and City consultants have been engaged in the process of preparing the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan (the “Plan”); and WHEREAS, the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor (the “ETC”) is comprised of West Elizabeth Street between Overland Trail and Shields Street and segments of Plum Street, and Constitution Avenue; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Plan is to propose strategies for serving existing and future ETC transportation demands with a focus on multimodal transportation improvements; and WHEREAS, the Plan includes an in-depth review of existing conditions in the ETC and a comprehensive set of recommended short and long term improvements to improve safety and functionality for all ETC users; and WHEREAS, the financial impacts of the Plan will be pursued by City staff through local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities; and WHEREAS, after significant public outreach and receipt of favorable recommendations from the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Commission on Disability, the Senior Advisory Board, the Transportation Board, and the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Council has determined that the approval of the Plan is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan dated October 18, 2016, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. Packet Pg. 167 -2- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 168 October 2016 | DN15-0488 DRAFT Prepared For: Presented By: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS project ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Photographs provided by the City of Fort Collins and Fehr & Peers; sources credited. Design and Layout by Fehr & Peers 621 17th Street, Suite 2301 Denver, CO 80293 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright ©2016 Fehr & Peers No portion of this report may be used or reproduced without prior written consent of City of Fort Collins. CITY COUNCIL Wade Troxell Mayor Gerry Horak Mayor Pro Tem District 6 Bob Overbeck Councilmember District 1 Ray Martinez Councilmember District 2 Gino Campana Councilmember District 3 Kristin Stephen Councilmember District 4 Ross Cunniff Councilmember District 5 TRANSPORTATION BOARD Annabelle Berklund Cari Brown Olga Duvall Rita Pat Jordan Eric Shenk Tim Sutton Gary Thomas York CITY LEADERSHIP Darin Atteberry City Manager Jeff Mihelich Deputy City Manager Laurie Kadrich Planning Development & Transportation Director Mark Jackson Planning Development & Transportation Deputy Director Kurt Ravenschlag Transfort & Parking Services General Manager PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM Amy Lewin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS project ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF FORT COLLINS Emily Allen Community Liaison Neighborhood Services Sue Beck-Ferkiss Social Sustainability Specialist Social Sustainability Sarah Burnett Neighborhood Development Review Liaison Neighborhood Services Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services Tessa Greegor FC Bikes Program Manager FC Moves Basil Hamdan Stormwater Quality Engineer Streets Craig Horton Police Office Police Services Aaron Iverson Senior Transportation Planner FC Moves Nancy Nichols Safe Routes to School Coordinator FC Moves Joe Olson City Traffic Engineer Traffic Operations Erika Rasmussen Special Projects Engineer Engineering Kurt Ravenschlag General Manager Transfort Paul Sizemore Program Manager FC Moves Timothy Wilder Service Development Manager Transfort Steve Wilkin Field & Training Coordinator Transfort Martina Wilkinson Assistant City Traffic Engineer Traffic Operations Clint Wood Civil Engineer Streets COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Aaron Fodge iv TABLE & FIGURES TABLES Table 1: Transit Route Frequency & Vehicles Types .................................................................................17 Table 2: 2016 Transit Route Frequencies & Service Hours ..................................................................77 Table 3: Interim Design Transit Route Frequencies, Service Hours & Vehicles Types .........81 Table 4: Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................89 FIGURES Recommended Design At-A-Glance .................................................................................ES-6, 14 Recommended Design Cross Section Key Elements ...................................................ES-10 Interim Improvements At-A-Glance ...............................................................................ES-12, 82 Figure 1: West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Study Area .................................................2 Figure 2: Recommended Design At-A-Glance .............................................................................................14 Figure 3: Photo simulation of West Elizabeth Street east of Skyline Drive ..................................25 Figure 4: Photo simulation of West Elizabeth Street & City Park Ave ..............................................26 Figure 5-8: Recommended Design Cross Sections .................................................................................27-29 Figure 9-12: Recommended Design Corridor Segments ......................................................................30-33 Figure 13: Aerial View of the Recommended Design at Overland Trail. ..........................................34 Figure 14: Aerial View of the Recommended Design at Taft Hill Road. ............................................35 Figure 15: Aerial View of the Recommended Design at Constitution Ave ....................................36 Figure 16: Aerial View of the Recommended Design at City Park Ave. ............................................37 Figure 17: Recommended Design Transit Routes: ........................................................................................38 Figure 18: Urban Design Elements ..................................................................................................................42-43 Figure 19: Planning for Redevelopment Cross Section .............................................................................44 Figure 20: Planning for Redevelopment Conceptual Design ................................................................46 Figure 21: Planning for Redevelopment Urban Design ............................................................................48 Figure 22: Planning for Redevelopment Transit Routes ............................................................................50 Figure 23: Recommended Design Cross Section Constitution Ave & Plum St ...........................54 Figure 24: Parking Management Focus Areas .................................................................................................56 Figure 25: Car Share .........................................................................................................................................................58 Figure 26: Bike Network .................................................................................................................................................60 Figure 27: Bike Share........................................................................................................................................................62 Figure 28: MMLOS Before/After: Bicycle. .............................................................................................................66 Figure 29: MMLOS Before/After: Pedestrian ......................................................................................................68 Figure 30: MMLOS Before/After: Vehicle..............................................................................................................70 Figure 31: 2016 Proposed Transit Routes ............................................................................................................78 Figure 32: Interim Improvements At-A-Glance ..............................................................................................82 Figure 33: Interim Design Transit Routes ............................................................................................................84 TABLE OF CONTENTS v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ES-1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................1 VISION, PURPOSE & NEED .....................................................................................................................5 Vision Statement ......................................................................................................................................................5 Project Purpose .........................................................................................................................................................6 Statement of Project Need ................................................................................................................................7 PLAN DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................................9 Community Engagement ..................................................................................................................................9 Technical Process .................................................................................................................................................. 11 RECOMMENDED DESIGN..................................................................................................................... 13 Recommended Design Elements by Mode ........................................................................................ 16 Recommended Design Graphics ............................................................................................................... 24 Urban Design & Planning for Redevelopment ................................................................................... 40 Recommendations for Other Streets ....................................................................................................... 52 Other Network Considerations .................................................................................................................... 52 Fulfilling the Project Vision .............................................................................................................................. 64 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................ 73 Recommended Design Phasing ................................................................................................................. 73 Cost Estimates & Funding Sources ............................................................................................................ 86 Tracking Performance ........................................................................................................................................ 90 NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................................................... 93 Further Planning ................................................................................................................................................... 94 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 95 Appendix A: Vision, Purpose & Need Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary Appendix C: Corridor Understanding Report Appendix D: Alternatives Analysis Summary Appendix E: Conceptual Designs of Recommended Design & Interim Design Appendix F: Responding to the Project Need Appendix G: Traffic Operations Calculations Appendix H: Cost Estimates Summary and Methodology Appendix I: Maintenance Considerations Appendix J: Final Design Considerations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. CONTENTS table of THE WEST ELIZABETH ETC PLAN HAS A SPECIAL FOCUS ON AD- DRESSING EXISTING DEFICIENCIES, SUCH AS INADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICE FOR THE AREA’S DEMANDS, INCOMPLETE BIKE AND PEDESTRI- AN NETWORKS, AND HIGHER THAN EXPECTED NUMBERS OF CRASHES IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. vi WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 The West Elizabeth corridor is identified as one of several future Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) in the City’s Transportation Master Plan (2011). Each ETC will have a planning document that provides a roadmap to achieve a long-term multimodal vision for the corridor. The focus of the plan is to emphasize transit, biking and walking in a way the serves existing and future transportation and land use needs of each area. The West Elizabeth ETC plan has a special focus on addressing existing deficiencies, such as inadequate transit service for the area’s demands, incomplete bike and pedestrian networks, and higher than expected numbers of crashes in certain locations. This document details the plan to improve upon and emphasize transit, biking and walking in the West Elizabeth Corridor. The Corridor is defined as West Elizabeth Street between Overland Trail and Shields Street, as well as segments of Plum Street, Constitution Avenue, and City Park Avenue. The study area also includes the surrounding network to address connections with the CSU Foothills Campus on the west, the CSU Main Campus on the east, and the rest of the community. project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-2 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN STUDY AREA Campus West EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-3 The West Elizabeth ETC Plan was developed through a combination of community engagement and rigorous technical analysis to inform decision-making. The project was guided by a set of principles that included:  An emphasis on high-frequency transit, biking and walking to help accommodate growth (per the ETC definition)  Work within the existing Public Right-of-Way (ROW) as much as possible  Incorporate potential phasing from the beginning of the design development  Learn from the evaluation to understand the trade-offs and make further refinements to the design The plan was developed through a community-driven, context- sensitive process that occurred in 2015 -16. The planning effort included:  The development of a community-driven Vision for the West Elizabeth Corridor  A context-sensitive Recommended Design designed to meet the Vision  Phasing of Improvements to achieve the Recommended Design, including Interim Improvements addressing high-need issues in the near-term  An Implementation Strategy that includes cost estimates and potential funding sources  Other Network Considerations for the study area, such as the larger bicycle facility network and parking Vision A Vision was developed for the West Elizabeth Corridor to define the long-term desired outcome from the West Elizabeth ETC Plan. The Vision for the West Elizabeth Corridor is that it shall:  Be unique and adaptable to the distinctive characteristics of each corridor segment  Be safe and comfortable for all users  Encourage and prioritize public ES-4 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT HIGHLIGHTS:  A Stakeholder Committee made up of residents, property owners, students and other corridor stakeholders that met five times throughout the duration of the project  Surveys (intercept, paper, text and Web-based)  Community Open Houses in August 2015, December 2015 and June 2016  Focus groups with business owners, multifamily property management, CSU facilities and administration, and alternative transportation advocates  Neighborhood transit, bicycling and walking tours  An Open Streets event in June 2015  Listening sessions  An online WikiMap MARCH-JULY 2015 PHASE 1:  Project Start Up  Corridor Understanding JULY 2015-JAN 2016 PHASE 2:  Visioning  Design Approach Development  Design Approach Evaluation JAN-APRIL 2016 PHASE 3:  Recommended Design  Implementation Planning APRIL-OCT 2016 PHASE 4:  Draft Master Plan  Adoption Process COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-5 ES-6 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Recommended Design At-A-Glance The Recommended Design includes enhancement for all modes. Key elements are depicted in the figure below and listed in the table on the following page. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-7 ES-8 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN For People Biking For People Driving  Protected or buffered bike lanes  Intersection treatments including green colored paint in conflict zones, two stage turn queue boxes and the pilot of a protected intersection  New or upgraded north-south crossings  Bike lane accommodations through bus stop islands  Safety improvements at locations with a demonstrated crash history  Four travel lanes in busiest segment and center turn lanes and medians throughout the corridor  Traffic calming through medians, separated facilities for other modes, and management of access to businesses  Roundabout at West Elizabeth/ Overland Trail For People Walking or Using Mobility Devices For People Riding Transit  Complete, ADA-compliant sidewalks  New or upgraded north-south crossings  Premium, high-frequency transit service on West Elizabeth Street connecting to Downtown  Transit Signal Priority (TSP)  Innovative bus stop islands  CSU Foothills Campus Transit Station and Park-n-Ride Recommended Design Key Elements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-9 Phasing of Improvements Construction of the Recommended Design improvements has been planned to take place in phases so that major deficiencies could be addressed without the need to wait for full funding to become available. This smaller set of near-term (“interim”) improvements includes providing more adequate transit service and filling in gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks. The phased approach described in the Plan is designed to use public funds wisely and efficiently; specifically, the interim design was done with the longer-term Recommended Design in mind with the idea that constructing near-term improvements in the same place as future improvements would minimize potential throw-away costs.  Transit service and amenity improvements  Completion of the bike network  Completion of the sidewalk network (minimum standards)  Tweak to improve upon the existing transit service  Skyline crossing relocation/improvement  High-frequency transit service  Protected/buffered bike lanes and protected intersection  Enhance pedestrian network (detached sidewalks)  Roundabout at Overland and access management improvements  Upgraded and new north-south crossings PROPOSED FOR 2016 INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED DESIGN  BRT-like transit service  Changes in the Campus West Area WHAT IF CAMPUS WEST REDEVELOPS? COST ESTIMATES <$ $$ $$$$$ ES-10 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Recommended Design Cross Section Key Elements An annotated cross-section of the Recommended Design that describes key elements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-11 ES-12 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Interim Improvements At-A-Glance The proposed interim improvements are depicted in the figure below. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-13 ES-14 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Implementation Strategy The Plan sets forth a phased strategy for implementing the recommended corridor improvements, depending upon funding availability.  The first set of improvements will be implemented in August 2016 with tweaks to the transit routes serving the study area, some ADA- related bus stop improvements, and the relocation and upgrade of the bike/pedestrian crossing of West Elizabeth near Skyline using existing budgets.  Interim Improvements would focus on the major deficiencies identified above. Ideally these improvements would occur within 2-5 years. To that end, the improvements were submitted to be included in the City’s 2017-18 budget; the budget is developed through a competitive process and will not be finalized until Fall 2016.  The Recommended Design is the long-term Vision for the corridor. The improvements were generally planned for a ten- to fifteen-year time-frame, though the actual timing is dependent on funding availability. If funding is secured sooner, the Recommended Design could be realized sooner. The Recommended Design also includes planning concepts that would come into play if the Campus West area1 redevelops. With Campus West redevelopment, additional design elements (e.g., enhanced bike and pedestrian facilities) are planned, as well as the implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit-style service on West Elizabeth connecting directly to MAX. The timing of this part of the Recommended Design will depend on private property owners’ interest in redeveloping over time. Other Network Considerations The Plan includes other network considerations, such as:  Parking  Car Share  Bicycle Network  Bike Share 1. Campus West is generally the area along West Elizabeth between City Park Avenue and Shields Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-15 Next Steps Key next steps to take after the adoption of this plan include:  Complete 35 percent design of the Recommended Design, including a survey of the corridor, a drainage study and a utility study, to develop a more refined cost estimate for the corridor and any incremental projects for which the City may pursue funding.  Inform the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the corridor’s longterm plan by conducting a field review with FTA Region 8 staff.  Complete a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process of the Recommended Design based on FTA recommendations.  Apply for incremental projects that are a part of the Recommended Design through appropriate funding sources, including Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP).  Apply for large-scale projects, possibly the entire Recommended Design, as a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant. As shown by previously selected projects, it is common to submit three or more application submittals for TIGER discretionary grants before a project is selected.  Update Master Street Plan to show segment of West Elizabeth between City Park Avenue and Taft Hill Road as Arterial 2 Lanes (instead of Arterial 4 Lanes).  Incorporate relevant changes into CSU Master Plans.  Explore strategies to support transit-oriented development in the Campus West area, including potential code changes, parking strategies, funding support and improvement districts that support market conditions.  Coordinate with the Pedestrian Program and Bridge Replacement/ Maintenance Program to widen the bridge on Plum Street west of City Park Avenue to complete the bike lane and sidewalk through this stretch.  Monitor the demands at the locations for the recommended enhanced pedestrian/bike crossings. Evaluation will be done using the criteria for implementing enhanced crossings found in the City’s Pedestrian Plan to determine if and when installation of the crossings are appropriate. “ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS (ETCS) ARE UNIQUELY DESIGNED CORRIDORS THAT ARE PLANNED TO INCORPORATE HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT, BICYCLING AND WALKING AS PART OF THE CORRIDOR. ETCS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT HIGH QUALITY ECONOMIC DEVELOP- MENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MIXED USE, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOP- MENT AND SUPPORT FORT COLLINS’ ACTIVE LIFESTYLES AND ENVIRON- MENTAL STEWARDSHIP GOALS.” INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1 The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan includes a Vision, Recommended Design and implementa- tion plan for a study area that includes West Elizabeth Street and nearby roadways. The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is the result of applying the Enhanced Travel Corridor definition and concept to West Elizabeth Street. It was developed through a community driven, context sensitive process that occurred in 2015 and 2016. In some cases, Recommended Design elements of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan are similar to design elements seen elsewhere in Fort Collins. However, in many cases the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan’s Recommended Design elements are truly unique. The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan includes:  The corridor’s Vision, Purpose and Need  The corridor’s Recommended Design  An implementation strategy for the Recommended Design including a phasing strategy, cost estimates, funding sources and other considerations INTRODUCTION section 1 2 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 1: West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Study Area: The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan study area includes West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to Overland Trail, portions of Constitution Avenue, Plum Street and City Park Avenue, the CSU Main Campus and CSU Foothills Campus and nearby neighborhoods. å å å å Polaris ELS Fort Collins Preschool Association Bauder Elementary Poudre Senior High City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN To CSU Foothills Campus Study Area Includes CSU Foothills Campus RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CONSTITUTION AVE CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL !( MAX Stations MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor Study Area City Boundary INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 3 å å å Bennett Elementary Children's Workshop Dunn Elementary CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex UV MAX CSU Transit Center !( T Through CSU Main Campus to MAX S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST THE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR WILL FOSTER EXISTING BUSINESS AND FUTURE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE GROW- ING NUMBER AND DIVERSITY OF USERS. THE CORRIDOR WILL BE AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND RE- LIABLE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR WITH A FOCUS ON IMPROVING TRANSIT, BIKING AND WALKING. 4 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN VISION, PURPOSE & NEED VISION, PURPOSE & NEED 5 The Vision is the long term anticipated outcome of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan’s implementation. The Purpose defines the transportation problem being solved through implementation of the Plan and the role of the Plan in the problem solving process. The Need provides information to support the Purpose. Appendix A includes the detailed Vision, Purpose and Need. Key excerpts from the Vision, Purpose and Need are included below and are important to understanding the impetus of the Plan. VISION STATEMENT The Vision for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor is to be an easily accessible and reliable multimodal corridor with an emphasis on connectivity to Colorado State University’s Foothills Campus on the west and Colorado State University’s Main Campus (including MAX stations) on the east. The corridor will be well integrated and well connected within the City, with a focus on improving transit, biking and walking. The corridor will foster existing business and future infill and redevelopment to accommodate the growing number and diversity of users in the corridor, which include students, families and seniors. The network shall:  Be unique and adaptable to the distinctive characteristics of each corridor segment.  Be safe and comfortable for all users.  Encourage and prioritize public transportation and active transportation options.  Support the interconnectivity of all modes.  Be a beautiful and vibrant corridor. VISION, PURPOSE & NEED section 2 6 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN PROJECT PURPOSE The Purpose of the West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is to develop a corridor plan that will serve existing and future transportation demands, with a focus on multimodal transportation improvements. Anticipated growth is expected through infill projects (development of vacant or under used land parcels within existing urban areas) and redevelopment with increased density within and around the study area, thereby increasing travel demand. The goal of this Plan is to address the growing demand for transportation options by increasing and improving transit, bicycling and walking infrastructure and operations. Improvements shall provide users with highly efficient, reliable and frequent transit service as well as bicycling, walking, and driving options that are safe, comfortable, efficient and easy to use. Improvements will foster economic vitality through high quality and attractive facilities, while remaining committed to the long term fiscal responsibility of the City. Specifically, the Purpose is to:  Increase transit capacity, reliability and improve transit stop amenities to accommodate current demand and future growth in population, student enrollment, and travel demand.  Improve transit system connectivity to and from West Elizabeth Street, Colorado State University’s Main and Foothills Campuses, Downtown and other Transfort routes including MAX.  Improve pedestrian facilities for comfort, safety and accessibility throughout the corridor.  Improve bicycling facilities for ease, comfort and safety and to attract new riders.  Maintain vehicular mobility, improve safety and enhance access to commercial properties in the corridor.  Support the interconnectivity between travel modes. The goal of this Plan is to address the growing demand for transportation options by increasing and improving transit, bicycling and walking infrastructure and operations. Improvements shall provide users with highly efficient, reliable and frequent transit service as well as bicycling, walking, and driving options that are safe, comfortable, efficient and easy to use. VISION, PURPOSE & NEED VISION, PURPOSE & NEED 7 STATEMENT OF PROJECT NEED The specific needs to address in the corridor include:  Inability to support existing travel demands and anticipated growth, which will exacerbate existing deficiencies in transit service, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities and vehicle safety.  Inadequate transit service due primarily to insufficient system connectivity, low and inconsistent route frequencies, poor reliability, lack of capacity to serve current and future demands and lack of patron stop amenities.  Uncomfortable and incomplete pedestrian facilities and safety concerns due to inconsistent and missing sidewalks, as well as sidewalks that are not Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant; in addition, there are limited north/south crossing opportunities, and pedestrians experience significant delays crossing West Elizabeth Street.  Uncomfortable and inconsistent bicycle facilities and safety concerns due to incomplete bike lanes and inadequate intersection treatments. There is also a higher than expected number of bicycle- and vehicle-related crashes in several locations.  Vehicular mobility, safety and access concerns exist due to intersection and driveway turning conflicts, as well as queue spillback (traffic backed up at a left-turn lane, for example) at some signalized intersections.  Challenges connecting between modes for trips in the corridor including inadequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities to and at transit stops and parking challenges in the corridor. THE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN TOOK PLACE OVER APPROXIMATELY 18 MONTHS. STAKEHOLDERS IN- CLUDED RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS, BUSINESS OWNERS, STUDENTS AND OTHER COMMU- NITY STAKEHOLDERS. THEY WERE ENGAGED AND COLLABORATED WITH THROUGH A VARIETY OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND EVENTS. 8 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT 9 section 3 The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan was developed through a combination of community engagement and rigorous technical analysis to inform decision making. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan took place over approximately 18 months in 2015 and 2016. Stakeholders were prioritized from the start through a community driven process that engaged residents, property owners, business owners, students and other community stakeholders. These stakeholders were engaged through a variety of communication methods and events, including:  A Stakeholder Committee made up of residents, property owners, students and other corridor stakeholders that met five times throughout the duration of the project  Community Open Houses in August 2015, December 2015 and June 2016  Surveys (intercept, paper, text and Web-based)  Listening sessions  Focus groups with business owners, multifamily property management, CSU facilities and administration, and alternative transportation advocates  An online WikiMap  Neighborhood transit, bicycling and walking tours  An Open Streets event in June 2015 PLAN DEVELOPMENT 10 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Community feedback informed every aspect of this plan: the corridor’s Vision, Purpose and Need; the design alternatives developed and analyzed in developing a Recommended Design; and refinements to the Recommended Design to ensure that the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is supportable by the area’s stakeholders and broad community that uses West Elizabeth Street. Community Engagement -- Key Themes Identified During the public engagement process to gather input on the West Elizabeth Street corridor’s existing conditions, several common themes regarding the current experience of traveling in the corridor emerged. Below are key issues organized by transportation mode. For People Riding Transit  Overcrowded buses, people are left behind  Not enough bus stop amenities  Not enough service (e.g., late night, weekend, summer) For People Biking  Inconsistent facilities west of Taft Hill Road  Lots of driveway conflicts in Campus West  Challenging intersections (e.g., West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road, West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street)  High number of bicyclist crashes For People Walking or Using Mobility Devices  Inconsistent facilities, lack of sidewalks  Not comfortable  Largely not ADA-compliant  Hard to cross West Elizabeth Street at key intersections  Lack of sufficient midblock crossing opportunities For People Driving  Challenging to make left-turns to and from driveways  Conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists  Speeding  Sight distance issues Appendix B includes a summary of feedback received through community engagement. PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT 11 Technical Process A rigorous technical process informed the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan to ensure that the outcomes of the recommendations would result in meaningful and measurable benefits to the corridor. The technical process informed community engagement by reporting various performance measures related to the corridor’s Vision, Purpose and Need. Lastly, the technical process was completed in such a way to successfully position the City for available funding sources. Generally, the technical process included:  Developing a thorough understanding of the corridor’s existing conditions. Appendix C includes the Corridor Understanding Report.  Identifying the corridor’s Vision, Purpose and Need based on community engagement, the Transportation Master Plan’s definition of an Enhanced Travel Corridor and key findings from the Corridor Understanding Report.  Generating alternatives that responded to the Vision, Purpose and Need and explored the range of community values.  Analyzing alternatives using a variety of performance measures to understand how well individual alternatives (or alternative elements) responded to the Vision, Purpose and Need. Appendix D includes the alternatives analysis.  Developing a Recommended Design that incorporated the best performing elements from the alternatives analysis and refining the Recommended Design based on community feedback. MARCH-JULY 2015 PHASE 1:  Project Start Up  Corridor Understanding JULY 2015-JAN 2016 PHASE 2:  Visioning  Design Approach Development  Design Approach Evaluation JAN-APRIL 2016 PHASE 3:  Recommended Design  Implementation Planning APRIL-OCT 2016 PHASE 4:  Draft Master Plan  Adoption Process COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN ADDRESSES THE PROJECT’S VISION AND NEED BY IMPROVING CONDITIONS FOR PEOPLE RIDING TRANSIT, BIKING, WALKING AND DRIVING. IT KEEPS COST-EFFEC- TIVENESS, MINIMIZING IMPACT TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND PHASE IMPLEMENTATION AS KEY ELEMENTS. 12 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 13 The Recommended Design defines the long term vision for the transportation network the in West Elizabeth Street corridor, including transit service and multimodal improvements. The Recommended Design will further guide infill and redevelopment and future capital improvement in the area. The Recommended Design for West Elizabeth Street was developed specifically to fulfill the project’s Vision and to respond to its Purpose and Need. Additionally, three key principles guided the Recommended Design’s development: 1. The Recommended Design should meet the project’s Vision, Purpose and Need in a cost-effective manner. 2. The Recommended Design should minimize impacts to private property owners (including limiting right-of-way acquisition). 3. The Recommended Design should be implementable in phases and minimize throwaway costs. The Plan proposes implementation of the Recommended Design in three main phases. The actual implementation of improvements will depend upon funding availability. In addition, the Recommended Design includes considerations for redevelopment, particularly in Campus West. RECOMMENDED DESIGN section 4 14 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 2: Recommended Design At-a-Glance: The Recommended Design includes a variety of multimodal improvements to fulfill the corridor’s Vision. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 15 16 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDED DESIGN ELEMENTS BY MODE For People Riding Transit The transit elements of the Recommended Design intend to improve the capacity, reliability and simplicity of transit service in the West Elizabeth Street study area, including both transit operational changes and transit- related infrastructure Transit Operations The Recommended Design’s proposed transit operations include five key transit routes: Route 3 – West Elizabeth Street Route: a cross town route that will run along West Elizabeth Street from the CSU Foothills Campus Equine Center, along West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street, through the CSU Main Campus, to the CSU Transit Center and continuing to Downtown Fort Collins and the Downtown Transit Center via Mason Street. Route 3 will provide a one seat ride for passengers from West Elizabeth Street to Downtown Fort Collins. Route 31 – Plum Street Route: a circulator route that will operate similar to the existing Route 31 from the CSU Transit Center to Campus West via West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street. Route 2 – West Prospect Road Route: a radial route that will run along Prospect Road from Overland Trail to Lake Street/College Avenue. The HORN – a circulator that will serve destinations throughout the CSU Main Campus and CSU Veterinary School, similar to the existing HORN The CSU Foothills Campus Shuttle – a circulator that will connect destinations within the CSU Foothills Campus off of Rampart Road and off of Laporte Avenue. KEY ELEMENTS FOR PEOPLE RIDING TRANSIT:  Premium, high-frequency transit service on West Elizabeth Street connecting to Downtown  Transit Signal Priority (TSP)  Innovative bus stop islands  CSU Foothills Campus Transit Station and Park-n-Ride RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 17 Table 1 shows frequency, hours and vehicle types for the transit routes in the study area when CSU is in session; route frequencies are likely to be reduced during periods when CSU is out of session. Route 3, Route 31 and the HORN are expected to be the most productive routes in the study area. Therefore, frequencies on these routes will be high to increase the number of passengers the system can move and to minimize passenger wait times. With 10 minute or less frequencies Route 3, Route 31 and the HORN will all operate frequently enough that passengers do not need to consult a schedule prior to planning their trip. All of the routes will use standard Transfort buses, with the exception of the CSU Foothills Campus Shuttle, which will use a 25 passenger shuttle bus. Table 1: Transit Route Frequency & Vehicles Types Route Frequency Hours Vehicle Type 2 AM-PM Peak: 15 minutes Evening: 30 minutes 7 AM – 10 PM Standard Transfort buses 3 AM-PM Peak: 10 minutes Evening: 30 minutes 7 AM – 10 PM Standard Transfort buses 31 AM-PM Peak: 5 minutes Evening: 10 minutes 7 AM – 7 PM Standard Transfort buses HORN AM-PM Peak: 10 minutes Evening: 20 minutes 6:30 AM – 8 PM Standard Transfort buses CSU Foothills Campus Shuttle All day: 30 minutes 7 AM – 7 PM 25 passenger shuttle bus 18 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Transit Infrastructure Transit Signal Priority (TSP) will be added to signalized intersections throughout the study area, in locations where possible and beneficial to transit operations. Transit Signal Priority reduces delay at traffic signals by holding green lights longer for approaching buses, giving the buses a higher priority at the intersection. Transit Signal Priority will be added in the east- west directions at the following intersections: West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road, West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue, and Plum Street/Shields Street. Transit Signal Priority will also be added to the Laurel Street/Meldrum Street intersection for the new Route 3, which will connect West Elizabeth Street to Downtown Fort Collins via the CSU Transit Center. The Recommended Design includes innovative bus stop islands that have recently been installed successfully in progressive transit cities such as Seattle and Denver. In some cases the bus islands allow buses to stop in the travel lane while passengers board, which eliminates bus delay waiting to re-enter the travel lane. Bus stop islands that allow buses to stop in the travel lane are less impactful to adjacent private property compared to bus stop islands with pullouts. Generally, the Recommended Design includes bus stop islands that allow buses to stop in the travel lane although bus stop islands with pullouts are recommended at Skyline Drive. Other benefits of the bus stop islands are that they allow for passengers to get on and off the buses from both doors, which minimizes bus dwell time at each stop and allows people biking to pass to the right of the passenger boarding area rather than having to merge into the travel lane to pass the bus. Unique design elements, such as a raised pedestrian crossing across the bike lane or strategically placed planter bollards, will minimize the potential for conflicts between people biking and people walking, or using mobility devises, from the bus to the sidewalks. Bus stop islands will feature typical amenities such as signage, shelters, benches, trash cans and bike racks. Should Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-style service eventually be implemented on the corridor, the bus stop islands are sufficiently large for future passenger amenities including enhanced shelters, benches, bike racks and kiosks. A Park-n-Ride at the CSU Foothills Campus Equine Center will take advantage of the 720 space parking lot that is nearly empty on most days. The Park-n-Ride will include a transit station south of the Equine Center with space for passenger boarding and space for buses to layover between routes, if needed. Students, faculty and staff from areas in west Fort Collins bound for CSU Main Campus can park at the Park-n-Ride and ride the bus to the CSU Main Campus. At the CSU Transit Center, minor modifications to Plum Street south of Allison Hall will allow Route 3 buses to drop-off and pick-up passengers at the CSU Transit Center without circulating through the transit center itself. RECOMMENDED DESIGN Bottom Left: A two-stage turn queue box allows people biking to turn left in two stages without crossing multiple travel lanes Bottom Right: A buffered bike lane provides a painted buffer between the bike lane and travel lane Top Right: A protected bike lane provides a raised curb between the bike lane and travel lane RECOMMENDED DESIGN 19 For People Biking Consistent with the recommendations of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan (2014). The Recommended Design includes one-way protected bike lanes and buffered bike lanes on West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to Overland Trail. In locations where adequate space for protection exists the protection will consist of a raised KEY ELEMENTS FOR PEOPLE BIKING:  Protected or buffered bike lanes  Intersection treatments including green colored paint in conflict zones, two stage turn queue boxes and the pilot of a protected intersection  New or upgraded north-south crossings  Bike lane accommodations through bus stop islands 20 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN curb or other treatment to be determined in Final Design. In locations where there is not adequate space for protection there will be a painted buffer between the bike lane and the travel lane. Various intersection treatments are recommended to make turning movements easier for people bicycling as well as to improve safety. Green colored pavement will be used in conflict zones where people bicycling have the right of way. Two-stage turn queue boxes will be used at signalized intersections so that people biking do not have to cross multiple travel lanes to access a left-turn lane. The Recommended Design also includes the pilot of a protected intersection at the West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection. The protected intersection features corner refuge islands that provide increased separation between vehicles and bicyclists, put the bicyclist stop bar ahead of the vehicle stop bar, set back the bicyclist crossings approximately one car length from the adjacent travel lane and allow for two-stage left-turns and free bicyclist right-turns. The Recommended Design further implements the City’s Bicycle Plan by providing a variety of north-south crossing treatments, including the protected intersection at City Park Avenue and on street bikeways on Constitution Avenue. Skyline Drive, on which a neighborhood greenway is proposed, is expected to be improved in summer 2016 with either a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (the crosswalk across Laurel Street at Sherwood Street is a local example of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (the crosswalk across Taft Hill Road a Blevins Middle School is a local example of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon) at the West Elizabeth Street/Skyline Drive intersection to make crossing West Elizabeth Street safer and more comfortable. Ponderosa Drive is recommended to be improved in the future with enhancements for bicyclists such as medians that allow for people bicycling to cross West Elizabeth Street in two stages. As described earlier, bus stop islands along the West Elizabeth Street corridor will allow people biking to pass to the right of the passenger boarding area. When buses are stopped, people biking will not have to merge into travel lanes to go around them. Unique design elements at the bus island stops will minimize the potential for conflicts between people biking and people walking, or using mobility devises, from the bus to the sidewalks. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 21 For People Walking or Using Mobility Devices KEY ELEMENTS FOR PEOPLE WALKING OR USING MOBILITY DEVICES  Complete, ADA- compliant sidewalks  New or upgraded north-south crossings Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are user-actuated amber LEDs that use a flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is a user-actuated beacon that uses amber and red beacons to increase drivers’ awareness of pedestrian crossings. constructed near the Woodbridge Senior Apartments with a median and a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (the crosswalk across Laurel Street at Sherwood Street is a local example of a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon). The existing crosswalk at Castlerock Drive will be relocated to Skyline Drive and upgraded to feature either a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. Two future crossings will also be added once demand justifies their installation per the crossing policy in the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan: one at Ponderosa Drive and another at Rocky Road/Azuro Drive. Lastly, the Recommended Design includes a roundabout at Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street. The Recommended Design will complete the sidewalk network on West Elizabeth Street. In most cases, new sidewalks will be detached with landscaping separating the clear sidewalk width from the adjacent travel lanes. In Campus West sidewalks will include an amenity zone for tree grates, street lighting, bike parking and other amenities separating the clear sidewalk width from adjacent travel lanes. In some cases where private property would be significantly impacted by the 22 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 23 KEY ELEMENTS FOR PEOPLE DRIVING:  Safety improvements at locations with a demonstrated crash history  Four travel lanes in busiest segment and center turn lanes and medians throughout the corridor  Traffic calming through medians, separated facilities for other modes, and management of access to businesses  Roundabout at West Elizabeth/ Overland Trail For People Driving The Recommended Design maintains four travel lanes with turn lanes on West Elizabeth Street’s busiest segment between Shields Street and City Park Avenue. Between City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth Street will transition to two travel lanes with a two-way left-turn lane. This three lane cross section will continue to Overland Trail with medians in certain locations where street and driveway access allow. The Recommended Design includes a variety of design elements to improve safety at locations with a demonstrated crash history. In most cases access management in Campus West will allow for right- turns and left-turns into driveways and right-turns out of driveways. Left-turns out of driveways, which are a common cause of crashes in Campus West, will be prohibited between Shields Street and City Park Avenue. West of Taft Hill Road, access management will allow for right-turns and left-turns into and out of the King Soopers driveway. Driveways on the north side of West Elizabeth Street will be right-in/right-out. Lastly, a roundabout at Overland Trail will calm traffic on Overland Trail itself and improve the ease of turning onto and off of West Elizabeth Street. West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street Intersection Prior to and separate from the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan, the City and CSU entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) addressing various CSU on-campus stadium impacts to nearby City streets. The IGA includes requirements for at-grade improvements at the intersection of West Elizabeth Street and Shields Street and identifies the potential for a grade-separated crossing of Shields Street to help accommodate bicycle and pedestrian movements across Shields Street. Since the IGA’s approval, CSU and the City have been working on the design for the at- grade improvements and have completed a feasibility study for the grade-separated crossing. The at-grade improvements and underpass are now in design, a neighborhood meeting has been held and additional opportunities for public input will be provided as the process moves forward. Due to the overlapping timing of the IGA efforts and the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan, and since the goals of each effort are generally in alignment, the detailed design for the West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street intersection has been left to the IGA team. As such, the Recommended Design for the West Elizabeth Street corridor does not include the design for this area, and instead notes various considerations that should be taken in to account as the design moves toward finalization. These considerations include: business access, driveway crossings and connections to the midblock crossing in Campus West. The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan project team will continue to participate in the design work for this intersection to ensure that the final plans fit together well and the goals of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan are carried forward. RECOMMENDED DESIGN GRAPHICS The following figures depict the Recommended Design for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor. The first two figures (Figures 3 and 4) are photosimulations that provide perspectives to people walking or using mobility devices. These are followed by the Recommended Design Cross Sections (Figures 5-8). The next set of figures provide an aerial view of the corridor depicting the differing design conditions by each segment and highlighting major intersections (Figures 9-16). The last graphic in this section is the transit route alignments proposed for the Recommended Design (Figure 17). 24 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 25 Figure 3: Photo simulation of West Elizabeth Street east of Skyline Drive: A photo simulation of the Recommended Design as seen looking east from Skyline Drive with protected bike lanes, parkways and sidewalks, and planted median. Photosimulation - West Elizabeth Protected Bike Lane and Enhanced Median 26 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 4: Photo simulation of West Elizabeth Street and City Park Avenue: A photo simulation of the Recommended Design as seen at West Elizabeth Street and City Park Avenue with a protected bicycle intersection including corner safety islands, planter pots, pedestrian crosswalks and bike lanes. Photosimulation - City Park Ave. and West Elizabeth Protected Intersection RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 27 Figure 5: Recommended Design Cross Sections: A cross-section of the Recommended Design between Overland Trail and Cypress Drive. Figure 6: Recommended Design Cross Sections: A cross-section of the Recommended Design between Cypress Drive and Ponderosa Drive. Figure 7: Recommended Design Cross Sections: A cross-section of the Recommended Design between Taft Hill Road and City Park Avenue In commercial areas on the south side of West Elizabeth Street between approximately City Park Avenue and Consitution Avenue it may be more appropriate to replace the tree lawn parkway with a paved amenity zone. . 28 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 29 RECOMMENDED DESIGN Figure 8: Recommended Design Cross Sections: A cross-section of the Recommended Design between City Park Avenue and Shields Street. This cross-section assumes existing right-of-way; another cross-section that addresses redevelopment is described in the Plannning for Redevelopment Section of this report. 30 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 9: Recommended Design Corridor Segments Overland Trail to Ponderosa Drive OVERLAND TRAIL CUERTO LANE TIERRA LANE ANDREWS PEAK DRIVE CSU EQUINE CENTER Figure 10: Recommended Design Corridor Segments: Ponderosa Drive to Taft Hill Road PONDEROSA DR KING SOOPERS AZURO DRIVE TIMBER LANE CYPRESS DRIVE PONDEROSA DRIVE RECOMMENDED DESIGN TAFT HILL ROAD MEADOWBROOK DRIVE RECOMMENDED DESIGN 31 32 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 11: Recommended Design Corridor Segments: Taft Hill Road to City Park Avenue TAFT HILL DRIVE MEADOWBROOK DRIVE GLENMOOR DRIVE CRAGMORE DRIVE CASTLEROCK DRIVE SKYLINE DIRVE Figure 12: Recommended Design Corridor Segments: City Park Avenue to Shields Street CITY PARK AVENUE CONSTITUTION DRIVE CITY PARK AVENUE RECOMMENDED DESIGN SHIELDS STREET Potential Underpass Under Consideration (Designed by Others and not yet Detailed or Complete) Known Critical Issues to be Addressed Include: • Business Access • Driveway Crossings • Connections to Mid-Block Crossing RECOMMENDED DESIGN 33 In commercial areas on the south side of West Elizabeth Street between approximately City Park Avenue and Consitution Avenue it may be more appropriate to replace the tree lawn parkway with a paved amenity zone.. 34 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 13: An aerial view of the Recommended Design at Overland Trail. OVERLAND TRAIL WEST ELIZABETH STREET INTERSECTIONS aerial views RECOMMENDED DESIGN Figure 14: An aerial view of the Recommended Design at Taft Hill Road. TAFT HILL ROAD RECOMMENDED DESIGN 35 36 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 15: An aerial view of the Recommended Design at Constitution Avenue. CONSTITUTION DRIVE WEST ELIZABETH STREET INTERSECTIONS (CONTINUED) aerial views RECOMMENDED DESIGN 37 RECOMMENDED DESIGN Figure 16: An aerial view of the Recommended Design at City Park Avenue. CITY PARK AVENUE 38 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 17: Recommended Design Transit Routes: The Recommended Design’s transit service will be frequent and provide premium amenities for transit patrons. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 39 40 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING FOR REDEVELOPMENT Planning for redevelopment, particularly in Campus West, ensures that the corridor is adaptable to future changes. Planning for redevelopment in Campus West is focused between Shields Street and City Park Avenue and assumes that the Recommended Design is otherwise complete on the corridor. Land Use and Built Form Existing properties have already begun to redevelop and additional redevelopment is likely in the future. The existing Land Use Code regulations set the stage for redevelopment that is intended to create a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, mixed use commercial district. A variety of elements will contribute to this environment. Buildings will be multistory and oriented toward the street with parking behind. The buildings will feature a combination of public spaces such as courtyards, corner plazas, paseos or raised terraces. This plan is consistent with the Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report (2001) recommending additional north-south connectivity toward Plum Street and University Avenue to break up the large blocks and improve the walkability to nearby destinations off of West Elizabeth Street. Currently in the study area residential land uses are focused on Plum Street and commercial land uses are focused on West Elizabeth Street. Currently transit service in the study area is significantly influenced by home-to-school trips and is therefore focused on Plum Street. As Campus West redevelops, West Elizabeth Street may become the epicenter of both commercial and residential activity in the area. Such land uses would generate more diverse trip types using the transit system and may justify shifting the focus of transit service from Plum Street to West Elizabeth Street. Once land use patterns resulting in more diverse trip types are apt to occur on West Elizabeth Street, expansion of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-style transit to West Elizabeth Street may be viable. Bus Rapid Transit-Style Service on West Elizabeth Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a rapid transit mode that combines various physical, operating and system elements into a permanently integrated system with a quality image and unique identity. In Fort Collins MAX is an example of a service that features many of the elements typical of BRT, including dedicated right-of- way, specially designed stations and unique vehicles. BRT-style service on West Elizabeth Street would operate similar to MAX, though not in a dedicated right-of-way, running along West Elizabeth Street from the CSU Foothills Campus Equine Center Park-n-Ride, through the CSU Main Campus (generally parallel to University Avenue), to Mason Street and continuing to Downtown Fort Collins and the Downtown Transit Center. Similar to Route 3, BRT-style service on Elizabeth Street would operate at 10 minute frequencies during the AM peak, midday and PM peak. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 41 In addition to supportive land use on West Elizabeth Street, BRT-style service will be most direct if it uses an alignment central to the CSU Main Campus generally parallel to University Avenue. Through the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan, CSU indicated that support does not currently exist for such an alignment. However, the City should continue to work with CSU to understand if support for this alignment may exist in the future. In the event that supportive land use forms on West Elizabeth Street without support from CSU for an alignment generally parallel to University Avenue, the City and CSU may choose to implement an interim BRT-style service on Plum Street. A variety of BRT-supporting elements can be implemented once transit service is upgraded on West Elizabeth Street, including: branding, articulated buses, styled transit stations with shelters and seating, off board fare payment technologies and passenger information and wayfinding. Off board fare payment, whether with ticket machines or future ticketless technologies, would significantly reduce bus dwell time at stops as it would allow for all door boarding. Each of these elements can be designed with a unique style to match that of the West Elizabeth Street corridor while still unifying the Transfort brand. Other Infrastructure Redevelopment and its resulting changes to the built form create a real opportunity to effect transportation infrastructure change in Campus West. Specifically, once properties are assembled and parceled, buildings can be located with regularly spaced, consolidated access points. Right-of-way can be dedicated on both sides of West Elizabeth Street to accommodate 12 foot sidewalks with a 10 foot amenity zone as currently identified in the Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report (2001). Protected bike lanes, previously infeasible in Campus West due to the frequent spacing of driveways, can be constructed. And, a BRT stop can be provided midblock by relocating the existing midblock crosswalk. Other design considerations may include elements to improve environmental sustainability, such as bioswales built into parkways or center medians to help improve the water quality from runoff generated in the area. The 16th Street Mall in Denver is an example of a roadway that successfully mixes transit vehicles with people walking or using mobility devices. 42 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Urban Design As a part of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan’s community engagement, an effort was made to understand what the community felt was the overriding character of the corridor. While there was not a strong consensus regarding the overall theme for West Elizabeth Street, many community engagement participants generally identified the corridor’s already artful, unique feel which was attributed to the existing eclectic urban design and public art installations on the corridor (such as the foundations on street light poles in Campus West). Many community engagement participants also thought it would be appropriate to distinguish the design of Campus West from the CSU Main Campus. Figure 18: Urban Design Elements: Artful urban design elements will create a cohesive look and feel for the corridor. Lighting Seating Walls Wayfinding & Placemaking Elements RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 43 Planters Transit Shelters Bike Racks Covered Bike Parking 44 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 19: Planning for Redevelopment Cross Section: A cross-section of the Recommended Design that plans for redevelopment between City Park Avenue and Shields Street. NEW CROSS-SECTION 98’ (COMPARED TO 102’ STANDARD) City Park Avenue to Shields Street - Recommended Design With Redevelopment AVERAGE EXISTING CROSS-SECTION 92’ 2’ Raised Median RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 45 Existing Condition in Campus West 46 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 20: Planning for Redevelopment Conceptual Design. An aerial view of the Recommended Design that plans for redevelopment in Campus West. Key elements include: Buildings closer to the street, parking behind or underneath buildings (possibly structured), consolidated driveway access and a pedestrian spine connecting up to Plum Street and down to University Avenue. CITY PARK AVENUE Existing Development Parking (potentially structured) RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 47 SHIELDS STREET Parking (potentially structured) Parking (potentially structured) Potential Underpass Under Consideration (Designed by Others and not yet Detailed or Complete) Known Critical Issues to be Addressed Include: • Business Access • Driveway Crossings • Connections to Mid-Block Crossing 48 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 21: Planning for Redevelopment Urban Design. With redevelopment, new buildings on Campus West will feature a variety of privately-owned public spaces such as courtyards, raised terraces, corner plazas and paseos. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 49 50 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 22: Planning for Redevelopment Transit Routes: Redevelopment in the corridor will be a catalyst for BRT-style transit service. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 51 Through the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan, CSU indicated that support does not currently exist for such an alignment. However, the City should continue to work with CSU to understand if support for this alignment may exist in the future. In the event that supportive land use forms on West Elizabeth Street without support from CSU for an alignment generally parallel to University Avenue, the City and CSU may choose to implement an interim BRT-style service on Plum Street. 52 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Recommendations recognize that study area roadways operate as a system and also includes elements on Constitution Avenue and Plum Street. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER STREETS Constitution Avenue & Plum Street For people biking, the Recommended Design for Constitution Avenue and Plum Street from West Elizabeth Street to Shields Street includes buffered bike lanes, consistent with the recommendations of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan (2014). West of City Park Avenue, an existing canal bridge is too narrow for both bike lanes and sidewalks. The Recommended Design includes the widening of this bridge to provide for continuous buffered bike lanes. Additionally, there are occasional obstructions in the sidewalk on Plum Street (including streetlight poles) and segments with narrow sidewalks that are not ADA-compliant; these obstructions would be removed as a part of the Recommended Design, and sidewalks would be upgraded through redevelopment to the benefit of people walking. OTHER NETWORK CONSIDERATIONS Parking As transit is improved along West Elizabeth Street, there may be an increase in unintended park-n-ride activity in nearby neighborhoods and surface parking. This effect has been realized on the Mason Street corridor with the implementation of MAX. Recent increases in parking permit prices at CSU may further increase the likelihood of unintended park-and- ride activity. At the same time, CSU has invested over $1 million in biking, walking, and transit in an effort to reduce parking demand. While the new Park-n-Ride at the CSU Foothills Campus Equine Center will, in part, alleviate demand for unintended park-and-ride activity by creating a formal area for it, additional parking management practices may be necessary. A Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3) may be necessary to control parking within single family neighborhoods. For multifamily housing and commercial properties, a new parking district may be more appropriate. In a parking district, participating property owners would pay into a common fund used to implement a parking RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 53 management and enforcement strategy. The City may also incur some of the costs of such a management and enforcement strategy. Existing zoning can inform where a Residential Parking Permit Program or Parking District may be appropriate; however, the exact boundaries for such programs will change year to year as development occurs and land uses change. Car Share Additional car share in the West Elizabeth Street study will provide personalized mobility for a variety of situations, especially corridor residents who take public transit but need a car sometimes or corridor residents who occasionally need a second car. Car share reduces the need for residents of the corridor to own a car and makes it easier for corridor residents and visitors to primarily rely on other modes (including bicycling, transit and walking) and access a car for special occasions. Future focus areas for car share (i.e. areas in which car share will be more viable) include locations with high residential or employment density. Bicycle Network Through the development of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan, revisions to the full build bicycle network in the Bicycle Master Plan were identified. Specifically, a neighborhood greenway is now recommended on Skyline Drive south of West Elizabeth Street to connect the bike lanes north of West Elizabeth Street to Avery Park and the Springfield Drive neighborhood greenway. In addition, Plum Street provides a low-stress alternative to biking on West Elizabeth. Through this plan, it is now recommended to have buffered bike lanes with a connection through University Village to Skyline (implemented summer 2016) Bike Share Bike share launched in Fort Collins in April 2016, and the City has a Bike Share Business Plan for future expansion of the system. CSU desires 10 to 15 stations on its Main Campus but currently has no plans for stations at the CSU Foothills Campus. Additionally, three high quality locations for bike share stations were identified in the Bike Share Business Plan in the West Elizabeth Street study area: near the Plum Street/City Park Avenue intersection, in Campus West and near the commercial land uses at the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersection. 54 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 23: Recommended Design Cross Sections: Constitution Avenue and Plum Street Section: Plum Street/Constitution Avenue west of City Park Avenue Existing Existing 50’ RIGHT-OF-WAY RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 55 56 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 24: Parking Management Focus Areas: Parking management, either in the form of a Residential Parking Permit Program or a parking district, will help discourage undesired park-n-ride activity. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 57 58 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 25: Car Share: Additional car share in the corridor will provide additional mobility options without owning a car. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 59 60 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 26: Bike Network: The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is designed to integrate seamlessly with the citywide bicycle network. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 61 62 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 27: Bike Share: Bike share on the CSU Main Campus and on the West Elizabeth Street corridor will provide an additional mobility option in the area. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 63 64 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN FULFILLING THE PROJECT VISION The Recommended Design was specifically developed to the fulfill project Vision:  Be unique and adaptable to the distinctive characteristics of each corridor segment The Recommended Design is context sensitive proposing different treatments throughout the corridor. Examples include: Phased implementation – improvements are recommended to be phased-in over time and as properties redevelop to adapt to the changing demands in the corridor, including transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.) Bicycle facility design – protected and buffered bike lanes adapt to the context of the surrounding area. Sidewalk network – pedestrian facilities differ throughout the corridor to create a complete pedestrian network while minimizing impacts to private property. Travel lanes – the number of travel lanes in the corridor varies depending on traffic volumes.  Be safe and comfortable for all users The Recommended Design emphasizes safety and comfort by integrating the following improvements: Bus stop islands – convenient, easily accessible bus stops with enhanced amenities to improve patron comfort and safety. Bicycle facility design – protected or buffered bike lanes and the pilot of a protected intersection at West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue improve comfort and safety for people biking. North/south crossings – additional north/south crossings are recommended to improve the comfort and safety of crossing West Elizabeth Street. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 65 Street design – medians, parkways, pedestrian crossings and a roundabout are recommended to calm traffic and reduce conflict points between users.  Encourage and prioritize public transportation and active transportation options The Recommended Design encourages and prioritizes public transportation and active transportation options through the following treatments: Premium/high-frequency transit service – transit service is high-frequency with enhanced passenger amenities, including bus stop islands that help reduce bus dwell time and delay pulling back into traffic Protected/buffered bike lanes and bus stop islands – bicycling is encouraged by improved separation from vehicles via protected/buffered bike lanes and a bike lane behind bus stop islands Sidewalk network – the pedestrian environment is improved to help encourage more walking in the corridor  Support the interconnectivity of all modes The Recommended Design supports interconnectivity for all modes through the following: Improved bus stops – integration of bike parking and premium passenger amenities at stops make it easier to walk or bike to transit. Park-n-Ride and future parking considerations – a Park-n-Ride is recommended at the CSU Foothills Campus Equine Center to decrease the need for people driving from far away to park at CSU Main Campus. Additionally, a parking district is recommended at key areas in the corridor to decrease informal park-n-ride activity as transit service is enhanced.  Be a beautiful and vibrant corridor The Recommended Design provides for a beautiful and vibrant corridor through the following enhancements: Sidewalk network – the pedestrian environment is improved to include parkways with landscaping between the sidewalk and adjacent travel lanes. Street design – the street design includes medians with landscaping to help beautify the corridor. Urban design – unique, artful urban design elements will be incorporated into the public realm and the private realm. Redevelopment – future redevelopment in the Campus West area will provide privately-owned public spaces that foster 66 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 28: Multi-modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Before/After: Bicycle MMLOS for bicyclists significantly improves with implementation of the Recommended Design. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 67 68 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 29: Multi-modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Before/After: Pedestrian MMLOS for pedestrians significantly improves with implementation of the Recommended Design. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 69 70 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 30: Multi-modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Before/After: Motor Vehicle Vehicular Level of Service: Existing Volumes (2015) with Existing Conditions and Vehicular Level of Service: Existing Volumes (20 Level of Service for vehicles is maintained at a reasonable level with implementation of the Recommended Design. Appendix G includes detailed traffic operations calculations for 2015 and 2040 conditions. RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN 71 015) with Recommended Design. Potential Underpass Under Consideration (Designed by Others and not yet Detailed or Complete) Known Critical Issues to be Addressed Include: - Business Access - Driveway Crossings - Connectiions to Mid-Block Crossing THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN’S DEVELOPMENT IS IMPLE- MENTABLE IN THREE KEY PHASES. ADDITIONALLY, THE ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN IS PREPARED TO BE ADAPTABLE TO FUTURE CHANGES THAT MAY AFFECT THE CORRIDOR. 72 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 73 section 5 IMPLEMENTATION Implementing the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan will take many years. During this time, the City will implement early project phases, conduct further planning and environmental studies, refine the Recommended Design, and pursue a variety of funding sources. RECOMMENDED DESIGN PHASING A key principle that guided the Recommended Design’s development was that it should be implementable in phases. The plan for implementation of the Recommended Design presented here includes three main phases, although the Recommended Design may ultimately be implemented as multiple projects depending on the availability of funding. Additionally, the Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is prepared to be adaptable to future changes that may affect the corridor. 74 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Technical analysis and the public process helped shape the transit service changes, which are focused on the highest demand area of the corridor. The 2016 transit service includes new and modified routes as well as existing routes. The first phase includes transit service changes, bus stop consolidation and upgrades, and an improved bicycle/pedestrian crossing of West Elizabeth at Skyline; these changes were implemented starting in August 2016. The interim design implements elements that address the highest need, such as sidewalk and bike lane gap closures and additional transit service. This is the second phase. A budget offer in the City’s biennial budget process, Budgeting for Outcomes, for 2017-18 has been submitted to fund the interim design. The budget will be finalized in fall 2016; however, it cannot currently be guaranteed that the interim design will be included. Building upon the first and second phases, completion of the Recommended Design is the third phase. Because funding for further design and construction has not yet been secured, there is currently no estimate of when the Recommended Design will be complete. Planning for redevelopment, particularly in Campus West, ensures that the corridor is adaptable to future change. IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 75  Transit service and amenity improvements  Completion of the bike network  Completion of the sidewalk network (minimum standards)  Tweak to improve upon the existing transit service  Skyline crossing relocation/improvement  High-frequency transit service  Protected/buffered bike lanes and protected intersection  Enhance pedestrian network (detached sidewalks)  Roundabout at Overland and access management improvements  Upgraded and new north-south crossings PROPOSED FOR 2016 INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED DESIGN  BRT-like transit service  Changes in the Campus West Area WHAT IF CAMPUS WEST REDEVELOPS? COST ESTIMATES <$ $$ $$$$$ 76 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN 2016 Transit Service Changes In August 2016 Transfort implemented a variety of transit service changes to improve the capacity and reliability of transit service in the West Elizabeth Street study area. Technical analysis and the public process helped shape the transit service changes, which are focused on the highest demand area of the corridor, on West Elizabeth Street between Ponderosa Drive and the CSU Main Campus. The 2016 transit service includes new and modified routes as well as existing routes. New and modified routes: Route 3: a new radial route that will run east/west along West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street from West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Drive intersection to the CSU Transit Center. Route 33 (CSU Foothills Campus Shuttle): a new radial route connecting the CSU Foothills Campus to the CSU Main Campus utilizing Mulberry Road and Laporte Avenue. Existing routes that will remain: Route 2: the existing loop route that runs south on Shields Street, west along Prospect Road, north on Overland Trail and then east on West Elizabeth Street back to the CSU Transit Center. Route 31: the existing radial route that connects the Plum Street neighborhood to the CSU Transit Center. Route 32: the existing loop route that runs west along West Elizabeth Street, south on Overland Trail, then east on Prospect Road back to the CSU Transit Center. The HORN: the on-campus circulator route that links the CSU South Campus to the CSU Main Campus, including the Lory Student Center and Moby Arena. In addition to new and modified routes, three existing bus stops on West Elizabeth Street will be consolidated with nearby stops to improve bus travel time and reliability. KEY ELEMENTS 2016 TRANSIT SERVICE CHANGES  Route 3, a direct, radial route from between Ponderosa Drive and CSU  The Foothills Campus Shuttle, directly between the CSU Transit Center and the CSU Foothills Campus IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 77 Table 2 shows frequencies, service hours and service enhancements during peak periods of demand for transit service as a part of the 2016 transit service changes. Table 2: 2016 Transit Route Frequencies & Service Hours Route Frequency (CSU out of session, if service changes) Hours Peak Period Service Enhancements 2 All day: 30 minutes 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM Trailer bus during morning hours when CSU is in session 3 All day: 15 minutes (All day: 30 minutes) 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM N/A 31 All day: 10 minutes1 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM Trailer buses during morning hours (2 additional) and afternoon hours (1 additional) when CSU is in session 32 All day: 30 minutes1 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM Trailer bus during morning hours when CSU is in session 33 All day: 60 minutes1 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM N/A HORN All day: 10 minutes1 (All day: 30 minutes) 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM N/A Notes: 30 series routes only operate when CSU is in session. 78 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 31: 2016 Proposed Transit Routes: Transfort implemented these service changes in August 2016. Route Frequency Service Hours 2 All day: 30 minutes 7 AM - 10 PM 3 All day: 15 minutes All day (CSU out of session): 30 minutes 7 AM - 10 PM 31 All day: 10 minutes 7 AM - 7 PM 32 All day: 30 minutes 7 AM - 7 PM HORN All day: 10 minutes All day (CSU out of session): 30 minutes 7 AM - 7 PM Foothills Campus Shuttle All day (CSU out of session): 60 minutes 7 AM - 7 PM IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 79 80 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Phase Two - Interim Design A budget request has been submitted for the interim design, which includes elements of the Recommended Design with the highest need, such as sidewalk gap closures, ADA-compliant curb ramps, bike lane gap closures and additional transit service. These improvements have been proposed to be funded through the City’s biennial budget for 2017-18. The budget will be finalized in fall 2016; however, it cannot currently be guaranteed that the interim design will be included. The elements in the interim design are formed such that the full Recommended Design can later be constructed with minimal throwaway costs. For people riding transit, routes in the study area will be implemented similar to the Recommended Design although some routes themselves change and other routes have lower frequencies. The CSU Foothills Campus Shuttle will continue to operate between the CSU Transit Center and CSU Foothills Campus destinations off of Rampart Road and Laporte Avenue (in the Recommended Design, the CSU Foothills Campus Shuttle will operate exclusively on the CSU Foothills Campus once an on campus roadway connection is available between Rampart Road and Laporte Avenue). Table 3 shows frequencies and vehicle types for the transit routes in the study area after implementation of the interim design. Transit Signal Priority at signalized intersections will be implemented with the interim design. Basic bus stop amenities, including ADA- compliant platforms and signage, will be constructed. Lastly, the City is working with CSU to make improvements to the CSU Foothills Campus Equine Center facility to provide for a Park-n-Ride and transit turnaround which will significantly improve transit operations efficiency and provide a Park-n-Ride opportunity for CSU students, faculty and staff. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE INTERIM DESIGN:  Complete, ADA- compliant sidewalks  Complete bike lanes between Shields Street and Taft Hill Road  Additional transit service IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 81 Table 3: Interim Design Transit Route Frequencies, Service Hours & Vehicles Types Route Frequencies Service Hours Vehicle Type 2 All day: 30 minutes 7 AM - 7 PM Standard Transfort buses 3 AM-PM Peak: 15 minutes Evening: 30 minutes 7 AM – 10 PM Standard Transfort buses 31 All day: 10 minutes 7 AM – 7 PM Standard Transfort buses HORN AM-PM Peak: 10 minutes Evening: 20 minutes 6:30 AM – 8 PM Standard Transfort buses 33 (CSU Foothills Campus Shuttle) All day: 60 minutes 7 AM – 7PM 25 passenger shuttle bus Notes: 30 series routes only operate when CSU is in session. For people biking green colored pavement will be added to conflict zones where people biking have the right-of-way. Two-stage turn queue boxes will be installed at City Park Avenue as an interim solution (until implementation of the pilot protected intersection) and at Constitution Avenue. Bike lane gaps will be closed throughout the corridor, including the existing gaps at the Taft Hill Road intersection and on the north side of West Elizabeth Street west of Hillcrest Drive. For people walking or using mobility devices ADA-compliant sidewalks and curb ramps will be completed along West Elizabeth Street. These sidewalk gaps are primarily between Skyline Drive and Taft Hill Road (on the south side of West Elizabeth Street) and between Hillcrest Drive and Andrews Peak Drive (on the north side of West Elizabeth Street). 82 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 32: Interim Improvements At-A-Glance: The interim design includes elements of the Recommended Design with the highest need, such as sidewalk gap closures, ADA-compliant curb ramps, bike lane gap closures and additional transit service. Appendix E includes a conceptual, aerial view of the interim design. IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 83 84 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 33: Interim Design Transit Routes: Transit service with the interim design will include more efficient transit routing so that Transfort can more cost-effectively provide higher frequency service in the area. IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 85 86 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN COST ESTIMATES & FUNDING SOURCES Cost estimates include both capital costs and ongoing operations and maintenance expenses. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix H. Capital Cost Estimates Capital costs to implement the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan include the costs of final design, infrastructure construction and transit vehicles. The cost estimates of each phase are:  Interim Design (second phase) Design - $300,000 Infrastructure costs – $1.4-$2.6 million ($2.0 million most probable cost) Transit vehicles – one additional vehicle necessary at approximately $400,000 each  Recommended Design (third phase) Design - $2-4.5 million Infrastructure costs – $13.0-24.3 million ($18.7 million most probable cost) Transit vehicles – four additional vehicles necessary at approximately $400,000 each  Recommended Design’s planning for redevelopment Infrastructure costs – $1.2-2.3 million ($1.7 million most probable cost) Transit vehicles – five BRT vehicles necessary (including one spare) at approximately $800,000 each BRT-like amenities – 12-14 stations at approximately $100,000-250,000 per station IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 87 Ongoing Cost Estimates As elements of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan are implemented, ongoing costs associated with operations and maintenance of new facilities and services will need to be identified and included in ongoing budgets. Operating Expenses The Plan recommends significant improvements to the transit service in the West Elizabeth Street corridor study area. Ongoing annual cost estimates for each phase are: Near-term 2016 transit service changes (first phase) – an additional $160,000 per year is being shifted from an under performing route to fund the 2016 transit service changes on West Elizabeth Street. Interim Design (second phase) - $2.05 million Recommended Design (third phase) - $7.31 million Recommended Design’s planning for redevelopment $7.63 million 88 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN Maintenance Considerations Some high quality elements, such as protected bike lanes, new landscape medians and potential custom transit station amenities, will require more time to maintain and may require the purchase of specialized equipment, incurring higher maintenance costs. For example, based on analysis completed for the Bicycle Master Plan, the Fort Collins Streets Department estimated that it costs $17,900 per year to sweep and plow one mile of protected bike lane (compared to $3,970 per year to sweep and plow one mile of standard bike lane). As elements go through final design, the project management team shall work closely with the Transfort, Streets Department, Forestry, and the Parks Department to identify mitigation requirements, context appropriate materials, and maintenance responsibilities. Cost estimates based on the final design and the maintenance considerations will be integrated into future budget requests at the time the recommended facilities are built. Additional information on maintenance costs is included in Appendix H. Funding Sources The West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan’s Recommended Design includes a diverse set of projects that require an equally diverse and resourceful plan to implement. Table 4 shows funding recommendations for all three phases of the project. As new funding opportunities arise out of federal, state or local actions, momentum and progress on the corridor add tremendous weight to those awarding grants or prioritizing funding. The phases identified in Table 4 are not necessarily consecutive and will have periods of overlap. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process could begin relatively soon and last a year or more. Meanwhile Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants and other grants should be pursued. An important and complex corridor like West Elizabeth Street will need an ongoing champion who is dedicated to aggressively pursue funding and overall project support. The West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan’s Recommended Design includes a diverse set of projects that require an equally diverse and resourceful plan to implement. IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 89 Table 4: Funding Sources Phase Potential Source(s) Implementation Steps or Actions 2016 Transit Service Changes (first phase) N/A – does not require additional funding Transfort to implement transit service changes in 2016 Interim Design (second phase) Budgeting for Outcomes for infrastructure Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvements (CMAQ) Program for transit service upgrades and/or transit signal priority Apply during the CMAQ call for projects, summer 2016 Recommended Design (third phase) Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) or Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) for smaller-scale projects Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) or Building on Basics (BOB) 3.0 for corridor-wide improvements Apply during the TAP call for projects, summer 2016 Planning for Redevelopment Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Section 5309 (Small Starts) for Bus Rapid Transit CMAQ for Bus Rapid Transit TIGER for Bus Rapid Transit Conduct a field review with FTA Region 8 staff, summer 2016 Initiate a NEPA process along the corridor based on FTA recommendation 90 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN TRACKING PERFORMANCE As elements of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan are implemented, tracking the corridor’s performance will be important for demonstrating the Plan’s benefits, acquiring future funding and possibly refining the Recommended Design. There are a variety of performance measures that should be tracked over time to understand the Plan’s effects:  Health and safety, as measured by crashes, vehicular travel speed and crime on the corridor  Multimodal effects, as measured by user delay, travel time, travel time reliability, user counts, mode split and vehicle miles traveled (per capita)  Economic development, as measured by commercial and residential vacancies, tax yields and property values  Culture, as measured by arts creation and community participation in area events IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION 91 A CRITICAL NEXT STEP IN IMPLE- MENTING THE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ACTIONS OF THE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN IS TO IDENTIFY A PROJECT CHAMPION (EITHER AN INDIVIDUAL OR A DE- PARTMENT). 92 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN NEXT STEPS NEXT STEPS 93 section 6 A critical next step in implementing the short-term and long- term actions of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is to identify a Project Champion (either an individual or a department). The Project Champion’s responsibility is to regularly identify and coordinate next steps, including pursuing grant opportunities or submitting projects to Budgeting for Outcomes, the City’s budgeting process. Key next steps to the implementation of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan are:  Complete 35 percent design of the Recommended Design, including a survey of the corridor, a drainage study and a utility study, to develop a more refined cost estimate for the corridor and any incremental projects for which the City may pursue funding.  Inform the Federal Transit Administration of the corridor’s long-term plan by conducting a field review with FTA Region 8 staff.  Complete a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process of the Recommended Design based on FTA recommendations.  Apply for incremental projects that are a part of the Recommended Design through appropriate funding sources, including CMAQ and TAP.  Apply for large-scale projects, possibly the entire Recommended Design, as a TIGER discretionary grant. As shown by previously selected projects, it is common to submit three or more application submittals for TIGER discretionary grants before a project is selected. NEXT STEPS 94 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN  Update Master Street Plan to show segment of West Elizabeth between City Park Avenue and Taft Hill Road as Arterial 2 Lanes (instead of Arterial 4 Lanes).  Incorporate relevant changes into CSU Master Plans.  Explore strategies to support transit-oriented development in the Campus West area, including potential code changes, parking strategies, funding support, and improvement districts that support market conditions.  Coordinate with the Pedestrian Program and Bridge Replacement/ Maintenance Program to widen the bridge on Plum Street west of City Park Avenue to complete the bike lane and sidewalk through this stretch.  Monitor the demands at the locations for the recommended enhanced pedestrian/bike crossings. Evaluation will be done using the criteria for implementing enhanced crossings found in the City’s Pedestrian Plan to determine if and when installation of the crossings are appropriate. For any competitive grant, more letters of support or City Council actions voicing support for the project will increase the project’s competitiveness. However, public and political support for a project can wane when implementation slows. One of the Project Champion’s responsibilities is to continuously generate support for the project. Continuing implementation of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan, even in small steps, is a key to maintaining consistent project support. FURTHER PLANNING Through the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan’s development process, the futures of City Park Avenue and Shields Street were explored at a high-level. This process revealed that further corridor planning is necessary on these streets to identify a community - and City-supported vision for infrastructure on these corridors. APPENDICES 95 Appendix A: Vision, Purpose & Need Appendix B: Community Engagement Summary Appendix C: Corridor Understanding Report Appendix D: Alternatives Analysis Summary Appendix E: Conceptual Design and Phasing Summary Appendix F: Responding to the Project Need Appendix G: Traffic Operations Calculations Appendix H: Cost Estimates Summary and Methodology Appendix I: Maintenance Considerations Appendix J: Final Design Considerations APPENDICES APPENDIX: VISION, PURPOSE & NEED VISION, appendix: PURPOSE A & NEED We est Elizabeeth En Vis hance sion, P ed Tra Purpo C avel C ose an Pre City of F Nove Corrid nd Ne epared Fort Co mber 24, DN1 dor eed for: llins 2015 15-0488 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 1: Study Area .................................................................................................................................................... 2 2. VISION ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 3. PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 PROJECT PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 3.3 STATEMENT OF PROJECT NEED ......................................................................................................................................... 5 3.3.1 SUPPORT EXISTING TRAVEL DEMANDS AND ANTICIPATED GROWTH ................................................... 5 3.3.2 INADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICE ............................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Transfort Map ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Passenger Left Behind By Time Period ....................................................................................... 8 3.3.3 UNCOMFORTABLE AND INCOMPLETE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND SAFETY CONCERNS ............ 9 Figure 4: Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS)............................................................................................... 11 3.3.4 UNCOMFORTABLE AND INCOMPLETE BICYCLE FACILITIES AND SAFETY CONCERNS ................... 12 Figure 5: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) .......................................................................................... 13 3.3.5 VEHICULAR MOBILITY, SAFETY AND ACCESS CONCERNS ............................................................................ 14 Figure 6: Crash Map .................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3.6 LACK OF CONNECTIVITY BETWEEEN MODES .................................................................................................. 16 1 1. INTRODUCTION The West Elizabeth Street corridor has been identified in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) as part of a citywide network of Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs) – uniquely designed corridors with an emphasis on high-frequency transit, bicycling and walking. ETCs are intended to support high-quality economic development opportunities for mixed-use, transit-oriented development and support Fort Collins’ active lifestyles and environmental stewardship goals. The West Elizabeth ETC Plan will develop a short- and long- term vision for the corridor based on an understanding of the transportation, land use, environmental, economic and social needs of the area. The corridor plan focuses on West Elizabeth Street from Overland Trail to Shields Street, with an emphasis on connectivity to CSU's Foothills Campus on the west, and CSU's Main Campus (including MAX stations) on the east, as shown in Figure 1. In addition to West Elizabeth Street itself, adjacent corridors are also considered as key to the overall study area’s transportation network: Constitution Avenue (north of West Elizabeth Street), Plum Street (between Constitution Avenue and Shields Street), City Park Avenue (between West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street) and Shields Street (between Prospect Road and Laurel Street). An initial analysis of Shields Street was conducted as part of the West Central Area Plan (WCAP), and this corridor is undergoing additional analysis as a part of the West Elizabeth ETC Plan given its nexus to issues identified through this plan. To a lesser extent, other adjacent streets will be considered—for example, related to cut-through traffic and/or their role in the Low-Stress Bike Network proposed in the Bicycle Master Plan. The Study Area Map (Figure 1) represents the project’s focuses. Polaris ELS Bennett Elementary Fort Collins Preschool Association Bauder Elementary Children's Workshop Poudre Senior High Dunn Elementary City Park CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus CITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Sheldon Lake University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center Through CSU Main Campus to MAX To CSU Foothills Campus Study Area Includes CSU Foothills Campus W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR 3 2. VISION The vision for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor is to be an easily accessible and reliable multimodal corridor with an emphasis on connectivity to CSU's Foothills Campus on the west and CSU's Main Campus (including MAX stations) on the east. The corridor will be well-integrated and well-connected within the city, with a focus on improving transit, walking and biking. The corridor will foster existing business and future infill and redevelopment to accommodate the growing number and diversity of users in the corridor, which include: students, families and seniors. The network shall:  Be unique and adaptable to the distinctive characteristics of each corridor segment.  Be safe and comfortable for all users.  Encourage and prioritize public transportation and active transportation options.  Support the interconnectivity of all modes.  Be a beautiful and vibrant environment. 3. PURPOSE AND NEED 3.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose and need statement identifies the goals and needs for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) study area. The project is needed because of the current deficiencies in the multimodal transportation system on the corridor. These deficiencies include: inadequate transit service; incomplete, non-ADA compliant (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990) pedestrian facilities; incomplete, low-comfort bikeways, vehicular safety concerns, and conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles at access points–all resulting in potential safety issues for users in the corridor. The current deficiencies also present challenges in serving the anticipated growth in population, employment, student enrollment and travel demand in the study area. 3.2 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan is to develop a corridor plan that will serve existing and future transportation demands, with a focus on multimodal transportation improvements. Anticipated growth is expected through infill projects (development of vacant or under-used land parcels within existing urban areas) and redevelopment with increased density within and around the study area, thereby increasing travel demand. The goal of this ETC Plan is to address the growing demand for transportation options by increasing and improving transit, bicycling and walking infrastructure. Improvements shall provide users with highly efficient, reliable and frequent transit service as well as walking, bicycling, and driving options that are safe, comfortable, efficient and well-marked. Improvements will foster economic vitality through high-quality and attractive facilities, while remaining committed to the City’s long-term fiscal responsibility. Specifically, the purpose is to:  Increase transit capacity, reliability, and improve transit stop amenities to accommodate current demand and future growth in population, student enrollment, and travel demand.  Improve transit system connectivity to and from West Elizabeth Street, Colorado State University’s Main and Foothills Campuses, and other Transfort routes including MAX.  Improve pedestrian facilities for comfort, safety, and accessibility throughout the corridor.  Improve bicycling facilities for ease, comfort, and safety and to attract new riders.  Maintain vehicular mobility, improve safety and enhance access to commercial properties in the corridor.  Support the interconnectivity between travel modes. 5 3.3 STATEMENT OF PROJECT NEED The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan shall address the following needs that have been identified throughout the corridor:  Inability to support existing travel demands and anticipated growth, which will exacerbate existing deficiencies in transit service, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and vehicle safety.  Inadequate transit service due primarily to insufficient system connectivity, low and inconsistent route frequencies, poor reliability, lack of capacity to serve current and future demands, and lack of patron stop amenities.  Uncomfortable and incomplete pedestrian facilities and safety concerns due to inconsistent and missing sidewalks, as well as sidewalks that are not ADA-compliant; in addition, there are limited north/south crossing opportunities, and pedestrians experience significant delays crossing West Elizabeth Street.  Uncomfortable and inconsistent bicycle facilities and safety concerns due to incomplete bike lanes and inadequate intersection treatments. There is also higher than expected rate of bicycle- and vehicle-related crashes in several locations.  Vehicular mobility, safety, and access concerns exist due to intersection and driveway turning conflicts, as well as queue spillback (traffic backed up at a left-hand turn lane, for example) at some signalized intersections.  Challenge connecting between modes for trips in the corridor including inadequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities to and at transit stops and parking challenges in the corridor. 3.3.1 SUPPORT EXISTING TRAVEL DEMANDS AND ANTICIPATED GROWTH Study area growth in population, employment, and CSU student enrollment will increase demand for travel. Without a transformation of the corridor, future travel demand in the study area will most likely mirror the study area’s existing mode share. This will further stress the study area’s existing transit service, walkways, and bikeways. Additionally, a lack of transformation will result in high growth rates for vehicle travel. Without improvements to transit service, walkways and bikeways the North Front Range Regional Travel Model projects the following growth rates in vehicle travel from 2012 to 2040:  West Elizabeth Street – 23 percent (0.8 percent per year) during the AM peak hour and 12 percent (0.5 percent per year) during the PM peak hour.  Shields Street – 16 percent (0.6 percent per year) during the AM peak hour and 19 percent (0.8 percent per year during the PM peak hour The 2040 forecast generally assumes a 0.53 percent annual growth in population and 0.33 percent annual growth in employment with no major changes to existing transit service or walk/bike mode share. 3.3.2 INADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICE System Connectivity Transfort has designed a hybrid grid/hub-and-spoke network, as shown in Figure 2. This service structure is typically utilized in areas with lower service frequencies. It allows passengers to transfer between routes at hub locations, often via timed transfers while still maintaining a grid configuration where strong mixed-use corridors are present. Because of this network configuration, there is a lack of connectivity between routes in the study area and the rest of the system. It takes at least one transfer to reach most major destinations from the study area, with the exception of Colorado State University. More transfers and increased travel time deter both existing and new ridership. Low and Inconsistent Frequencies Service frequency is the most important factor in recruiting and attracting new transit ridership. The table below shows the distribution of frequency (10, 30 and 60 minutes) of the nine routes in the study area (Transfort Routes 2, 6, 10, 19, 31, 32, 33, HORN and MAX). During the Peak and Midday time periods, only three of the nine routes run every ten minutes (MAX, HORN, and 31). During the summer (when CSU is not in session), only one route operates at ten-minute frequencies (MAX) and the remainder of the routes run every 30 or 60 minutes or are not in service. Frequency and service is reduced even further on evenings, weekends and during the summer. This means that the majority of routes do not run frequently enough to allow for “spontaneous use” during peak, midday periods or when CSU is not in session. The current frequencies require users to check the schedule before arriving at the bus stop, making transit less convenient. Table 1: Frequency of Transfort Routes Frequency (minutes) Number of Routes Peak (AM/PM) Midday CSU not in Session 10 3 3 1 30 4 3 2 60 2 3 3 Does not run -- -- 3 CSU Vet School CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus Sheldon Lake University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center Downtown Transit Center Station South Transit Center MAX Stations Bus Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) PROSPECT RD DRAKE RD HORSETOOTH RD HARMONY RD LAPORTE AVE MULBERRY ST W ELIZABETH ST TAFTHILL RD SHIELD ST COLLEGE AVE LEMAY AVE TIMBERLINE RD 91 92 5 5 81 8 10 14 18 7 12 16 19 16 34 HORN 6 6 33 2 GOLD FLEX 32 GREEN 9 OLIVE MOUNTAIN MULBERRY LAUREL UNIVERSITY Poor Reliab The nine T Transfort s minutes of Corridor st on-time pe for Route running wit riders. Lack of Ca Transfort passengers volumes an CSU Main attempt to 31 with add capacity an especially a shows the by time per Figure 3: P Note: Passe bility Transfort rout ervice standa f the publish udy area are erformance ra 2. This rang thin the stud pacity to Ser Route 31 cu s who are un nd lack of se Campus in address this ditional buses nd/or frequen as the area co number of p riod. Passengers Le enger leave beh tes that trave ards define o hed schedule on-time, 14 p anges from a ge and high y area. Reliab rve Existing a rrently prese nable to boar ervice capacit the mornings s issue during s that are not ncies the pote ontinues to de assengers lef 9 Lack of Patron Stop Amenities and Access to Stops The bus stops in the study area have very few patron amenities and are often not accessible using the pedestrian and bicycle networks. Providing pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops is an important component to making riding transit safer, more accessible and comfortable. The study area does not provide complete and ADA accessible sidewalks, and bus stop loading and unloading areas and stops are not always located near signalized or enhanced crossings. Bike lanes are also inconsistent with a lack of end of trip bike facilities such as bike parking. 3.3.3 UNCOMFORTABLE AND INCOMPLETE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND SAFETY CONCERNS The sidewalks in the study area are inconsistent in width, incomplete in many sections, and generally non- compliant with ADA s t andards and requirements. Other pedestrian amenity deficiencies include lack of crossing opportunities and/or significant delay for pedestrians crossing in many locations in the study area. Together these deficiencies create an uncomfortable environment for pedestrians and encourage unsafe behavior, such as crossing at unmarked locations. Figure 4 shows the level of safety and comfort for pedestrians within the study area, based on sidewalk width, buffer width, and difficulty in midblock crossing. Safety Concerns The Shields Street/Plum Street, West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street, West Elizabeth Street/Castlerock Drive and West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersections have the highest number of pedestrian-related crashes in the study area, and some of the highest in the City. The Plum Street/City Park Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue and West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Drive intersections also have pedestrian-related crashes. Uncomfortable, Incomplete and ADA Non-Compliant On West Elizabeth Street, several blocks west of Taft Hill Road and one block west of Shields Street sidewalks are missing completely. In the segment west of Constitution Avenue, current sidewalk infrastructure is generally below the four foot (48 inches) minimum width required to be ADA compliant. In addition, the majority of sidewalks in the study area do not have tree lawn buffers to provide a space between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Other challenges for pedestrians include the many driveways throughout the whole corridor, specifically in the Campus West area as well as the western segment of the study area; these driveways sometimes have the sidewalk slant at an uncomfortable angle for walking and for people in mobility devices. The driveways also introduce conflicts for pedestrians with turning vehicles. The overall result is a less comfortable pedestrian experience. Limited Midblock Crossings and Delay at Crossings The western mile of the West Elizabeth Street Corridor currently offers no marked north/south pedestrian crossings opportunities, other than the Overland Trail and Taft Hill Road intersections. One crossing is planned to be constructed approximately ¼ mile west of Taft Hill Road in Fall 2015; however, that leaves a ¾ mile segment of West Elizabeth without a north/south crossing location. At most signalized intersections, the average pedestrian delay is relatively high during both the AM and PM peak hours. Five of the nine intersections in the study area have a delay greater than 45 seconds in the AM peak hour and greater than 50 seconds in the PM peak hour. Shields Street has a high demand for pedestrian crossings and a perceived low level of comfort. Aside from the Plum Street and West Elizabeth Street intersections, the next marked crossing to the north is 600 feet from Plum Street at Laurel Street and the next marked crossing to the south is 2,000 feet from West Elizabeth Street at Lake Street. Additionally, there are a high number of driveway conflicts in certain areas on Shields Street. As the area west of Shields Street continues to develop at a higher density, and as CSU’s master plan is built out, demand for crossing in this area will likely increase. CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR W PLUM ST ROCKY RD PEAR ST ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE HILLCREST DR GALLUP RD PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST CASTLEROCK DR PLEASANT VALLEY RD FAIRVIEW DR FUQUA DR WESTWARD DR SPRINGFIELD DR BIANCO DR UNIVERSITY AVE ARANCIA DR MOBY DR SOUTHRIDGE DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR BAYSTONE DR MONTVIEW RD BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR OAKWOOD DR SOUTH DR TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR ANDREWS PEAK DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT CLEARVIEW CT ASTER ST 3.3.4 UNCOMFORTABLE AND INCONSISTENT BICYCLE FACILITIES AND SAFETY CONCERNS Improving bicycle facilities will address current safety and comfort issues as well as encourage new riders. Figure 5 shows the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) for bicyclists within the study area, based on traffic volume, speed, number of lanes and presence and quality of bikeway. Safety Issues The intersections of West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue and West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Drive have more crashes than at similar intersections. In addition, there are more crashes along West Elizabeth Street than at similar segments. There are also a high number of driveway conflicts for bicyclists in certain sections of West Elizabeth Street, particularly near King Soopers and in the Campus West area. Inconsistent Bike Lanes Bicycle facilities within the study area are inconsistent in width, type and existence in some locations. Along West Elizabeth Street, bike lanes range from five feet to seven feet in width and are absent from certain segments. The inconsistencies in bicycle facilities can lead to a perceived low level of comfort for bicyclists. Bike lanes on Shields Street within the study area have similarly been identified as having a low level of comfort. Inadequate Intersection Treatments There are inadequate intersection treatments for bicyclists at several of the signalized intersections, both at the approach to a number of intersections as well as through the intersection. For example, the intersection of West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street has the largest number of bicyclists in the peak hour but does not have intersection treatments to assist with bicyclist turning movements. In addition, average bicyclist delay at three intersections in the study area in both the AM and PM peak hour is greater than 30 seconds, LOS (Level of Service) D or E. The highest average bicyclist delays are observed at the West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, Shields Street/Laurel Street, and Shields Street/Lake Street intersections. These inadequate intersection treatments and delays encourage risky bicycling behavior contributing to the safety issues observed in the corridor. In addition there is demand for crossing opportunities at several un-signalized locations, resulting in cyclists engaging in risky travel behavior. This is most prevalent at Shields Street between Lake Street and West Elizabeth Street where cyclists often attempt crossing traffic in a two-step process using the center turn lane as a refuge. CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR W PLUM ST ROCKY RD PEAR ST ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE HILLCREST DR GALLUP RD PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST CASTLEROCK DR PLEASANT VALLEY RD FAIRVIEW DR FUQUA DR WESTWARD DR SPRINGFIELD DR BIANCO DR UNIVERSITY AVE ARANCIA DR MOBY DR SOUTHRIDGE DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR BAYSTONE DR MONTVIEW RD BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR OAKWOOD DR SOUTH DR TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR ANDREWS PEAK DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT CLEARVIEW CT ASTER ST 3.3.5 VEHICULAR MOBILITY, SAFETY AND ACCESS CONCERNS A traffic and safety analysis identifies the current challenges related to vehicles in the corridor. Safety Issues There are higher than expected numbers of crashes at two intersections and three of the seven segments within the study area.. The intersection with the highest number of crashes is the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection, followed by the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and then the Shields Street/Plum intersections. A heat map of all crash types in the study area is shown Figure 6. Intersection and Driveway Turning Conflicts (Access) There are more than 20 access points, including driveways and intersections, along West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and Constitution Avenue and more than 10 access points in the quarter mile west of Taft Hill Road, thereby creating a number of conflicts with vehicles turning in or out of driveways, resulting in a history of crashes along these segments and confusion and frustration for road users. Queue Spillback at Signalized Intersections Vehicular issues are resulting from the spillback of vehicles at signalized intersections, and in some cases is exacerbated by a low intersection level of service (LOS) and high approach delay. Of specific concern are movements where queued traffic spills back into moving travel lanes. The northbound left-turn at the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection has been identified by the public and stakeholders for its queue spillback issues; this movement currently operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour. Safety issues resulting from turn conflicts and queue spillback at intersections will increase in the future if countermeasures to these issues are not developed. Additionally, high growth rates in vehicle travel resulting from a lack of improvements to transit service, walkways and bikeways may exacerbate these safety issues. Alternative Routes/Cut-Through Traffic Due to congestion and delay at several intersections in the study area, vehicles are finding alternative, more efficient routes. Common alternative routes include City Park Avenue and University Avenue. This rerouting has potentially negative implications for surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent corridors including speeding, additional traffic and congestion. City Park CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus CITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR W LAKE ST BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL All Crash Types 2010-2014 1-8 9-32 33-78 79-144 145+ 3.3.6 LACK OF CONNECTIVITY BETWEEEN MODES There is a lack of interconnectivity between modes in the West Elizabeth Corridor. This is often referred to as the first-mile/last-mile problem, which describes the lack of facilities and accessibility between transit stops and origins and destinations. The bus stops in the study area have very few patron amenities and lack end of trip facilities such as bike parking. When coupled with low onboard bicycle accommodations this inhibits one’s ability to make connections between modes for trips. Furthermore, there is a need to make bus stops more accessible via the pedestrian and bicycle networks which is an important component of making riding transit safer, more accessible and comfortable. In general accessing stops can be challenging as they are not always located near signalized and enhanced midblock marked crossings. In addition, informal vehicle park-n-ride locations in neighborhoods have been observed in some areas on the corridor indicating a need for drivers to connect to transit; with increasing parking rates on CSU’s campuses and additional transit service, this phenomenon is likely to exacerbate in the future. APPENDIX: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT appendix: B SUMMARY October 2016 West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Community Engagement Appendix City of Fort Collins (This page left blank intentionally) Table of Contents 1. Community Engagement Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 2. Stakeholder Committee ......................................................................................................................... 3 3. Phase 1 – Corridor Understanding ......................................................................................................... 3 4. Phase 2 – Project Visioning and Design Approach Development and Evaluation ................................. 4 Visioning Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Alternatives Open House (December 3, 2015) ...................................................................................... 9 Questions of the Week ......................................................................................................................... 12 5. Phase 3 – Recommended Design and Implementation Planning and Phase 4 – Draft Plan and Plan Adoption Process ................................................................................................................................. 38 City Council Work Session (March 10, 2016) ....................................................................................... 38 Recommended Design Open House (June 16, 2016) ........................................................................... 39 Recommended Design Online Survey .................................................................................................. 41 Draft Plan Review ................................................................................................................................. 53 1 1. Community Engagement Overview This appendix documents the key outreach activities that occurred throughout the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) planning process. The effort was divided into four phases, as follows: • Phase 1 – Corridor Understanding • Phase 2 – Corridor Visioning and Design Approach Development and Evaluation • Phase 3 – Recommended Design and Implementation Planning • Phase 4 – Drafting the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan and Plan Adoption A public engagement plan was developed to guide the outreach activities for each phase of the project. The goal was to engage all stakeholders in an effective, meaningful, and equitable way. Planned outreach for each phase included a range of activities, such as: neighborhood listening sessions, walking tours lead by residents/business owners and City staff; traditional public meetings/open houses; attending pre-existing events (CSU Housing Fair, Earth Day Festivities, Open Streets, City Planning, Development and Transportation Open House, etc.); pop-up meetings at CSU and other venues; virtual meetings; intercept and online surveys; and Stakeholder Committee and Technical Advisory Committee meetings. These approaches were intended to reach the wide range of stakeholders, all of whom had differing levels of involvement, interest and availability. Table 1 below provides estimates for the number of people reached during each phase of the project. The activities related to Phases 3 and 4 overlapped and are presented together. Table 2, on the following page, provides details for the various engagement efforts that took place during each phase of the project. The following sections describe the input received at some of the key engagement activities that occurred throughout the plan’s development. Table 1. Outreach Summary of People Reached Face-to-face Interactions Survey Participants Mail/Email Communication Phase 1 – Corridor Understanding 550 150 8,200+ Phase 2 – Corridor Visioning and Design Approach Development and Evaluation 1,150 1,100 7,600+ Phase 3 – Recommended Design and Implementation Planning and Phase 4 – Draft Plan and Plan Adoption 325 120 8,100+ Total 2,025 1,370 23,900 2 Table 2. Overview of Public Outreach Activities by Project Phase Project Specific Activities Other Events Interest Group (organized-committees) Online/Email/Mail/ Social Media Efforts Phase 1 Corridor Understanding • Listening Sessions (2) • Neighborhood Walking Tours (5) • Focus Group Meetings (4) • Stakeholder Committee Meeting • CSU Housing Fair • CSU Conservation Leadership Through Learning Class • CSU Earth Day Fair • City Joint Planning Open House • Open Streets • CSU Bicycle Advisory Committee (CSUBAC) • Associated Students of CSU (ASCSU) Senate Meeting • Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) • Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) • Senior Advisory Board (SAB) • Public Transportation Advisory Group (PTAG) • WikiMap • Online Survey (150) • Direct mailing to residents within ½ mile of the corridor (8,230) • Project Email updates (4) • Articles in Newsletters (3) Phase 2 Visioning and Design Approach Development and Evaluation • Focus Groups Meetings (5) • Visioning Open House • Bus Stop Pop-up meetings (3) • CSU Rec-Center Pop- up meeting • Stakeholder Committee Meetings 3 2. Stakeholder Committee This Stakeholder Committee was formed to explore the issues and opportunities facing West Elizabeth and help develop a plan to achieve the community’s long-range vision for the area’s future. The committee’s role was to help establish a vision for the West Elizabeth corridor, identify areas of focus, and contribute to the development of the plan. The following table lists the member of the Stakeholder Committee and the area of the corridor they represented. Table 3. Stakeholder Committee Members Location Name Segment 1: Overland to Timber Ln. Gail McKee Troy Ocheltree Peter Rhoades Michael Werner Segment 2: Timber Ln. to Taft Hill Rd. Gene Schoonveld Dave Thompson Bonnie Michael Segment 3: Taft Hill to Constitution Ave. Laurel Grimm Carol Kruse Jordan Sowell Segment 4: Constitution Ave. to Shields St. Aaron Buckley Jay Henke Justie Nicol Jean Robbins Segment 5: Colorado State University Alison Anson Madi Book Rick Callan Edward Kendall The Stakeholder Committee met as a group five times throughout the approximately 18-month planning process. Meetings were intended to allow for discussion, debate, and working through the topics to be included in the plan. In addition, Stakeholder Committee members were encouraged to continually reach out to others in the community for broad-based public input. 3. Phase 1 – Corridor Understanding Phase 1 outreach was extensive and generally covered March – July 2015. Engagement details are documented separately as Appendix E of the project’s Corridor Understanding report. The key elements include: 4 • Surveys (online and paper) • Listening Sessions • WikiMap • Walking, Biking, and Transit Tours • Open Streets 4. Phase 2 – Project Visioning and Design Approach Development and Evaluation Phase 2 outreach generally covered July 2015 – January 2016. The key elements include: • Visioning Survey • Alternatives Open House (December 3, 2016) • Questions of the Week Visioning Survey In an effort to develop a Vision for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor, two visioning surveys were available for public input. One survey was available online and the other was a text-based survey, using a tool called Textizen. The surveys had two different audiences in mind; the online was a bit longer requiring approximately 15-20 minutes to complete; the Textizen survey was an abbreviated version of the online survey intended for the Colorado State University audience. Survey questions were designed to gauge how the public currently uses the corridor, how they would describe their existing experience and how they would like to see change occur in the corridor. Table 4. Visioning Survey Summary of Responses Survey Instrument Date Responses Online Survey (SurveyGizmo) August 2015 132 complete 53 partials Textizen Survey Mid-August through Mid-September 411 Total 596 Online Survey The online survey consisted of 14 multiple choice questions and one ranking question. Several of the questions allowed for multiple responses as well as an “Other” option with a write-in 5 response. In addition, four visual preference questions asked participants what they liked about specific treatments. Textizen Survey Textizen is a text-based survey instrument in which participants opt to receive survey questions via text to their mobile devices. The survey consisted of nine questions: four multiple choice questions, two open ended questions, two ranking questions, and an initial “hook” question whose purpose was to attract participation in the survey. While the content of two surveys were similar in concept, some of the questions varied due to survey instrument restrictions. All questions, including demographic information, were optional. However, most respondents did complete the entire survey, which is helpful for understanding the experience of respondents from different viewpoints. Questions that appeared on both surveys are indicated by “Q#,” the results are combined and presented in the “Results” section. A comparison of the survey questions is shown in the Table 5 below. Key topic areas include: • Background • Travel behavior • Prioritization for the future • Current vs. desired future conditions • Potential improvements • Demographics • Other comments Table 5. Visioning Survey List of Questions Question Online Survey Textizen Survey BACKGROUND Q1. Which of the following apply to you? (Please select all that apply) * TRAVEL BEHAVIOR Q2. Which travel mode do you use most often on the West Elizabeth Corridor? Q3. On average, how often do you use active transportation (biking, walking, buses) in this corridor? PRIORITZATION FOR THE FUTURE Hey Fort Collins, what about MAX on West Elizabeth Street? (Hook question for Textizen survey) 6 Question Online Survey Textizen Survey Q4. When planning for the futures, which travel mode(s) should be prioritized in the West Elizabeth Corridor? Success in the West Elizabeth Corridor should be defined by improvements in? (Select 2) Success in the West Elizabeth Corridor should be defined by improvements in? (Select 2) Would you be willing to spend additional time driving in the West Elizabeth Corridor to make transit, walking, and biking safer and more efficient? CURRENT VS. DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS Q5. What word describes your existing experience in the West Elizabeth Corridor? Q6. What word describes your desired future experience in the West Elizabeth Corridor? POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS Which pedestrian treatment do you prefer for the various segments of West Elizabeth Street? Which bicycle treatment do you prefer for the various segments of West Elizabeth Street? What type of transit do you prefer for the West Elizabeth Corridor? DEMOGRAPHICS With what gender do you identify? What is your age? With what ethnicity do you identify? OTHER COMMENTS Please share any comments or suggestions related to the West Elizabeth Corridor or the West Elizabeth ETC Plan. *This contents of this question were split into two separate questions in the Textizen survey. Results Background • A total of 596 people participated in the two West Elizabeth visioning surveys. • The majority of respondents were CSU students who lived in the study area. o A particularly high number of CSU students responded to the Textizen campaign, while the majority of people who participated in the online survey were other community members who traveled in the corridor. 7 Travel Behavior • The primary mode of travel used in the corridor was fairly evenly split between bus (25%), biking (28%), and car (33%) with slightly more people driving. • One-third of respondents (33%) used active transportation (biking, walking, buses) on a daily basis, while 22% of respondents never or almost never used active modes. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Walk Longboard/skateboard Car Bus Bike Q2-Primary Mode 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 None of the above I am a CSU faculty/staff member I am a CSU student I work/own a business in the area I live in the area I travel on West Elizabeth Street Q1-Respondents 8 Prioritization for the Future • The majorty of reponsents selected bus or other public transit as the travel mode that should be prioritized for the future in the corridor (57%) followed by bikes (26%). Current vs. Desired Future Conditions • Common themes for describing the corridor were congested, crowded, busy and unsafe. • When envisioning what the corridor should be like in the future, making it safe was the top response followed by easy to use. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Never Almost never Once a month 3-5 times per month 3-5 times per week Daily (or multiple times a day) Q3-Active Transportation Frequency 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Car Walk Bus or other public transit Bike Q4-Mode Prioritized for the Future 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 Congested Unsafe Busy Crowded Q5-Describe Existing Conditions 0 20 40 60 80 100 Fast Ease/Easy Safe Bus Q6-Describe Desired Future Conditions 10 Alternatives Open House (December 3, 2015) Summary of West Elizabeth Proposed Alternatives Public Outreach Comments Stakeholder Committee - December 2, 2015 Open House - December 3, 2015 General • Bike facilities on surrounding low stress network • Make bike treatments around the city consistent • Transit service on Mulberry • Keep neighborhood feel • Separate people from traffic • Slow traffic • Designate Campus West employee parking at CSU Moby • Woonerf in progress from Local-Plum to Elizabeth Traffic Calming • Two way stop control at Plum/City Park good—people blow through intersection anyway • Look at Taft Hill existing traffic approaching Elizabeth • Number of comments on access to King Soopers o Longer WBLT pocket o Potential for roundabout? o Bike/ped conflicts • Challenging pedestrian crossing at Castlerock • Acute right turn into church in Campus West • Concern about bikes at Elizabeth/Shields • Consider trucks and loading on Campus West • Add street lights o Especially City Park/Elizabeth • Visually paint curb • Additional medians on Elizabeth near Andrews Park Drive • Bike lanes on Plum west of Skyline • Move midblock crossing east of Skyline • Ensure bike crossing at Skyline signal • Mixed feedback on raised cycle track o Don’t feel comfortable, need more distinction from traffic, not visible enough to cars o Like them—separated from traffic • Left turn signal arrows both directions at City Park/Elizabeth • Focus bike/ped improvements at Pitkin/Shields to relieve Elizabeth • Provide bike/ped connection from cul de sac at Orchard 11 place • Need more traffic calming between Ponderosa and Overland • Fix some ROW/property lines • Concern about roundabout safety for bike/ped • Raised pedestrian crossing • Like Plum as primary transit service • Good for transit and cars but potentially bad for peds • Add two stage crossing at Ponderosa • Split phase Plum/Shields MAX on West Elizabeth • No widening beyond ROW • Move ped crossing at Castlerock to Skyline • Bring Skyline low stress bikeway through Avery Park • Address access control further • Like separated bike facility • Prefer CTC transfer to MAX transfer • Show bus stops on west end of corridor- recommend farther apart than existing • Investigate potential for parking structure or shared parking • BRT station between Taft Hill and Overland • Bike facility on City Park, part of low stress network • Opportunity for speed table/raised crosswalk on Elizabeth of off Elizabeth entering driveways • West Elizabeth/Overland safety concerns: sight line, signal, decel lanes, crosswalk, sidewalk • In favor—it is good for residents and visitors and business is developing in this direction CSU • Need left turn signal NB at Plum/Shields • Prefer to put bikes into CSU on Plum instead of Shields • Need bike loop detectors near CSU • Need to make a bike facility E-W through CSU (dismount zone not ideal) Redevelopment (on street parking) • Mixed review for on street parking o Pro—creates urban feel, slows traffic, satisfies parking demand o Con—confuses traffic, conflict for bikes, conflict for other cars • Maintain access to businesses • Don’t like parking buffered bike lane o Conflict at driveways due to reduced visibility o Doesn’t like this design at Laurel Redevelopment (BRT) • The value of dedicated transit lane is lost if only in a section 12 • Make bike space more visible, especially at night • MAX is a good long term vision for the corridor • Best option for thinking long term Questions of the Week Starting in January 2016, the project team published some background about a key element, along with key questions for the community once a week for four weeks. The topics are listed below, and additional information, including a summary of responses, is included in the subsequent pages. 1. Protected intersection 2. Transit connection between the West Elizabeth corridor and MAX 3. Transit signal priority 4. Protected bike lanes 1 Question of the week #1: Would a protected intersection address some of the key issues experienced at the City Park and West Elizabeth intersection? What is a protected intersection? An intersection that provides enhanced separation and protection for pedestrians and cyclists from vehicular traffic. Typical features include: • Corner refuge Island – physical separation that provides a secure refuge for those waiting at a red signal and physically separates cyclists as they make right turns. • Forward stop bar for bicyclists – drivers stop behind the crosswalk, while cyclists stop at a waiting area further ahead in the intersection. Advantages include: increased bicyclist visibility, a head start for bicyclists crossing the road, and reduced crossing distance for bicyclists. • Setback pedestrian crossing – with the intersection geometry, drivers turn 90 degrees before they cross bicycle and pedestrian crossings, increasing visibility. The setback crossing further allows a vehicle space to stop before the crossing in case of potential conflicts. • Bicycle-friendly signal phasing – protected signal phasing for bicyclists use red signals to prevent conflicting car turning movements (if applicable). For more information on protected intersections: https://vimeo.com/86721046 Source: Nick Falbo, Senior Planner Alta Planning + Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA Source: Mark Wagenbuur Why are we considering a protected intersection here? • This intersection serves a lot of bicyclists (upwards of 2,000 per day!), and also has higher than expected bicycle-related crashes compared to other similar intersections. • City staff has observed—and you have confirmed your experience of—unpredictable and unsafe bicyclist maneuvers at the intersection. Providing dedicated space and signal phasing can improve predictability for all users. • The benefits of a protected intersection align with the city’s goals to create a low-stress bicycle network—may significantly improve the safety and comfort of cycling for people of all ages and abilities. 1 Question of the week #1: Protected Intersection Participation Snapshot Survey Instrument Participants SurveyGizmo (online) 84 Textizen (text message-based) 141 Total 225 What we heard from you… SurveyGizmo Reponses: 1. Would a protected intersection address some of the key issues experienced at the City Park & West Elizabeth intersection? 2 Value Percent Count Yes 85% 71 No 8% 7 I don't know/ not enough information 7% 6 Total 84 1. Would the W Elizabeth and City Park intersection benefit from more separation of bikes & vehicles, e.g., refuge islands or special bike signals? Value Percent Count Yes 79% 112 No 21% 29 Total 141 Textizen Reponses: 3 ...here is what some of your fellow citizens had to say “What a wonderful idea! I think it's essential to have clearly marked lanes and obvious bike signaling to encourage safe/proper behavior.” “There are no guarantees, but the more protection that can be afforded to people on bikes and pedestrians, the safer it becomes to use those modes of transportation. Subsequently, more people ride and walk because they feel safer.” ““I think it may help on the surface, but I am not sure it would improve the unsafe habits of the bicycle riders which seems to be more of the problem.” Question of the week #2: Do you think providing a transit connection between the West Elizabeth Corridor and the MAX would be a worthwhile investment? The current situation Currently, the West Elizabeth Corridor lacks a direct transit connection to MAX and Downtown. To reach Downtown you must transfer buses at CSU’s Transit Center (CTC) or walk from the CTC to the nearest MAX station. One-seat ride to MAX One of the goals of the West Elizabeth ETC Plan is to better connect the corridor to the rest of the city. During our outreach we heard a desire for a one-seat ride to Downtown and/or MAX, so the project team is exploring extending transit service from the West Elizabeth Corridor to the MAX Mulberry station. The alignment could start in the western part of the corridor, travel through CSU, and continue to the Mulberry Station as shown on the map below. Providing connections on the west side of the train tracks would improve reliability and minimize delays caused by train crossings. Potential transit route to MAX What’s the trade-off? Providing a direct connection to MAX could result in higher capital costs (e.g., purchasing additional vehicles) as well as higher annual operating costs for the City/Transfort. 1 Question of the week #2: One-Seat Ride to Downtown Participation Snapshot Survey Instrument Participants SurveyGizmo (online) 72 Textizen (text message-based) 133 Total 205 What we heard from you… SurveyGizmo Reponses: 1. Do you think providing a transit connection between the West Elizabeth Corridor and the MAX (as shown above) would be a worthwhile investment? 2 Value Percent Count Yes, extend direct service to the Mulberry MAX station 86% 62 No, end service at the CSU Transit Center 10% 7 I don't know/ not enough information 4% 3 Total 72 2. Would you use bus service that provided a direct connection between the West Elizabeth Corridor and the MAX? Value Percent Count Yes 62% 44 No 14% 10 I don't know/ not enough information 24% 17 Total 71 3 If answered no: why not? “I use my own transportation on a daily basis. It's just more time efficient than waiting on the bus system.” “It's not connected closely enough with my neighborhood.” “Doesn't serve my travel needs. If answered yes: when? (select all that apply) 4 Value Percent Count Weekdays AM 64% 23 Midday 44% 16 PM 81% 29 Late Night 39% 14 Weekends AM 45% 17 Midday 74% 28 PM 82% 31 Late Night 55% 21 Total* 74 *Respondents could select more than one answer, percentages may add up to more than 100% If answered yes: for what purpose(s)? (select all that apply) 5 Value Percent Count Dining 81% 34 Entertainment 69% 29 Personal errands 55% 23 School 7% 3 Shopping 50% 21 Work 38% 16 Other 10% 4 Total* 130 *Respondents could select more than one answer, percentages may add up to more than 100% Textizen Reponses: 1. Would you use the bus service more often if a direct connection was provided to/from MAX? Value Percent Count Yes 62% 102 No 14% 31 Total 133 6 2. For what purpose(s) would you use a bus to MAX? Value Percent Count Dining 0% 0 Personal errands 40% 40 School 30% 30 Work 37% 37 Other 18% 18 Total* 126 *Respondents could select more than one answer, percentages may add up to more than 100% 7 3. A direct bus connection to MAX could result in additional operational costs for the City. Do you think that it is a worthwhile investment? Value Percent Count Yes 74% 95 No 26% 34 Total 133 ...here is what some of your fellow citizens had to say “I don't consider it a transit system if your focus routes don't connect. Go big or go home!” “It would be a wonderful option to have. I am retired, but still want to remain active in my community.” “Not everyone on this side of town is involved in CSU--expand the connection.” Question of the week #3: Should Transit Signal Priority (TSP) be used at key intersections to make buses faster and more reliable in the corridor? Make transit a top priority We heard from you that transit should be a priority in this corridor due to the high usage along West Elizabeth Street. One way to decrease bus travel time and increase transit reliability is to provide Transit Signal Priority (TSP) at key intersections. What is Transit Signal Priority (TSP)? TSP are operational improvements to signals that help reduce how long a bus waits at intersections. A good portion of existing delay for buses occurs at intersections, so reducing this delay will ultimately make the buses go faster and improve transit reliability. This project is considering modifications to intersection signals that would sense when a bus is nearby and keep the light green so that the bus gets through the intersection. What’s the trade-off? While TSP could improve transit reliability and travel time by approximately 30-45 seconds (5-8%) between Overland and Shields, it would increase delays for north/south traffic by 2-3 seconds at Taft Hill and West Elizabeth and 2-3 seconds at Shields and Plum. 1 Question of the week #3: Should Transit Signal Priority (TSP) be used at key intersections to make buses faster and more reliable in the corridor? Participation Snapshot Survey Instrument Participants SurveyGizmo (online) 78 Textizen (text message-based) 129 Total 207 What we heard from you… SurveyGizmo Reponses: 1. Should Transit Signal Priority (TSP) be used at key intersections to make buses faster and more reliable in the corridor? 2 Value Percent Count Yes 77% 60 No 17% 13 I don't know/ not enough information 6% 5 Total 78 Textizen Reponses: 1. Signal improvements in the corridor could reduce bus travel time by 30-45 sec. Do you support this type of improvement to prioritize transit? Value Percent Count Yes 85% 110 No 15% 19 Total 129 3 2. These changes could delay N/S traffic 3-15 sec at Taft and at Shields if a bus is approaching. In this case do you support prioritizing transit? Value Percent Count Yes 78% 98 No 22% 27 Total 125 ...here is what some of your fellow citizens had to say “No they should wait just like the other vehicles.” “Reliable bus timing is a key to encouraging citizens to use the system.” “It is good, and sends a good message to all, that mass transit benefits all of us even if we do not use it that often-- it does benefit all of us.” “The bus as a means of transportation should always take priority over single occupant vehicles.” 1 Question of the week #4: What should protected bike lanes in the corridor look like? What are protected bike lanes? Protected bike lanes provide an additional element of vertical separation between vehicular travel lanes and bike lanes. The vertical separation can take the form of a curb, plastic posts, parked cars, planters, or a raised path. Two examples of protected bike lanes in Fort Collins include Shields Street between Richmond Drive and Swallow Road and the recently built protected bike lane on Laurel Street between College Avenue and Howes Street. For more information on protected bike lanes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6LZ0iRO-TM by PeopleForBikes Why are we considering protected bike lanes here? • The City’s Bike Master Plan recommends protected bike lanes on West Elizabeth Street. • The West Elizabeth Corridor has over 2,000 daily cyclists and is also one of the top locations for bicycle related crashes in the city; protected bike lanes could help reduce vehicle/bike conflicts. • Bicyclists and motorists both comment on the unpredictability for cyclists in the corridor; a protected and dedicated facility would help clarify to all users where cyclists should be. Protected bike lanes are known to increase comfort and encourage use for a range of cyclists. This could result in more people biking and fewer people driving. • This type of facility could create a sense of place and a neighborhood identity. What are the options? The West Elizabeth Corridor could include protected bicycle facilities on West Elizabeth while retaining the existing number of travel lanes and remaining within the public right-of-way. The project team is currently evaluating three different protected bike lane options for the western part of the corridor. Each of these options has tradeoffs. Some of these trade-offs relate to the proximity of cyclists to vehicles and pedestrians, snow maintenance costs, and visibility to vehicles. 2 3 1 Question of the week #4: What should protected bike lanes in the corridor look like? Participation Snapshot Survey Instrument Participants SurveyGizmo (online) 157 Total 157 What we heard from you… SurveyGizmo Reponses: 1. Which option would you prefer for the western part of the West Elizabeth Corridor? 2 Value Percent Count Option A: In-street protected bike lane 40% 62 Option B: Raised protected bike lane (next to travel lane) 9% 14 Option C: Raised protected bike lane (next to sidewalk) 31% 49 Any of them are fine with me 13% 20 I don't know/need more information 3% 5 Other - Write In 5% 7 Total 157 ...here is what some of your fellow citizens had to say Option A: In-street protected bike lanes “Visibility to vehicles is more important to me than either being physically raised or spatially separated from vehicles. It is also the most economical and easy to maintain in snow conditions.“ “The balance of cost, visibility, and proximity to pedestrians seems to be best with option A. Being too close to the sidewalk comes with its own risks, and most motorists are used to seeing cyclists near traffic lanes.” “I really want cars to be able to see the bikers. I think that helps a lot with reduction of accidents.” Option B: Raised protected bike lane (next to travel lane) “This will make it safer for pedestrians on the sidewalk, and help prevent vehicles from encroaching on the bike lanes.” “Currently the plows bury the bike lanes in snow during the winter time. A raised bike lane will not get buried during the winter season, and will still be separated from both bikes and pedestrians year round.” 3 “The greater the buffer there is between autos and bicycles the fewer collisions there will be between them and the more comfortable the interested-but-hesitant cyclist will be riding on W. Elizabeth.” Option C: Raised protected bike lane (next to sidewalk) “Keeping bikes away from the car lanes are the safest method of transportation for all parties involved.” “Maintaining a pedestrian sidewalk and dedicated bike lane side by each would be cost effective. Use on-pavement signage to indicate users and direction. Pedestrian and bike traffic is much slower than vehicular speeds.” “Cyclists will ride more comfortably next to pedestrians than cars. Cyclist will be less likely to cross the street at dangerous points if the bike path is separated from the road.” Any of them are fine with me “I have difficulty envisioning how a single solution would be appropriate for the entire study area. Any of these options would be an improvement (particularly for areas between Taft & Overland where there is currently no bike lane at all!)” “I assume there are lots of students on that stretch. I would want the most safety for them without disrupting an already congested traffic pattern.” Other Comments “I'm very excited to see these changes being considered! I've had many close calls as a cyclist, particularly now that the bike lane at Shields and Elizabeth is nearly nonexistent paint-wise. As a driver, I can understand the frustration because the lane isn't visible, and many drivers don't realize that the right turn lane is in fact to the right of the bike lane at this intersection. I think a separated lane would improve clarity and safety for everyone.” 4 “We need bike lanes that are completely protected from vehicles. Buffered bike lanes just don't do enough.” “I think it's a great idea, and will provide a greater incentive to bike around Fort Collins. I know many people who prefer to drive because they know it's a safer option, so protected bike lanes will allow for an increase in safety.” 38 5. Phase 3 – Recommended Design and Implementation Planning and Phase 4 – Draft Plan and Adoption Process Outreach for Phases 3 and 4 generally covered January – October 2016. The key elements include: • City Council Work Session (March 10, 2016) • Recommended Design Open House (June 16, 2016) • Recommended Design Online Survey • Draft Plan Review City Council Work Session (March 10, 2016) Staff brought the project to City Council for feedback and an update in March 2016. Topics presented included: • What is an Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC)? • Project Study Area • What are we trying to solve? • Community Engagement—What We Did • Community Engagement—What We Heard • Vision • Design Approaches • Evaluation Process • Preliminary Recommendations • Next Steps Key questions for Council included: 1. What are Council’s thoughts on the recommended elements and proposed phasing concepts presented? Are there any elements that are missing or that you would like to see implemented differently? 2. Would Council like another Work Session on this project prior to considering adoption of the plan in July1? Are there specific items Council would like covered beyond what is listed in Next Steps? Highlights of Council discussion included: • Support for elements and phasing presented, particularly those elements that will improve safety. o Complete sidewalk network. o Complete bike facility network with connections to rest of low-stress network. o Additional transit service and amenities. • Questions about CSU contributions for future potential BRT-like service. 1 Note: The project originally had the adoption hearing scheduled for July 2016; the schedule was later adjusted. 39 • Interest in exploring a rapid transit solution that could be Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or express bus in nature, or a new technology. • No additional work session is needed unless content changes markedly. • Interest in more information on the bike share system. Follow-up Items included: • Explore cost-effective opportunities to include sidewalk improvements beyond minimum standards in near-term implementation package. • Consider potential funding sources as part of Implementation Planning. • An update on bike share launch plans, including a map of station locations will be provided by the end of March. AIS materials are available on the City Clerk’s website at http://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas.php. Recommended Design Open House (June 16, 2016) Table 6. Summary of West Elizabeth Recommended Design Open House Comments Comment Board Specific comment location Some concern about deterring bike theft if bikes are left for long period, even if they're locked Urban Design Bike parking (all) Prefer dense bike parking that takes up less space and is accessible from both sides Urban Design Bike parking (all) Make it modern Urban Design Bike parking (all) Need weather protection for seating Urban Design Seating (all) Signage to educate bicyclists on use of innovative facilities Bicycle Facilities Full Build N/A Add curb cut at bridge on Mulberry Bike Share Mulberry east of Taft Hill Add bus stop Phase 1 Transit Mulberry at Tyler Street Pedestrian scramble at Shields and Elizabeth, consider double right turn SB to Shields Interim Design plots Shields and W Elizabeth At Shields and Elizabeth, add leading pedestrian interval, longer pedestrian phase, remove shrub at SW corner Interim Design plots Shields and W Elizabeth Losing connection from King Soopers and Prospect, now that 2 and 32 don’t loop, providing N-S connection Phase 1 Transit Extra traffic on Plum and Springfield due to no left turns on Elizabeth Recommended Design Plots Plum and Springfield Parking for Campus West Recommended Design Plots Campus West Specify left turn lanes from Shields onto Elizabeth so people don’t change lanes mid- turn Recommended Design Plots Shields and W Elizabeth 40 Comment Board Specific comment location Restricted WB traffic with only 1 lane, but can only access businesses from the WB Recommended Design Plots Campus West Right turns from W Elizabeth onto Shields: shorten light, make distinct separation between right turns for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians Recommended Design Plots Shields and W Elizabeth No left turn in at St Paul's, Hot Wok, Krazy Karl Recommended Design Plots Campus West Extend single west lane on Elizabeth just west of Shields further west past where underpass concludes, so people don’t accelerate so close to intersection Recommended Design Plots W Elizabeth EB approaching Shields No bus stop in Campus West at AM Recommended Design Plots Campus West Remove parking on City Park north of University Recommended Design Plots City Park south of W Elizabeth Add speed bumps on City Park north of University Recommended Design Plots City Park south of W Elizabeth Sightline of bikes blocked by buildings and railing Recommended Design Plots W Elizabeth west of City Park Need proposed crosswalk between Constitution and City Park ASAP Recommended Design Plots W Elizabeth east of Constitution Move EB bus stop at Skyline from east of Skyline to west of Skyline Recommended Design Plots W Elizabeth at Skyline Push Foothills to Main Campus traffic to mulberry or Prospect Recommended Design Plots Improve crossing at Orchard and Taft Hill Recommended 41 Comment Board Specific comment location Intersection Add bike parking at bus stop islands Typical Bus Stop Design Don’t like MAX cutting through middle of campus Phase 4 Transit CSU Main Campus Close off Elizabeth from City Park to Shields for special events What if Campus West Redevelops? Is there data for mode split to businesses What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West Concerned parking situation doesn’t improve with this scenario What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West Could trucks make deliveries to both sides with curb What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West Concerned parking behind building harder for those with walkers, wheelchairs and other accessibility challenges What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West Connect back parking lots all the way across What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West Concern that no left out for businesses on the south side What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West Can't lose convenience with improvements, concern losing access to businesses What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West If parking removed at Spoons, make sure other parking improvements happen before What if Campus West Redevelops? Campus West Priority for bikes and pedestrians at Shields and Elizabeth What if Campus West Redevelops? Shields and W Elizabeth Like private courtyard What if Campus West Redevelops?- Prototypical Designs N/A Don’t like raised terrace option - not enough buffer left over What if Campus West Redevelops?- Prototypical Designs N/A Buildings too big in corner plaza option What if Campus West Redevelops?- Prototypical Designs 42 96 Total Responses the Recommended Design was created which further provided citizens the opportunity to provide feedback. Results Participation Snapshot Complete 80 (84%) Partial 16 (16%) 43 83% Agree or Strongly Agree 1. The Recommended Design's transit improvements address the Identified Needs and accomplish the Corridor Vision described above? Strongly Disagree 7% Disagree 1% Neutral 9% Agree 58% Strongly Agree 25% 44 Comments: 45 87% Agree or Strongly Agree 2. The Recommended Design's biking improvements address the Identified Needs and accomplish the Corridor Vision described above? Strongly Disagree 3% Disagree 4% Neutral 6% Agree 52% Strongly Agree 35% 46 Comments: 47 48 83% Agree or Strongly Agree 3. The Recommended Design's walking improvements address the Identified Needs and accomplish the Corridor Vision described above? Strongly Disagree 2% Disagree 6% Neutral 9% Agree 46% Strongly Agree 37% 49 Comments: 50 79% Agree or Strongly Agree 4. The Recommended Design's driving improvements address the Identified Needs and accomplish the Corridor Vision described above? Strongly Disagree 4% Disagree 7% Neutral 10% Agree 54% Strongly Agree 25% 51 Comments: 52 5. Additional Comments? Comments: 53 Draft Plan Review During July and August, the draft plan was posted online for review and comment, and staff arranged small-group and one-on-one interactions with property owners and residents to help refine the corridor design. Some of the key topics included questions about: • Plans at Shields/Elizabeth (which were forwarded to the project team working on the underpass and other intersection improvements) • Impacts to property, speeds being proposed, maintenance, etc. (which were clarified via interactions with neighbors and through an FAQ on the project website) • Design elements in the western part of the corridor, including the proposed park-n-ride, roundabout at Overland, and the design along some of the single-family residential areas (which we clarified via interactions with neighbors and through an FAQ on the project website) The plan is scheduled to come to Council for consideration of adoption October 2016. APPENDIX: CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING appendix:REPORT C Corridor Understanding Report November 2015 Presented To: Presented By: Photographs provided by the City of Fort Collins and Fehr & Peers; sources credited. Design and Layout by Fehr & Peers 621 17th Street, Suite 2301 Denver, CO 80293 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright ©2015 Fehr & Peers No portion of this report may be used or reproduced without prior written consent of City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................IV INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 ............History of the West Elizabeth Corridor ................................................................................ 5 ............Regional and Local Context ....................................................................................................... 6 ............Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 11 EXISTING PLANS .............................................................................................................................. 23 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 37 Existing Right-of-Way .................................................................................................................. 38 Existing Cross Sections ............................................................................................................... 39 Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................ 43 Transit .................................................................................................................................................... 51 Pedestrians ........................................................................................................................................ 77 Bicyclists .............................................................................................................................................. 85 Safety ..................................................................................................................................................... 97 Delay by Mode ..............................................................................................................................110 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ..........................................................................................119 Outreach Strategies ...................................................................................................................121 Phase 1 Outreach Events ........................................................................................................121 What We’ve Heard .......................................................................................................................122 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................125 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................131 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR IIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. CONTENTS table of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR IVREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING THE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN WILL PROVIDE A ROAD MAP FOR BOTH SHORT- TERM RECOMMENDATIONS AND A LONG-TERM VISION FOR THE CORRIDOR BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE NEEDS OF THE AREA. ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS (ETCs) are defined by the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) as corridors that emphasize high-frequency transit, bicycling and walking. This Corridor Understanding Report documents the West Elizabeth Corridor’s history and context, previous planning that has influenced the corridor, and existing conditions of the corridor’s infrastructure and performance for different modes of transportation. Future steps of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan development process will build upon the Corridor Understanding Report: developing a Purpose and Need Statement and Corridor Vision, developing and evaluating alternative improvement scenarios, and developing a preferred alternative, with both near-term and longer-term implementation recommendations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEGEND West Elizabeth Study Corridor Study Area MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) MAX Stations WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR VREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING STUDY AREA The West Elizabeth ETC focuses on West Elizabeth Street between Overland Trail and Shields Street, as well as segments of Plum Street, Constitution Avenue, and City Park Avenue. The study area also includes the surrounding network, and the plan will look at how this corridor connects with the CSU campuses and the rest of the community. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR VIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR VIIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING WEST ELIZABETH CORRIDOR SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR VIIIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR IXREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING 1»LAND USE Land use on the West Elizabeth Corridor includes a mix of types and densities of development, including multi-family, single family, as well as commercial parcels near the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street and West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersections. Land use surrounding the Campus West area has some of the highest densities allowed in the city, including dense multi-family housing on Plum Street affiliated with Colorado State University. A large proportion of the study area’s residents are renters, many of whom are CSU students. 2»RIGHT-OF-WAY Right-of-way on the corridor varies from 60 to 100 feet between Shields Street and Overland Trail. 3»CROSS SECTIONS West Elizabeth Street’s cross section includes two to four travel lanes between Shields Street and Overland Trail. Near Shields Street, West Elizabeth Street has four travel lanes (two in each direction) with a two-way left-turn lane. West of Skyline Drive, West Elizabeth Street has two travel lanes with a two-way left-turn lane. West of Kimball Drive, West Elizabeth Street has two travel lanes. 4»TRAVEL DEMAND The amount of traffic on West Elizabeth Street generally increases from west to east. Near Timber Lane the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 4,400 vehicles per day and near Shields Street the ADT is over 18,000 vehicles per day. West Elizabeth Street also carries a large number of transit passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians. Transfort routes in the study area have an average weekday ridership of almost 5,000 passengers per day. Over 2,000 bicyclists per day use West Elizabeth Street west of Shields Street and over 100 pedestrian crossings occur during peak hours at Shields Street/West Elizabeth Street, City Park EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR XREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING 4 1 2 3 5 6 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR XIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING a measurement of the quality of the pedestrian environment that accounts for sidewalk presence and width as well as other amenities. 8»BICYCLISTS Bike lanes are provided along the majority of the corridor, but are missing from key segments of West Elizabeth Street, including several segments west of Taft Hill Road. Most of the corridor is sufficiently comfortable for the many residents and college students who currently ride on West Elizabeth Street. However, these segments are generally not comfortable for lower-confidence adults/college students as well as children. 6»TRANSIT Several Transfort bus routes serve the study area, the majority of which connect to the CSU Transit Center. Route 31, which connects West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street to the CSU Transit Center, runs every 10 minutes. The HORN and MAX also run every 10 minutes. Most other routes operate every 30 minutes. Transfort ridership in the area is generally high. In fact, ridership is so high on some routes bound for CSU that drivers regularly have to turn away passengers because the buses are full, even with the addition of trailer buses during peak hours. Top ridership stops in the study area include the CSU Transit Center, stops along Plum Street, Constitution Avenue between Shields Street and West Elizabeth Street, and stops on West Elizabeth Street just west of Taft Hill Road. Some of the study area’s routes, including Route 31, Route 32, and Route 2, have a high productivity as measured by weekday passengers per revenue hour and weekday passengers per revenue mile. 7»PEDESTRIANS For pedestrians, a variety of sidewalk conditions exist on the corridor. Some sidewalks are attached, some are detached, 7 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR XIIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9»SAFETY The study area has some intersections and roadway segments with a higher than expected number of crashes. For example, the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection has more crashes than expected compared to similar locations, and the West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection has more bicyclist-vehicle crashes than expected compared to similar locations. West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue also has more crashes than expected compared to similar locations. 10» DELAY BY MODE Over half of the users at the intersection of Shields Street and Plum Street are using transit, walking or biking. At this intersection, transit passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists experience a lot of delay, while vehicle drivers and passengers do not experience a lot of delay. 9 10 8 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR XIIIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING WEST ELIZABETH CORRIDOR EXISTING CONDITIONS HIGHLIGHTS 119 Injury Crashes 341 Non-Injury Crashes SAFETY CRASHES ON WEST ELIZABETH STREET BETWEEN 2010 & 2014 460 Total Crashes 0 460 62 14 Bicycle-Involved Crashes Pedestrian-Involved Crashes CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus CONSTITUTION AVE W ELIZABETH ST W PLUM ST S SHIELDS ST CITY PARK PONDEROSA DR S TAFT HILL RD OVERLAND TRL Indicates more crashes than expected compared to similar intersections within the city Indicates more crashes than expected compared to similar segments within the city Average of 1 crash every 4 days. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR XIVREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NUMBER OF PEOPLE BY MODE PM PEAK HOUR WEST ELIZABETH STREET & PLUM STREET West Elizabeth Street (between City Park and Shields) Plum Street (between City Park and Shields) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR XVREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING WEST ELIZABETH CORRIDOR EXISTING CONDITIONS HIGHLIGHTS TRANSIT DRIVING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Almost 5,000 riders a day within the study area (9 routes): Highest ridership in the city Over 3,700 passengers left behind on Route 31 from January to April 2015. That’s equivalent to over 37MAX buses or 75 standard Transfort buses. TRANSIT BOARDINGS Transit boardings from January - April 2015 APC Data ! < 100 ! 100 - 200 ! > 200 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR XVIREPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WALKING *Pedestrian Level of Comfort is based on a technical analysis of existing data *Bicyclist Level of Comfort is based on a Level of Trac Stress LTS technical analysis of existing data sources 30% 42% 28% Low Pedestrian Comfort Medium Pedestrian Comfort High Pedestrian Comfort West Elizabeth Street & City Park Avenue AVERAGE PM PEAK HOUR PEDESTRIAN DELAY West Elizabeth Street & Shields Street PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF COMFORT* CORRIDOR-WIDE BICYCLING BICYCLIST LEVEL OF COMFORT | CORRIDOR-WIDE 1% 50% 49% Low Bicyclist Comfort Medium Bicyclist Comfort High Bicyclist Comfort 36% of sidewalks in the corridor are non-ADA compliant, of which: 7% are missing sidewalks. 29 seconds seconds 57 After 30 seconds, research has indicated that pedestrians partake in more risk-taking behavior. INTRODUCTION WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 1REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING THE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR PLAN WILL DEVELOP A LONG- TERM VISION FOR THE WEST ELIZABETH CORRIDOR BASED ON AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRANSPORTATION, LAND USE, ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL NEEDS OF THE AREA. ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS (ETCS) ARE DEFINED BY THE CITY’S TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (TMP) AND EMPHASIZE HIGH-FREQUENCY TRANSIT, BICYCLING AND WALKING. THIS CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING REPORT documents the West Elizabeth Corridor’s history and context, previous planning that has influenced the corridor, and existing conditions of the corridor’s infrastructure and performance for different modes of transportation. Future steps of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan development process will build upon the Corridor Understanding Report: developing a purpose and need statement and corridor vision, developing alternative improvement scenarios, analyzing alternative improvement scenarios, and selecting and developing a preferred alternative. INTRODUCTION Section 1 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 2REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING report documents the existing conditions and context for the West Elizabeth Street Corridor from Shields Street to Overland Trail. The plan also focuses on STUDY AREA As one of six Enhanced Travel Corridors in the City of Fort Collins, West Elizabeth Street has been identified by the City for multimodal improvements. INTRODUCTION FIGURE 1: West Elizabeth Study Area Polaris ELS Ben Fort Collins Preschool Association Bauder Elementary Poudre Senior High City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Sheldon Lake Universi Village Com To CSU Foothills Campus Study Area Includes CSU Foothills Campus RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CONSTITUTION AVE CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD S BRYAN AVE ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR INTRODUCTION WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 3REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING nnett Elementary Children's Workshop Dunn Elementary CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE ity mplex MAX CSU Transit Center Through CSU Main Campus to MAX S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST Plum Street between Shields Street and Constitution Avenue, Constitution Avenue and City Park Avenue between Plum Street and Elizabeth Street and north to Mulberry Street and south to Prospect Road. In addition, the study will consider connections on the Foothills and Main CSU campuses. The broader study area is shown in Figure 1. LEGEND MAX Stations MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor Study Area City Boundary WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 4REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING 1 http://history.poudrelibraries.org/archive/newsflashback/street.php Elizabeth Street is likely named after Mrs. Elizabeth “Aunty” Stone, who built the first permanent dwelling in Fort Collins with her husband. She also helped operate the City’s first hotel, mill and mess hall, built by her husband.1 INTRODUCTION WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 5REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Parcels adjoining West Elizabeth Street were annexed into the City during the years between 1950 and 1980. Between Taft Hill Road and Shields Street adjoining parcels were annexed in the 1950s and 1960s while adjoining parcels west of Taft Hill Road were annexed in the 1960s and 1970s. Much of CSU’s campus growth west of Meridian Avenue also occurred during this period, including the student housing complexes off of Plum Street, South Drive and Pitkin Street as well as the Indoor Practice Facility at the southeast corner of Plum Street and Meridian Avenue. West Elizabeth Street has been the location of multi-family housing and retail for a number of decades; much of the multi-family housing was constructed before 2000. However, land uses along the West Elizabeth Corridor have been slowly increasing in density in recent years. In the past few years, higher-density student housing has been infilled along Plum Street. West of Taft Hill Road, the corridor has transformed from a rural agricultural road to one that serves both single- family homes and multi-family housing. HISTORY OF THE WEST ELIZABETH CORRIDOR focus on improving transit, biking and walking in the corridor Due to the land uses and proximity to CSU, this corridor has moved a significant amount of vehicular, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic for decades. As land use density increases, these volumes are continuing to increase. This increase in travel by all modes and key connections provided by the corridor prompted the designation of the West Elizabeth Corridor as one of six Enhanced Travel Corridors in the 2011 Transportation Master Plan. This designation entails an emphasis on improvements that support transit, biking and walking along and across the corridor. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 6REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING REGIONAL AND LOCAL CONTEXT West Elizabeth Street provides a key east-west connection across the west central part of Fort Collins, including the Campus West area. The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor is located between South Shields Street and Overland Trail, acting as a connection from CSU’s Main Campus to Foothills Campus for adjacent neighborhoods to the north and south of the corridor. The study of this corridor also considers access to and across CSU’s Main Campus. The corridor is situated in one of Fort Collins’ most dense areas, which includes a large quantity of rental properties primarily occupied by students. Regionally, the corridor creates an east-west connection to the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line via various Transfort transit routes. Currently, the transition from lines on West Elizabeth to MAX requires a transfer or a half-mile walk from the CSU Transit Station. The corridor also links two major commercial centers located at the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection and the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersection to the CSU campuses and adjacent neighborhoods. The closest east-west through streets are Mulberry Street a half-mile to the north and Prospect Road a half-mile to the south. Figure 2 shows a contextual map of how this study correlates to other major destinations in the area. INTRODUCTION WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 7REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Between the CSU Main Campus and CSU Foothills Campus, this corridor provides access to a mix of commercial, mixed use, and residential land uses. There are also a number of CSU-owned multi-family residential properties that are accessed along West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street. The majority of the dense commercial land uses are on the east side of the corridor. There are also commercial shopping centers on the northwest and southwest corners of the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersection. This corridor was identified as an Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) in the 2011 Transportation Master Plan (TMP). This distinction recognized Elizabeth as a high priority corridor with a significant amount of transit, bicycle and pedestrian activity in addition to vehicular use. Another goal of the ETCs is to accomplish the triple bottom line of economic, human and environmental sustainability. See Figure 3 for a map of all of the designated Enhanced Travel Corridors. The concept of Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETC) was introduced in the 2004 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to “promote safe, convenient, and direct travel, with an emphasis on high frequency transit service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.” . The 2004 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identified the following four Enhanced Travel Corridors: » Harmony Road » College Avenue/Mason Corridor » Mountain Vista/North College » Timberline Road/Power Trail The 2011 TMP added two new Enhanced Travel Corridors: » Prospect Road » West Elizabeth Street West Elizabeth Street provides a key east-west connection WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 8REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 2: Regional Context Map Prospect Rd Drake Rd Mulberry St Plum St. Horsetooth Reservoir Hughes Stadium City Park Rogers Park Overland Park Avery Park Red Fox Meadows Natural Area Rolland Moore Park CSU Foothills Campus West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Laporte Rd Vine St Shields St Taft Hill Rd Overland Trl Key Arterial Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. Study Area West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Parks and Natural Areas CSU Legend N INTRODUCTION WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 9REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING W Pitkin St W Laurel St To I-25 To I-25 CSU Main Campus College Ave Lemay Ave Riverside Ave Poudre River N Downtown LEGEND Study Area West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Key Arterial Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. MAX Parks and Natural Areas CSU WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 10REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 3: Enhanced Travel Corridors 14 287 1 TIMBERLINE RD VINE DR COLLEGE AVE ELIZABETH ST MASON ST HARMONY RD MOUNTAIN VISTA DR PROSPECT RD 25 Enhanced Travel Corridors (Source: Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan, 2011) West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor City Boundary LEGEND Enhanced Travel Corridors (Source: Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan, 2011) West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor City Boundary N WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 11REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING INTRODUCTION EXISTING LAND USE Land use in the western section of West Elizabeth and the remainder of the study area is largely single-family residential properties. Land use along Plum Street and the eastern section of West Elizabeth Street is largely multi-family and commercial. Multi-family developments exist near commercial centers at the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection, West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersection, and the West Elizabeth Street/ Overland Trail intersection. A number of religious institutions exist within the study area as well, primarily in the area from Shields Street to Taft Hill Road between Mulberry Street and Prospect Road. Neighborhood parks and small open spaces are found throughout the study area; however, no major open spaces exist here, aside from City Park, located north of Mulberry Street. The land use mix along the corridor is shown in Figure 4. CSU, which has 27,086 students and 7,000 employees, heavily influences transportation demand on the corridor.2 Zoning A large portion of the study area is zoned RL – Low Density Residential, as shown in Figure 5. West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street consists primarily of zone districts of medium density mixed-use neighborhood in the eastern portion of the corridor. There is also a district of neighborhood commercial at West Elizabeth Street and Taft Hill Road as well as a large area zoned CC – Community Commercial, near the West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street intersection. Within this zone, a range of land uses are permitted, such as religious institutions, multi-family residential or commercial. Services and Destinations Services and destinations along the corridor primarily exist within commercial centers near the West Elizabeth Street/Shields WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 12REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING The North Front Range Regional Travel Model (NFR Model) shows approximately 20,000 employees within the study area in 2012. Out of these employees, about 80 percent work in services FIGURE 4: Existing Land Use RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA Legend Religious Institutions Agriculture Parks and Open Space Commercial W MULBERRY ST ORCHARD PL ORCHARD PL CITY PARK W LAKE ST W PROSPECT RD CLEARVIEW AVE S OVERLAND TL W ELIZABETH ST KIMBALL RD CUERTON LN TIERRA LN ANDREWS PEAK DR ROCKY RD TIMBER LN CYPRESS DR PONDEROSA DR HILLCREST DR S TAFT HILL RD MEADOWBROOK DR GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR CASTLEROCK DR SKYLINE DR CONSTITUTION AVE S BRYAN AVE GLENMOOR DR West Elizabeth Enh Land Use General CSU FOOTHILLS CAMPUS Corridor Study Seg (including CSU), 14 percent work in retail, 4 percent in medical and the remaining 2 percent are categorized by the model as “basic” employees. The study area has a significant proportion of rental properties. Between 52 percent and 87 percent of the population within the study area are renters, of whom most are CSU students. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 13REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING INTRODUCTION This is higher than other areas nearby, where between 42 percent and 52 percent of the population are renters rather than owners. Figure 8 shows the percent of renters in various segments of the study area. Demographic data is from the US Census Bureau. N BIRCH ST W PLUM ST W LAUREL ST W PLUM ST CSU TRANSIT CENTER CSU MAIN CAMPUS SOUTH DR W LAKE ST UNIVERSITY AVE CITY PARK AVE MOBY DR S SHIELDS ST S LOOMIS AVE S HOWES ST S MASON ST S COLLEGE AVE hanced Travel Corridor PITKIN ST gments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. LEGEND LAND USE Agriculture Commercial Education Institutions Government Facilities Multi-Family Parks and Open Space Religious Institutions Services Single-Family GENERAL West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. N WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 14REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 5: Existing Zoning RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA Legend Community Commercial (CC) CSU LMN LMN MMN MMN RL RL NC Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) CSU Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Downtown (D) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Employment (E) Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Zone W MULBERRY ST ORCHARD PL ORCHARD PL CITY PARK W LAKE ST W PROSPECT RD CLEARVIEW AVE S OVERLAND TL W ELIZABETH ST KIMBALL RD CUERTON LN TIERRA LN ANDREWS PEAK DR ROCKY RD TIMBER LN CYPRESS DR PONDEROSA DR HILLCREST DR S TAFT HILL RD MEADOWBROOK DR GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR CASTLEROCK DR SKYLINE DR CONSTITUTION AVE S BRYAN AVE GLENMOOR DR N WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 15REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING INTRODUCTION CC CC CC CSU HMN HMN LMN MMN NCB NCM NCB Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Public Open Lands (POL) Low Density Residential (RL) Urban Estate (UE) N West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor General BIRCH ST W PLUM ST W LAUREL ST W PLUM ST CSU TRANSIT CENTER CSU MAIN CAMPUS SOUTH DR W LAKE ST UNIVERSITY AVE CITY PARK AVE MOBY DR S SHIELDS ST S LOOMIS AVE S HOWES ST S MASON ST S COLLEGE AVE PITKIN ST Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. LEGEND ZONE Community Commercial (CC) CSU Downtown (D) Employment (E) High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (HMN) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) Public Open Lands (POL) Low Density Residential (RL) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 16REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 6: Existing Services and Destinations RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA Schools Avery Park Bauder Elementary Overland Park Rogers Park Poudre Sr High Red Fox Meadows Natural Area Polaris ELS Legend Restaurant/Bar City of Fort Collins Natural Area Misc. Retail/Commercial Natural Surface Major Trail Parks Colorado State University Paved Minor Trail Neighborhood Shopping Center Schools Natural Surface Minor Trail Paved Major Trail Service Type Schools, Parks, Natural Areas W MULBERRY ST ORCHARD PL ORCHARD PL CITY PARK W LAKE ST W PROSPECT RD CLEARVIEW AVE S OVERLAND TL W ELIZABETH ST KIMBALL RD CUERTON LN TIERRA LN ANDREWS PEAK DR ROCKY RD TIMBER LN CYPRESS DR PONDEROSA DR HILLCREST DR S TAFT HILL RD MEADOWBROOK DR GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR CASTLEROCK DR SKYLINE DR CONSTITUTION AVE S BRYAN AVE GLENMOOR DR WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 17REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING INTRODUCTION Dunn Elementary Children’s Workshop Bennett Elementary CSU Academic Core West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor General N BIRCH ST W PLUM ST W LAUREL ST W PLUM ST CSU TRANSIT CENTER CSU MAIN CAMPUS SOUTH DR W LAKE ST UNIVERSITY AVE CITY PARK AVE MOBY DR S SHIELDS ST S LOOMIS AVE S HOWES ST S MASON ST S COLLEGE AVE PITKIN ST Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. LEGEND SERVICE TYPE Restaurant/Bar Misc. Retail/Commercial Neighborhood Shopping Center SCHOOLS, PARKS, NATURAL AREAS City of Fort Collins Natural Area Parks Schools Schools Colorado State University Paved Major Trail Natural Surface Major Trail Paved Minor Trail Natural Surface Minor Trail GENERAL West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 18REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 7: Existing Population RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor General Census Tract 5.03 Census Tract 5.05 Census Tract 5.06 Census Tract 5.04 Legend Total Population 0 - 2,500 3,201 - 5,000 2,501 - 3,200 5,001 - 6,500 W MULBERRY ST ORCHARD PL ORCHARD PL CITY PARK W LAKE ST W PROSPECT RD CLEARVIEW AVE S OVERLAND TL W ELIZABETH ST KIMBALL RD CUERTON LN TIERRA LN ANDREWS PEAK DR ROCKY RD TIMBER LN CYPRESS DR PONDEROSA DR HILLCREST DR S TAFT HILL RD MEADOWBROOK DR GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR CASTLEROCK DR SKYLINE DR CONSTITUTION AVE S BRYAN AVE GLENMOOR DR Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 19REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING IIIINNNNTTTTRRRROOOODDDDUUUUCCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNN BIRCH ST W PLUM ST W LAUREL ST W PLUM ST CSU TRANSIT CENTER CSU MAIN CAMPUS SOUTH DR W LAKE ST UNIVERSITY AVE CITY PARK AVE MOBY DR S SHIELDS ST S LOOMIS AVE S HOWES ST S MASON ST S COLLEGE AVE PITKIN ST LEGEND TOTAL POPULATION 0 - 2,500 3,201 - 5,000 2,501 - 3,200 5,001 - 6,500 GENERAL West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 20REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 8: Existing Percent Renters RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor General Legend 42%-52% 53%-87% 88%-100% Percent Renters W MULBERRY ST ORCHARD PL ORCHARD PL CITY PARK W LAKE ST W PROSPECT RD CLEARVIEW AVE S OVERLAND TL W ELIZABETH ST KIMBALL RD CUERTON LN TIERRA LN ANDREWS PEAK DR ROCKY RD TIMBER LN CYPRESS DR PONDEROSA DR HILLCREST DR S TAFT HILL RD MEADOWBROOK DR GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR CASTLEROCK DR SKYLINE DR CONSTITUTION AVE S BRYAN AVE GLENMOOR DR Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. Between 52 percent and 87 percent of the population within the study area are renters, of whom most are CSU students WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 21REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING IIIINNNNTTTTRRRROOOODDDDUUUUCCCCTTTTIIIIOOOONNNN BIRCH ST W PLUM ST W LAUREL ST W PLUM ST CSU TRANSIT CENTER CSU MAIN CAMPUS SOUTH DR W LAKE ST UNIVERSITY AVE CITY PARK AVE MOBY DR S SHIELDS ST S LOOMIS AVE S HOWES ST S MASON ST S COLLEGE AVE PITKIN ST LEGEND PERCENT RENTERS 42%-52% 53%-87% 88%-100% GENERAL West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. Between 52 percent and 87 percent of the population within the study area are renters, of whom most are CSU students EXISTING PLANS WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 23REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Section 2 EXISTING PLANS Fort Collins values its transportation network and understands the need for accessibility, mobility, and capacity associated with all modes: vehicles, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. Recently the City has worked with consultant teams and citizens to evaluate each transportation element and to develop the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (February 2011) and City Plan (February 2011). These plans, as well as other related studies and plans, were reviewed and are summarized on the following pages. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 24REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Phase 2 – Short-term (5-year horizon) solutions to provide better connectivity and accessibility locally and regionally. This phase recommended significant expansion of the current transit service in Fort Collins, additional regional connections to Denver, and continued refinement of local routes to coordinate with MAX. Phase 2 introduced a transition to a grid network in Fort Collins and provided greater route coverage, higher service frequencies, and longer span of service. A portion of the Phase 2 recommendations have been implemented. EXISTING PLANS TRANSFORT STRATEGIC OPERATING PLAN FINAL REPORT (August 2009) The Transit Strategic Plan (TSP) was a collaborative effort between the City of Fort Collins-Transfort, the City of Loveland-COLT, and the Poudre School District (PSD). It updated the 2002 Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP), the 2004 COLT Transit Plan, and included an analysis of the opportunities public transportation offers PSD high schools. The plan also addressed the Mason Corridor MAX project and its impact on other transit services within the City; identified funding mechanisms and practical phasing options; and developed financial solutions required to create and sustain a high-performing transit system. Six primary goals were developed to guide the development of this plan: (1) meet the Transportation Master Plan and City plan policies; (2) exceed the 2008 Climate Action Plan goal; (3) provide enhanced mobility for transit-dependent populations; (4) develop a transit system that reduced roadway-related costs; (5) provide funding recommendation for implementation and (6) stimulate the local economy. The plan outlined three phases of proposed service concepts: Phase 1 – Planned near-term (3-year horizon) transit service improvements that were recommended to enhance efficiency. These improvements included changes in the schedules of seven routes, the elimination of one route, the addition of one route, and the implementation of MAX and coordination of other routes. Partial implementation of Phase 1 occurred in May 2014 with the implementation of MAX BRT service; full Phase 1 improvements are not fully realized. Phase 3 – Long-term (7-year horizon) plan for additional transit growth in Fort Collins. This phase included longer service hours and limited Sunday transit service, as well as expansion of regional service to Denver, Boulder, Berthoud, and Longmont. This phase also completed the transition to a full grid network in Fort Collins. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 25REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING PLANS Downtown Transit Center and the other continuing south to the South Transit Center. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN/MASTER STREET PLAN (2011) The Transportation Master Plan (TMP), along with City Plan, comprises Plan Fort Collins. The TMP describes the long-term (2035) multimodal vision for Fort Collins and the steps necessary for implementation in order to achieve the City’s vision, including policy guidance. It provides actions and strategies for implementing projects to meet short-term needs while also working towards long- term goals. This document is a dynamic guide for city council, City staff, boards, commissioners and the community. The Master Street Plan (MSP), an appendix to the Transportation Master Plan, is a map of the City’s long-range vision for its major street network. This includes In May 2014, the MAX had its grand opening to showcase the newest transit route in Fort Collins. This Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system runs along the Mason Corridor from the South Transit Center (south of Harmony Road) to Downtown. It serves the major activity and employment centers of Fort Collins and links transit routes, park-n-rides, and trails, while minimizing delays as compared to those experienced on parallel corridors. West Elizabeth Corridor: West Elizabeth Street is identified in each of the 3 phases of service concepts. Phase 1 recommends West Elizabeth Street alignment changes to Route 2 and the elimination of its reverse loop route (current Route 32). Phase 2 recommends extending evening service hours until midnight. Phase 3 assumes the implementation of two new east/west MAX routes from Overland Trail through campus that interline onto the MAX WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 26REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING The City’s current ETCs include: College Avenue/Mason Corridor – connecting Downtown to the communities approximately ½ mile south of Harmony Road (the Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment Technical Report was completed in 2008, the MAX BRT Re-evaluation was completed in 2010, and the Midtown in Motion: College Avenue Transportation Study was completed in 2014); Harmony Road – connecting I-25 to Front Range Community College (FRCC), which will be extended to the Mason Corridor (the Harmony Road ETC Master Plan and Alternatives Analysis was completed in 2013); Mountain Vista Drive/North College Avenue Corridor – connecting the Downtown Transit Center to Mountain Vista neighborhood; Prospect Road (from CSU/Mason to I-25); Timberline Road/Power Trail – connecting Harmony Road to Mountain Vista; and West Elizabeth Street (from CSU to Overland/CSU Foothills). existing and future vehicle connections throughout the City and its growth management area. The MSP also reflects the classification of roadways (collector, arterial, etc.) and the general location for planned transportation connections. Final street alignments are determined and designed at the time of development. During the 2010-2011 update, 14 locations were evaluated to determine the implications of changing their classification. One of the major outcomes was that no streets were identified to expand their current street classification through the 2035 horizon year. This indicates that the current roadway classification is adequate. In some cases, the updated plan proposed to reduce the classification for specific street segments to redefine the purpose and mode hierarchy. The MSP also includes an overlap map to identify roadways that should be redesigned as Enhanced Travel Corridors (ETCs). ETCs provide direct and accessible connections between major activity centers like Downtown, CSU, Midtown, employment centers, shopping destinations, and neighborhoods. While ETCs have a general purpose to decrease travel times along the corridor, each individual corridor will have a different, unique way to WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 27REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING The 2010-11 update includes a pedestrian priority project list. This list combines remaining 2004 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects and new projects identified by citizens over the previous year. The plan also includes crossing guidelines such as when and how to mark a crosswalk and treatments to use at uncontrolled intersections. West Elizabeth Corridor: The West Elizabeth study area from Shields Street to City Park Avenue is identified as a part of the Downtown/CSU pedestrian district. PEDESTRIAN PLAN (February 2011) The Pedestrian Plan outlined issues and proposed solutions to problems for pedestrians with the ultimate goal of providing safe, easy, and convenient pedestrian travel for all members of the community. This effort also updated and prioritized the City’s list of pedestrian improvement projects and explored potential funding options. The purpose of the Pedestrian Plan was to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment that will encourage the choice to walk for visitors, students, and residents. The plan utilized a new GIS analysis tool that forecasted pedestrian demand using citywide “indices” of walking demand. These forecasts were used to evaluate future pedestrian improvements. CITY PLAN (February 2011) City Plan is the comprehensive plan for Fort Collins. It describes the vision for the city for the next 25 years and beyond, and the steps necessary to reach that ultimate vision. City Plan was updated in 2010 simultaneous with the Transportation Master Plan update in order to increase collaboration and share resources between planning processes. Together, these plans and processes comprise Plan Fort Collins. West Elizabeth Corridor: City Plan identified the West Elizabeth Street Enhanced Travel Corridor WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 28REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Two relevant guiding principles identified as a part of this diagram are to make campus permeable to the community and maximize alternative modes of transportation. Guiding principles identified for the Foothills Campus are to establish bicycle and pedestrian gateways and to establish mass transit. ARTERIAL INTERSECTION PRIORITIZATION STUDY (March 2012) The purpose of the Arterial Intersection Priority Study was to identify intersections that are in need of mobility and safety improvements. The study included an evaluation of traffic volume, intersection accidents, intersection delay, pedestrian and bicycle safety and transit operations. The analysis also relied on input from the community to help clarify local concerns and provide input on arterial intersections throughout the City. The community values developed in Plan Fort Collins were used to evaluate the intersections utilizing a data- driven process. The study applied “a wide breadth of evaluation criteria to ensure that the selected projects addressed specific transportation needs and also aligned with the City’s core COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (CSU) MASTER PLAN UPDATE (Spring 2012) The CSU Master Plan is the document that maps the physical needs of the University and provides a tool to assess and plan for the future. This document provided University leadership with an outline of current and future program needs and budget requirements to successfully direct and build a legacy for future generations. This plan provided a collection of maps, conceptual designs, and graphical displays that updated the 2004 Campus Master Plan, including a history of the campus master plan, zoning conditions, WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 29REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING PLANS grant applications. The update also supported the action steps specified in the 2011 TMP. This is an administrative update to the CIP.3 The CIP is updated periodically (approximately every two years); an update to this study is currently in progress. West Elizabeth Corridor: Several CIP improvement projects are within the West Elizabeth study area. One of these projects is to upgrade Elizabeth Street from Overland Trail to Taft Hill Road to two lane arterial standards. This project is a Tier 1 and has a “Medium” cost-adjusted category. A complete streets CIP project is to upgrade West Elizabeth Street from a two lane to a four lane arterial from Taft Hill Road to Constitution Avenue. The Transit CIP list includes Transit Signal Priority (TSP). CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DOCUMENTATION (December 2012) Phase 3—vehicle replacement, new vehicles, and capital improvements (which includes Elizabeth BRT). Another project in the study area is to add bicycle lanes on West Elizabeth Street between Kimball Road and Ponderosa Drive. This study applied “a wide breadth of evaluation criteria to ensure that the selected projects addressed specific transportation needs and also aligned with the City’s core values.” 3 www.fcgov.com/cip The Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is an inventory of all multimodal transportation projects throughout the City and is a part of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The CIP was updated using an interdisciplinary team and ‘triple bottom line’ approach that included environmental, economic, and social factors as project prioritization criteria in conjunction with the traditional transportation criteria. The CIP is a tool that facilitates the allocation of resources based on project- and system-level prioritization reflecting the TMP’s visions and community needs. The focus of WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 30REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING » Modify requirements in the Neighborhood Conservation zone district to restrict 100 percent secondary uses, such as residential development on land parcels of five acres or less, rather than the previous allowance of 10 acres or less. » Require any multi–family project with greater than 50 units or 75 bedrooms to have a Type 2 Administrative Hearing. West Elizabeth Corridor: The TOD Overlay Zone includes CSU’s main campus and extends into the West Elizabeth ETC plan area east of City Park Avenue, between Plum Street on the north and Westward Drive on the south. This represents an area of the corridor that has seen redevelopment of single- family homes into large student oriented multi-family housing projects. Future development will be subject to the changes recommended in the SHAP. An action item in the report, still in need of further development before going to City Council for future implementation, is a grade-separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing at or near the intersection of Shields Street/ West Elizabeth Street. This crossing is currently being analyzed as part of this effort in conjunction with the stadium IGA. key issues for development or redevelopment; and understand potential impacts and compatibility issues.” In particular, staff was asked to address developments near existing single-family residential neighborhoods. As a result of this, the following items have been adopted by City Council: » Apply elements of the Land Use Code and the City’s development standards for the Medium-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. It should be applied to all multi-family projects outside of the TOD (transit–oriented WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 31REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING PLANS West Elizabeth Corridor: The key recommendations in this plan relevant to the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan study area are as follows: » Adopt a lower parking space to population ratio as the key parking planning benchmark. » Develop an aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation Alternatives Program. » Prioritize short-term parking development projects. » Integrate the new Around the HORN Internal Campus Circulator Shuttle in conjunction with the inauguration of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Service and transit route enhancements by Transfort. » Determine parking pricing options and mobility management support. » Develop strategic communications, campus parking and mobility program branding and marketing and ongoing program monitoring and benchmarking. » Expand local and regional transportation planning and funding strategies. » Adopt a range of new parking and planning technologies. » Leverage parking and transportation to support campus sustainability and climate commitment goals. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (April 2014) The CSU Parking and Transportation Master Plan goals includes providing strategies to improve overall campus access, to develop a more sustainable program of transportation alternatives, and improved customer service for the CSU community going forward. This plan included an overview of current parking management strategies, TDM (Transportation Demand Management) existing conditions and best practices, a community engagement and strategic communications plan, traffic impact assessment and traffic simulation model, PARK+ for campus parking and multimodal demand modeling. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 32REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT RELATED TO AN ON-CAMPUS STADIUM As a part of the CSU On-Campus Stadium, an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) was developed between CSU and the City in March 2015 to identify mitigation needs and recommendations for transportation during events. Mitigation needs and recommendations include transportation, parking and transit operational strategies, and multimodal transportation infrastructure. West Elizabeth Corridor: Strategies and improvements that will affect West Elizabeth Street include increased transit service (10 minute headways) and lane improvements at the West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street intersection. An action item in the report, still in need of further development before going to City Council for future implementation, is a grade-separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing at or near the intersection of Shields Street/ West Elizabeth Street. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PARKING STUDY (November 2014) The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Parking Study identifies modifications to the TOD Overlay Zone standards adopted in 2006. The 2006 standards removed minimum parking requirements for mixed-use and multi-family dwellings in order to incentivize redevelopment on infill sites and investment in the MAX Corridor. The 2014 update was in response to increased development activity in the overlay zone, which caused a perceived lack of development-provided parking and consequent spillover into adjacent neighborhoods. This plan makes five recommendations based on these problems: » Minimum parking require- WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 33REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING PLANS COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (September 2014) The CSU Bicycle Master Plan analyzes current policies, program and infrastructure and provides best practices as seen at peer institutions. The plan intends to improve bicyclists’ experience and safety on campus by prioritizing investment, recommending ongoing data collection and guiding bicycle incorporation into new buildings. West Elizabeth Corridor: This plan identifies intersection improvements at West Elizabeth Street and Shields Street as a medium priority project. It also recommends an improvement to the intersection of Pitkin Streets, Shields Street and Springfield Drive to create a comfortable and safe crossing as a medium priority project. FORT COLLINS BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (December 2014) The 2014 updated Bicycle Master Plan defined the vision of Fort Collins as a world-class city for bicycling where people of all ages and abilities have access to a comfortable, safe and connected network of bicycle facilities and where bicycling is an integral part of daily life and the local cultural experience. The Bicycle Master Plan sets a number of goals for bicycling in Fort Collins in 2020 including: » 20 percent of people commuting by bike » Zero bicycle fatalities » Fewer bicycle crashes than in 2014 » A 162 mile network of low-stress bikeways » 80 percent of residents living within ¼ mile of a low-stress bike route The plan emphasizes a low- stress network of connected bike facilities throughout the City. West Elizabeth Corridor: This WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 34REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Collins. It includes a summary of crashes, evaluation of the most common types of crashes, and identification of locations with a high frequency of crashes. West Elizabeth Corridor: The Traffic Safety Summary is the primary source of data used in the West Elizabeth Corridor analysis detailed in the Safety section of this document. FORT COLLINS BIKEWAY SYSTEM MAP (June 2015) The Fort Collins bikeway system map, as shown in Figure 9, was updated in 2015 to show the most recent existing and proposed soft-surface multi-use trails, hard-surface multi-use trails, bike lanes, and designated bike routes. This map was published and is being widely distributed to ease route planning for bicyclists navigating Fort Collins. This is an updated version of the previous Fort Collins bike map that provides additional emphasis on low-stress routes. West Elizabeth Corridor: There are a number of on-street, off-street or designated bike route bicycle facilities within the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan area that connect to the surrounding neighborhoods. WEST CENTRAL AREA PLAN (WCAP) (March 2015) The West Central Area Plan provides a land use and transportation vision for the neighborhoods bound by Taft Hill Road, Drake Road, Mason Street and Mulberry Street. The plan proposed policies, projects and programs to improve the quality of life in the area by updating the 1999 West Central Area Plan. The transportation component features challenges, issues and opportunities associated with the transportation infrastructure. The report highlights three corridors: Prospect Road, Lake Street and Shields Street. The work done at the intersection on Shields Street and Elizabeth Street will carry forward into the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Master Plan. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 35REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING PLANS OLD TOWN NEIGHBORHOODS PLAN (Ongoing) FIGURE 9: Bikeway System Map The Old Town Neighborhoods Plan is an update of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Plans and will help establish a vision for the future of this area. The Plan will be used to help guide neighborhood character, policies and investment. This updated plan allows the neighborhoods to shape or reconfirm the neighborhood’s vision, goals, and policies to reflect current and future conditions. The Plan will explore neighborhood character, land use, transportation and mobility, housing and open space. Key focus areas will include: » Development within comprising districts » Existing conditions and options for the Mulberry & North Shields arterial corridors » Neighborhood Design Guidelines & Pattern Book West Elizabeth Corridor: The design concepts developed in this plan for Mulberry Street between Taft Hill Road and Shields Street is within the West Elizabeth study area and will affect connections recommended as a part of this plan. EXISTING CONDITIONS WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 37REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Section 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing right-of-way varies considerably throughout the corridor and can be characterized into three distinct areas from west to east: Overland Trail to Taft Hill Road, Taft Hill Road to Constitution Avenue, and Constitution Avenue to Shields Street. As a result, West Elizabeth varies between a two- lane and four-lane arterial. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 38REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY West Elizabeth varies between a two-lane and four-lane roadway. In general, the roadway has two travel lanes between Overland Trail and Constitution Avenue and four travel lanes between Constitution Avenue and Shields Street, though a second eastbound travel lane begins west of Constitution Avenue near Skyline Drive. EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 10: Existing Right of Way Overland Trail to Taft Hill Road – varies from 60 feet to 100 feet. The right-of-way in this area is inconsistent overall due to many of the northern parcels being annexed into the City Limits from Larimer County, and right-of-ways remaining as they were in the County. Many of these parcels take direct access off of Elizabeth Street, and the parcels vary considerably in width. Taft Hill Road to Constitution Avenue – varies from 75 feet to 90 feet. The right-of-way in this area is relatively consistent, mostly exceeding 80 feet in width. A number of single-family parcels take direct access off of West Elizabeth Street. Constitution Avenue to Shields Street – varies from 80 feet to 100 feet. The right-of- way in this area is a minimum of 80 feet with approximately 50 percent of the area exceeding this. Multi-family adjacent parcels do not take direct access off of West Elizabeth Street, however, nearly all commercial parcels access directly off of West Elizabeth Street. KIMBALL RD CUERTO LN TIERRA LN ANDREWS PEAK DR ROCKY RD TIMBER LN PONDEROSA DR HILLCREST DR CYPRESS DR North Side: 29 parcels South Side: 47 parcels OVERLAND TRAIL TO TAFT HILL ROAD OVERLAND TRAIL WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 39REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS landscaped buffer (south side only). The cross sections along Plum Street, City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue are shown in Figure 13. Plum Street also has two travel lanes, with a 5 to 6 foot bike lane and an 8 foot sidewalk on both sides, City Park Avenue has two travel lanes, on street parking, a 5 foot attached sidewalk on both sides and a bike lane. Constitution Avenue has two travel lanes, a 5 foot bike lane and 4 foot detached sidewalk with a 5 foot landscaped buffer on both sides. Street has four travel lanes, a center turn lane, a 7 foot bike lane that is a flush, single-pour concrete, and a 12-foot sidewalk on either side that includes an amenity zone. Between Skyline Drive and Taft Hill Road, the cross section has two travel lanes, a center turn lane, a 6.5 foot bike lane that includes a 2 foot gutter, and a 3.5 foot sidewalk. The western-most cross section has two travel lanes, a 6.5 foot bike lane including a 2 foot gutter (in most sections) , and a 5 foot sidewalk with a wide 10 foot EXISTING CROSS SECTIONS DR North Side: 19 parcels North Side: 11 parcels South Side: 17 parcels South Side: 12 parcels TAFT HILL ROAD TO CONSTITUTION AVENUE CONSTITUTION AVENUE TO SHIELDS STREET TAFT HILL RD GLENMOOR DR SKYLINE DR BRYAN AVE GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR CASTLE ROCK DR MEADOWBROOK DR CONSTITUTION AVE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 40REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 11: Existing Cross Section Index City Park CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CITY PARK AVE (f) (d) (e) CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD S BRYAN AVE ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR W LAKE ST BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL (a) (b) (c) W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR W LAKE ST Cross Section Index Map Cross Section Locations West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Figure 11 LEGEND Cross Section Locations West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 41REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 12: West Elizabeth Street Existing Cross Sections Existing Cross Sections 3.5’ sidewalk 3.5’ sidewalk 11’travel lane 6.5’ bike lane/ gutter 6.5’ bike lane/ gutter 13’ center turn lane 13’travel lane 12’ sidewalk (+ amenity zone) 12’ sidewalk (+ amenity zone) 9’ travel lane 7’ bike lane/ gutter 10’ travel lane 7’ bike lane/ gutter 10.5’ travel lane 9’ travel lane 13’ center turn lane West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue West Elizabeth Street between Skyline Drive and Taft Hill Road 5’ sidewalk 12’travel lane 6.5’ bike lane/ gutter 6.5’ bike lane/ gutter 11’travel lane 10’ tree lawn buer West Elizabeth Street between Kimball Drive and Overland Trail WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 42REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 13: Plum Street, City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue Existing Cross Sections Existing Cross Sections 8’ sidewalk 6’ bike 8’ sidewalk lane/ gutter 14’ travel lane 5’ bike lane/ gutter 14’ travel lane 5’ sidewalk 5’ sidewalk 9’ travel lane 7’ parking lane 9’ travel lane West Plum Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue City Park Avenue between Plum Street and Elizabeth Street 7’ parking lane 4’ sidewalk 12’travel lane 5’ bike lane/ gutter 5’ bike lane/ gutter 11’travel lane 5’ buer Constitution Avenue between Plum Street and Elizabeth Street 4’ sidewalk 5’ buer Plum Street, City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue d. e. f. 5’ bike lane 5’ bike lane WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 43REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS The Vissim model was calibrated to existing traffic counts (including automobiles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians), travel times collected using Bluetooth detection, and observed phase green times at each signalized intersection. Appendix B includes detailed validation statistics. Vissim simulates interactions between different modes of transportation, including vehicle- pedestrian and vehicle-bicyclist interactions. In a corridor with high volumes of transit vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, capturing these interactions is important for understanding operations and level of service for all modes. Figure 14 shows average daily traffic, peak hour vehicle movements, and lane configurations. Counts were provided by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations. Intersection level of service (LOS) was calculated using Vissim, a microscopic multimodal traffic flow simulation software package. The Vissim model was created to represent West Elizabeth Street between Overland Trail and Shields Street, Shields Street between Mulberry Street and Prospect Road and Plum Street between Constitution Avenue and Shields Street. All of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan intersections are included in the Vissim model. VEHICLES This section analyzes the performance of the West Elizabeth Street study area for vehicles. The findings from this analysis provide a framework for shaping recommendations in the corridor. This section identifies existing and future traffic volumes that may inform travel lane needs in the corridor and operations issues at intersections that may inform improvements at study intersections. Key items documented in this section include a summary of traffic volumes in the study area, vehicle level of service calculations for study intersections, and 2040 traffic volume forecasts. Vissim simulates interactions between different modes of transportation, including vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle- bicyclist interactions. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 44REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 14: Existing Conditions Turning Movements and Lane Configurations Figure 14 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Conditions acf 4 (2) 455 (322) 69 (83) d 11 (2) 1 (0) 1 (3) ae 10 (7) 272 (537) 33 (73) ae 65 (67) 4 (5) 51 (69) 1. Overland Trail/West Elizabeth St. ace 51 (136) 739 (577) 111 (129) acf 121 (162) 239 (305) 153 (121) ace 47 (84) 547 (768) 91 (106) acf 32 (77) 109 (319) 100 (178) 2. Taft Hill Rd./West Elizabeth St. d 3 (2) 4 (23) 20 (35) ace 26 (47) 499 (531) 5 (6) bf 32 (74) 9 (22) 36 (36) ace 15 (47) 150 (622) 2 (39) 3. Constitution Ave./West Elizabeth St. ae 24 (155) 33 (107) 35 (87) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 45REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE 1: Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service Intersection Control Existing Conditions AM PM Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail Side-Street Stop1 3 (average) 23 (westbound left) A C 3 (average) 27 (westbound left) A D West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road Signal 2 22 C 34 C West Elizabeth Street/ Constitution Avenue Signal 6 A 9 A West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue Signal 8 A 15 B West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street Signal 18 B 42 D Shields Street/Plum Street Signal 9 A 14 B Shields Street/Laurel Street Signal 12 B 24 C Shields Street/Lake Street Signal 7 A 12 B Shields Street/Prospect Road Signal 67 E 51 D 1Delay for side street stop intersections is provided both for the worst case movement as well as the average of all movements. 2Delay for signalized intersections is provided for the average of all movements. EXISTING CONDITIONS Level of Service (LOS) Level of service on West Elizabeth Street and Shields Street is displayed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 15. Table 1 shows average intersection and delay at each study intersection, and the appendix includes delay by approach and movement. LOS for signalized intersection is based on average vehicle delay on all approaches which can conceal the high delay (poor LOS) conditions at specific approaches that may have a small percentage of the intersection’s overall volume. Intersections with such higher delay on specific approaches include: » West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street – the eastbound approach operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The northbound left turn operates at LOS F. » Shields Street/Plum Street – the eastbound approach operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour; both the eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. » Shields Street/Laurel Street – the westbound approach operates at LOS E during the PM peak hour. » Shields Street/Prospect Road – the eastbound approach operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour; the westbound approach operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 46REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 15: Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE W PROSPECT RD W LAUREL ST W LAKE ST CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR W PLUM ST ROCKY RD PEAR ST ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE HILLCREST DR GALLUP RD PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST CASTLEROCK DR PLEASANT VALLEY RD FAIRVIEW DR FUQUA DR WESTWARD DR SPRINGFIELD DR BIANCO DR UNIVERSITY AVE ARANCIA DR MOBY DR SOUTHRIDGE DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR BAYSTONE DR MONTVIEW RD BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR OAKWOOD DR SOUTH DR TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR ANDREWS PEAK DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 47REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE 2: West Elizabeth Street Travel Time Roadway Segment Time Period Travel Time VISSIM (seconds) Bluetooth (seconds) EB Taft Hill to Constitution AM 65 54 PM 68 55 EB Constitution to Shields AM 101 86 PM 122 112 WB Shields to Constitution AM 72 67 PM 81 73 WB Constitution to Taft Hill AM 97 71 PM 14 86 FUTURE CONDITIONS (2040) The North Front Range Regional Travel Model (NFR Model) was used to estimate traffic volumes in 2040. The NFR Model’s roadway network includes the City of Fort Collins as well as the cities of Loveland, Windsor and Greeley. The NFR Model is calibrated to 2012 conditions and contains future year data reflecting 2040 economic and demographic forecasts and specific transportation projects expected to be constructed by 2040. Within the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan study area the model contains a low level of detail; therefore, the model was used to develop growth rates that were used to develop 2040 turning movement forecasts. Specifically, the model projects the following growth rates from 2012 to 2040: » West Elizabeth Street – 23 percent (0.8 percent per year) during the AM peak hour and 12 percent (0.5 percent per year) during the PM peak hour. » Shields Street – 16 percent (0.6 percent per year) during the AM peak hour and 19 percent (0.8 percent per year during the PM peak hour. These growth rates were applied to intersection turning WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 48REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 16: 2040 Conditions Turning Movements and Lane Configurations Figure 16 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations 2040 Conditions acf 5 (5) 560 (365) 85 (95) d 15 (5) 5 (0) 5 (5) ae 15 (10) 335 (610) 45 (85) ae 80 (80) 5 (10) 65 (80) 1. Overland Trail/West Elizabeth St. ace 65 (155) 910 (655) 140 (150) acf 150 (185) 295 (345) 190 (140) ace 60 (95) 675 (870) 115 (120) acf 40 (90) 135 (365) 125 (205) 2. Taft Hill Rd./West Elizabeth St. d 5 (5) 5 (30) 25 (40) ace 35 (55) 615 (605) 10 (10) bf 40 (85) 15 (25) 45 (45) ace 20 (55) 185 (705) 5 (45) 3. Constitution Ave./West Elizabeth St. ae 30 (180) 45 (125) 45 (100) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 49REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS study area. The Campus West area faces a parking shortage due to the large number of vehicle trips generated by CSU, the dense student population with cars living in the neighborhood, and the number of businesses located on West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and Constitution Avenue. As of July 2015, there are parking restrictions on CSU campus but no Residential Parking Permit Program in the study area. Some property owners have developed shared parking agreements with adjacent property owners. A complete list of these agreements is not available. PARKING The study area, especially between City Park Avenue and Shields Street, has a high demand for parking given its proximity to the CSU campus and amount of commercial properties and dense, multi-family and student housing. There are a few sections of on-street parking within the additional corridor study segments. These sections are: » On City Park Avenue between Plum Street and West Elizabeth Street » On some short segments of West Elizabeth Street west of Taft Hill Road » Residential streets north of Plum Street » Residential streets north of Elizabeth Street » Residential streets south of Elizabeth Street There are some areas of off- street parking in the study area. These are primarily located at commercial and multi-family properties west of Shields Street and the single-family neighborhoods within the WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 50REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING KEY FINDINGS Traffic volumes on West Elizabeth Street generally increase from west to east. Near Timber Lane the ADT is 4,400 vehicles per day and near Shields Street the ADT is over 18,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes on area collectors Plum Street (4,960 vehicles per day), Constitution Avenue (2,720 vehicles per day), and City Park Avenue (5,210 vehicles per day) are lower than the traffic volumes on West Elizabeth Street. Most study intersections operate at LOS D or better during peak hours. The Shields Street/Prospect Road intersection operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. Key approaches to certain intersections experience notable congestion: the northbound left-turn, eastbound left-turn, and eastbound right-turn at the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection and the eastbound and westbound movements at the Plum Street/Shields Street intersection. By 2040 and without other significant changes to transit service or conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, traffic volumes on West Elizabeth Street are expected to grow approximately 23 percent (0.8 percent per year) during the AM peak hour and 12 percent (0.5 percent per year) during the PM peak hour. There are a large number of access points on West Elizabeth Street, resulting in a number of driveway conflicts, especially between Constitution Avenue and Shields Street. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 51REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 17 shows Transfort’s system map. Transfort has designed a hybrid grid/hub- and-spoke network. This service structure is typically utilized in areas with lower service frequencies. It allows passengers to transfer between routes at hub locations, often via timed transfers while still maintaining a grid configuration where strong mixed use corridors are present. Transfort’s hub-and-spoke network features three major transfer hubs: the Downtown Transit Center, the CSU Transit Center, and the South Transit Center. Many Transfort services connect to one of these hubs. Data Sources This analysis utilizes monthly Transfort service performance data to evaluate weekday performance at the study area and route level. For time period analysis and stop level analysis, this analysis uses Trip Summary and Automated Passenger Counter (APC) ridership data, respectively. Route profiles and the analysis of Saturday performance are included in Appendix C. Context Transfort Network Overview Transfort is a department within the Planning, Development, and Transportation service area for the City of Fort Collins. The agency operates 24 fixed-routes to serve the City of Fort Collins. Local and shuttle routes provide community circulation and often feed into MAX, a high-frequency BRT and critical network spine. FLEX is a regional service with connections to Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont.4 Transfort also operates Gold and Green Routes, which are two weekend evening/late-night circulators. TRANSIT This section analyzes the performance of Transfort services in the West Elizabeth Street study area in order to develop a data-driven understanding of the WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 52REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 17: Transfort System Map CSU Vet School CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus Sheldon Lake University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center Downtown Transit Center Station South Transit Center MAX Stations Bus Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) PROSPECT RD DRAKE RD HORSETOOTH RD HARMONY RD LAPORTE AVE MULBERRY ST W ELIZABETH ST TAFTHILL RD SHIELD ST COLLEGE AVE LEMAY AVE TIMBERLINE RD 91 92 5 5 81 8 10 14 18 7 12 16 19 16 34 HORN 6 6 33 2 GOLD FLEX 32 GREEN 9 OLIVE MOUNTAIN MULBERRY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 53REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS Overall, the study area route network is confusing, with many routes providing overlapping service and different routes providing service in each direction on the same corridor (often with slightly different alignments). It is not surprising that the most productive and highest ridership routes are those that are the easiest to understand and use. Certain routes only operate while CSU is in session such as the 31, 32, 3and 33. However, these services are funded primarily through a partnership with the University and Associated Students of Colorado State University (ASCSU) which mostly serve the needs of their students, faculty, and staff. While the routes are in operation they provide additional service frequency for the entire community that Transfort would not be able to otherwise offer. Corridor Study Area CSU heavily influences local demand for transit, its design, and ultimately, its performance. Universities are strong markets for transit because they typically attract a high concentration of households with limited access to vehicles. Understanding this operating environment will be critical for developing cost- effective transit solutions and identifying enhanced transit mobility options for the corridor. The study focuses specifically on evaluating Routes 2, 6, 10, 19, 31, 32, 33, HORN, and MAX. These Transfort services have the most impact on mobility within the study area. Routes 2, 6, 10, 19, HORN, and MAX operate year around. Routes 31, 32, and 33, only operate when CSU is in session. The key hub in this area is the CSU Transit Center, the central hub for routes serving the university. Figure 18 shows existing transit routes and stops in the study area. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 54REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 18: Existing Transit Routes and Stops RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA Transit Stops !( MAX Stations West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Transit Lines Route 2 Route 6 Route 7 Route 10 Route 19 Route 31 Route 32 Route 33 Route 34 MAX HORN Green Route Gold Route !(2 !(32 !(6 !(33 ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! (!( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 55REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS Route 31 is a high-frequency, walk extender that operates on Plum Street, a three-minute walk from West Elizabeth Street. The HORN also operates on Plum Street from Moby Arena through the CSU Transit Center to provide campus circulation to East Drive, the Mason Corridor, and the Lake Street Parking Garage.6 !(10 !(31 !(19 !(34 !(7 ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 56REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Table 3 shows existing weekday frequencies for routes in the study area. These study area frequencies are heavily dependent on school demand. Overall service levels decrease when CSU or Poudre School District are not in session with Routes 31, 32, and 33 even ceasing operation during these periods. Transfort recognizes how much the university affects the demand for transit and Transfort’s frequency decisions reflect these significant seasonal changes in market conditions. Lifeline, or basic mobility, transit services operate at frequencies of every 60 minutes or less often. Such frequencies require that passengers plan their trips in advance and often increase overall wait times. Passengers of lower frequency services typically arrive at stops earlier in order to ensure that they make their trip. The limitations of basic mobility frequencies make it difficult for these services to perform productively or cost- effectively. These frequencies are usually reserved for lower- demand, coverage-based mobility markets. Frequency Frequency is one of the most important attributes of a route because it influences both the attractiveness of a service5 and the resources needed to operate it. At frequent service levels of every 15 minutes or better, service comes often enough that most riders will not have to consult a schedule to plan their trips; they simply show up at the bus stop. Frequent transit makes a sustainable mobility lifestyle viable in higher density communities. TABLE 3: Transfort Route Frequencies Route Frequencies (CSU in Session) (minutes) Change when CSU out of Session Peak (AM/PM) Midday 2 30 30 No change WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 57REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS While Transfort has invested a high level of service in the immediate study area, this investment is spread across multiple routes and corridors. And in the case of West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street, the frequency investments are spread across two corridors less than ¼-mile apart. The Corridor Understanding Report will evaluate the impact this decision has on performance, efficiency, and the passenger experience. Table 3 shows that routes in the corridor study area have a wide range of frequencies, from low basic needs frequencies (e.g., 60 minute frequency) to high “spontaneous use” frequencies (e.g., 10 minute frequency). This reinforces the notion that Transfort is willing to stratify its service product, which is an effective strategy. The highest frequency services are Route 31, HORN, and MAX. These services operate every 10 minutes during the day, attractive to transit lifestyle mobility needs. The lower frequencies services such as Routes 6 and 10 target lower density corridors and neighborhoods. Span Service span describes the hours of operation for a transit service. A longer service span helps increase ridership by offering more trip opportunities and usually increases ridership at both ends of the trip, since expanded spans make round trips possible on transit. Table 4 shows the service span for routes within the study area. Most of the services in the study area start just before 7 AM and end between 6 PM and 7:45 PM. This span effectively serves traditional work trips, school trips, and midday circulation. However, this limits other types of trips (e.g., service jobs, second shift, evening shopping) to just three routes in the study area that operate wider spans: Routes 2, 6, and MAX. TABLE 4: Transfort Route Span WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 58REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING TABLE 5: Transfort Fare Groups Fare Group Single Ride Fare Annual Pass Price Adult $1.25 $154 Seniors $0.60 $25 Disabled and Medicare $0.60 $25 Youth Free Free CSU Students, Faculty, and Staff Free Free Transfers Free N/A Late-Night Downtown Service $1.00/$0.50 N/A Fares The fare structure affects a system’s ability to attract riders, generate revenue, and stay financially sustainable. Table 5 shows Transfort fare groups. At the time of this report, revenue data was not available to fully evaluate financial performance at the route level. In addition to passenger fare revenue, Transfort receives funding from Colorado State University that allows CSU students, faculty, and staff to ride for free.7 The free fares allow students, faculty, and staff to use transit as part of their lifestyle mobility (augmenting walking and biking). 7 Technically, the students do not ride for free, but pre-pay for transit as part of their student fees. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 59REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS between January and April in order to get a more consistent understanding of peak, school- based demand. Between January and April, the Transfort routes serving the study area, not including MAX, averaged 8,700 passenger boardings per weekday. Approximately 4,500 of these total passenger boardings originated within the study area. EVALUATION OF EXISTING SERVICES This section evaluates the performance of the system within the study area8 across different metrics. The observed performance is the result of many factors, including service design decisions and local market conditions. The findings from this analysis provide insight into existing strengths and opportunities for improvement. Ridership System Ridership Figure 19 displays the average weekday ridership for all of the routes in the study area. The data shows the influence of Colorado State University on transit demand. The University’s spring semester did not start until January 20, 2015. As a result, Routes 31, 32, and 33 did not operate until that date, and overall ridership volumes were down for the month. With the exception of a spring break from March 15-22, school was continuously in session until May 15, 2015. Additionally, ridership is higher during the beginning of the semester when the weather is colder and before students start dropping classes. The Corridor Understanding Report is based on data FIGURE 19: Average Weekday Ridership Chart (Transfort routes serving the study area) CUMULATIVE AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 January February March April ROUTE MAX 31 HORN 2 32 19 6 33 10 8 Ridership data is from January 2015-April 2015. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 60REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 20: Average Weekday Ridership Boarding Map City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN RED FOX NATU W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL Bus Network MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor 200 300 100 Average weekday ridership from February-April 2015 APC Data LEGEND Bus Network MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor 300 200 100 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 61REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center X MEADOWS URAL AREA S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST Average Weekday Ridership Figure 20 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 62REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Figure 20 shows how the average weekday ridership is distributed at the stop level. The map shows how ridership is concentrated across key corridors and centers. The largest center is CSU, which is by far the dominant hub in the study area with over 20 percent of the boardings. West Elizabeth Street, Plum Street, and the MAX corridor are the corridors with the highest ridership. Table 6, which shows the top five stops in the study area, also reinforces the importance of key locations to the overall network ridership. TABLE 6: Top Five Stops Stop Average Daily Boardings CSU Transit Center 1,795 Plum Street at Bluebell Street 257 MAX University Station 247 West Elizabeth Street at King Soopers 220 Constitution Avenue at West Elizabeth Street 200 SECTION WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 63REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 21: Weekday Ridership by Time Period (West Elizabeth Study Area) 0 ADJUSTED TOTAL RIDERSHIP TRANSFORT TIME PERIOD AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Ridership by Time of Day Evaluating ridership by time of day offers additional information on usage patterns that can help with resource investment and system optimization. Transfort uses the following definitions for its time periods: AM Peak: 6:00 AM – 10:00 AM Midday: 10:00 AM – 3:00 PM PM Peak: 3:00 PM – 7:00 PM PM (Evening): 7:00 PM – 11:00 PM Late Night: 11:00 PM – 3:00 AM The ridership distribution by time period does not deviate from expectations given that frequencies are fairly consistent throughout most of the day. In many systems that provide lifestyle mobility rather than just work and school commute travel, the midday ridership will equal the sum of AM and PM Peak time periods. Transfort follows this positive pattern once the wider peak periods are taken into account. The low ridership during the PM reflects the significant drop in evening service levels after the PM Peak Period in response to lower levels of general travel activity. Figure 21 shows weekday ridership by time period for the corridor routes.9 9 Note that none of the routes evaluated have late night service. Data is from January to April 2015. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 64REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING HORN is also a frequent service providing campus circulation every 10 minutes. This service is a new service that was implemented in August 2014. While it is the third most popular route, it carries less than the riders of Route 31, perhaps as a result of CSU being very walkable and making circulation by transit less necessary, especially when it is operating around the periphery of campus. Ridership will likely increase after the August 2015 service change when the HORN is extended south to serve the CSU Veterinary School and Ridership by Route In addition to ridership being concentrated across key corridors and centers, ridership is also concentrated at the route level. Figure 22 shows average weekday boardings by route. Routes 31 and MAX account for nearly 60 percent of the average weekday boardings at all stops for routes in the study area. Passengers have responded positively to these frequent, linear routes. These services provide key connections to major destinations and hubs such as the CSU Transit Center, downtown Fort Collins, and the South Transit Center. periphery campus parking lots. This change will result in the elimination of Route 34 and will improve operational efficiencies. Routes 6 and 10 have the lowest ridership at all stops combined for routes in the study area. They serve lower density corridors, have less direct alignments, and operate at lower frequencies. FIGURE 22: Average Weekday Boardings by Route 0 1,000 500 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 31 MAX HORN 2 32 19 33 6 10 DAILY BOARDINGS ROUTE WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 65REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 24: Method of Fare Payment by Route 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CSU Customer Non-CSU Customer ROUTE PERCENT OF CUSTOMERS 31 33 32 2 19 6 10 Ridership Composition Within the study area 85% of all boardings were completed by riders with CSU fare media such as RamCards.10 This illustrates the large impact that CSU has on the study area and the level to which ridership is associated with commute patterns of members of the university community. CSU customers are especially concentrated on Routes 31, 32, 33, and 2 as these routes directly connect student housing communities to CSU facilities, as shown in Figure 24. FIGURE 23: Method of Fare Payment 15% 85% Non-CSU Customer CSU Customer FARE PAYMENT 10 Based on farebox data from January 2015-March 2015. The majority of this time period CSU was in session. Ridership composition is likely different while CSU is out of session. Farebox data available for Routes 2, 6, 10, 19, 31, 32, and 33. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 66REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING standards are shown in Table 7. The agency recognizes that different routes should have different expectations based on their role. University-based services have higher thresholds given their larger potential market. Figure 26 shows weekday passengers per revenue hour by route. FIGURE 25: Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour by Time Period 0 PRODUCTIVITY TRANSFORT TIME PERIOD AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Passengers per Revenue Hour (Productivity or Service Effectiveness) Productivity by Time Period The routes in the study area had an average productivity of 37 passengers per revenue hour. This is a high level of productivity that satisfies Transfort’s standards for most service types. When broken down by time period, midday service is the most productive period. This is a strong indication that transit is providing lifestyle mobility in the West Elizabeth Street study area, not surprising for a university community. Figure 25 shows weekday passengers per revenue hour by time period. Productivity by Route Evaluating productivity by route provides an opportunity to identify potential mismatches between market demand and transit supply. Transfort has established performance standards for routes based on service type; these performance TABLE 7: Transfort Productivity by Route Performance Standards Classification Rapid Route (boardings/ revenue hour) University Route (boardings/ revenue hour) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 67REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS study area all operate in the West Elizabeth Street Corridor (Routes 2, 31, 32, and 33) with direct alignments. Both MAX and the HORN are frequent, but generate marginal productivity. The HORN provides peripheral transit circulation around a very walkable campus – especially one that has a coffee shop between the main Transit Center and classes. The HORN is fairly circuitous11 and takes three buses to operate. MAX is similar to the HORN in that it operates frequently, also with a marginal productivity. As the key spine route, MAX is not fully leveraging the network due to a lack of direct connections with other high productivity12 routes, most notably in the West Elizabeth Street Corridor. The other three routes in the study area (Routes 19, 10, and 6) have the lowest productivity rates. Productivity can be improved by generating additional ridership or reducing resource requirements. The transit recommendations to be developed in this ETC Plan for the West Elizabeth Corridor will explore opportunities for these services via streamlined alignments and scheduling design efficiencies. Routes 31, 32, and 33 are able to generate more than the minimum 30 passengers per revenue hour for university routes. In fact, Route 31 greatly exceeds the top university route standard by over 2½ times, generating more than 100 passengers per revenue hour. Transfort has developed a well-designed, highly effective route that presents some lessons learned for the rest of the study area: frequent, direct alignment that is easy to understand and use generates ridership. The four most productive routes in the FIGURE 26: Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour by Route 0 20 40 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 68REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING TABLE 8: Transfort Passenger per Revenue Mile Standards Classification Rapid Route University Route Residential Route Commercial Route Exceeds >8 >5 >2 >3.5 Satisfactory 6 - 8 3 - 5 1.5 - 2 2.5-3.5 Marginal 4 - 5 1.5 - 3 1 - 1.5 1.5-2.5 Unsatisfactory <4 <1.5 <.5 <1.5 Figure 27 shows weekday passengers by revenue mile. Passengers per Revenue Mile Transfort also monitors passengers per revenue mile, another way of normalizing ridership over a unit of service. This metric tracks with productivity per hour except where there are differences in operating speed (i.e., operate fewer miles per hour). Table 8 shows Transfort’s standards for passengers per revenue mile. Once again, Route 31 is the top performer. Its high ridership volumes and short alignment allow it to perform well in this metric, reinforcing Route 31’s role as a walk extender. Routes 2 and 32 are the other services on the study corridor that meet Transfort’s passengers per revenue mile standards. However, Route 33 is in the ‘marginal’ category. It is one of the longer routes on the corridor, but passenger activity begins to drop at Ram’s Pointe and King Soopers. MAX does not generate high passengers per revenue mile. It has a longer alignment that serves a significant portion of Fort Collins. Rapid services are designed to accommodate longer trips and this type of service should be expected to have lower passengers per revenue mile. FIGURE 27: Weekday Passengers per Revenue Mile by Route 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 69REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS Scheduling Efficiencies Analyzing schedule recovery time and in-service time provides insight into opportunities for potential improvements to scheduling efficiencies. High recovery percentages increase unproductive resource requirements because more vehicles will be needed to provide a certain level of service. Service recovery efficiency is optimized during both route design and service scheduling based on cycle time divided by frequency. The less frequent the service, the greater the efficiency challenge at the scheduling phase.13 However, even infrequent transit service can be designed to be efficient if the route alignment, running times, and frequencies are synchronized. Typical industry efficiency targets for recovery time of 10-15 percent are sufficient to ensure next trip on-time departures while providing operator layover. Scheduled recovery for Transfort in the study area averages 27 percent, twice the target. When taking into account actual running time compared to scheduled running time, all routes in the study area complete trips in less time on average than what is scheduled. TABLE 9: Weekday Recovery Efficiency Route Scheduled Revenue Hours Scheduled Recovery Scheduled Recovery % 2 17.5 3.5 25.1% 6 20.8 2.7 14.7% 10 6.4 1.4 28.1% 19 18.1 4.8 36.5% 31 25.9 6.9 36.5% 32 14.5 3.6 33.2% 33 10.9 1.4 14.3% HORN 33.0 12.0 57.0% MAX 94.4 15.2 19.3% Total 241 52 27.1% Route Running Time Difference WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 70REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Segment Running Time Analysis On-Time Performance Transfort service standards define on-time trips as those trips that serve a time-point stop within 0 to 5 minutes of the published public schedule. Using this standard, 85% of trips in the West Elizabeth Corridor study area are on-time, 14% are late, and 1% of trips are early. Within the study area, on-time performance ranges from a high of 98% for the HORN and Route 31 to a low of 72% for Route 2. Route 31 and the HORN are relatively short routes with fewer time-points which helps keep them on-time. Route 2 on the other hand travels longer distances on major streets without signal priority which makes it more difficult to stay on schedule. Regardless of the route characteristic, reliability is a critical component in attracting new riders and more importantly, keeping transit existing riders. The below chart outlines the on-time performance of the nine routes in the West Elizabeth Corridor study area. FIGURE 28: On-Time Performance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% HORN 31 33 MAX 10 19 32 6 2 Early ROUTE PERCENT ON TIME On Time Late The highest layover ratios occur on routes with some of the shortest alignments: 31, 32, and HORN. Synchronizing route alignments, in-service running time, and frequencies should be a key objective of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. Where efficient individual route cycles are not feasible, the interlining of individual routes where they share recovery time should be considered. When taking into account actual running time versus scheduled running time, each route within the study area takes less time to complete trips. When analyzing trends at a segment level, many routes are running just a few minutes behind or a few minutes ahead with the notable exception of the last segment in a trip pattern. For most routes, excessive scheduled running time is allocated between the WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 71REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 29: Passenger Leave Behinds by Time Period 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 PASSENGER LEAVE-BEHINDS 7 8 9 10 AM PM 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FIGURE 30: Passenger Leave Behinds by Route 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 PASSENGER LEAVE-BEHINDS ROUTE 31 MAX 91/92 32 2 33 7 8 Passenger Leave Behinds Transfort currently deals with significant passenger leave behind issues. Particularly on Route 31 and during the AM Peak and PM Peak many students are not able to fit on board the bus. The problem is concentrated14 along Plum Street just west of the CSU Main Campus in the mornings and at the Colorado Transit Center (CTC) during the afternoon. In an attempt order to address this issue, Transfort has supplemented Route 31 with additional trailer buses that are not part of the schedule during the most impacted time periods. As the West Campus area continues to develop and more student oriented housing is built in this area, the potential for overcrowding and passenger leave behinds will increase without additional vehicle capacity and frequencies. 14 Passenger leave behind data covers January to April 2015. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 72REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING transit signal priority), and bus stop amenities. Figure 31 shows transit level of service in the study area according to this methodology. Because buses operate in mixed- flow lanes, and there are no bus bulb-outs or transit signal priority, there is dedicated transit right-of- way, whether mixed-flow level of service is acceptable, or whether mixed-flow level of service is unacceptable), first-mile and last-mile pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure, bus operational amenities (bus bulb-outs or TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE FIGURE 31: Transit Level of Service CSU Foothills Campus TIERRA LN CUERTO LN CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN W PLUM ST ROCKY RD PEAR ST CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR GALLUP RD PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST PLEASANT VALLEY RD FUQUA DR SPRINGFIEL BIANCO DR ARANCIA DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR MONTVIEW RD GLENMOOR DR OAKWOO TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR ANDREWS PEAK DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR VIRGINIA DALE DR W PLUM ST SPRINGFIELD DR ORCHARD PL W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S TAFT HILL RD Transit LOS WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 73REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS study area does not provide complete and ADA accessible sidewalks, and bus stop loading and unloading areas and stops are not always located near signalized and enhanced midblock marked crossings. Bike lanes are also inconsistent with a lack of end of trip bike facilities such as bike parking. the results of this analysis are heavily influenced by first-mile and last-mile pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure and bus stop amenities. Study segments with a poor pedestrian level of service, as discussed later in this report, frequently have lower transit level of service as well. The bus stops in the study area have very few patron amenities and are often not accessible using the pedestrian and bicycle networks. Providing pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops is an important component of making riding transit safer, more accessible and comfortable. The CSU Main Campus GLENMOOR DR University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL S BRYAN AVE CASTLEROCK DR FAIRVIEW DR WESTWARD DR ELD DR UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR SOUTHRIDGE DR BAYSTONE DR BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST OD DR SOUTH DR CRAGMORE DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT CLEARVIEW CT ASTER ST W PLUM ST WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 74REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Continue to Match Frequency and Span with Demand Transfort has generally done a good job of recognizing varying market needs within the study area, operating routes at different frequencies depending on projected market demand. The exception to this practice has been inadequate level of service to meet the demand along Route 31 which is reflected in the large number of passenger leave behinds during peak periods while CSU is in session. The alternatives should assess other opportunities to increase frequencies in areas with higher demand, as well as scale back service levels in areas with lower demand. Transfort services typically end in the early evening. The alternatives should also consider expanding spans where it makes sense. This should be implemented on a route-by- route and trip-by-trip basis. KEY FINDINGS AND ISSUES Transit service performance is highly influenced by matching market opportunities with a good network and route design. The following section lists key findings and issues that should be considered when moving forward with the corridor vision and alternatives development. Infrastructure Improvements need to be made to infrastructure within the corridor in order to optimize route performance and service delivery. These improvements include but are not limited to: intersection redesign, signal prioritization, bus stop infrastructure, accessibility of transit, and direct connectivity through the CSU Main Campus to MAX service. Corridor Roles West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street are in close proximity to one another. These streets are separated by a ¼ mile, 3-minute walk, yet both of these corridors are served by multiple routes. Industry best practices suggest that this type of complex corridor duplication should be consolidated to maximize efficient and effective delivery of frequent transit. While WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 75REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Leverage MAX Service MAX is a key spine in the Fort Collins transit network. However, the only close connection between MAX and the CSU Transit Center is via the HORN (and only in the northbound HORN direction). Creating a better connection between the study corridor and MAX will improve the passenger experience and can potentially move this part of the network towards a grid. This connection could be via a separate route or a MAX branch alignment on the West Elizabeth Corridor. Scheduling Efficiency Transfort has a significant amount of schedule recovery that reduces service and operating efficiency. The development of alternatives should prioritize efficient route and network design such that efficient schedule cycles result. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 76REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING KEY FINDINGS SUMMARY The study area route network is complex and confusing to customers with four different routes serving the same general area with different alignments, configurations, and frequencies. Infrastructure improvements ranging from bus stop amenities to intersection designs are required to enhance service delivery. Significant numbers of passengers are left behind on Route 31 and to a lesser extent on MAX during peak AM and PM periods. Additional buses are scheduled at critical times but often fail to meet the demand for service. For all Transfort routes that serve the study area, average weekday ridership was approximately 10,000 in February 2015 and 8,000 in March and April 2015. Top ridership stops in the study area include the CSU Transit Center, stops along Plum Street and Constitution Avenue between Shields Street and West Elizabeth Street, and stops on West Elizabeth Street just west of Taft Hill Road. Of routes in the study area, the routes with the highest frequencies and most direct routing have the highest ridership. Route 31 and MAX have the highest average weekday boardings. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 77REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS The presence of sidewalks and buffers (for detached sidewalk) along West Elizabeth Street varies, as shown in Figure 32. The sidewalk network is incomplete, with many sections that are missing or narrow and not ADA accessible. The sidewalk east of Taft Hill Road is a mix of attached and detached sidewalk, except for the short segment of sidewalk immediately west of Shields Street on the north side. This segment of sidewalk jogs through a parking lot, creating a high conflict area with turning vehicles. West of Taft Hill Road, there are large sections of missing sidewalk on the north side of West Elizabeth Street. Segments in the west part of the corridor with existing sidewalk are a mix of both attached and detached walk. Plum Street and City Park Avenue have almost all attached sidewalks, while Constitution Avenue has all detached sidewalks. PEDESTRIANS This section analyzes the performance and comfort of the West Elizabeth Street study area for pedestrians. The findings from this analysis provide a framework for shaping recommendations for the corridor. This section identifies locations where it may be appropriate to improve pedestrian infrastructure. Key items include the locations of existing pedestrian infrastructure, pedestrian counts in the study area, peak hour pedestrian delay at study intersections, and pedestrian level of service on the corridor. The sidewalks in the study area range in their condition. The sidewalks in front of newly developed properties, such as on Plum Street, are wide and in good condition. Many sidewalk segments in the study area, primarily in the western section of West Elizabeth Street, are in poor condition due to either width or pavement condition. Sidewalks are generally well maintained and with minimal obstructions. The majority of segments with sidewalks present have curb ramps. However, many sections of the study area, primarily west of Taft Hill Road, have segments of sidewalk below the ADA standard width of four feet, with some sections as WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 78REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Fort Collins Traffic Operations. Pedestrian volumes are highest at the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection and the Plum Street/Shields Street intersection for pedestrians traveling east- west. High pedestrian volumes have also been observed just the King Soopers driveway, is pending and will be implemented in Fall 2015. Pedestrian volumes at intersections and midblock in the AM and PM peak hours are shown in Figure 33. Counts were provided by the City of There are currently two midblock crossings in the study area in addition to crossings at signalized intersections—on West Elizabeth Street west of Shields Street and on West Elizabeth Street west of Skyline Drive. A third midblock crossing on West Elizabeth Street west of Taft Hill Road, west of FIGURE 32: Existing Sidewalk Network CSU Foothills Campus TIERRA LN CUERTO LN CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN W PLUM ST ROCKY RD PEAR ST CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR GALLUP RD PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST PLEASANT VALLEY RD FUQUA DR SPRINGFIE BIANCO DR ARANCIA DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR MONTVIEW RD GLENMOOR DR OAKWOO TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR ANDREWS PEAK DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 79REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS in front of King Soopers but not between City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue based on volumes at the time. Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail intersection. The city analyzed midblock pedestrian volumes on West Elizabeth between City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue as well as in front of King Soopers. This analysis revealed a sufficient demand for a midblock crossing west of Taft Hill Road, in front of the King Soopers driveway, at the location of the pending third midblock crossing in the study area. Pedestrian volumes are low at the West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue intersection and the West CSU Main Campus GLENMOOR DR University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL S BRYAN AVE CASTLEROCK DR FAIRVIEW DR WESTWARD DR IELD DR UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR SOUTHRIDGE DR BAYSTONE DR BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST OD DR SOUTH DR CRAGMORE DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT CLEARVIEW CT ASTER ST W PLUM ST BIRCH ST S SHIELDS ST Note: Gaps in sidewalk infrastructure indicate street or driveway access and is not indicative of missing sidewalk infrastructure. Gaps indicating access points may not be comprehensive. LEGEND Attached Sidewalk Detached Sidewalk WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 80REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING the level of comfort associated with crossing the street. The pedestrian LOS is highest (most comfortable) on West Elizabeth Street in the Campus West area (west of Shields Street) and just east of Overland Trail, and on of the sidewalk, width of the buffer, distance between crossings, and appropriate midblock crossing treatment if one were to be installed. The required crossing treatment is an indicator of The pedestrian level of service was calculated for the study segments and is shown in Figure 34. This value represents the level of comfort of the pedestrian experience. This calculation considers the width FIGURE 33: Existing Pedestrian Volumes CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR CUERTO LN CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN W PLUM ST ROCKY RD PEAR ST CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST FUQUA DR BIANCO DR ARANCIA DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR MONTVIEW RD GLENMOOR DR OAKWOOD TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR VIRGINIA DALE DR SPRINGFIELD DR ORCHARD PL W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S TAFT HILL RD !( Study Intersection Crossing !( Mid-Block Crossing WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 81REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS CSU Main Campus GLENMOOR DR University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR ORCHARD PL S BRYAN AVE CASTLEROCK DR WESTWARD DR MOBY DR BAYSTONE DR BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST OD DR SOUTH DR CRAGMORE DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT W PLUM ST S SHIELDS ST 2 (60) 41 (22) 11 (3) 0 (0) 0 (23) 30 (15) 3 (8) 4 (0) 1 (42) 20 (19) 2 (4) 1 (3) 0 (50) 41 (9) 3 (3) 0 (4) 3 (14) 10 (8) 4 (15) 9 (12) 0 (25) 5 (20) 1 (14) 4 (21) 0 (9) 3 (6) 0 (1) 1 (1) 0 (6) 2 (8) 3 (2) 0 (7) 2(11) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 82REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING TABLE 10: Existing Pedestrian Delay and Level of Service Existing Conditions Intersection Control AM PM Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS West Elizabeth Street/ Overland Trail Side-Street Stop N/A – side-street stop intersection West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road Signal 34 D 45 E West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue Signal 16 B 21 C West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue Signal 20 B 29 C West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street Signal 53 E 57 E FIGURE 34: Pedestrian Level of Service CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR W PLUM ST ROCKY RD PEAR ST ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR GALLUP RD PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST CASTLEROCK DR PLEASANT VALLEY RD FUQUA DR SPRINGFIELD DR BIANCO DR ARANCIA DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR MONTVIEW RD BROA GLENMOOR DR OAKWOOD DR TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR ANDREWS PEAK DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR CLEARVIE VIRGINIA DALE DR W PLUM ST SPRINGFIELD DR WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 83REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE 10: Existing Pedestrian Delay and Level of Service Existing Conditions Intersection Control AM PM Delay (seconds) LOS Delay (seconds) LOS Shields Street/Plum Street Signal 52 E 58 E Shields Street/Laurel Street Signal 46 E 61 F Shields Street/Lake Street Signal 49 E 53 E Shields Street/Prospect Road Signal 52 E 69 F Note: The City of Fort Collins does not have a minimum acceptable delay-based pedestrian LOS. CSU Main Campus University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CITY PARK AVE S BRYAN AVE FAIRVIEW DR WESTWARD DR UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR SOUTHRIDGE DR BAYSTONE DR ADVIEW PL BIRCH ST SOUTH DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT EW CT ASTER ST W PLUM ST BIRCH ST S SHIELDS ST Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) Figure 34 Table 10 shows that average pedestrian delay is relatively high at most study intersections during both the AM and PM peak hour, with the exception of the West Elizabeth Street/ Constitution Avenue and West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersections. When a pedestrian is forced to wait 30 seconds or longer, research has indicated that he/she becomes impatient and partakes in risk-taking behavior. LEGEND PEDESTRIAN LOS 2-4 (Low) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 84REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING KEY FINDINGS Some sidewalks are attached, some are detached, and there are many locations where no sidewalk exists or sidewalk width is too narrow for people using mobility devices. Significant lengths of West Elizabeth Street have a low pedestrian level of service, a measurement of the quality of the pedestrian environment that accounts for sidewalk presence and width as well as other amenities. In addition to marked crossings at signalized intersections, there are two existing midblock crossings on the corridor, one west of Shields Street and another west of Skyline Drive, and one planned marked crossing, just west of King Soopers driveway. Over 100 pedestrian crossings (all directions) occur during peak hours at four signalized intersections within the study area. Pedestrian delay at some signalized intersections is relatively high (greater than 40 seconds) at most study intersections during peak hours. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 85REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS It is important to consider existing bicycle facilities in the study area as well as facilities in the surrounding street network. West Elizabeth Street, Plum Street, Shields Street, and City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue between Plum Street and West Elizabeth Street have existing bike lanes. A number of streets in the surrounding area have bike lanes, sharrows, or are designated bike routes. Existing bicycle facilities in the area can be seen in Figure 36. Figure 37 shows facilities recommended in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) as part of a comprehensive, low-stress network to be implemented over the next 25 to 50 years. As shown in the figure, West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to Overland Trail is designated as a protected bike lane. Shields Street within the study area is also BICYCLISTS This section analyzes the performance and comfort of the West Elizabeth Street study area for bicyclists. The findings from this analysis provide a framework for shaping recommendations on the corridor. This section identifies locations where it may be appropriate to improve bicyclist infrastructure. Key themes include the locations of existing and proposed bicyclist infrastructure, peak hour bicyclist delay at study intersections, and bicyclist Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) on the corridor. Figure 35 shows the number of bicyclists at intersections along West Elizabeth Street during AM and PM peak hours. The largest number of bicyclists is at the Plum Street/Shields Street intersection, traveling eastbound or westbound. The West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection has only slightly fewer bicyclists traveling eastbound or westbound. Daily bicyclist volumes on West Elizabeth Street generally increase from west to east: west of Taft Hill Road and west of Skyline Drive there are approximately 700 to 800 bicyclists per day, and west of Shields Street there are approximately 2,040 bicyclists per day. At all intersections, the large majority of bicyclists cross the intersection in the roadway, WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 86REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING designated as a protected bike lane. Plum Street from Shields Street to West Elizabeth Street (including Constitution Avenue) is identified as a buffered bike lane. City Park Avenue is designated as a neighborhood greenway. The ETC Plan will build off the BMP recommendations to further evaluate appropriate types of facilities/design details that best serve the area. Average bicyclist delay at each signalized intersection was also calculated using Vissim. Table 11 shows the average bicyclist delay and level of service at each signalized study intersection. Table 11 shows that average bicyclist delay ranges from low (“A”) to high (“E”). The lowest average bicyclist delays are observed at the West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, Shields Street/Laurel Street, and Shields Street/Lake Street intersections. Relatively high average bicyclist delays are observed at the Shields Street/ Prospect Road intersection during the AM peak hour and the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street and West Elizabeth Street/ Plum Street intersections during the PM peak hour. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 87REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE 11: Existing Bicyclist Delay and Level of Service Intersection Control Existing Conditions AM PM Delay LOS Delay LOS West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail Side-Street Stop N/A – side-street stop intersection West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road Signal 31 D 36 D West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue Signal 13 B 10 B West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue Signal 10 B 13 B West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street Signal 38 D 40 E Shields Street/Plum Street Signal 32 D 44 E Shields Street/Laurel Street Signal 12 B 18 B Shields Street/Lake Street Signal 5 A 18 B Shields Street/Prospect Road Signal 44 E 29 C Note: the City of Fort Collins does not have a minimum acceptable delay-based bicyclist LOS. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 88REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 35: Existing Bicycle Volume CSU Foothills Campus CUERTO LN CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN W PLUM ROCKY RD PEAR ST CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST FUQUA DR BIANCO DR ARANCIA DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR MONTVIEW RD OAK TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR MEADOWBROOK DR DEERFIELD DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR VIRGINIA DALE DR SPRINGFIELD DR ORCHARD PL W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S TAFT HILL RD !( Study Intersection Crossing X (Y) AM (PM) Bicycle Crossings in Crosswalk X (Y) X (Y) acf X (Y) AM (PM) Bicycle Turning Movements in Roadway 0 (4) 0 (2) acf 0 (1) 4(2) 2 (2) acf 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) acf 1 (1) 0 (47) 2 (0) acf 0 (1) 57 (47) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 89REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS CSU Main Campus GLENMOOR DR University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR M ST ORCHARD PL S BRYAN AVE CASTLEROCK DR WESTWARD DR MOBY DR BAYSTONE DR BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR AKWOOD DR SOUTH DR CRAGMORE DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT W PLUM ST S SHIELDS ST Existing Bicycle Volumes Figure 35 0 (2) 4 (2) acf 0 (1) 15 (6) 5 (3) acf 3 (1) 5 (14) 1 (6) acf 0 (0) 7(119) 0 (2) acf 1 (1) 140 (36) 2 (0) 9 (6) 0 (1) 0 (8) 1 (0) 1 (6) 0 (1) 1 (2) 8 (1) acf 1 (1) 6 (1) WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 90REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 36: Existing Bicycle Facilities City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN RED FO NAT W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL Existing Bicycle Facilities Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane Original Bike Route; Shared Roadway, Recommended Route; Shared Lane ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CSU Bike Paths West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan, 2014 LEGEND Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane Original Bike Route; Shared Roadway, Recommended Route; Shared Lane CSU Bike Paths West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan, 2014 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 91REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 92REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 37: Bicycle Facilities Full Build Plan City Park CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus CITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR W LAKE ST BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL Bicycle Facilities Full Build Plan Bicycle Network Full Build Plan WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 93REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) was calculated for the study area using the methodology outlined in the Fort Collins 2014 Bicycle Master Plan, as shown in Figure 38. This calculation considers speed on the roadway, average daily traffic, and the bicycle facility type. The LTS on the study segments, as shown FIGURE 38: Bicycle LTS Table (2014 Bicycle Master Plan) in Figure 39, is lowest (most comfortable) along Plum Street, Constitution Avenue, and City Park Avenue. West Elizabeth Street has the lowest LTS at the half mile just east of Overland Trail due to the lower ADT and two travel lanes, compared to the higher stress conditions with four travel lanes further east on the corridor. There are a number of access points along the corridor, especially between City park Avenue and Shields Street, that creates additional conflict points for bicyclists. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 94REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 39: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) CSU Foothills Campus TIERRA LN CUERTO LN CLEARVIEW AVE TIMBER LN W ROCKY RD PEAR ST CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR GALLUP RD PONDEROSA DR KIMBALL RD TYLER ST PLEASANT VALLEY RD FUQUA DR BIANCO DR ARANCIA DR BRIARWOOD RD POPLAR DR MONTVIEW RD TAMARAC DR CRABTREE DR DEERFIELD DR ANDREWS PEAK DR RAMPART RD ARGENTO DR VIRGINIA DALE DR W PLUM ST SPRINGFIELD DR ORCHARD PL W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S TAFT HILL RD Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 2 (Low Stress) 3 5 (High Stress) LTS applies the same methodology that is used in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. The score from 1-5 represents the level of bicyclist comfort based on traffic volume, speed, number of lanes, and presence and quality of the bikeway. BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS (LTS) 2 (Low Stress) 3 5 (High Stress) LTS applies the same methodology that is used in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. The score from 1-5 represents the level of bicyclist comfort based on traffic volume, speed, number of lanes, and presence and quality of the bikeway. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 95REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS CSU Main Campus GLENMOOR DR University Village Complex CONSTITUTION AVE CITY PARK AVE SKYLINE DR W PLUM ST ORCHARD PL S BRYAN AVE CASTLEROCK DR FAIRVIEW DR WESTWARD DR SPRINGFIELD DR UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR SOUTHRIDGE DR BAYSTONE DR BROADVIEW PL BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR OAKWOOD DR SOUTH DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT CLEARVIEW CT ASTER ST W PLUM ST BIRCH ST S SHIELDS ST Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Figure 39 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 96REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING KEY FINDINGS Bike lanes are provided on many sections of West Elizabeth Street. However, bike lanes are missing from key segments of West Elizabeth Street, including several segments west of Taft Hill Road. Bike lanes are also provided on Plum Street, Constitution Avenue and City Park Avenue. The Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan proposes a protected bike lane on West Elizabeth Street, buffered bike lanes on Plum Street and Constitution Avenue and a neighborhood greenway on City Park Avenue. Over 2,000 bicyclists per day use West Elizabeth Street west of Shields Street. Bicyclist delay at signalized intersections ranges from low to high. The lowest bicyclist delays are observed at the West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, Shields Street/Laurel Street, and Shields Street/Lake Street intersections. Relatively high bicyclist delays are observed at the Shields Street/Prospect Road, West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street, and West Elizabeth Street/Plum Street intersections. Bicyclist level of traffic stress (LTS), an indication of bicyclist comfort on the corridor, is generally low (indicating relatively high comfort). Most of the corridor is LTS 3, which is sufficiently comfortable for the many residents and college students who currently ride on West Elizabeth Street. However, LTS 3 is generally too low comfort for the ‘interested but concerned’ bicyclist. There are a large number of access points, particularly on West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and Constitution Avenue. These access points create conflicts between vehicles and bikes. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 97REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 42 shows bicycle-related crashes in the study area. The West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection has the highest number of bicycle- related crashes in the study area, followed by the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersections. Table 12 and Table 13 show crash screening information used to identify locations with more crashes than expected on West Elizabeth. SAFETY An analysis of crash data from 2010 to 2014 reveals that the study area contains some of the City’s intersections with the highest number of crashes. Crashes involving all modes in the study are shown in Figure 40. The intersection with the largest number of crashes is the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection, followed by the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and then the Shields Street/ Plum intersections. Pedestrian crashes from 2010 to 2014 in Fort Collins are shown in Figure 41. This map reveals that the Shields Street/Plum Street, West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street, West Elizabeth Street/Castlerock Drive and West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersections have the highest number of pedestrian-related crashes in the study area, and some of the highest in the City. The Plum Street/City Park Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue and West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Drive intersections also have pedestrian-related crashes. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 98REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 40: All Crashes 2010-2014 City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN RED FOX NATU W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL All Crash Types 2010-2014 1-8 9-32 33-78 79-144 145+ West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: City of Fort Collins, 2014 LEGEND 1-8 9-32 33-78 79-144 145+ West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: City of Fort Collins, 2014 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 99REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center OX MEADOWS URAL AREA S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST All Crash Types - 2010 - 2014 Figure 40 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 100REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 41: Pedestrian Crashes 2010-2014 City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN RED FO NAT W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL Pedestrian Crashes 2010-2014 1 2 3 West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: City of Fort Collins, 2014 LEGEND 1 2 3 West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: City of Fort Collins, 2014 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 101REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center OX MEADOWS TURAL AREA S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST Pedestrian Crashes - 2010 - 2014 Figure 41 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 102REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 42: Bicycle Crashes 2010-2014 City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN RED FOX NATU W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL Bicycle Crashes 2010-2014 1 2 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 10 11+ West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: City of Fort Collins, 2014 LEGEND 1 2-3 4-6 7-10 11+ West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: City of Fort Collins, 2014 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 103REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center X MEADOWS URAL AREA S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST Bicycle Crashes - 2010 - 2014 Figure 42 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 104REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING TABLE 12: West Elizabeth Intersection Crashes (2010-2014) Street Cross Street Entering Volume (vehicles per day) # of Crashes # of Injury Crashes # of Bike Crashes # of Pedestrian Crashes Shields Street West Elizabeth Street 46,350 154 28 3 2 City Park Avenue West Elizabeth Street 21,450 32 10 15 0 Bryan Avenue West Elizabeth Street 16,000 5 2 2 0 Constitution Avenue West Elizabeth Street 18,000 14 7 2 1 Skyline Drive West Elizabeth Street 17,550 6 5 3 0 Castlerock Drive West Elizabeth Street 16,700 4 2 1 1 Cragmore Drive West Elizabeth Street 16,700 2 1 1 0 Glenmoor Drive West Elizabeth Street 16,700 2 0 0 0 Meadowbrook Drive West Elizabeth Street 16,700 1 1 1 0 Taft Hill Road West Elizabeth Street 35,950 70 16 2 2 Hillcrest Drive West Elizabeth Street 9,300 1 0 0 0 Ponderosa Drive West Elizabeth Street 10,300 12 6 4 1 Cypress Drive West Elizabeth Street 6,500 1 0 0 0 Timber Lane West Elizabeth Street 6,000 2 1 0 0 Rocky Road West Elizabeth Street 5,500 1 0 0 0 Kimball Road West Elizabeth Street 5,000 0 0 0 0 Andrews Peak Drive West Elizabeth Street 4,400 0 0 0 0 Tierra Lane West Elizabeth Street 4,400 0 0 0 0 Cuerto Lane West Elizabeth Street 4,400 0 0 0 0 Overland Trail West Elizabeth Street 13,550 17 1 1 0 Notes: Bold and underlined text indicates more crashes than expected compared to similar locations Bold text indicates slightly more crashes than expected compared to similar locations Source: City of Fort Collins – Traffic Operations WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 105REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 12 shows that the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection has more crashes than expected compared to similar locations and slightly more injury crashes than expected compared to similar locations. The West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection has more bike crashes than expected compared to similar locations. The West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Road intersection and West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail intersection also have slightly more crashes than expected. There were no fatalities in the study area during this period. The intersection with the largest number of crashes is the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection, followed by the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and then the Shields Street/Plum intersections. more crashes, injury crashes, and bike crashes than expected compared to similar locations. West Elizabeth Street from Taft Hill Road to Ponderosa Drive has more crashes, injury crashes, bike crashes, and pedestrian crashes than expected when compared to similar locations. There were no fatalities in the study area during this period. Table 13 presents data for crashes between intersections (segments). The table shows that West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to City Park Avenue has more crashes, injury crashes, and bike crashes than expected compared to similar locations. West Elizabeth Street from City Park Avenue to Constitution Avenue has slightly TABLE 13: West Elizabeth Non-Intersection Crashes (2010-2014) Block # Description Segment Length (miles) ADT # of Crashes # of Injury Crashes # of Bike Crashes # of Pedestrian Crashes 1100 - 1399 Shields Street – City Park Avenue 0.24 18,350 59 15 11 2 1400 - 1599 City Park Avenue – Constitution Avenue 0.26 16,000 19 8 5 0 1600 - 1899 Constitution Avenue – Skyline Drive 0.19 16,200 3 0 0 0 1900 – 2099 Skyline Drive – Taft Hill Road 0.26 15,000 8 3 1 2 2100 – 2399 Taft Hill Road – Ponderosa Drive 0.26 11,000 38 11 9 3 2400 – 2599 Ponderosa Drive – Timber Lane 0.18 6,000 7 1 1 0 2600 – 3099 Timber Lane to Overland Trail 0.5 4,400 2 1 0 0 Notes: Bold and underlined text indicates more crashes than expected compared to similar locations Bold text indicates slightly more crashes than expected compared to similar locations Source: City of Fort Collins – Traffic Operations WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 106REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 107REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS in the northbound right turn lane that obstructed views. This intersection does not currently meet warrants for a traffic signal. Segments West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to City Park Avenue This segment has four travel lanes and a striped center turn lane. It has heavy commercial activity and numerous driveway access points. The predominant crash type is right-angle crashes (24 crashes) at driveways – nearly all of which occurred during a left turn attempt from a driveway onto West Elizabeth Street. Sixteen out of 24 right-angle crashes were at driveways on the south side of West Elizabeth. There have also been 11 bike crashes (four approach turns, four right-angle and four right hooks). All of the bike crashes occurred at driveways. There were also two pedestrian crashes. One was a multiple-threat crash in the mid- block crossing equipped with flashing yellow beacons and the other was an overtaking turn at a driveway. West Elizabeth Street from City Park Avenue to Constitution Avenue This segment has four travel lanes and a striped center turn lane. There have been five bike crashes (two approach turns, Intersections West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street This is a signalized intersection with a predominant crash type of rear end crashes. Sideswipe crashes on the eastbound approach are also common. There is higher than normal congestion at the intersection due to lane configuration. Required split phasing east-west contributes to rear end crash potential and a higher than normal crash frequency. In 2014, about 30% of collisions occurred on Shields Street, 60% on Elizabeth Street and 10% in the center of the intersection. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 108REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING crashes, two of which involved turning vehicles at apartment driveways and one of which was after midnight with an inebriated pedestrian walking in the street. See Appendix D for crash diagrams at the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersections, West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/Skyline Drive, West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Drive, and West Elizabeth Street/ Overland Trail. Table 14 shows a summary of crash trends. driveways (five on the north side and five on the south side). There have been nine bicycle crashes (five approach turns four of which were at King Soopers driveway(s), three right-angle and one overtaking turn) all at driveway accesses. Westbound drivers are making left turns through the queue of cars eastbound stopped at Taft Hill. The queue blocks the westbound drivers’ view of bicyclists in the adjacent bike lane. There have also been eight rear end crashes, all at driveways. There have been three pedestrian three right-angle – in all of which the bicyclist riding against traffic) all at driveways. There have also been five right-angle crashes, all at driveways (four on the south side of West Elizabeth). West Elizabeth Street from Taft Hill Road to Ponderosa Drive This segment has two travel lanes, a striped center turn lane, and a continuous right turn lane in the westbound direction starting about 120 feet west of Taft Hill. There have been ten right-angle crashes, all at TABLE 14: Crash Type Summary Location Predominant Crash Type Contributing Factors Intersections West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street Rear end, sideswipe Intersection congestion and split phasing West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue Bicycle-related High volume of bikes, traffic signal violations, nighttime crashes with unlit bikes West Elizabeth Street/ Skyline Drive Bicycle-related High volume of bikes EXISTING CONDITIONS WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 109REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING KEY FINDINGS The West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection has more crashes than expected compared to similar locations and slightly more injury crashes than expected compared to similar locations. The predominant crash type is rear end crashes; sideswipe crashes on the eastbound approach are also common. The West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection has more bike crashes than expected compared to similar locations. Traffic signal violations and nighttime crashes with unlit bikes are a contributing factor to bike approach turn crashes. West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to City Park Avenue has more crashes, injury crashes, and bike crashes than expected compared to similar locations. The predominant crash type is right angle crashes at driveways, nearly all of which occurred during a left-turn attempt from a driveway onto West Elizabeth Street. West Elizabeth Street from City Park Avenue to Constitution Avenue has slightly more crashes, injury crashes, and bike crashes than expected compared to similar locations. West Elizabeth Street from Taft Hill Road to Ponderosa Drive has more crashes, injury crashes, bike crashes and pedestrian crashes than expected compared to similar locations. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 110REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING transit users). The Shields Street/ Plum Street intersection has the highest number of pedestrians and bicyclists during both the AM and PM Peak hours, but pedestrian and bicyclist volumes DELAY BY MODE Table 15 and Table 16 show the peak hour volumes for each mode. Figure 43 and Figure 44 also show peak hour volumes by transportation mode (vehicle, pedestrians, bicyclists, and TABLE 15: AM Peak Volume by Mode Intersection Vehicle Drivers & Passengers Transit Passengers Pedestrians Bicyclists Total 1. West Elizabeth at Overland Trail 976 29 25 2 1,032 2. West Elizabeth at Taft Hill 2,340 59 72 17 2,488 3. West Elizabeth at Constitution 801 106 77 9 993 4. West Elizabeth at City Park 971 93 147 36 1,247 5. West Elizabeth at Shields 2,339 85 164 68 2,656 6. Plum at Shields 2,022 222 194 91 2,529 TABLE 16: PM Peak Volume by Mode Intersection Vehicle Drivers & Passengers Transit Passengers Pedestrians Bicyclists Total 1. West Elizabeth at Overland Trail 1,170 32 89 12 1,303 2. West Elizabeth at Taft Hill 2,962 90 114 50 3,216 3. West Elizabeth at Constitution 1,484 169 150 40 1,843 4. West Elizabeth at City Park 1,896 132 194 129 2,351 5. West Elizabeth at Shields 3,846 61 173 134 4,214 6. Plum at Shields 2,950 312 203 131 3,596 are present at all of the study intersections on West Elizabeth Street. Higher volumes are typically seen in the PM peak hour, as compared to the AM peak hour. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 111REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS FIGURE 43: Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Volumes by Mode N WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 112REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 44: Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Volumes by Mode N WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 113REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS persons per vehicle. Transfort provided transit ridership data from the Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs), and the City provided bicyclist and pedestrian count data. Table 17 and Table 18 show total person delay by mode at signalized intersections in the study area during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Appendix B includes detailed calculations. These tables show that in many cases delay incurred by vehicle drivers and passengers constitutes most of the peak hour delay incurred by all people at study intersections, especially at some of the study area’s busiest intersections, such as the West Elizabeth Street/ Taft Hill Road, West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street, and Shields Street/Prospect Road intersections. However, at some of the study area’s intersections with lower vehicle volumes, delay incurred by transit passengers, pedestrians, and bicyclists constitutes a substantial portion of overall person delay. For example, delay incurred by transit passengers, pedestrians, Mobility-based performance measures, such as person-delay, can complement comfort-based performance measures and accessibility-based performance measures (such as the bicycle Level of Traffic Stress and the pedestrian level of service presented earlier in this report) to help more thoroughly explain intersection and corridor performance and the underlying reasons why people travel the way they do. The calibrated Vissim model to measure corridor performance for vehicles, transit, bicyclists and pedestrians was used to calculate mobility-based performance measures at the person level. Estimates of person delay by mode account for delay incurred by each mode at intersections as well as the number of people using each mode at the WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 114REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING TABLE 17: AM Peak Hour Person Delay by Mode (Minutes) Intersection Control Vehicle Drivers & Passengers Transit Passengers Pedestrians Bicyclists Total % Transit, Ped. & Bike West Elizabeth Street/ Overland Trail Side- Street Stop N/A – side-street stop intersection West Elizabeth Street/ Taft Hill Road Signal 949 66 9 35 1,059 10% West Elizabeth Street/ Constitution Avenue Signal 82 34 3 13 132 38% West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue Signal 131 36 12 21 200 35% West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street Signal 819 57 80 96 1,052 22% Shields Street/ Plum Street Signal 310 191 93 89 683 55% Shields Street/ Laurel Street Signal 472 4 26 9 511 8% Shields Street/ Lake Street Signal 285 1 43 9 338 16% Shields Street/ Prospect Road Signal 4,067 123 57 52 4,299 5% and bicyclists constitutes over 30 percent of overall person delay at the West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, and Shields Street/Plum Street intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours. At the Shields Street/Plum Street intersection, transit passenger, pedestrian, and bicyclist delay constitutes 55 percent and 46 percent of overall person delay during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. It is important to consider not only level of service, but person-mobility as we plan for the future in order to reduce delay for vehicles, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 115REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS TABLE 18: PM Peak Hour Person Delay by Mode (Minutes) Intersection Control Vehicle Drivers & Passengers Transit Passengers Pedestrians Bicyclists Total % Transit, Ped. & Bike West Elizabeth Street/ Overland Trail Side- Street Stop N/A – side-street stop intersection West Elizabeth Street/ Taft Hill Road Signal 1,832 89 48 61 2,030 10% West Elizabeth Street/ Constitution Avenue Signal 247 76 14 23 360 31% West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue Signal 477 130 115 33 755 37% West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street Signal 2,801 18 151 89 3,059 8% Shields Street/ Plum Street Signal 754 368 146 117 1,385 46% Shields Street/ Laurel Street Signal 1,259 29 63 5 1,356 7% Shields Street/ Lake Street Signal 645 9 21 8 683 6% Shields Street/ Prospect Road Signal 3,948 35 82 24 4,089 3% WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 116REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING KEY FINDINGS The Plum Street/Shields Street intersection has the largest number of transit passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians in the study area (almost 650 during the PM peak hour). Other intersections with a large number of transit passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians include the West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue intersection (455 during the PM peak hour), the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection (almost 370 during the PM peak hour) and the West Elizabeth Street/ Constitution Avenue intersection (almost 360 during the PM peak hour). Delay incurred by vehicle drivers and passengers constitutes most of the peak hour delay incurred by all corridor users at study intersections, especially at some of the study area’s busiest intersections including the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road, West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street, and Shields Street/Prospect Road intersections. At some of the study area’s intersections with lower vehicle volumes, delay incurred by transit passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists constitutes a substantial portion of overall person delay. Delay incurred by transit passengers, pedestrians and bicyclists constitutes over 30 percent of overall person delay at the West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue, and Shields Street/Plum Street intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours. At the Shields Street/Plum Street intersection, transit passenger, pedestrian and bicyclist delay constitutes 55 percent and 46 percent of overall person delay during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 117REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING EXISTING CONDITIONS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 119REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING Section 4 The West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan process began Spring 2015. From the beginning, a high priority was to directly engage residents, businesses, and stakeholders in an effective, meaningful, and equitable way to ensure their interests and concerns would be heard and that their ideas would be reflected in the future vision for the corridor. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 120REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING KEY STAKEHOLDERS » Neighborhood Residents » Business Owners » CSU Students, Faculty, Staff & Administration » Property Owners » Local Developers » HOAs & Neighborhood Associations » Multi-family Housing Managers » Alternative Transportation Advocates » Safe Routes to School » City Boards & Commissions » City Departments PUBLIC ACTIVITIES & EVENTS » Neighborhood Listening Sessions » Walking, Biking & Transit Tours » Open Streets » Focus Groups » Technical Advisory Committee Meetings » Stakeholder Committee Meetings HIGH-TECH TOOLS & BROADCAST MEDIA » Online Surveys » Online WikiMap » Electronic Polling » Press Releases » News Articles » Postcard Mailings » Email Notifications » Flyers » Posters COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 121REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING M AY Neighborhood Listening Session: May 4 City Joint Planning Open House: May 6 Planning & Zoning Board: May 8 Neighborhood Walking, Biking & Transit Tours: May 11-14 Transfort Shift Meetings: May 13 Senior Advisory Board: May 13 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1: May 19 Transportation Board: May 20 Transfort Employee Engagement: May 28 PHASE 1 OUTREACH EVENTS OUTREACH STRATEGIES Three strategies for public engagement were used through the Corridor Understanding (Phase 1) of the planning process: high-tech tools and broadcast media; public activities and events; and outreach to boards and committees. These events and tools were used to: » Explain the planning process and how the West Elizabeth ETC relates to other planning efforts » Set the foundation for an ongoing dialogue about the issues, needs, vision, and priorities for the corridor » Seek to understand current and future opportunities, issues, and needs for the area COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT JUNE Open Streets: June 7 JULY Woodbridge Senior Housing Listening Session: July 1 Focus Group Meeting: July 8 Stakeholder Committee Meeting #1: July 8 CSU Bicycle Advisory Committee: July 9 North Front Range MPO TAC Meeting: July 15 MARCH CSU Housing Fair: March 4 CSU Conservation Leadership Through Learning Class: March 9 APRIL CSU Bicycle Advisory Committee: April 9 CSU Built Environment Class: April 13 CSU Earth Day Fair: April 22 Associated Students of CSU Meeting: April 22 Bicycle Advisory Committee: April 27 WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 122REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING TRANSIT » Overcrowded buses, people are left behind » Not enough bus stop amenities » Not enough service (e.g., late-night, weekend, summer) WHAT WE’VE HEARD During the public engagement process to gather input on existing conditions, several common themes regarding the current experience of traveling in the corridor emerged. Below are key themes organized by transportation mode. Please see Appendix E for additional outreach details. DRIVING » Challenging to make left turns to and from driveways » Conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists » Speeding » Sight distance issues Challenges exist between cars, bikes, and pedestrians in heavily trafficked areas such as Campus West where multiple access points exist to reach local businesses and housing. Bus stops across the corridor often lack benches, shelters, as well as ADA-compliant adjacent sidewalks, and loading pads. SECTION WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 123REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING WALKING » Inconsistent facilities, lack of sidewalks » Not comfortable » Largely not ADA-complaint » Hard to cross West Elizabeth Street at key intersections » Lack of sufficient midblock crossing opportunities Several portions of West Elizabeth are not ADA- compliant, forcing people using mobility devices to travel in bike lanes next to vehicular traffic. BIKING » Inconsistent facilities in west segment » Lots of driveway conflicts in Campus West » Challenging intersections (e.g., West Elizabeth at Taft Hill, City Park, Shields) » High number of cyclist crashes Bicycle facilities are inconsistent, disappearing or turning into shared lane conditions in the western portion of the corridor. SUMMARY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 125REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING The West Elizabeth Corridor’s context is unique in the City of Fort Collins. Previous planning efforts have identified needs for a corridor-focused plan to meet the Transportation Master Plan’s vision of an Enhanced Travel Corridor that emphasizes high-frequency transit, bicycling, and walking. Section 5 SUMMARY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 126REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING In addition to the multimodal level of service analysis, this report’s safety analysis reveals some intersections and segments on the corridor with more crashes than expected, including the intersections of West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street and West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail. Finally, person-mobility analysis on the corridor reveals that not all intersection users incur the same levels of delay. Future steps of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan development process will build upon the findings of this Corridor Understanding Report: developing the purpose and need statement and corridor vision, developing alternative improvement scenarios, analyzing alternative improvement scenarios, and selecting and developing a preferred alternative. The West Elizabeth Corridor currently performs well in some areas while other areas can be improved. Figure 45 shows multimodal performance in the corridor that combines level of service for all modes: vehicles, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. Several segments of the corridor have a low pedestrian level of service which reflects a low level of comfort. Bicyclist level of traffic stress indicates a relatively high level of comfort; however, the comfort of existing bicycling infrastructure is not high enough to serve lower-confidence bicyclists and does not consider the conflict caused by high traffic access points. Transit level of service, primarily a measure of stop amenities and transit access by walking and biking, is relatively high. However, deeper analysis of the corridor’s transit ridership and operations reveals areas for improvement. Vehicle operations on the corridor are generally good although there are some intersections which experience congestion during WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 127REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING SUMMARY WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 128REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING FIGURE 45: West Elizabeth Street Multimodal Level of Service CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD CYPRESS DR AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL PONDEROSA DR City Boundary West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD CYPRESS DR AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL PONDEROSA DR CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD CYPRESS DR AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 129REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING SUMMARY CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE UNIVERSITY AVE S BRYAN AVE S SHIELDS ST W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE West Elizabeth Street Multi Modal Level of Service CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE UNIVERSITY AVE S BRYAN AVE S SHIELDS ST W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE UNIVERSITY AVE S BRYAN AVE S SHIELDS ST W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE UNIVERSITY AVE S BRYAN AVE S SHIELDS ST W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE LTS applies the same methodology that is used in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. The score from 1-5 represents the level of bicyclist comfort based on traffic volume, speed, number of lanes, and presence and quality of the bikeway. The pedestrian score is based on sidewalk width, buffer width and distance to the nearest crossing. The transit score is based on transit reliability (roadway LOS) and built environment factors including proximate walkways and bikeways and bus stop amenities. mobiles is based on approach level of service (LOS), which accounts for vehicle section level of service (LOS), which accounts for vehicle delay at intersections. tion LOS are based on 2035 traffic volumes and HCM 2000 methodologies. Pedestrian LOS 2 - 4 (Low) 5 - 7 8 - 9 (Medium) 10 - 12 13 - 15 (High) Bicycle LTS 2 3 APPENDIX WEST ELIZABETH ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDOR 131REPORT CORRIDOR UNDERSTANDING APPENDIX A: CSU Student and Employee Residence Data APPENDIX B: Traffic Operation Calculations APPENDIX C: Transfort Route Profiles APPENDIX D: Crash Diagrams APPENDIX E: Community Engagement Details Section 7 APPENDICES AP PPENDIX A: CSU ST TUDENT AND EMPLOYEE RRESIDENCCE DATA 2015 Students Buffer ² 5,098 Students within West Elizabeth Study Area Date: 7/14/2015 2015 Employees Buffer ² 835 Employees within West Elizabeth Study Area Date: 7/14/2015 APPENNDIX B: T TRAFFIC OOPERATIOONS CALCULATIOONS MOTORIZED VEHICLE DELAY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 719 710 98.8% 6.7 1.8 A 87 Right Turn 413 410 99.2% 9.1 1.7 A 68 Subtotal 1,132 1,120 98.9% 7.6 1.5 A 155 Left Turn 130 133 102.3% 24.8 4.7 C 61 Through 667 659 98.8% 11.8 1.1 B 143 Right Turn Subtotal 797 792 99.4% 14.0 1.3 B 204 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 128 124 97.0% 45.7 4.9 D 104 Through Right Turn 61 58 94.9% 9.1 1.8 A 10 Subtotal 189 182 96.3% 34.4 3.0 C 114 Total 2,118 2,094 98.9% 12.0 1.1 B 472 42.5 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 13 13 96.2% 8.0 7.0 A 2 Through 1,064 1,057 99.4% 3.2 1.2 A 61 Right Turn 37 39 104.3% 4.2 2.2 A 3 Subtotal 1,114 1,108 99.5% 3.3 1.1 A 66 Left Turn 13 13 100.8% 25.7 14.6 C 6 Through 764 756 98.9% 5.5 0.6 A 77 Right Turn 18 17 93.3% 6.3 3.7 A 2 Subtotal 795 786 98.8% 5.9 0.7 A 85 Left Turn 51 51 100.6% 59.8 14.9 E 56 Through 25 32 126.0% 61.7 8.9 E 36 Right Turn 34 34 98.5% 51.7 13.6 D 32 Subtotal 110 116 105.7% 58.0 11.3 E 124 Left Turn 17 18 104.7% 39.2 24.2 D 13 Through 18 26 143.3% 41.1 10.2 D 19 Right Turn 17 17 98.2% 10.2 6.4 B 3 Subtotal 52 60 116.0% 33.2 8.4 C 35 Total 2,071 2,071 100.0% 9.4 1.1 A 310 61.7 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 140 142 101.1% 27.9 6.6 C 72 Through 851 841 98.8% 13.1 1.7 B 202 Right Turn 54 55 101.5% 11.9 3.6 B 12 Subtotal 1,045 1,038 99.3% 15.1 1.9 B 286 Left Turn 24 24 97.9% 39.9 16.3 D 17 Through 653 647 99.1% 7.4 2.2 A 88 Right Turn 138 137 98.9% 3.3 0.7 A 8 Subtotal 815 807 99.0% 7.7 2.0 A 114 Left Turn 258 263 101.8% 42.9 4.8 D 206 Through 27 27 100.4% 44.0 8.9 D 22 Right Turn 296 294 99.4% 32.9 10.9 C 177 Subtotal 581 584 100.5% 38.3 3.2 D 406 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 43.7 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,178 1,182 100.4% 3.1 0.7 A 68 Right Turn 154 150 97.1% 3.7 1.4 A 10 Subtotal 1,332 1,332 100.0% 3.2 0.7 A 78 Left Turn 123 116 94.1% 37.7 7.5 D 80 Through 768 752 97.9% 5.2 1.0 A 72 Right Turn Subtotal 891 868 97.4% 9.6 2.2 A 151 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 61 61 100.3% 46.3 3.3 D 52 Through Right Turn 37 35 94.6% 5.1 1.0 A 3 Subtotal 98 96 98.2% 33.1 2.9 C 55 Total 2,321 2,296 98.9% 7.4 1.2 A 285 45.3 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 56 53 95.4% 25.6 6.2 C 25 Through 946 940 99.4% 23.9 3.2 C 412 Right Turn 136 133 97.6% 17.1 2.6 B 42 Subtotal 1,138 1,126 99.0% 23.2 3.1 C 479 Left Turn 145 153 105.3% 38.1 10.6 D 107 Through 630 602 95.6% 7.2 1.3 A 80 Right Turn 54 55 101.1% 2.5 0.6 A 2 Subtotal 829 810 97.7% 13.2 2.9 B 189 Left Turn 241 241 99.8% 171.5 47.8 F 756 Through 713 727 101.9% 151.0 37.8 F 2,011 Right Turn 152 145 95.1% 109.7 36.5 F 291 Subtotal 1,106 1,112 100.5% 149.9 38.9 F 3,058 Left Turn 71 71 99.9% 55.7 8.0 E 72 Through 233 237 101.7% 41.7 5.1 D 181 Right Turn 145 147 101.1% 32.4 6.7 C 87 Subtotal 449 455 101.2% 41.1 4.7 D 341 Total 3,522 3,503 99.4% 66.8 14.0 E 4,067 Intersection 8City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 24 27 110.4% 20.2 8.1 C 10 Through 33 35 106.1% 20.4 2.5 C 13 Right Turn 35 36 101.7% 9.3 2.9 A 6 Subtotal 92 97 105.5% 16.8 3.3 B 29 Left Turn 34 36 105.0% 26.8 8.1 C 18 Through 32 33 104.1% 0.6 0.5 A 0 Right Turn 18 25 136.1% 8.0 1.4 A 4 Subtotal 84 94 111.3% 12.5 4.3 B 22 Left Turn 53 52 97.5% 7.5 2.3 A 7 Through 441 441 100.0% 5.2 1.1 A 42 Right Turn 66 68 102.7% 7.5 1.3 A 9 Subtotal 560 561 100.1% 5.7 1.0 A 59 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 26.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 3 3 106.7% 7.4 7.2 A 0 Through 4 4 87.5% 11.9 12.5 B 1 Right Turn 20 20 102.0% 4.9 1.1 A 2 Subtotal 27 27 100.4% 7.4 2.2 A 3 Left Turn 36 38 105.3% 22.8 5.3 C 16 Through 9 9 101.1% 26.1 8.1 C 4 Right Turn 32 38 117.8% 8.5 3.0 A 6 Subtotal 77 85 110.0% 16.7 3.3 B 26 Left Turn 26 24 92.3% 5.5 2.4 A 2 Through 499 497 99.7% 4.2 1.2 A 38 Right Turn 5 5 108.0% 2.4 2.7 A 0 Subtotal 530 527 99.4% 4.3 1.2 A 41 Left Turn 2 2 75.0% 1.3 2.9 A 0 Through 150 153 101.7% 3.2 1.9 A 9 Right Turn 15 22 144.7% 5.8 2.9 A 2 Subtotal 167 176 105.3% 3.5 1.7 A 11 Total 801 814 101.7% 6.0 1.2 A 82 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 51 49 95.3% 16.6 5.1 B 15 Through 739 740 100.2% 19.5 2.0 B 265 Right Turn 111 105 94.3% 18.2 2.0 B 35 Subtotal 901 894 99.2% 19.2 2.0 B 314 Left Turn 91 94 103.7% 23.6 5.0 C 41 Through 547 550 100.5% 13.8 1.4 B 139 Right Turn 47 48 102.1% 12.5 4.6 B 11 Subtotal 685 692 101.1% 15.0 1.5 B 191 Left Turn 121 122 100.8% 32.3 5.1 C 72 Through 239 243 101.5% 44.9 3.2 D 200 Right Turn 153 154 100.6% 17.8 4.8 B 50 Subtotal 513 519 101.1% 33.9 3.6 C 322 Left Turn 100 98 98.3% 29.4 2.5 C 53 Through 109 116 106.3% 30.7 3.6 C 65 Right Turn 32 33 103.4% 5.9 2.0 A 4 Subtotal 241 247 102.6% 27.4 2.7 C 122 Total 2,340 2,352 100.5% 22.1 1.9 C 949 43.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 4 4 97.5% 3.0 1.9 A 0 Through 455 447 98.2% 0.5 0.1 A 4 Right Turn 69 68 98.1% 0.9 0.1 A 1 Subtotal 528 519 98.2% 0.6 0.1 A 6 Left Turn 33 38 115.2% 7.7 1.9 A 5 Through 272 282 103.5% 0.4 0.1 A 2 Right Turn 10 10 103.0% 0.4 0.2 A 0 Subtotal 315 330 104.7% 1.2 0.3 A 8 Left Turn 11 12 108.2% 9.5 4.0 A 2 Through 1 1 100.0% 0.7 2.1 A 0 Right Turn 1 1 60.0% 1.0 2.1 A 0 Subtotal 13 14 103.8% 9.3 4.0 A 2 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 858 840 97.9% 6.9 2.0 A 107 Right Turn 428 422 98.5% 8.9 1.7 A 69 Subtotal 1,286 1,261 98.1% 7.6 1.7 A 176 Left Turn 99 96 97.3% 48.6 10.1 D 86 Through 971 932 96.0% 17.5 1.9 B 298 Right Turn Subtotal 1,070 1,028 96.1% 20.7 2.1 C 384 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 497 495 99.5% 65.5 11.3 E 594 Through Right Turn 154 151 97.8% 38.1 12.3 D 105 Subtotal 651 645 99.1% 59.7 11.3 E 699 Total 3,007 2,935 97.6% 24.0 3.3 C 1259 55.5 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 62 88.6% 129.0 63.7 F 147 Through 1,205 1,189 98.6% 3.8 0.6 A 82 Right Turn 56 60 107.0% 3.2 1.6 A 3 Subtotal 1,331 1,310 98.5% 10.2 5.2 B 232 Left Turn 18 16 90.0% 38.0 13.3 D 11 Through 1,390 1,354 97.4% 8.7 3.4 A 216 Right Turn 60 57 95.5% 6.6 2.8 A 7 Subtotal 1,468 1,427 97.2% 9.0 3.3 A 234 Left Turn 59 54 92.0% 70.3 18.8 E 70 Through 23 26 113.5% 73.5 23.4 E 35 Right Turn 61 59 97.0% 73.1 25.6 E 79 Subtotal 143 140 97.6% 72.7 20.6 E 185 Left Turn 56 50 90.0% 64.7 40.5 E 60 Through 24 28 117.1% 63.1 25.7 E 33 Right Turn 22 20 90.0% 27.5 12.7 C 10 Subtotal 102 98 96.4% 56.6 32.9 E 102 Total 3,044 2,976 97.8% 14.0 3.6 B 754 68.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 273 252 92.4% 122.8 43.6 F 568 Through 1,001 983 98.2% 39.2 21.5 D 707 Right Turn 57 57 100.7% 28.5 17.6 C 30 Subtotal 1,331 1,292 97.1% 54.0 25.7 D 1305 Left Turn 10 8 82.0% 40.9 27.7 D 6 Through 1,067 1,036 97.1% 25.4 6.8 C 483 Right Turn 430 412 95.7% 16.5 4.9 B 125 Subtotal 1,507 1,456 96.6% 23.1 6.0 C 614 Left Turn 324 326 100.7% 59.2 6.7 E 354 Through 48 46 95.8% 63.9 11.7 E 54 Right Turn 379 355 93.7% 60.8 19.7 E 396 Subtotal 751 727 96.9% 60.7 10.3 E 804 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 61.1 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,268 1,261 99.4% 2.8 0.5 A 65 Right Turn 52 51 98.8% 2.8 1.3 A 3 Subtotal 1,320 1,312 99.4% 2.8 0.5 A 68 Left Turn 92 90 97.4% 40.0 9.2 D 66 Through 1,360 1,300 95.6% 16.1 5.6 B 384 Right Turn Subtotal 1,452 1,389 95.7% 17.6 5.6 B 450 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 117 117 99.8% 48.8 8.6 D 104 Through Right Turn 157 155 98.7% 8.1 1.7 A 23 Subtotal 274 272 99.2% 26.6 5.3 C 127 Total 3,046 2,973 97.6% 12.2 3.1 B 645 52.2 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 160 159 99.1% 53.1 4.6 D 154 Through 908 901 99.2% 34.5 5.0 C 570 Right Turn 137 135 98.5% 22.9 3.4 C 57 Subtotal 1,205 1,195 99.1% 35.9 4.3 D 781 Left Turn 218 220 101.0% 55.3 14.2 E 223 Through 1,080 1,015 94.0% 23.7 6.1 C 441 Right Turn 179 170 94.9% 14.4 5.6 B 45 Subtotal 1,477 1,405 95.1% 28.0 5.8 C 709 Left Turn 158 154 97.4% 57.5 6.2 E 162 Through 396 395 99.7% 41.2 3.7 D 298 Right Turn 159 163 102.2% 19.4 2.6 B 58 Subtotal 713 711 99.8% 39.5 3.0 D 518 Left Turn 196 181 92.2% 111.4 12.8 F 369 Through 637 624 97.9% 97.5 13.1 F 1115 Right Turn 254 251 98.9% 98.8 12.2 F 455 Subtotal 1,087 1,056 97.1% 100.2 12.1 F 1939 Total 4,482 4,367 97.4% 50.6 3.1 D 3948 Intersection 8City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 155 100.0% 34.4 10.7 C 98 Through 107 106 99.3% 24.9 6.9 C 49 Right Turn 87 87 100.5% 20.3 9.0 C 33 Subtotal 349 349 99.9% 28.1 9.2 C 179 Left Turn 73 74 100.7% 23.1 9.5 C 31 Through 101 103 101.8% 2.8 2.0 A 5 Right Turn 51 56 109.6% 13.9 3.0 B 14 Subtotal 225 232 103.2% 12.1 4.9 B 51 Left Turn 61 60 98.0% 18.7 3.7 B 21 Through 508 501 98.6% 7.9 0.6 A 72 Right Turn 96 96 99.5% 10.3 1.3 B 18 Subtotal 665 656 98.7% 9.3 0.7 A 111 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 23.4 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 85.0% 6.3 11.8 A 0 Through 26 25 94.2% 22.8 8.8 C 10 Right Turn 35 35 98.6% 6.7 3.5 A 4 Subtotal 63 61 96.3% 13.2 3.2 B 15 Left Turn 36 36 100.6% 25.4 8.2 C 17 Through 22 20 90.9% 20.4 7.4 C 7 Right Turn 74 81 108.8% 12.6 2.6 B 19 Subtotal 132 137 103.6% 17.1 3.3 B 43 Left Turn 47 46 98.5% 26.3 14.4 C 22 Through 531 524 98.7% 5.8 1.1 A 56 Right Turn 6 7 115.0% 3.2 3.1 A 0 Subtotal 584 578 98.9% 7.4 1.8 A 78 Left Turn 39 40 103.3% 8.5 3.4 A 6 Through 622 586 94.2% 8.8 3.7 A 95 Right Turn 47 52 111.5% 10.2 4.2 B 10 Subtotal 708 679 95.9% 8.9 3.5 A 111 Total 1,487 1,454 97.8% 9.0 2.3 A 247 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 136 131 96.0% 33.9 4.4 C 81 Through 577 578 100.2% 20.6 2.2 C 219 Right Turn 129 125 97.1% 17.0 2.8 B 39 Subtotal 842 834 99.0% 22.3 1.8 C 339 Left Turn 106 107 100.8% 47.3 14.7 D 93 Through 768 747 97.3% 32.7 6.9 C 448 Right Turn 84 86 101.9% 34.6 9.1 C 54 Subtotal 958 939 98.1% 34.5 7.6 C 595 Left Turn 162 158 97.5% 56.9 19.1 E 165 Through 305 308 100.8% 47.2 6.4 D 266 Right Turn 121 115 95.0% 27.9 8.5 C 59 Subtotal 588 580 98.7% 46.2 10.0 D 490 Left Turn 178 164 92.2% 53.6 17.8 D 161 Through 319 308 96.4% 41.4 9.8 D 233 Right Turn 77 75 97.3% 10.3 4.2 B 14 Subtotal 574 547 95.2% 41.4 10.2 D 409 Total 2,962 2,900 97.9% 34.3 4.0 C 1832 43.7 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 95.0% 3.4 4.6 A 0 Through 322 319 99.0% 0.5 0.1 A 3 Right Turn 83 80 96.9% 1.1 0.2 A 2 Subtotal 407 401 98.6% 0.6 0.1 A 4 Left Turn 73 75 102.7% 4.5 1.1 A 6 Through 537 539 100.3% 0.6 0.1 A 5 Right Turn 7 9 125.7% 0.7 0.4 A 0 Subtotal 617 622 100.9% 1.0 0.2 A 12 Left Turn 2 3 140.0% 8.4 11.2 A 0 Through Right Turn 3 3 96.7% 2.5 2.6 A 0 Subtotal 5 6 114.0% 7.5 10.0 A 1 TRANSIT INTERSECTION DELAY AM PEAK HOUR Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 52.8 5.1 4.2 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 52.8 5.1 4.2 Total 4 120 4 100.0% 35.2 3.4 4.2 16.3 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 205 3 100.0% 11.5 9.0 9.8 Subtotal 5 306 5 100.0% 11.5 9.0 9.8 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 16.4 2.9 1.3 Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 16.4 2.9 1.3 Left Turn Through 6 490 6 100.0% 78.6 40.5 160.4 Right Turn Subtotal 6 490 6 100.0% 78.6 40.5 160.4 Left Turn 2 16 2 100.0% 92.4 6.6 6.2 Through 8 58 8 100.0% 55.0 36.0 13.3 Right Turn Subtotal 10 74 10 100.0% 67.4 22.9 19.4 Total 23 889 23 100.0% 51.5 15.9 191.0 69.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 43.2 29.0 18.2 Right Turn Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 43.2 29.0 18.2 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 2 16 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 4 35 4 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 3 205 3 100.0% 45.8 32.0 39.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 3 205 3 100.0% 45.8 32.0 39.1 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 24.7 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 3.4 3.3 0.4 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 3.4 3.3 0.4 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 268 4 100.0% 2.2 2.2 0.4 1.7 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 103 2 100.0% 55.1 9.3 23.6 Right Turn Subtotal 2 103 2 100.0% 55.1 9.3 23.6 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 139 2 100.0% 171.5 47.8 99.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 139 99.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 267 4 100.0% 36.7 6.2 123.0 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 154 6 100.0% 30.3 10.0 19.4 Subtotal 6 154 6 100.0% 30.3 10.0 19.4 Left Turn Through 3 201 3 100.0% 18.2 10.6 15.2 Right Turn Subtotal 3 201 3 100.0% 18.2 10.6 15.2 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 23.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 12 2 100.0% 12.4 10.0 0.6 Subtotal 2 12 2 100.0% 12.4 10.0 0.6 Left Turn Through 3 196 3 100.0% 26.5 29.7 21.7 Right Turn Subtotal 3 196 3 100.0% 26.5 29.7 21.7 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 19.9 9.8 1.6 Right Turn 6 198 6 100.0% 12.6 5.4 10.4 Subtotal 8 217 8 100.0% 15.0 5.3 12.0 Total 13 425 13 100.0% 17.0 8.1 34.2 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 38 1 100.0% 19.5 2.0 3.1 Right Turn Subtotal 38 3.1 Left Turn Through 1 9 1 100.0% 13.8 1.4 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 9 0.5 Left Turn Through 4 160 4 100.0% 85.2 13.4 56.8 Right Turn Subtotal 4 160 4 100.0% 85.2 13.4 56.8 Left Turn Through 4 29 4 102.5% 46.4 16.1 5.6 Right Turn Subtotal 4 29 4 102.5% 46.4 16.1 5.6 Total 8 236 8 101.3% 60.0 14.2 66.0 86.8 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 7 2 100.0% 12.6 8.9 0.4 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 7 2 100.0% 12.6 8.9 0.4 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal PM PEAK HOUR Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 73 2 100.0% 96.2 48.1 29.2 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 96.2 48.1 29.2 Total 4 92 4 100.0% 64.1 32.1 29.2 6.2 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 62 3 100.0% 4.6 5.1 1.2 Subtotal 5 80 5 100.0% 4.6 5.1 1.2 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 18.8 15.1 5.7 Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 18.8 15.1 5.7 Left Turn Through 6 211 6 100.0% 116.6 51.6 102.5 Right Turn Subtotal 6 211 6 100.0% 116.6 51.6 102.5 Left Turn 2 90 2 100.0% 120.3 37.5 45.1 Through 8 795 8 100.0% 64.3 28.1 212.9 Right Turn Subtotal 10 885 10 100.0% 83.0 28.2 258.1 Total 23 1,249 23 100.0% 64.8 12.4 367.5 92.7 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 74.3 24.1 5.6 Right Turn Subtotal 2 18 2 100.0% 74.3 24.1 5.6 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 2 90 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 4 163 4 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 3 62 3 100.0% 48.0 34.4 12.4 Through Right Turn Subtotal 3 62 3 100.0% 48.0 34.4 12.4 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 55.9 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 29.4 15.5 9.2 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 29.4 15.5 9.2 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 199 4 100.0% 19.6 10.3 9.2 0.8 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 35.6 39.9 11.1 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 35.6 39.9 11.1 Left Turn 2 99 2 100.0% 57.5 6.2 23.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 99 23.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 200 4 100.0% 23.8 26.6 34.8 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 365 6 100.0% 76.5 11.0 116.3 Subtotal 6 365 6 100.0% 76.5 11.0 116.3 Left Turn Through 3 71 3 100.0% 27.9 10.1 8.2 Right Turn Subtotal 3 71 3 100.0% 27.9 10.1 8.2 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 68.2 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 199 2 100.0% 43.2 18.1 35.8 Subtotal 2 199 2 100.0% 43.2 18.1 35.8 Left Turn Through 3 74 3 100.0% 27.0 13.2 8.3 Right Turn Subtotal 3 74 3 100.0% 27.0 13.2 8.3 Left Turn Through 2 88 2 95.0% 27.6 26.6 10.1 Right Turn 6 316 6 98.3% 16.7 8.8 22.0 Subtotal 8 404 8 97.5% 20.6 7.9 32.1 Total 13 677 13 98.5% 27.6 6.3 76.2 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 1 100.0% 20.6 2.2 1.2 Right Turn Subtotal 14 1.2 Left Turn Through 13 1 100.0% 32.7 6.9 1.8 Right Turn Subtotal 13 1.8 Left Turn Through 4 71 4 92.5% 106.7 26.6 31.6 Right Turn Subtotal 4 71 4 92.5% 106.7 26.6 31.6 Left Turn Through 4 261 4 100.0% 50.5 24.5 54.9 Right Turn Subtotal 4 261 4 100.0% 50.5 24.5 54.9 Total 8 359 8 96.3% 81.8 18.0 89.4 98.4 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 59 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 59 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 6 2 100.0% 12.1 6.8 0.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 6 2 100.0% 12.1 6.8 0.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal BICYCLE INTERSECTION DELAY AM PEAK HOUR Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 10 23 232.0% 8.3 3.9 1.4 Right Turn 5 4 82.0% 0.1 0.5 0.0 Subtotal 15 27 182.0% 7.1 3.1 1.4 Left Turn 15 12 77.3% 16.8 11.1 4.2 Through 4 3 65.0% 2.6 5.6 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 19 14 74.7% 15.1 9.2 4.4 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 5 4 78.0% 34.4 31.6 2.9 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 4 78.0% 34.4 31.6 2.9 Total 39 45 116.4% 12.3 4.5 8.6 29.8 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 12 84.3% 6.7 10.4 1.6 Right Turn 5 4 82.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 19 16 83.7% 6.7 10.4 1.6 Left Turn 3 3 86.7% 7.9 13.5 0.4 Through 5 3 60.0% 0.1 0.4 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 90.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 9 7 72.2% 4.4 6.7 0.4 Left Turn 1 1 100.0% 8.4 26.5 0.1 Through 140 138 98.6% 36.0 3.2 84.0 Right Turn 2 2 90.0% 8.8 16.1 0.3 Subtotal 143 141 98.5% 35.9 3.2 84.4 Left Turn Through 7 4 55.7% 19.5 27.5 2.3 Right Turn Subtotal 7 4 55.7% 19.5 27.5 2.3 Total 178 167 93.9% 31.8 3.1 88.7 33.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 3.1 6.4 0.1 Through 6 12 196.7% 3.4 4.2 0.3 Right Turn 9 9 102.2% 0.4 1.0 0.1 Subtotal 16 22 136.3% 2.5 2.7 0.5 Left Turn 4 4 87.5% 12.6 16.5 0.8 Through 2 0 15.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 5 70.0% 10.4 15.5 0.8 Left Turn 8 7 87.5% 29.2 31.0 3.9 Through 112 140 125.0% 45.5 12.7 85.0 Right Turn 2 2 100.0% 17.3 29.7 0.6 Subtotal 122 149 122.1% 45.1 12.7 89.5 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 41.0 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 11 12 107.3% 6.7 10.4 1.2 Right Turn 52 67 128.5% 0.6 0.8 0.5 Subtotal 63 79 124.8% 1.1 1.0 1.7 Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.5 1.7 0.0 Through 6 4 63.3% 5.1 8.1 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 7 5 65.7% 5.6 7.9 0.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 7 90.0% 44.9 23.6 6.0 Through Right Turn 7 5 72.9% 7.2 7.8 0.8 Subtotal 15 12 82.0% 34.7 21.4 6.8 Total 85 96 112.4% 5.4 2.6 9.0 48.4 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 41 54 131.0% 15.7 5.5 10.7 Right Turn Subtotal 41 54 131.0% 15.7 5.5 10.7 Left Turn 1 1 110.0% 5.9 9.7 0.1 Through 13 9 71.5% 2.1 4.7 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 14 10 74.3% 3.1 4.7 0.6 Left Turn 22 25 113.2% 62.9 20.9 23.1 Through 10 15 149.5% 85.8 36.8 14.3 Right Turn 4 7 166.3% 55.8 36.8 3.7 Subtotal 36 68 189.2% 75.5 16.8 41.1 Left Turn Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 92 132 143.7% 44.3 7.1 52.4 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 6 7 110.0% 16.0 13.1 1.6 Second Right Subtotal 27 29 105.6% 7.5 2.9 1.6 Left Turn 6 8 126.7% 17.4 15.0 1.7 Through 2 3 135.0% 0.7 1.7 0.0 Second Right Subtotal 8 10 128.8% 12.4 13.9 1.8 Left Turn 2 1 50.0% 0.2 0.7 0.0 Through 93 116 124.5% 11.0 2.7 17.0 Second Right Subtotal 97 130 134.3% 10.8 2.5 17.0 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 22.5 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 60.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 0 30.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 5 3 50.0% 2.1 1.8 0.2 Subtotal 7 3 48.6% 2.1 1.8 0.2 Left Turn 1 6 600.0% 17.6 10.8 0.3 Through 1 6 560.0% 18.5 10.1 0.3 Right Turn Subtotal 2 23 1160.0% 20.1 8.1 0.6 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 2.0 5.4 0.0 Through 62 61 98.5% 12.1 6.4 12.5 Right Turn Subtotal 63 62 98.9% 12.0 6.5 12.6 Left Turn Through 3 3 103.3% 1.2 2.6 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 3 3 103.3% 1.2 2.6 0.1 Total 75 92 122.7% 12.72 4.4 13.4 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 4 4 90.0% 11.9 16.8 0.8 Right Turn 2 2 85.0% 8.4 14.5 0.3 Subtotal 6 5 88.3% 13.8 12.8 1.1 Left Turn 2 2 90.0% 4.7 13.7 0.2 Through 1 1 50.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 3 2 76.7% 4.7 13.7 0.2 Left Turn Through 57 57 99.3% 35.6 9.4 33.8 Right Turn Subtotal 57 57 99.3% 35.6 9.4 33.8 Left Turn 2 1 25.0% 4.6 14.4 0.2 Through Right Turn 1 2 150.0% 0.7 1.4 0.0 Subtotal 3 2 66.7% 3.7 9.5 0.2 Total 69 66 95.9% 30.7 7.5 35.2 29.8 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Delay (min) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 15 105.0% 0.0 0.1 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 14 15 105.0% 0.0 0.1 0.0 Left Turn Through 5 5 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 5 5 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 0.8 1.7 0.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 1 120.0% 0.8 1.7 0.0 PM PEAK HOUR Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 3 4 126.7% 9.6 11.6 0.5 Right Turn 5 4 82.0% 0.5 0.9 0.0 Subtotal 8 8 98.8% 6.8 7.9 0.5 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 6 5 81.7% 31.8 32.9 3.2 Through Right Turn 7 7 95.7% 13.4 13.6 1.6 Subtotal 13 12 89.2% 28.2 20.3 4.7 Total 23 20 84.8% 17.7 9.4 5.3 26.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 2 240.0% 143.0 171.5 2.4 Through 7 5 71.4% 3.4 6.3 0.4 Right Turn 3 1 26.7% 1.7 5.3 0.1 Subtotal 11 8 74.5% 87.2 114.6 2.9 Left Turn Through 5 3 64.0% 1.2 2.5 0.1 Right Turn 2 2 90.0% 0.7 1.5 0.0 Subtotal 7 5 71.4% 1.5 1.7 0.1 Left Turn 1 2 150.0% 9.9 21.9 0.2 Through 36 35 97.5% 37.2 11.8 22.3 Right Turn Subtotal 37 37 98.9% 36.2 11.9 22.5 Left Turn 2 2 100.0% 25.9 53.7 0.9 Through 119 118 98.7% 45.6 17.9 90.4 Right Turn Subtotal 121 120 98.8% 46.4 20.2 91.2 Total 176 169 96.2% 43.81 11.0 116.68 41.8 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 2 2 85.0% 24.1 39.5 1 Through 9 5 55.6% 3.4 6.3 0.5 Right Turn 5 4 82.0% 0.9 2.7 0.1 Subtotal 16 11 67.5% 18.7 31.3 1.4 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 26.8 47.5 0.4 Through 3 2 60.0% 1.1 1.9 0.1 Right Turn 3 2 76.7% 1.3 2.2 0.1 Subtotal 7 5 75.7% 25.8 47.7 0.6 Left Turn 1 1 140.0% 26.8 35.6 0.4 Through 12 12 95.8% 47.0 19.0 9.4 Right Turn 1 1 130.0% 1.7 2.6 0.0 Subtotal 14 14 101.4% 43.0 16.9 9.9 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 41.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 9 5 55.6% 9.2 12.1 1.4 Right Turn Subtotal 9 5 55.6% 9.2 12.1 1.4 Left Turn Through 7 6 90.0% 8.0 13.6 0.9 Right Turn Subtotal 7 6 90.0% 8.0 13.6 0.9 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 7 86.3% 40.8 26.6 5.4 Through Right Turn 7 6 90.0% 5.3 8.7 0.6 Subtotal 15 13 88.0% 27.6 18.7 6.1 Total 31 25 79.0% 17.8 9.9 8.4 40.8 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 25 22 86.0% 25.8 10.5 10.7 Right Turn 1 2 150.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 27 23 85.2% 24.7 10.1 10.7 Left Turn Through 15 13 84.7% 20.0 16.3 5.0 Right Turn Subtotal 15 13 84.7% 20.0 16.3 5.0 Left Turn 9 7 77.8% 48.4 36.2 7.3 Through 2 2 95.0% 27.5 31.6 0.9 Right Turn Subtotal 11 9 80.9% 50.1 28.8 8.2 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 53 45 84.2% 28.8 8.6 23.9 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 3 3 90.0% 5.4 11.1 0 Through 9 8 93.3% 14.9 6.1 2.2 Right Turn 4 5 115.0% 2.7 4.7 0.2 Subtotal 16 16 98.1% 14.5 6.7 2.7 Left Turn 5 5 98.0% 15.8 14.2 1.3 Through 8 9 106.3% 0.4 0.4 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 60.0% 1.0 1.7 0.0 Subtotal 14 14 100.0% 7.9 6.5 1.4 Left Turn 1 1 130.0% 8.2 15.1 0.1 Through 29 33 113.1% 16.4 5.0 7.9 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 0.3 0.9 0.0 Subtotal 31 35 113.5% 16.4 5.3 8.1 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 18.6 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 2 85.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 2 2 120.0% 1.9 2.1 0.1 Subtotal 4 4 102.5% 1.5 1.6 0.1 Left Turn 3 2 80.0% 5.5 10.4 0.3 Through 12 13 108.3% 18.4 12.9 3.7 Right Turn 11 12 104.5% 2.7 7.1 0.5 Subtotal 26 27 103.5% 10.5 5.9 4.5 Left Turn 1 1 90.0% 5.9 17.6 0.1 Through 38 41 106.6% 14.0 3.0 8.9 Right Turn Subtotal 39 41 106.2% 14.3 2.6 9.0 Left Turn Through 69 68 98.7% 8.3 3.7 9.6 Right Turn 4 3 80.0% 2.8 8.4 0.2 Subtotal 73 71 97.7% 8.3 3.7 9.7 Total 142 144 101.2% 10.1 2.6 23.3 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 5.9 12.5 0 Through 2 1 50.0% 10.7 17.6 0.4 Right Turn 2 2 80.0% 9.7 14.2 0.3 Subtotal 5 3 66.0% 14.5 16.2 0.8 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 47 48 101.1% 32.6 9.5 25.5 Right Turn Subtotal 47 48 101.1% 32.6 9.5 25.5 Left Turn Through 47 45 94.7% 44.6 12.3 34.9 Right Turn 1 2 150.0% 1.6 5.1 0.0 Subtotal 48 46 95.8% 44.5 12.4 35.0 Total 100 97 96.8% 36.4 7.1 61.3 30.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 44 44 99.8% 0.8 0.6 0.6 Right Turn 4 3 82.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 48 47 98.3% 0.7 0.6 0.6 Left Turn Through 29 29 100.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 29 29 100.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal CROSSWALK INTERSECTION DELAY AM PEAK HOUR Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 37 34 91.4% 46.2 8.0 26.0 56.9 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 106 107 101.3% 51.7 6.6 92.6 57.7 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 90 90 100.3% 53.0 3.9 79.7 54.3 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 54 54 99.3% 48.6 10.0 43.4 52.6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 68 66 96.6% 51.8 10.8 56.8 57.2 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 1 1 90.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 36 36 101.1% 19.9 5.7 12.1 28.3 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 9 9 103.3% 16.1 13.1 2.5 17.1 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 2 2 90.0% 10.4 15.7 0.3 10.4 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 17 16 91.8% 33.8 8.8 8.8 40.1 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 2 2 100.0% 0.5 1.6 0.0 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person PM PEAK HOUR Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 64 62 96.9% 60.8 9.9 62.8 56.5 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 157 152 96.5% 57.7 10.6 145.6 62.3 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 162 159 98.3% 57.0 9.4 151.2 55.8 Shields St/Lake St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 25 23 93.6% 52.7 40.3 20.5 56.1 Shields St/Prospect Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 71 71 100.4% 68.8 13.1 81.7 73.1 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 15 16 105.3% 1.0 1.6 0.3 0.9 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 239 236 98.5% 29.4 2.7 115.3 34.7 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 40 40 100.0% 21.1 5.6 14.1 30.2 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 4 4 87.5% 21.6 16.1 1.3 19.2 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 50 51 101.0% 44.8 5.3 37.7 50.2 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 12 11 90.0% 0.8 1.4 0.2 Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) ADDITIONAL VALIDATION AND TRAVEL TIME DATA Shields/Prospect Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 1 12 10 -2 17% 246493 7% 31211-1 8% 428291 4% 5 16 12 -4 25% 6 42 47 5 12% 7 8 7 -1 13% 83231-1 3% Shields/Lake Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 29291-1 1% 5 4 6 2 50% 686893 3% 81716-1 6% Shields/Elizabeth Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 1 17 13 -4 24% 242453 7% 420200 0% 5 1 4 3 300% 66260-2 3% 8 19 22 3 16% Shields/Plum Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 28582-3 4% 424251 4% 68582-3 4% 824251 4% Shields/Laurel Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 28581-4 5% 5 4 7 3 75% 67876-2 3% 8 24 27 3 13% Elizabeth/City Park Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 2 17.5 17 -0.5 3% 432320 0% 6 17.5 17 -0.5 3% 832320 0% Elizabeth/Constitution Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 2 9.5 10 0.5 5% 440433 8% 6 9.5 10 0.5 5% 840433 8% Elizabeth/Taft Hill Phase Measured Modeled Delta % Delta 1 8 7 -1 13% 2 36.5 39 2.5 7% 3770 0% 424240 0% 5 5 6 1 20% 6 40.5 42 1.5 4% 7660 0% 825250 0% PM Peak Green Time Validation using Modeled and Measured Phase Green Times by Intersection Absolute Percent VISSIM Blue Tooth Difference Difference AM 147.8 N/A N/A N/A PM 175.1 156 19.1 12% AM 139.0 N/A N/A N/A PM 175.4 180 -4.6 -3% AM 65.4 54 11.4 21% PM 68.1 55 13.1 24% AM 101.4 86 15.4 18% PM 122.1 112 10.1 9% AM 71.8 67 4.8 7% PM 80.6 73 7.6 10% AM 96.8 71 25.8 36% PM 104.4 86 18.4 21% WB Shields to Constitution WB Constitution to Taft Hill Travel Time Roadway Segment Period Existing Peak Hour Segment Vehicle Travel Time Validation NB Prospect to Mulberry SB Mulberry to Prospect EB Taft Hill to Constitution EB Constitution to Shields Shields Roadway Elizabeth AM PM WB Shields City Park 42.1 41.9 WB City Park to Taft 211.4 205.1 WB Taft Hill to Overland 265.4 265.0 WB Shields to Overland 518.9 511.9 EB Overland to Taft Hill 249.2 254.0 EB Taft Hill to City Park 221.5 218.7 EB City Park to Shields 110.6 110.7 EB Overland to Shields 581.4 583.5 Travel Time including dwell time (sec) Segment Transit Travel Time along Elizabeth St by Segment AAPPENDIX X C: TRAN NSFORT RROUTE PRROFILES CSU Main Campus University Village Complex CSU Transit Center W PROSPECT RD S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL W LAUREL ST W PLUM ST MERIDIAN AVE Route 2 Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 ROUTE 2 Daily Ridership by Route Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 2 12 11 8 6 N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 2 64.1 61.9 58.5 37.1 N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 2 5.1 4.9 4.7 2.8 N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Route 2 Service every 20/30 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:22 AM - 10:00 PM, Monday - Saturday Average Average Weekday Boardings 837 993 3,000 Saturday 325 48 37 110 Saturday 21 Average 85% 71.7% Average 3.8 3.4 15.0 1.6 Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance CSU Main Campus CSU Vet School Sheldon Lake University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center Route 6 Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 ROUTE 6 Daily Ridership by Route W MULBERRY ST W ELIZABETH ST W DRAKE RD E SWALLOW RD HORSETOOTH RD HARMONY RD S STATE HILL MCCLELLAND DR JFK PKWY Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 6 8 10 8 6 N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 6 24.0 20.8 18.8 8.1 N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 6 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.5 N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Route 6 Service every 60 minutes peak, 60 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:06 AM - 10:18 PM, Monday - Saturday Average Average Weekday Boardings 328 993 3,000 Saturday 229 16 37 110 Saturday 11 Average 85% 80.0% Average 1.0 3.4 15.0 0.7 Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center LAPORTE AVE W MULBERRY ST W LAUREL ST TAFT HILL RD S MELDRUM ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST S LOOMIS AVE W PLUM ST Route 10 Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 50 10 Boardings Alightings ROUTE 10 Daily Ridership by Route Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 10 4 5 4 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 10 20.2 20.1 16.1 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 10 1.7 1.7 1.4 N/A N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Route 10 Service every 60 minutes peak, 60 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:45 AM - 7:08 PM, Monday - Saturday Average Average Weekday Boardings 127 993 3,000 Saturday 6,65 20 37 110 Saturday 10 Average 85% 90.2% Average 1.7 3.4 15.0 0.9 Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance CSU Main Campus CSU Vet School Sheldon Lake University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center Route 19 Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 ROUTE 19 Daily Ridership by Route W LAUREL ST W ELIZABETH ST DRAKE RD W PROSPECT RD HORSETOOTH RD HARMONY RD S SHIELDS ST S SHIELDS ST Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 19 14 11 12 1 N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 19 24.3 28.8 21.6 15.2 N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 19 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.2 N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Route 19 Service every 30 minutes peak, 60 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:52 AM - 7:43 PM, Monday - Friday Average Average Weekday Boardings 400 993 3,000 Saturday N/A 22 37 110 Saturday N/A Average 85% 87.7% Average 1.7 3.4 15.0 N/A Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance CSU Main Campus University Village Complex CSU Transit Center S SHIELDS ST W LAUREL ST W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE CITY PARK AVE MERIDIAN AVE BIRCH ST Route 31 Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 ROUTE 31 Daily Ridership by Route Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 31 24 32 20 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 31 98.8 118.5 100.0 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 31 14.3 17.0 14.3 N/A N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Route 31 Service every 10 minutes peak, 10 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:58 AM - 6:20 PM, Monday - Friday Average Average Weekday Boardings 2,721 993 3,000 Saturday N/A 105 37 110 Saturday N/A Average 85% 98.2% Average 15.0 3.4 15.0 N/A Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance CSU Main Campus University Village Complex CSU Transit Center W PROSPECT RD S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST MERIDIAN AVE HILLCREST DR Route 32 Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 ROUTE 32 Daily Ridership by Route Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 32 11 11 7 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 32 56.6 66.2 61.0 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 32 5.0 5.8 5.3 N/A N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Route 32 Service every 17/30 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:50 AM - 6:40 PM, Monday - Friday Average Average Weekday Boardings 822 993 3,000 Saturday N/A 57 37 110 Saturday N/A Average 85% 81.9% Average 4.9 3.4 15.0 N/A Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center W PROSPECT RD S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL W LAUREL ST W STUART ST CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST RAMPART RD Route 33 Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 ROUTE 33 Daily Ridership by Route Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 33 13 20 11 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 33 35.9 35.7 38.9 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night 33 2.3 2.3 2.5 N/A N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Route 33 Service every 30 minutes peak, 30 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:52 AM - 5:49 PM, Monday - Friday Average Average Weekday Boardings 356 993 3,000 Saturday N/A 33 37 110 Saturday N/A Average 85% 93.2% Average 2.1 3.4 15.0 N/A Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance CSU Main Campus University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center W LAKE ST UNIVERSITY AVE W PLUM ST MERIDIAN AVE MOBY DR EAST DR EMASON ST HORN Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 HORN Daily Ridership by Route Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night Horn 38 60 42 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night Horn 23.2 28.1 18.0 N/A N/A Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night Horn 3.2 3.9 2.4 N/A N/A One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile Around the Horn Service every 10 minutes peak, 10 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 6:42 AM - 6:38 PM, Monday - Saturday Average Average Weekday Boardings 904 993 3,000 Saturday 114 27 37 110 Saturday 10 Average 85% 98.2% Average 3.7 3.4 15.0 1.3 Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance CSU Main Campus CSU Vet School Sheldon Lake University Village Complex MAX CSU Transit Center HORN Daily Ridership MAX Stations Bus Network Featured Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 100 200 Boardings Alightings 50 MAX Daily Ridership by Route W MULBERRY ST W ELIZABETH ST W PROSPECT RD W DRAKE RD HORSETOOTH RD Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night MAX 45 60 48 27 10 Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night MAX 21.5 26.7 27.1 13.0 5.7 Route AM Peak Midday PM Peak PM Late Night MAX 2.1 2.6 2.7 1.3 0.6 One-Way Trips Passengers per Revenue Hour Passengers per Revenue Mile MAX Bus Rapid Transit Service every 10 minutes peak, 10 minutes off-peak Hours of operation: 5:10 AM - 12:16 AM, Monday - Saturday Average Average Weekday Boardings 2,514 993 3,000 Saturday 2,357 27 37 110 Saturday 26 Average 85% 90.6% Average 2.6 3.4 15.0 2.5 Saturday Average 100% Analysis by Time Period Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Routes in Study Area Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Hour Average Weekday Boardings per Revenue Mile Total On-Time Performance APPEENDIX D: CRASH DDIAGRAMMS 109 SHIELDS AND ELIZABETH 2010 28 Crashes intersectionquery 7/8/2010 5:48:00 PM 8/20/2010 10:40:00 PM 9/15/2010 7:30:00 PM 9/17/2010 1:10:00 PM 9/17/2010 4:24:00 PM 9/29/2010 8:34:00 PM 9/30/2010 1:15:00 PM 10/1/2010 1:36:00 PM 10/7/2010 3:48:00 PM 10/14/2010 1:53:00 PM 10/15/2010 3:40:00 PM 10/25/2010 9:48:00 AM 11/1/2010 11:19:00 AM 10/30/2010 11:34:00 PM 2/5/2010 3:15:00 PM 12/10/2010 8:30:00 AM 12/13/2010 5:20:00 PM 12/13/2010 7:00:00 PM 2/11/2010 3:01:00 PM 2/11/2010 8:49:00 PM 14/2010 12:35:00 PM 2/26/2010 3:23:00 PM 2/27/2010 3:15:00 PM 3/28/2010 2:10:00 PM 1/9/2010 9:23:00 PM 4/11/2010 8:18:00 PM 4/23/2010 2:00:00 PM 6/19/2010 (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 Crash Magic Online 109 SHIELDS AND ELIZABETH 2011 34 Crashes intersectionquery 7/18/2011 1:40:00 PM 7/18/2011 1:40:00 PM 8/10/2011 12:08:00 PM 8/18/2011 2:59:00 PM 8/19/2011 3:25:00 PM 8/18/2011 10:00:00 PM 8/27/2011 11:22:00 AM 9/7/2011 2:53:00 PM 9/9/2011 10:21:00 PM 9/16/2011 8:32:00 PM 9/22/2011 4:57:00 PM 9/27/2011 8:00:00 AM 9/30/2011 2:09:00 PM 10/11/2011 1:42:00 PM 10/25/2011 12:14:00 PM 2/3/2011 5:18:00 PM 11/5/2011 2:36:00 PM 2/5/2011 12:27:00 AM 11/17/2011 5:43:00 PM 11/30/2011 12:59:00 PM 2/6/2011 6:30:00 PM 12/6/2011 12:30:00 PM 2/7/2011 1:12:00 PM 12/8/2011 3:28:00 PM 12/12/2011 5:37:00 PM 2/14/2011 6:18:00 PM 4/19/2011 8:04:00 PM 5/7/2011 3:09:00 PM 5/13/2011 5:01:00 PM 5/20/2011 1:45:00 PM 1/19/2011 12:34:00 PM 1/20/2011 5:41:00 PM (1) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data 109 SHIELDS AND ELIZABETH 2012 24 Crashes intersectionquery 8/8/2012 10:00:00 AM 8/25/2012 3:00:00 PM 8/29/2012 10:51:00 AM 9/6/2012 7:46:00 AM 9/29/2012 1:20:00 PM 2/2/2012 12:30:00 PM 1/4/2012 4:25:00 PM 10/19/2012 2:57:00 PM 10/24/2012 12:40:00 PM 11/13/2012 5:07:00 PM 11/26/2012 12:18:00 PM 2/8/2012 6:52:00 PM 2/22/2012 12:03:00 PM 2/29/2012 2:21:00 PM 3/2/2012 4:37:00 PM 4/4/2012 4:16:00 PM 4/17/2012 10:36:00 AM 4/24/2012 2:08:00 PM 4/27/2012 8:01:00 PM 5/19/2012 8:28:00 AM 6/6/2012 1:02:00 PM 6/8/2012 12:50:00 PM 6/6/2012 4:00:00 PM 6/13/2012 11:50:00 AM (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 Crash Magic Online 109 SHIELDS AND ELIZABETH 2013 29 Crashes intersectionquery 7/20/2013 8:53:00 PM 8/20/2013 12:25:00 PM 1/26/2013 6:00:00 PM 10/8/2013 7:51:00 PM 10/21/2013 3:43:00 PM 10/23/2013 4:51:00 PM 1/4/2013 1:31:00 PM 11/4/2013 6:53:00 PM 11/6/2013 6:02:00 AM 11/8/2013 7:40:00 PM 11/12/2013 6:00:00 PM 11/14/2013 10:45:00 AM 11/15/2013 8:50:00 AM 12/10/2013 8:00:00 AM 12/10/2013 3:11:00 PM 12/10/2013 2:48:00 PM 12/12/2013 2:08:00 AM 12/12/2013 2:08:00 PM 2/11/2013 5:44:00 PM 2/12/2013 12:28:00 AM 2/18/2013 10:17:00 AM 2/21/2013 9:00:00 PM 3/2/2013 2:44:00 PM 3/11/2013 8:13:00 PM 3/24/2013 10:28:00 AM 3/25/2013 7:37:00 AM 4/26/2013 2:28:00 PM 5/15/2013 3:05:00 PM (1) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 Crash Magic Online 109 SHIELDS AND ELIZABETH 2014 39 Crashes intersectionquery 1/26/2014 6:12:00 PM 1/27/2014 7:59:00 AM 8/31/2014 11:30:00 PM 9/3/2014 3:56:00 PM 9/4/2014 2:35:00 PM 9/5/2014 8:42:00 PM 9/8/2014 6:13:00 PM 9/15/2014 3:50:00 PM 9/15/2014 6:23:00 PM 9/21/2014 6:55:00 PM 9/26/2014 3:43:00 PM 9/29/2014 3:08:00 PM 9/26/2014 12:00:00 PM 10/8/2014 3:46:00 PM 10/8/2014 5:45:00 PM 10/25/2014 11:50:00 AM 10/31/2014 1:10:00 PM 12/19/2014 11:35:00 AM 12/23/2014 10:06:00 AM 2/24/2014 4:20:00 PM 2/26/2014 8:00:00 PM 3/1/2014 1:09:00 AM 3/3/2014 8:18:00 AM 3/7/2014 10:40:00 AM 3/7/2014 5:59:00 PM 3/24/2014 3:27:00 PM 3/27/2014 6:42:00 PM 4/4/2014 10:21:00 PM 4/5/2014 9:00:00 AM 4/7/2014 8:30:00 PM 4/13/2014 9:00:00 PM 4/17/2014 7:00:00 PM 4/22/2014 12:54:00 PM 5/2/2014 7:44:00 AM 5/16/2014 3:43:00 PM 5/17/2014 6:16:00 PM 6/11/2014 3:43:00 PM 7/2/2014 11:06:00 PM (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: 3 CITY PARK AND ELIZABETH 2010 - 2014 32 Crashes intersectionquery 8/27/2010 11:11:00 PM 8/31/2010 6:30:00 PM 9/4/2010 3:25:00 AM 5/21/2010 9:38:00 PM 8/26/2011 7:50:00 AM 8/28/2011 4:46:00 PM 9/8/2011 10:30:00 PM 9/27/2011 7:21:00 PM 2/4/2011 11:58:00 AM 2/10/2011 6:45:00 PM 4/14/2011 6:16:00 PM 5/8/2011 12:30:00 AM 5/12/2011 8:01:00 PM 6/22/2011 6:30:00 PM 9/13/2012 6:45:00 PM 12/3/2012 6:12:00 PM 2/9/2012 3:34:00 PM 4/20/2012 4:51:00 PM 5/24/2012 12:44:00 PM 6/7/2012 4:22:00 PM 7/29/2013 10:00:00 PM 9/26/2013 8:35:00 PM 10/5/2013 3:35:00 PM 11/21/2013 7:45:00 AM 2/22/2013 6:58:00 AM 3/1/2013 9:06:00 PM 4/17/2013 11:48:00 AM 10/15/2014 7:30:00 PM 2/4/2014 5:52:00 PM 2/5/2014 9:09:00 AM 2/28/2014 2:20:00 PM (1) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 6394 SKYLINE DR AND W ELIZABETH ST 2010 - 2014 6 Crashes intersectionquery 2/22/2011 9:34:00 AM 4/10/2011 12:45:00 AM 10/16/2012 9:05:00 PM 3/30/2012 6:51:00 PM 1/17/2012 8:10:00 AM 6/20/2013 3:30:00 PM (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 Crash Magic Online 135 - TAFT HILL AND ELIZABETH 2010 - 2014 71 Crashes intersectionquery 9/2/2010 8:41:00 AM 11/17/2010 4:40:00 PM 11/10/2010 4:17:00 PM 2/11/2010 10:20:00 PM 2/18/2010 3:16:00 PM 2/20/2010 7:28:00 AM 2/20/2010 6:15:00 PM 4/1/2010 4:44:00 PM 4/25/2010 7:29:00 PM 5/7/2010 12:35:00 PM 6/3/2010 9:00:00 PM 7/11/2011 11:55:00 AM 9/6/2011 3:23:00 PM 9/26/2011 7:51:00 AM 10/12/2011 7:05:00 PM 10/24/2011 10:07:00 PM 11/2/2011 10:06:00 PM 11/8/2011 10:15:00 AM 2/5/2011 10:18:00 AM 12/1/2011 7:00:00 AM 12/7/2011 9:54:00 AM 1/6/2011 11:20:00 PM 3/2/2011 9:32:00 PM 3/6/2011 8:33:00 PM 1/11/2011 5:15:00 PM 4/20/2011 3:50:00 PM 4/25/2011 6:32:00 PM 5/13/2011 10:30:00 PM 1/16/2011 12:42:00 AM 7/25/2012 6:15:00 PM 8/9/2012 11:45:00 PM 9/3/2012 5:45:00 PM 9/5/2012 8:00:00 PM 1/29/2012 12:06:00 PM 10/2/2012 11:52:00 AM 10/16/2012 2:45:00 PM 10/24/2012 5:45:00 PM 11/10/2012 5:23:00 PM 2/9/2012 6:33:00 PM 2/13/2012 5:15:00 PM 2/15/2012 3:18:00 PM 3/4/2012 7:30:00 PM 3/27/2012 11:30:00 AM 3/29/2012 5:36:00 PM 5/4/2012 7:15:00 PM 8/27/2013 10:18:00 AM 10/2/2013 6:34:00 PM 10/31/2013 6:45:00 AM 1/5/2013 3:00:00 PM 3/12/2013 9:02:00 AM 3/2/2013 7:25:00 AM 3/14/2013 7:25:00 AM 3/19/2013 6:36:00 PM 6/8/2013 3:18:00 AM 6/20/2013 8:15:00 AM 8/21/2014 5:34:00 PM 9/5/2014 9:51:00 PM 1/27/2014 3:00:00 PM 7625 PONDEROSA DR AND W ELIZABETH ST 2010 - 2014 12 Crashes intersectionquery 10/15/2010 7:11:00 PM 10/16/2010 2:41:00 PM 9/5/2011 6:29:00 PM 12/3/2011 10:55:00 AM 12/3/2011 6:55:00 PM 9/12/2012 3:42:00 PM 4/10/2012 9:37:00 AM 10/7/2013 8:33:00 AM 10/19/2013 2:06:00 AM 12/8/2013 1:54:00 AM 6/20/2014 6:45:00 AM (1) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 Crash Magic Online 6385 S OVERLAND TRL AND W ELIZABETH ST 2010 - 2014 17 Crashes intersectionquery 7/10/2010 3:01:00 PM 1/28/2010 4:45:00 PM 10/5/2010 9:59:00 AM 10/20/2010 4:00:00 PM 1/26/2012 8:03:00 AM 8/25/2012 1:02:00 AM 10/7/2012 4:55:00 PM 2/5/2012 8:54:00 PM 3/16/2012 1:35:00 PM 3/23/2012 3:09:00 PM 7/18/2013 6:00:00 PM 11/12/2013 5:16:00 PM 3/15/2013 1:29:00 PM 9/11/2014 9:57:00 PM 11/7/2014 8:09:00 AM 11/11/2014 8:00:00 AM (1) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 6/25/2015 Crash Magic Online APPEENDIX E: CCOMMUNNITY ENG GAGEMENNT DETAIILS City of Fort Collins Corridor Understanding: Community Engagement Appendix West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Table of Contents Introduction Survey Summaries Background What We Heard – Key Themes Detailed Results Paper Survey #1 Paper Survey #2 Online Survey Listening Session Summary Background What We Heard – Key Themes WikiMap Summary Background What We Heard – Key Themes Neighborhood Walking, Biking, and Transit Tour Summary Background What We Heard – Key Themes Detailed Results Open Streets Summary Background What We Heard – Key Themes Introduction This appendix documents the key outreach activities during Phase 1 (Corridor Understanding) of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. Key outreach activities included: Activity Date Surveys (Intercept, Paper, Online) March-May, 2015 Listening Sessions April 29 & May 4, 2015 WikiMap April-May, 2015 Neighborhood Walking, Biking, and Transit Tours May 11-14, 2015 Open Streets June 7, 2015 Summaries of these outreach activities, including the key themes heard, are presented in the sections below. Survey Summaries BACKGROUND As part of the community engagement and corridor understanding process three surveys were administered during the spring of 2015 which asked residents to provide responses to a variety of questions related to how they used the West Elizabeth Corridor, what the key issues were, and how the study area might be improved. Survey Instrument Date Responses Paper Survey #1—CSU Classes March, 2015 32 Intercept Survey/Paper Survey #2 March 31 & April 10, 2015/ April, 2015 101/45 Online Survey Mid-April through Mid-May, 2015 274 Total 452 While the content of all three surveys were similar in concept, some of the questions varied and evolved between survey instruments. All questions, including demographic information, were optional. However, most respondents did complete the entire survey, which is helpful for understanding the experience of respondents from different viewpoints. Paper Survey #1 The first of the surveys to be administered was created and distributed by City staff to students at Colorado State University (CSU). The survey consisted of 7 questions: 4 multiple choice questions, 1 ranking question, and 2 open-ended questions. Intercept Survey/Paper Survey #2 The second survey was refined by students as part of a class project for the Center for Conservation Leadership through Learning (CLTL). The survey was administered at various locations across the West Elizabeth Corridor, such as the King Soopers shopping center and bus stops. The intercept survey consisted of 11 multiple choice questions. Several of the questions allowed multiple responses as well as an “Other” option through which participants could provide a write-in response. Students also had the opportunity to take a paper copy of the survey to complete at home and submit later at the CSU Transit Center. Online Survey Survey questions from the paper survey were further refined and incorporated into an online survey which was open from mid-April through mid-May and accessed via the West Elizabeth ETC website. The online survey consisted of 11 multiple choice questions and 1 ranking question. Several of the questions allowed for multiple responses as well as an “Other” option with a write-in response. In addition, three questions asked why the user didn’t use specific modes (bike, bus, walking) in the corridor more often. These had logic built in that prompted an additional question if a safety-related response was chosen and provide a deeper understanding of safety concerns related to specific modes. A comparison of the survey questions is shown in the table below. Key topic areas include:  Background  Travel Behavior  Barriers to Active Transportation  Potential Improvements  Demographics  Other Comments Responses to these questions are summarized in the sections that follow (text and charts). Questions with charts depicting responses are bold and include “Q#.,” which indicates the chart number. Question Paper Survey #1 Intercept Survey / Paper Survey #2 Online Survey BACKGROUND Q1. Using the map above, which of the following apply to you? (Please select all that apply) If answered ”None of the above” in previous question: Why do you not use West Elizabeth Street? TRAVEL BEHAVIOR Frequency in Corridor On average, how often do you use the West Elizabeth corridor (between Overland Trail and Shields)? Modes Used/Primary Mode Q2. Which travel mode(s) do you use in this corridor? (Please select all that apply) Which travel mode(s) do you typically use in this corridor? Rank the modes as 1 for the most frequent, 2 for next, and so on; only rank the modes you use. Q3. Which travel mode do you use most often in this corridor? (Please select one) * Corridor Likes What do you like about traveling in the West Elizabeth corridor? Frequency of Active Transportation Q4. On average, how often do you use active transportation (biking, walking, buses) in this Corridor? (Please select one) BARRIERS TO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Transit Q5. What keeps you from using buses more in this corridor? If chose “safety concerns” in previous question: What are your specific safety concerns about taking the bus in West Elizabeth corridor? Please provide specific locations/origins/destinations. Biking Q6. What keeps you from biking more in the corridor? (Please select all that Question Paper Survey #1 Intercept Survey / Paper Survey #2 Online Survey apply) If chose “safety concerns” in previous question: What are your specific safety concerns about biking in West Elizabeth corridor? Please provide specific locations/origins/destinations. Walking Q7. What keeps you from walking more in this corridor? (Please select all that apply) If chose “safety concerns” in previous question: What are your specific safety concerns about walking in West Elizabeth corridor? Please provide specific locations/origins/destinations. POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS What could be improved? Q8. What improvements, if any, would you like to see in this corridor? (Please select all that apply) Please rank the potential improvements in this corridor described below. Top priority is ranked “1”. DEMOGRAPHICS Gender Q9. What is your gender?/With what gender do you identify? Age Q10. What is your age? Ethnicity Q11. With what ethnicity do you identify? Rent v. Own Do you own or rent your residence? OTHER COMMENTS Please share any comments or suggestions related to the West Elizabeth Corridor or the West Elizabeth ETC Plan. * Used responses for Rank = 1 from previous question in chart WHAT WE HEARD – KEY THEMES Background  A total of 452 people participated in various West Elizabeth corridor understanding surveys.  The majority of respondents lived in the study area (61%), and a high percentage of participants were CSU students (53%). Travel Behavior  Over half of the respondents already use multiple modes in the corridor (respondents were able to select all options that applied to them): o 81% - Drive o 62% - Bike o 52% - Walk  The primary mode currently used is car (49%), followed by bike (27%).  Over one-third of respondents (36%) use active transportation (biking, walking, buses) on a daily basis, while 17% of respondents never or almost never use active modes. 61% 27% 53% 23% 4% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% I live in the area I work in the area I am a CSU Student I am a CSU Faculty/Staff member None of the above Q1-Respondent Type (could choose more than one answer) *Includes longboard/skateboard *Includes longboard/skateboard 62% 42% 81% 52% 2% 4% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Bike Bus Car Walk N/A Other* Q2-Modes of Travel (could choose more than one answer) 27% 17% 49% 5% 1% 2% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Bike Bus Car Walk N/A Other* Q3-Primary Mode of Travel Barriers to Active Transportation  The top barrier to using the bus more often was that the buses aren’t fast or frequent enough (40%).  Key safety concerns related to taking the bus: o Accessing bus service (e.g., not feeling safe walking to/from and waiting at the bus stops in early morning or evening hours when it was dark out) o Navigating the corridor to access the bus amidst busy traffic  Nearly one-third (31%) of respondents don’t perceive any barriers to biking in the corridor. Conversely, 40% said bad weather keeps them from biking more, and 33% said biking does not feel safe enough.  Key safety concerns related to biking: o Biking alongside high levels of vehicular traffic o Distracted drivers not paying attention to bicyclists on the roadway; several respondents commenting on witnessing or nearly being involved in bicycle/auto accidents 36% 24% 14% 9% 11% 6% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Daily 3-5 times/wk 3-5 times/mo Once a month Almost never Never Q4-Active/Sustainable Transportation Frequency (bike, walk, bus) o Quality of bicycle infrastructure in the area (e.g., narrow bicycle lanes, discontinuous and disconnected bicycle lanes, debris in the roadway, and challenging intersections)  Similarly, one-third (33%) of respondents don’t perceive any barriers to walking in the corridor, and 50% said the distance to their destination is too far to walk.  Key safety concerns related to walking: o Nighttime safety (e.g., poor lighting in the area) o Perception of lack of protection from traffic along segments of the roadway with discontinuous or missing sidewalks and at intersections 24% 3% 8% 23% 15% 40% 9% 6% 15% 16% 20% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Nothing--I use the buses as often as I'd like Accessing/taking the bus does not feel safe Bad weather (snowy/rainy conditions) Buses don't provide service where I need to go Buses are too crowded Buses aren't fast/frequent enough Hard to access bus stops/lack of amenities Not enough room for bikes on bus Not familiar with bus routes Not applicable/ not interested Other Q5-Barriers to Using the Bus More Often (could choose more than one answer) Potential Improvements  Paper Survey #1 – Key themes: o Improved bicycle infrastructure (e.g., protected bike lanes, improved lane design at intersections, and better plowing of bike lanes) o Improved pedestrian facilities (e.g., an underpass crossing Shields and improved intersection design and timing) 31% 33% 40% 12% 25% 1% 17% 15% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Nothing--I bike as often as I'd like Biking does not feel safe Bad weather (snowy/rainy conditions) Doesn't work with my schedule/not convenient My destination is too far for biking Not familiar with bike routes/facilities Not applicable/ not interested Other Q6-Barriers to Biking More Often (could choose more than one answer) 33% 11% 22% 16% 50% 10% 11% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Nothing--I walk as often as I'd like Walking does not feel safe Bad weather (snowy/rainy conditions) Doesn't work with my schedule/not convenient My destination is too far for walking Not applicable/ not interested Other Q7-Barriers to Walking More Often (could choose more than one answer) o Additional bus routes, additional space on buses o Traffic/congestion management  Intercept Survey/Paper Survey #2 – The most frequently chosen types of improvements supported included: o 54% - More frequent bus service o 43% - Protected bike lanes o 38% - More pedestrian options o 37% - Wider bike lanes  Online survey – Ranking of improvements: o #1 – Bike-related improvements (weighted score: 763) o #2 – Transit-related improvements (668) o #3 – Pedestrian-related improvements (619) o #4 – Motor vehicle-related improvements (605) o #5 – Urban design-related improvements (489) 43% 37% 54% 13% 38% 17% 10% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Protected bike lanes Wider bike lanes More frequent bus service Slower driving speeds More pedestrian options (crosswalks, wider sidewalks, etc.) None Other Q8-Improvements (could choose more than one answer) Demographics  Overall, a majority of survey respondents were female (55%) and between the ages of 18 and 34 (66%) which is generally representative of the study area. Male, 34% Female, 55% Other, 2% Prefer not to answer, 9% Q9-Gender 0% 41% 25% 12% 9% 7% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Q10-Age Other Comments Comments were wide ranging due to the nature of the question; however responses tended to focus on a few key issues similar to comments on other survey questions.  Suggestions for improved bicycle infrastructure, including protected bike lanes and improved lane design at intersections.  Improved bus service (e.g., MAX-type bus system on Elizabeth, extended service hours, more bus stops, and better connections to the rest of the city).  Additional speed enforcement, improved intersection design and signal timing, and suggestions for a traffic light at the King Soopers entrance on West Elizabeth Street.  Concerns about the increased development and density in the corridor and the impacts that changes to the corridor may have on the surrounding neighborhoods. 4% 2% 1% 81% 4% 8% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Hispanic or Latino Black/African American American Indian or Alaskan Native White/Caucasian Asian or Other Pacific Islander Other/Blank Q11-Ethnicity Listening Session Summary BACKGROUND Two listening sessions were held on April 29 and May 4, 2015 to gain insights from the community about the existing conditions and issues surrounding the West Elizabeth Corridor and to help identify potential areas of improvements. Date Session Location Participants April 29 6:00 – 8:00 pm Westminster Presbyterian Church 30 May 4 6:00 – 8:00 pm Polaris/Lab School 21 Total 51 The listening sessions began with an introduction to the West Elizabeth Enhanced Corridor Plan, a description of the community engagement activities conducted thus far, and an overview of the community engagement process moving forward. Participants were asked to break into groups to discuss different transportation modes in the corridor, including: vehicular, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle. Each group had maps associated with the topic areas and was encouraged to share thoughts, concerns, or questions they had related to the topic. Participants were encouraged to discuss their thoughts with the group and write notes on the maps. Each group had approximately 30 minutes to discuss the topic before moving to one of the other topic areas. WHAT WE HEARD – KEY THEMES The project team heard a number of concerns, opportunities, and comments during the discussions and on the comment forms. The following list of key themes summarizes the ideas and comments shared by participants at both listening sessions. Comments are organized by corridor segments according to the map below:  CSU Foothills Campus/Overland Trail to Ponderosa Drive  Ponderosa Drive to Taft Hill Road  Taft Hill Road to City Park Avenue  City Park Avenue to Shields/CSU Main Campus Overland Trail to Ponderosa Drive  Bicycle infrastructure is discontinuous and less prevalent in this western portion of the corridor.  Pedestrian crossing (across Elizabeth) is difficult and dangerous; we need dedicated crossings.  I would ride the bus more if there were service on Mulberry Street west of Taft Hill Road.  Elizabeth Street is bottlenecked beyond Ponderosa Drive; remove the on-street parking.  Property owners are concerned how they might be affected by changes to the corridor. Ponderosa Drive to Taft Hill Road  The intersection at Taft Hill Road and Elizabeth is busy, dangerous, and confusing; there are conflicts between all modes there.  It is difficult and to cross Elizabeth west of Taft Hill Road. We need a pedestrian crossing near King Soopers (heard many times).  Access conflicts at King Soopers entrance west of Taft Hill Road (also south of Elizabeth Street) – (this was mentioned several times and is probably the biggest theme of the night) Taft Hill Road to City Park Avenue  City Park Avenue north of Elizabeth is dangerous for bicyclists despite being a major connection to Old Town. Need a low-stress bike network on City Park Avenue.  The bike lane (westbound) on Elizabeth Street past City Park Avenue is too narrow.  There is a lot of congestion on City Park Avenue and Plum Street. Too much activity; on- street parking, buses, bicyclists, and pedestrians (heard several times).  There is a lot of cut through traffic on Springfield Drive and City Park Avenue. City Park Avenue to Shields  Intersection improvements are needed at Plum Street and Shields for all modes.  Bike facilities need improvements on Plum Street; this is a high conflict area between buses and bicyclists (heard several times).  Improved bicycle crossings needed at the Shields and Elizabeth Street intersection, currently feels unsafe.  Although people appreciate the activated crosswalk on Elizabeth Street drivers don’t necessarily yield to pedestrians.  Would like to see detached bicycle and pedestrian facilities; possibly a shared use path.  There is a lot of congestion in Campus West.  Students use the neighborhood between City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue south of Elizabeth Street as a park-n-ride. Other/General Comments VEHICULAR  Lots of access points (driveways) that result in high number of bicycle/vehicular conflicts.  “Right-sizing” Elizabeth Street and using a vehicular lane for dedicated transit or improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities might be a good option (heard several times).  Better traffic enforcement is needed (heard several times).  Would like to see traffic diverted to adjacent arterials (Mulberry & Prospect) to relieve congestion.  Speeding is big issue, traffic calming is needed.  Improved street lighting is needed. TRANSIT  Bus stop amenities need improvements (mentioned several times).  Need higher frequency bus service; full buses discourage transit use.  Students use the study area neighborhoods as a park-n-ride.  Buses speed in the corridor (mentioned several times)  Need Sunday, weekend, and late evening service.  Would like the buses to connect to the MAX.  Buses only cater to students. PEDESTRIAN  Sidewalk infrastructure is inconsistent; need continuous walkability along all of West Elizabeth Street and better cohesiveness in the level of infrastructure.  Sidewalks are narrow, uncomfortable, and challenging for mobility-challenged individuals.  Infrastructure needs to be better maintained including snow removal.  Detached sidewalks are preferred.  Need more pedestrian refuge islands to protect pedestrians when crossing Elizabeth Street.  Residents are concerned about light pollution from adding additional pedestrian crossings. BIKING  Biking behavior in the corridor is impulsive and unpredictable, such as riding the wrong direction in bike lanes and on the sidewalks. There needs to be more education to improve travel behavior.  Bike lanes are not obvious /intuitive on Elizabeth Street. In some sections it unsure if there is a dedicated bike lane or if it is just the road shoulder (heard several times).  Bike lanes need better snow removal.  Bikes and buses go the same speed, leapfrog down corridor, this creates multiple conflict points between the two.  North-south connectivity across the corridor needs improvement. WikiMap Summary BACKGROUND DETAILED RESULTS Neighborhood Walking, Biking, and Transit Tours Summary BACKGROUND Six tours were scheduled during the week of May 11, 2015. The intent of the tours was for City Staff to experience the corridor with locals who live, work and play in the area. Community members were asked to voluntarily lead or participate in the tours and to identify issues and opportunities from their perspectives. The following table provides the dates, focus and attendees of each tour. The tour comments are summarized primarily by the following group of images as well as geographically by the map that follows. Date Time Tour Detail Participants 5/11/2015 12:30 – 2 p Tour 1: Bike Tour of West Segment (between Overland Trail and Skyline Drive) Josh Weinberg, Leader Andrea Weinberg Susannah Wright Emma Belmont, City Staff Amy Lewin, City Staff 5/12/2015 11 a – 12:30 p Tour 2: Walking Tour of Campus West Shopping Center (between City Park Avenue and Shields Street) Justie Nicol, Leader Doug Ernest Kathy Nicol Mike Werner Craig Russell, Consultant Emma Belmont, City Staff Rebecca Everette, City Staff Amy Lewin, City Staff 5/14/2015 10 – 11:30 a Tour 4: Walking and Transit Tour of East Segment (between City Park Avenue and Taft Hill Road) Terry Schictling, Leader Aaron Fodge, CSU Emma Belmont, City Staff Rebecca Everette, City Staff Amy Lewin, City Staff Kurt Ravenschlag, City Staff 5/14/2015 5:15 – 6:56 p Tour 5: Walking Tour of West Segment (Between Hillcrest Road and Andrews Peak Drive) Carron Silva, Leader Bonnie Michael Mike Werner Emma Belmont, City Staff Amy Lewin, City Staff *Tours 3 and 6 were canceled due to low participation WHAT WE HEARD – KEY THEMES Tour 1: West Segment Biking Tour Overland and West Elizabeth – residents have difficulty making turning left turn movements from West Elizabeth onto Overland Trail; they would like to see a light added here. Ponderosa and West Elizabeth Street – residents experience sight distances issues at this intersection because the stop sign is back so far they have to proceed onto West Elizabeth to see oncoming vehicles. King Soopers Shopping Center at West Elizabeth and Taft Hill - many vehicle, bus pedestrian and bicycle conflicts due to the frequent left-turns into King Soopers. Common bike path through private development to avoid crossing at Taft Hill and West Elizabeth – signage indicates “Resident Access Only”. Plum and Taft Hill crossing – frequently used crossing to get to Lab/ Polaris School to the east. Tour 2: Campus West Walking Tour Vehicles crowding the bike lane at Elizabeth and Shields (eastbound travel). Bike and vehicle interaction as bike transitions through the turn lane into the bike lane at the intersection. Cyclists using the sidewalk instead of bike lanes. Many bicyclists also ride the wrong way on sidewalks, creating safety concerns. High volumes of pedestrians crossing Shields at West Elizabeth. Driveway conflicts with bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles and challenges to accessing businesses. Concern over vehicles sometimes not yielding at designated mid-block crossing. Landscape areas not being maintained. Need for delivery drop-off for many businesses. Parking challenges exist in the corridor. Tour 4: East Segment Walking and Transit Tour (between City Park and Taft Hill) Accessibility issues exist throughout this corridor – some sidewalks are too narrow and are not compliant with ADA regulations. Taft Hill and West Elizabeth Intersection – the crosswalk pushbuttons aren’t accessible for someone in a mobility device to use. Also, bikes and vehicles extend into the crosswalk and make it challenging to cross. Many bus stops are inaccessible, have limited or no passenger amentities, or amenities are located in a dirt patch. There is a lot of transit service in this corridor (Route 2 plus Route 2 trailer bus). Bike and bus conflict as buses stop in the bike lane to drop off passengers. Bike traveling on the sidewalk, against traffic. Tour 5: West Segment Walking Tour (between City Park and Taft Hill) Ram’s Crossing at Ram’s Point - this location has a heavily used bus stop, but the sidewalk ends less than 100’ west of the stop, making it challenging for residents from the western neighborhoods to access the stop. West of Ram’s Crossing at Ram’s Point the north side of West Elizabeth Street has inconsistent sidewalk facilities. Properties on the north side of West Elizabeth have drainage issues; many have a ditch and wells very close to the southern edge of their properties. Muddy conditions often occur. Bus stop on the north side of West Elizabeth Street – a drainage ditch runs directly behind the stop, residents observe littering and noise especially from late-night bus riders getting dropped off. South side of West Elizabeth Street – sidewalk facilities are better than the north side of the street, but are still inconsistent. DETAILED RESULTS Open Streets Summary BACKGROUND The project team hosted a booth at June’s Open Streets event, where they engaged residents in conversation about West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. City staff introduced the project to several citizens and asked if they would like to provide feedback as to the main issues in the corridor and improvements desired for the future. Three posters were presented for input, a “What We’ve Heard” poster, a “What’s Your Big Idea?” poster, and a transit route map of the corridor. Citizens were encouraged to provide their “big vision” for the corridor and write ideas directly on the “What’s Your Big Idea?” poster. They were also asked to provide information on origin- destination routes taken in the corridor in order to glean travel behavior and routes. During these conversations many residents provided additional comments and concerns which were documented on sticky notes and added to the transit map in order to provide spatial reference. Three main themes emerged from these conversations: 1. Desire for a MAX-type bus service (referring to MAX’s frequency and modern feel) on West Elizabeth Street. 2. Desire for Sunday bus service. 3. Desire for buffered or protected bike lanes in the corridor. WHAT WE HEARD – KEY THEMES What’s Your Big Idea? • Grid system for transit • Protected bike intersection • Streetcar • Teleport • Floating bus stops • Connections for bikes/pedestrians from Plum heading west • Bike light (signal) at intersection • Bike business access & transit lanes (like Toronto & Seattle) • Gondola • More sugar in the lemonade Transit Route Map Comments: TRANSIT • I ride to MAX through campus • Route 31- more frequent and on the weekend • Straight Prospect route (bus) • Need at least 15 min service on West Elizabeth Street • Need 10-ride pack of transit passes back again! • Express route for further West • Jitney Coop Model: smaller vehicle, more drivers, more frequency, and independent contractor o City sponsored indirect costs: training, insurance, and healthcare • Route west on Mulberry to Overland Trail. Maybe loop around Elizabeth Street eastbound • Need later MAX route o Through bars closing • Sunday service • Need Sunday service MAX- January especially • MAX would be nice to go to Loveland • MAX to 81 is tight sometimes • Hard to get from the Old Town area to the Senior Center PEDESTRIAN • Pedestrian signal at Shields and Atkins - Concerns for cars not stopping here; seems ambiguous. Install pedestrian signals like what’s at Laurel Streets or on West Elizabeth Street. • Current sidewalks: narrow, missing, broken, misaligned, frost heave • Safe Routes to School needs to focus on Laporte Avenue BIKING • Afraid to bike on West Mulberry Street • Separated bike lanes (heard comment from several people) • Increased number of bike lanes • Laporte Avenue & Overland Trail- bike issues at intersection APPENDIX: ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY ALTERNATIVES appendix: ANALYSIS D SUMMARY 621 17th Street | #2301 | Denver, CO 80293 | (303) 296-4300 | Fax (303) 296-4300 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: February 22, 2016 To: Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog From: Charlie Alexander, Carly Sieff and Andrew McFadden Subject: Alternatives Analysis Materials for Technical Advisory Committee DN15-0488 This technical memorandum summarizes alternatives analysis findings for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. Fehr & Peers studied the following design approaches as a part of the alternatives analysis: • Tweak & Tune (transit improvements only) • Transportation Systems Management • Traffic Calming • MAX on West Elizabeth This technical memorandum includes: • Design approach evaluation matrix • MMLOS analysis • Traffic operations analysis (existing and existing plus design approach analysis; 2040 is forthcoming) Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 2 of 30 DESIGN APPROACH EVALUATION MATRIX The following page includes the draft design approach evaluation matrix. This evaluation matrix builds upon the detailed performance measure analysis including multi-modal level of service. In general, the Tweak & Tune design approach only improves conditions for transit; therefore, this alternative still evaluates poorly for the other modes. The Transportation Systems Management evaluates significantly better than the Tweak & Tune design approach; however, many criteria are met at a medium level and some criteria are still only met at a low level. The Traffic Calming design approach improves upon the Transportation Systems Management design approach for all modes of transportation; however, this design approach may be less fiscally responsible than other design approaches and increases congestion for people driving. The MAX on West Elizabeth design approach evaluates similarly to the Traffic Calming design approach; however, this design meets some criteria at a “Low” level including congestion for people driving. High frequency transit Reliable transit Sufficient transit capacity Convenient/ efficient bicycling and walking Bicyclist and pedestrian safety Complete pedestrian network Comfort for bicyclists Vehicular safety Vehicular efficiency and convenience Low Low Low High Medium Low High Low Low Low Low Medium Low Low Medium High Low Medium Low Medium High Medium Medium Low High Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low High Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Low High High Medium Medium Medium Low Medium High Medium High Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Medium High High Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium High High Low High High Medium High High High High High Medium High High Medium High High High High Medium High High Medium Medium High High High High High High High Medium High Medium High High Low High High Medium High High High High High Medium High High Medium High High High High Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium High High High High High High Medium High People riding transit: Implement BRT-style service with articulated buses and stations, transit signal priority, transit station at CSU Equine Center; transit service to focus along West Elizabeth-Constitution-Plum route People driving: Access control at key locations: between Shields Street & City Park Avenue, between Taft Hill Road and Hillcrest Drive People walking: Complete sidewalk network to minimum ADA width, leading pedestrian intervals People biking: Complete bike lanes where missing, green bike lanes through intersections, two-stage turn queue boxes where appropriate People walking: Complete sidewalk network with landscape separation where possible, leading pedestrian intervals Community support Criteria (based on a low, medium, high, n/a ranking) Multi-modal Supports existing economic conditions Beautiful, vibrant, and attractive public spaces Well-connected Fiscal responsibility People walking: Complete sidewalk network with landscape separation where possible, leading pedestrian intervals People biking: One-way cycle tracks on West Elizabeth Street, green bike lanes through intersections, two-stage turn queue boxes where appropriate Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 4 of 30 MMLOS ANALYSIS The following pages include MMLOS analysis for each primary mode of transportation under each design approach: Transportation Systems Management, Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches. The Tweak & Tune MMLOS is the same as MMLOS for existing conditions. In general, the MMLOS for people riding transit, people bicycling and people walking improves for each design approach except for Tweak & Tune. For people driving, the Transportation Systems Management design approach least affects overall intersection delay. The Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches generally increase vehicle delay, particularly at the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersections. For people riding transit, each design approach comparably improves the MMLOS for transit according to this methodology; however, other considerations affect transit service quality for which this methodology does not have adequate sensitivities. For people bicycling, the Transportation Systems Management results in a small level of improvement to LTS over the existing condition, particularly where existing missing bike lanes are added. The Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches substantially reduce bicyclist LTS on West Elizabeth Street. For people walking, the Transportation Systems Management results in a small level of improvement over the existing condition, particularly where sidewalks are added where they are currently missing or widened where they are currently very narrow. The Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches substantially improve conditions for pedestrians on West Elizabeth Street. Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex W ELIZABETH ST W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR West Elizabeth Street Multi-Modal Level of Service: People Driving City Boundary West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR West Elizabeth Street Multi-Modal Level of Service: People RidingTransit City Boundary Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR West Elizabeth Street Multi-Modal Level of Service: People Walking City Boundary Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR West Elizabeth Street Multi-Modal Level of Service: People Bicycling City Boundary Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 9 of 30 PEOPLE DRIVING Table 1 shows the assumed changes to study intersections in each design approach. Table 2 shows the delay and Level of Service (LOS) by intersection for people driving for each design approach assuming existing traffic volumes; Table 3 shows the delay and LOS for people driving for each design approach assuming 2040 traffic volumes. Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 10 of 30 TABLE 1: ASSUMED CHANGES BY DESIGN APPROACH Intersection Existing / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail -- -- 1. Replace side-street stop with roundabout 1. Replace side-street stop with roundabout West Elizabeth Street/ Taft Hill Road -- 1. Add TSP 1. Add TSP 2. Prohibit NB/SB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 3. Add exclusive EB/WB cycle track phases 4. Protect EB/WB right-turns 1. Add TSP 2. Prohibit NB/SB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 3. Add exclusive EB/WB cycle track phases 4. Protect EB/WB right-turns West Elizabeth Street/ Constitution Avenue -- 1. Add TSP 2. Prohibit NB/SB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 1. Add TSP 2. Prohibit NB/SB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 3. Protect EB/WB left-turns 1. Add TSP 2. Prohibit NB/SB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 3. Protect EB/WB left-turns 4. Bus-only lanes West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue -- 1. Prohibit NB/SB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 1. Pilot protected intersection with protected EB/WB/NB/SB left-turns 1. Prohibit NB/SB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 2. Protect EB/WB left-turns 3. Bus-only lanes West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street -- -- 1. Prohibit EB/WB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 2. Run EB cycle track and south crosswalk concurrently with P.6; reconfigure EB lanes to 2L, 1T/R, 1R and WB lanes to 1L, 1T, 1R 1. Prohibit EB/WB RTOR (for two-stage turn queue boxes) 2. Run EB cycle track and south crosswalk concurrently with P.6; Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 11 of 30 TABLE 2: DELAY / LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Existing / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail (side street stop in Existing and Tweak & Tune; roundabout in Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth) 3 / A 22 / C (WBL) 3 / A 30 / D (WBL) 4 / A 18 / C (WBL) 4 / A 29 / D (WBL) 4 / A 6 / A 5 / A 6 / A West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 21 / C 36 / D 21 / C 37 / D 43 / D 62 / E 44 / D 65 / E West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 6 / A 9 / A 7 / A 10 / A 12 / B 25 / C 10 / B 19 / B West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 8 / A 15 / B 8 / A 17 / B 17 / B 42 / D 19 / B 47 / D West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 18 / B 46 / D 17 / B 47 / D 22 / C 42 / D 22 / C 48 / D Shields Street/Plum Street 9 / A 14 / B 9 / A 14 / B 8 / A 16 / B 8 / A 16 / B Shields Street/Laurel Street 12 / B 25 / C 12 / B 26 / C 12 / B 28 / C 11 / B 29 / C Shields Street/Lake Street 8 / A 11 / B 7 / A 10 / B 9 / A 12 / B 9 / A 11 / B Shields Street/Prospect Road 61 / E 46 / D 57 / E 47 / D 49 / D 46 / D 50 / D 47 / D Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 12 of 30 TABLE 3: DELAY / LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection No Build / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail (side street stop in Existing and Tweak & Tune; roundabout in Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth) 3 / A 25 / D (WBL) 4 / A 29 / D (WBL) 5 / A 62 / F (WBT) 4 / A 32 / D (WBL) 6 / A 8 / A 7 / A 8 / A West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 33 / C 58 / E 30 / C 53 / D 94 / F 93 / F 97 / F 106 / F West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 6 / A 11 / B 7 / A 11 / A 14 / B 35 / D 12 / B 24 / C West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 8 / A 23 / C 8 / A 32 / C 16 / B 58 / E 21 / C 83 / F West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 22 / C 103 / F 23 / C 115 / F 26 / C 114 / F 25 / C 115 / F Shields Street/Plum Street 10 / B 47 / D 10 / B 37 / D 8 / A 51 / D 8 / A 45 / D Shields Street/Laurel Street 14 / B 97 / F 14 / B 98 / F 14 / B 114 / F 14 / B 112 / F Shields Street/Lake Street 10 / A 80 / E 9 / A 79 / E 11 / B 57 / E 10 / B 55 / D Shields Street/Prospect Road 135 / F 81 / F 141 / F 106 / F 141 / F 71 / E 144 / F 70 / E Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 13 of 30 Notable findings from the vehicle level of service analysis are: • At the West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail intersection, replacing the existing side-street stop with a roundabout in the Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches results in LOS A during both peak hours. The roundabout reduces delay for eastbound and westbound drivers and maintains LOS A for all approaches. • At the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersection: o The addition of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) in the Transportation Systems Management design approach reduces delay for eastbound-westbound transit without significantly affecting overall intersection operations. o The addition of exclusive eastbound-westbound cycle track phases in the Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches increases overall intersection delay and causes the intersection to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The exclusive eastbound-westbound cycle track phases, and potential alternatives that would have lesser effect on intersection operations, should be further assessed as a part of the Recommended Design Refinement. • At the West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue intersection, modifications in each of the design approaches results in LOS C or better operations during both peak hours. • At the West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection: o The addition of a protected intersection in the Traffic Calming design approach, with protected left-turns on all approaches, increases the overall intersection delay and causes the intersection to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The protected intersection concept needs to be further assessed as a part of the Recommended Design Refinement. o In the MAX on West Elizabeth design approach, the addition of Transit Signal Priority, protected eastbound/westbound left-turns, no right-turn on red on the northbound/southbound approaches and bus only lanes causes the intersection to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. • At the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection, the proposed lane configuration and operational changes in the Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches which run the eastbound cycle track, the north crosswalk and the south crosswalk concurrently with Phase 6 (westbound), do not significantly change overall intersection delay and level of service from the existing condition. These proposed changes Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 14 of 30 need to be further assessed, in addition to other candidate improvements already being proposed by the City, as a part of the Recommended Design Refinement. • At Shields Street/Plum Street, the addition of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) in each of the design approaches does not significantly change overall delay or LOS. To obtain 2040 volumes growth rates were obtained from the NFR travel model and were synthesized to obtain growth rates along West Elizabeth Street for the AM (23%) and PM (13%) peak hours and along Shields Street for the AM (18%) and PM (21%) peak hours. A second westbound left turn lane is added to the Shields Street/Mulberry Street intersection and an exclusive westbound right turn bay is added at the intersection of Shields Street/Prospect Road to allow the anticipated growth in traffic to access the study intersections. Prior to the improvements huge queues were seen on these approaches that restricted access to other study intersections. Notable findings from the 2040 vehicle level of service analysis are: • In the AM peak hour significant increases in overall intersection delay compared to existing conditions can be seen at West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and Shields Street/Prospect Road in all scenarios: o At West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road delay increases are mainly seen on the eastbound and northbound approaches o At Shields Street/Prospect Road delay increases are mainly seen on the eastbound approach. • In the PM peak hour no build conditions significant increases in delay can be seen at all study intersections along Shields Street and at the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersection with an overall intersection LOS E o This delay is spread to lower conflicting volume intersections due to long queues spilling out of turn pockets inhibiting adjacent movements • The PM Traffic Calming alternative sees similar increases in delay from existing conditions along Shields Street and increased delay at City Park Avenue, Constitution Avenue, and Taft Hill Road over no build conditions similar to that seen under existing conditions volumes. This increased delay results in one to two intersection LOS levels higher in the Traffic Calming alterative compared to the no build conditions. • The PM MAX alternative intersection operations results are generally consistent with the Traffic Calming alternative except at the West Elizabeth/City Park Avenue intersection where the MAX alternative’s delay is significantly higher due to use of 1 eastbound- Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 15 of 30 westbound through travel lane. Intersection delay discrepancies between the MAX and Traffic Calming alternatives at the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue intersections are largely balanced out when taken collectively. • At the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection large delay increases are seen in the Transportation Systems Management approach compared to the no build approach for the northbound and eastbound approaches. These increases are largely due to the addition of the LPI at the intersection and southbound delay reductions due to improved southbound progression from changes made at the Shields Street/Plum Street intersection. Table 4 and Table 5 show vehicle travel times between Overland Trail and Shields Street for each design approach. Table 6 shows person delay for people driving for each design approach. Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 16 of 30 TABLE 4: VEHICLE TRAVEL TIMES – AM PEAK HOUR Segment Existing / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth Eastbound Overland Trail to Ponderosa 85 85 87 87 Ponderosa to Taft Hill 70 70 67 70 Taft Hill to Constitution 59 60 61 62 Constitution to City Park 37 36 42 45 City Park to Shields 68 70 80 84 Total 319 321 337 347 Westbound Shields to City Park 36 36 41 43 City Park to Constitution 37 39 41 40 Constitution to Taft Hill 92 96 90 90 Taft Hill to Ponderosa 36 37 40 40 Ponderosa to Overland Trail 107 111 100 100 Total 309 318 312 313 Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 17 of 30 TABLE 5: VEHICLE TRAVEL TIMES – PM PEAK HOUR Segment Existing / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth Eastbound Overland Trail to Ponderosa 84 85 86 86 Ponderosa to Taft Hill 76 76 69 70 Taft Hill to Constitution 62 61 69 69 Constitution to City Park 39 39 61 64 City Park to Shields 92 103 80 108 Total 352 365 365 397 Westbound Shields to City Park 40 40 46 69 City Park to Constitution 41 43 59 51 Constitution to Taft Hill 101 104 97 94 Taft Hill to Ponderosa 39 40 43 43 Ponderosa to Overland Trail 108 109 98 98 Total 329 337 343 356 Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 22, 2016 Page 18 of 30 TABLE 6: PERSON DELAY FOR PEOPLE DRIVING Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 50 57 79 83 67 72 119 125 West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 913 898 1,775 1,798 1,910 2,014 3,171 3,323 West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 79 95 160 135 232 265 640 502 West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 141 134 297 322 553 549 1,377 1,536 West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 762 758 962 997 3,096 2,874 2,669 3,148 Shields Street/Plum Street 290 312 259 264 754 798 958 956 Shields Street/Laurel Street 377 394 453 368 1,358 1,413 1,540 1,551 Shields Street/Lake Street 289 299 365 377 588 526 605 584 Shields Street/Prospect Road 3,626 3,395 2,966 3,039 3,620 3,656 3,583 3,652 Sum 6,528 6,343 7,316 7,384 12,178 12,166 14,661 15,377 Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 19 of 30 Notable findings from the vehicle travel time analysis and person delay analysis for people driving are: • The maximum increase to vehicle travel times in either peak hour or direction is 45 seconds in the eastbound direction during the PM peak hour. This represents approximately 13 percent of the existing eastbound travel time during the PM Peak hour. • Overall, the TSM, Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches increase east-west travel time on West Elizabeth Street. • In the AM peak hour, travel times increase in the eastbound direction with the implementation of any design approach. In the AM peak hour westbound travel times remain relatively unchanged in any design approach, likely due to the relatively light westbound traffic volumes in the AM peak hour. • In the AM peak hour in the eastbound direction, the greatest increases in travel time are between Constitution Drive and City Park Avenue in the Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches, likely due to changes at the West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection. • In the AM Peak hour in the eastbound direction between City Park Avenue and Shields Street, the MAX on West Elizabeth Street design approach most significantly increases travel time, likely due to the conversion of the existing travel lanes to bus only lanes. • In the PM peak hour, the TSM and Traffic Calming design approaches increase east-west travel time by a comparable amount (13 seconds for both design approaches in the eastbound direction peak hour, 8 seconds for the TSM design approach in the westbound direction and 14 seconds for the Traffic Calming design approach in the westbound direction). • In the PM peak hour in the eastbound direction, the most significant increases in travel time are observed in the Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches between Constitution Drive and City Park Avenue, likely due to changes at the West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection which add delay for east-west drivers. Increased travel times are also observed on this segment in the westbound direction. • In the PM peak hour between City Park Avenue and Shields Street the MAX on West Elizabeth design approach’s increase to eastbound and westbound travel times are likely due to the conversion of the outside travel lanes to bus-only lanes. • Overall, the TSM design approach does not significantly affect overall delay for people driving. The Traffic Calming design approach increases overall person delay for people Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 20 of 30 driving by 12 percent in the AM peak hour and 20 percent in the PM peak hour. The MAX on West Elizabeth design approach increases overall person delay for people driving by 13 percent in the AM peak hour and 26 percent in the PM peak hour. Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 21 of 30 PEOPLE RIDING TRANSIT Table 7 shows average transit vehicle delay by intersection for each design approach. Table 8 shows person delay for people riding transit for each design approach. Notable findings from the transit vehicle delay analysis and person delay analysis for people riding transit are: • Overall, transit vehicle delay by intersection is difficult to measure accurately between design approaches given the relatively low number of buses on the corridor in any of the alternatives. Additionally, the routing of buses changes between design approaches. As such, there may be variation in alternatives that is not directly explained by infrastructure changes included in a particular design approach. • In the Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches, the benefit of Transit Signal Priority can be seen at the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road and Shields Street/Plume Street intersections, where eastbound-westbound delay for buses generally decreases. • Compared to Existing Conditions, each of the design approaches generally reduces overall person delay for people riding transit. The Traffic Calming design approach most significantly reduces overall person delay for people riding transit. Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 22 of 30 TABLE 7: TRANSIT VEHICLE DELAY BY INTERSECTION Intersection Existing / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 29 26 53 14 11 17 10 15 West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 60 EB – 87 WB – 47 80 EB – 83 WB – 70 76 EB – 88 WB – 56 72 EB – 81 WB – 81 52 EB – 69 WB – 47 60 EB – 72 WB – 62 55 EB – 72 WB – 65 57 EB – 84 WB – 59 West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 17 EB – 29 WB – 10 24 EB – 18 WB – 17 19 EB – 24 WB – 11 34 EB – 39 WB – 18 22 EB – 41 WB – 13 26 EB – 44 WB – 24 20 Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 23 of 30 TABLE 8: PERSON DELAY FOR PEOPLE RIDING TRANSIT Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 5 5 1 1 15 1 1 1 West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 67 69 59 64 104 115 96 97 West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 32 29 45 36 70 71 50 53 West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 37 20 16 35 132 113 72 81 West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 60 18 22 78 20 6 5 66 Shields Street/Plum Street 164 178 140 146 338 382 298 320 Shields Street/Laurel Street 4 4 4 4 30 27 30 31 Shields Street/Lake Street 1 0 1 1 5 5 7 6 Shields Street/Prospect Road 121 122 53 52 26 25 26 29 Sum 490 445 342 416 740 745 585 682 Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 24 of 30 PEOPLE BICYCLING Table 9 shows bicyclist delay and LOS by intersection for each design approach. Table 10 shows person delay for people bicycling for each design approach. Notable findings from the bicyclist delay analysis and person delay analysis for people bicycling are: • The introduction of protected phases for the protected bike lane crossings at Taft Hill Road and Shields Street generally increase delay for bicyclists; these changes are observed in the Traffic Calming and the MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches at Taft Hill Road in both peak hours and at Shields Street in the AM peak hour. • At the West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue intersection the addition of the protected intersection moderately increases bicyclist delay by six seconds in both the AM and PM peak hours. • Overall, the design approaches increase person delay for people bicycling. Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 25 of 30 TABLE 9: BICYCLIST DELAY / LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Existing / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 1 / A 4 / A (WBT) 1 / A 5 / A (WBL) 2 / A 7 / A (WBT) 1 / A 6 / A (WBL) 1 / A 3 / A 1 / A 2 / A West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 30 / C 37 / D 28 / C 32 / D 36 / D 39 / D 34 / D 39 / D West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 11 / B 9 / A 11 / B 11 / B 10 / B 13 / B 9 / A 15 / B West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 11 / B 14 / B 11 / B 14 / B 17 / B 20 / C 18 / B 36 / D West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 35 / D 39 / D 37 / D 44 / E 47 / E 39 / D 47 / E 40 / D Shields Street/Plum Street 35 / D 40 / E 34 / D 41 / E 28 / C 41 / E 28 / C 41 / E Shields Street/Laurel Street 14 / B 19 / B 15 / B 24 / C 17 / B 26 / C 17 / B 25 / C Shields Street/Lake Street 5 / A 19 / B 6 / A 20 / C 7 / A 18 / B 7 / A 18 / B Shields Street/Prospect Road 29 / C 33 / D 31 / D 32 / D 29 / C 33 / D 26 / C 29 / C Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 26 of 30 TABLE 10: PERSON DELAY FOR PEOPLE BICYCLING Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 34 32 40 40 59 54 62 61 West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 12 13 11 10 20 25 27 33 West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 24 25 30 36 36 36 51 103 West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 91 94 125 124 87 97 85 86 Shields Street/Plum Street 100 98 79 79 109 110 112 112 Shields Street/Laurel Street 9 9 10 9 7 8 9 8 Shields Street/Lake Street 8 8 10 8 8 8 9 7 Shields Street/Prospect Road 40 43 40 39 29 27 30 23 Sum 318 321 346 345 356 367 388 436 Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 27 of 30 PEOPLE WALKING Table 11 shows pedestrian delay and LOS by intersection for each design approach. Table 10 shows person delay for people walking for each design approach. Notable findings from the pedestrian delay analysis and person delay analysis for people walking are: • Many study intersections already operate at LOS E or LOS F for pedestrians during either the AM or PM peak hour and would continue to do so with implementation of any of the proposed design approaches. • The Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches significantly increase pedestrian delay during bot the AM and PM peak hours due to the introduction of protected left-turn phases that increase cycle length but reduce potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. • The TSM design approach does not significantly increase overall person delay for people walking. Both the Traffic Calming and MAX on West Elizabeth design approaches increase overall person delay, generally due to the introduction of protected turn phases that increase cycle lengths or increased congestion that increases split times between high- volume pedestrian crossing phases. Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 28 of 30 TABLE 11: PEDESTRIAN DELAY / LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Existing / Tweak & Tune Transportation Systems Management Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 0 / A 0 / A 0 / A 1 / A 0 / A 0 / A 0 / A 1 / A West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 35 / D 49 / E 38 / D 51 / E 34 / D 42 / E 35 / D 41 / E West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 18 / B 21 / C 22 / C 24 / C 19 / B 23 / C 16 / B 23 / C West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 20 / C 31 / D 22 / C 30 / D 33 / D 57 / E 35 / D 59 / E West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 53 / E 57 / E 51 / E 57 / E 53 / E 55 / E 49 / E 56 / E Shields Street/Plum Street 51 / E 59 / E 51 / E 57 / E 51 / E 58 / E 51 / E 56 / E Shields Street/Laurel Street 46 / E 59 / E 48 / E 59 / E 47 / E 57 / E 49 / E 58 / E Shields Street/Lake Street 50 / E 44 / E 50 / E 46 / E 46 / E 43 / E 47 / E 42 / E Shields Street/Prospect Road 54 / E 67 / F 53 / E 68 / F 70 / F 64 / F 68 / F 64 / F Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 29 of 30 TABLE 12: PERSON DELAY FOR PEOPLE WALKING Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth Existing / Tweak & Tune TSM Traffic Calming MAX on West Elizabeth West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail - - - - - - - - West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 9 10 9 9 43 44 35 35 West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 3 3 3 2 14 16 15 15 West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 12 13 19 21 127 122 233 242 West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 77 73 77 70 155 158 149 149 Shields Street/Plum Street 87 89 87 88 151 150 148 141 Shields Street/Laurel Street 26 26 29 30 61 61 59 60 Shields Street/Lake Street 46 47 42 42 18 19 18 17 Shields Street/Prospect Road 60 58 81 78 83 82 78 77 Sum 319 321 348 341 652 652 735 737 Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog February 3, 2016 Page 30 of 30 Detailed technical analysis results are provided in an attached appendix. Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 719 707 98.3% 3.6 0.8 A 47 Right Turn 413 395 95.6% 5.2 1.2 A 38 Subtotal 1,132 1,101 97.3% 4.2 0.8 A 85 Left Turn 130 129 98.8% 20.9 2.7 C 49 Through 667 670 100.4% 10.4 1.4 B 127 Right Turn Subtotal 797 798 100.2% 12.2 1.4 B 177 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 128 121 94.3% 46.9 2.5 D 104 Through Right Turn 61 61 100.2% 10.1 2.5 B 11 Subtotal 189 182 96.2% 35.3 2.6 D 115 Total 2,118 2,081 98.3% 11.5 0.6 B 377 43.0 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 13 13 96.9% 6.1 7.5 A 1 Through 1,064 1,039 97.6% 2.6 1.0 A 50 Right Turn 37 40 108.9% 2.6 1.5 A 2 Subtotal 1,114 1,091 98.0% 2.7 1.0 A 53 Left Turn 13 14 103.8% 17.8 14.4 B 4 Through 764 761 99.6% 5.4 0.8 A 75 Right Turn 18 18 98.3% 5.6 2.7 A 2 Subtotal 795 792 99.7% 5.7 0.7 A 81 Left Turn 51 51 100.0% 54.3 9.9 D 51 Through 25 31 124.4% 59.0 6.4 E 34 Right Turn 34 34 100.3% 50.8 15.8 D 32 Subtotal 110 116 105.6% 55.1 7.8 E 116 Left Turn 17 18 105.9% 49.8 24.2 D 16 Through 18 27 149.4% 42.4 11.6 D 21 Right Turn 17 16 93.5% 7.9 3.1 A 2 Subtotal 52 61 116.9% 36.1 10.6 D 40 Total 2,071 2,061 99.5% 8.9 0.7 A 290 59.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 140 143 102.4% 24.1 6.9 C 63 Through 851 827 97.1% 10.9 2.3 B 166 Right Turn 54 55 101.3% 8.6 1.5 A 9 Subtotal 1,045 1,025 98.1% 12.6 2.5 B 238 Left Turn 24 23 95.8% 34.1 18.1 C 14 Through 653 651 99.6% 7.3 1.7 A 87 Right Turn 138 139 100.9% 2.9 0.4 A 7 Subtotal 815 813 99.8% 7.5 1.3 A 109 Left Turn 258 262 101.4% 41.9 5.4 D 201 Through 27 26 95.9% 44.1 18.3 D 21 Right Turn 296 297 100.2% 32.9 12.1 C 179 Subtotal 581 584 100.5% 37.8 5.6 D 400 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 45.7 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,178 1,171 99.4% 2.9 0.8 A 63 Right Turn 154 151 98.0% 3.8 1.1 A 11 Subtotal 1,332 1,322 99.2% 3.0 0.8 A 73 Left Turn 123 120 97.6% 36.1 12.7 D 80 Through 768 756 98.4% 5.6 1.6 A 78 Right Turn Subtotal 891 876 98.3% 10.2 3.7 B 158 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 61 60 99.0% 49.5 8.6 D 55 Through Right Turn 37 36 98.4% 4.9 1.0 A 3 Subtotal 98 97 98.8% 32.4 5.4 C 58 Total 2,321 2,294 98.8% 7.5 1.8 A 289 42.4 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 56 55 98.9% 26.4 5.0 C 27 Through 946 942 99.6% 20.7 2.9 C 357 Right Turn 136 130 95.2% 15.8 1.9 B 38 Subtotal 1,138 1,127 99.0% 20.4 2.6 C 422 Left Turn 145 155 107.2% 33.7 5.2 C 96 Through 630 606 96.2% 6.6 1.2 A 73 Right Turn 54 53 97.8% 2.6 0.9 A 3 Subtotal 829 815 98.3% 11.6 1.4 B 171 Left Turn 241 228 94.8% 154.2 42.7 F 646 Through 713 732 102.6% 132.7 36.7 F 1,780 Right Turn 152 151 99.5% 95.9 34.1 F 266 Subtotal 1,106 1,112 100.5% 132.4 36.8 F 2,692 Left Turn 71 66 92.4% 52.1 8.7 D 63 Through 233 242 103.7% 41.6 3.4 D 184 Right Turn 145 149 102.6% 34.4 5.1 C 94 Subtotal 449 456 101.6% 40.8 2.9 D 341 Total 3,522 3,509 99.6% 60.5 13.5 E 3,626 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 24 23 95.8% 21.6 3.5 C 9 Through 33 31 94.2% 19.3 5.8 B 11 Right Turn 35 36 101.4% 10.2 4.0 B 7 Subtotal 92 90 97.4% 16.2 3.9 B 27 Left Turn 34 33 95.9% 19.8 6.1 B 12 Through 32 33 103.4% 19.1 7.1 B 12 Right Turn 18 23 128.9% 11.9 3.9 B 5 Subtotal 84 89 105.8% 17.2 4.4 B 28 Left Turn 53 51 96.8% 9.3 4.3 A 9 Through 441 440 99.8% 5.7 0.9 A 46 Right Turn 66 65 98.0% 5.2 1.3 A 6 Subtotal 560 556 99.3% 6.0 1.1 A 61 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 20.6 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 3 3 110.0% 12.0 13.2 B 1 Through 4 5 115.0% 17.7 14.4 B 1 Right Turn 20 21 106.0% 5.7 2.3 A 2 Subtotal 27 29 107.8% 9.3 4.7 A 4 Left Turn 36 34 95.3% 19.0 6.0 B 12 Through 9 9 103.3% 21.7 5.5 C 4 Right Turn 32 36 112.2% 7.8 2.1 A 5 Subtotal 77 80 103.2% 14.3 3.3 B 21 Left Turn 26 26 100.8% 7.4 5.7 A 4 Through 499 500 100.1% 4.0 1.3 A 36 Right Turn 5 6 110.0% 2.0 2.8 A 0 Subtotal 530 531 100.3% 4.1 1.2 A 40 Left Turn 2 2 80.0% 0.8 1.4 A 0 Through 150 151 100.5% 4.1 2.8 A 11 Right Turn 15 21 139.3% 6.9 3.8 A 3 Subtotal 167 173 103.7% 4.4 2.7 A 14 Total 801 813 101.5% 5.7 1.1 A 79 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 51 47 91.6% 16.4 2.1 B 14 Through 739 740 100.2% 18.7 2.0 B 253 Right Turn 111 108 97.4% 18.4 2.5 B 37 Subtotal 901 895 99.4% 18.5 1.6 B 304 Left Turn 91 90 98.5% 23.1 6.0 C 38 Through 547 544 99.5% 13.1 1.8 B 130 Right Turn 47 48 101.5% 12.3 5.0 B 11 Subtotal 685 681 99.5% 14.4 2.1 B 179 Left Turn 121 120 99.0% 33.6 5.3 C 74 Through 239 248 103.8% 40.3 3.0 D 183 Right Turn 153 154 100.7% 16.8 3.4 B 47 Subtotal 513 522 101.7% 31.9 2.7 C 304 Left Turn 100 100 99.6% 31.6 8.6 C 58 Through 109 117 107.3% 30.2 6.5 C 65 Right Turn 32 31 96.9% 5.5 1.9 A 3 Subtotal 241 248 102.7% 27.6 4.0 C 126 Total 2,340 2,346 100.3% 21.3 1.6 C 913 44.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 4 4 100.0% 1.2 2.2 A 0 Through 455 449 98.7% 0.5 0.1 A 4 Right Turn 69 74 106.7% 0.9 0.2 A 1 Subtotal 528 527 99.8% 0.6 0.1 A 6 Left Turn 33 34 103.6% 3.3 1.7 A 2 Through 272 278 102.1% 0.3 0.1 A 2 Right Turn 10 11 111.0% 0.5 0.2 A 0 Subtotal 315 323 102.5% 0.7 0.2 A 4 Left Turn 11 13 117.3% 11.3 6.5 B 3 Through 1 1 110.0% 5.5 12.2 A 0 Right Turn 1 1 70.0% 1.0 2.1 A 0 Subtotal 13 15 113.1% 11.3 6.7 B 3 Vissim Post‐Processor Bike AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 10 9 92.0% 11.0 11.4 1.8 Right Turn 5 4 78.0% 0.4 1.0 0.0 Subtotal 15 13 87.3% 7.3 6.5 1.9 Left Turn 15 12 76.7% 11.7 6.9 2.9 Through 4 3 62.5% 0.8 1.7 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 19 14 73.7% 11.0 7.0 3.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 5 4 80.0% 33.7 30.7 2.8 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 4 80.0% 33.7 30.7 2.8 Total 39 31 79.7% 13.8 5.7 7.6 34.8 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 12 85.7% 5.6 5.9 1.3 Right Turn 5 4 88.0% 0.4 1.1 0.0 Subtotal 19 16 86.3% 5.0 5.4 1.3 Left Turn 3 3 83.3% 10.8 19.4 0.5 Through 5 3 60.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 9 7 72.2% 6.7 11.3 0.5 Left Turn 1 1 130.0% 9.2 17.1 0.2 Through 140 138 98.2% 39.5 7.7 92.3 Right Turn 2 2 100.0% 6.5 16.8 0.2 Subtotal 143 141 98.5% 39.3 7.5 92.6 Left Turn Through 7 4 57.1% 31.0 35.0 3.6 Right Turn Subtotal 7 4 57.1% 31.0 35.0 3.6 Total 178 168 94.2% 34.3 7.4 98.13 35.4 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 60.0% 1.8 5.2 0 Through 6 12 200.0% 5.6 5.9 0.6 Right Turn 9 9 95.6% 0.6 0.8 0.1 Subtotal 16 21 132.5% 4.0 4.0 0.7 Left Turn 4 4 102.5% 23.6 31.4 1.6 Through 2 0 20.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 5 74.3% 23.0 31.7 1.6 Left Turn 8 7 92.5% 41.1 35.0 5.5 Through 112 114 101.6% 41.9 12.9 78.3 Right Turn 2 2 95.0% 4.0 5.7 0.1 Subtotal 122 123 100.9% 41.8 13.2 83.9 Vissim Post‐Processor Bike AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 45.9 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 11 12 109.1% 5.0 5.8 0.9 Right Turn 52 51 98.8% 0.7 0.7 0.6 Subtotal 63 63 100.6% 1.5 1.1 1.5 Left Turn 1 1 50.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 6 5 86.7% 5.3 9.1 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 7 6 81.4% 5.3 9.1 0.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 7 87.5% 38.1 25.7 5.1 Through Right Turn 7 5 70.0% 7.8 8.2 0.9 Subtotal 15 12 79.3% 28.0 16.1 6.0 Total 85 81 95.3% 5.6 2.9 8.1 38.1 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 41 39 95.9% 17.3 8.9 11.8 Right Turn Subtotal 41 39 95.9% 17.3 8.9 11.8 Left Turn 1 1 100.0% 5.6 11.0 0.1 Through 13 10 80.0% 4.1 5.9 0.9 Right Turn Subtotal 14 11 81.4% 5.3 5.8 1.0 Left Turn 22 23 102.7% 64.8 22.7 23.8 Through 10 10 96.0% 34.3 21.0 5.7 Right Turn 4 4 95.0% 4.2 7.2 0.3 Subtotal 36 36 100.0% 53.0 18.6 29.8 Left Turn Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 92 87 94.2% 29.8 8.5 42.6 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 6 6 98.3% 13.6 12.7 1.4 Right Turn 21 21 98.6% 3.4 1.4 1.2 Subtotal 27 27 98.5% 5.9 3.2 2.5 Left Turn 6 7 113.3% 8.3 9.8 0.8 Through 2 2 105.0% 14.2 17.6 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 8 9 111.3% 12.7 10.8 1.3 Left Turn 2 1 65.0% 2.9 5.9 0.1 Through 93 93 100.4% 12.8 2.2 19.8 Right Turn 2 2 75.0% 6.5 12.1 0.2 Subtotal 97 96 99.2% 12.8 2.0 20.1 Vissim Post‐Processor Bike AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 14.2 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 50.0% 3.0 6.9 0 Through 1 1 60.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 5 3 56.0% 2.6 1.8 0.2 Subtotal 7 4 55.7% 4.4 3.9 0.3 Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 0 40.0% 2.7 8.5 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 1 60.0% 2.7 8.5 0.0 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 4.4 8.1 0.1 Through 62 62 99.4% 11.4 4.4 11.7 Right Turn Subtotal 63 63 99.7% 11.4 4.4 11.8 Left Turn Through 3 2 76.7% 0.5 1.5 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 3 2 76.7% 0.5 1.5 0.0 Total 75 70 93.6% 9.9 3.5 12.2 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 4 3 82.5% 8.0 10.6 0.5 Right Turn 2 1 60.0% 3.8 11.9 0.1 Subtotal 6 5 75.0% 9.5 11.6 0.7 Left Turn 2 2 110.0% 6.5 14.6 0.2 Through 1 1 80.0% 0.2 0.7 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 3 3 100.0% 6.7 14.5 0.2 Left Turn Through 57 56 98.4% 35.7 7.4 33.9 Right Turn Subtotal 57 56 98.4% 35.7 7.4 33.9 Left Turn 2 1 25.0% 4.7 14.8 0.2 Through Right Turn 1 1 120.0% 0.2 0.6 0.0 Subtotal 3 2 56.7% 3.2 10.0 0.2 Total 69 65 94.6% 30.7 6.7 35.0 32.2 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 12 86.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 14 12 86.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 5 6 120.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 5 6 120.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 1.1 1.8 0.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 1 70.0% 1.1 1.8 0.0 Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 37 34 91.4% 46.1 10.1 26.0 59.5 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 106 103 97.0% 50.5 5.1 86.6 61.0 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 90 87 96.9% 52.8 5.7 76.7 53.5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 54 55 102.4% 49.9 12.1 46.0 53.9 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 68 67 98.5% 53.6 7.5 59.9 58.8 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 1 1 60.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 36 36 98.9% 20.3 6.3 12.1 24.6 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 9 9 95.6% 18.0 14.6 2.6 12.8 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 2 3 135.0% 13.5 20.0 0.6 11.5 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 17 16 91.2% 35.3 11.2 9.1 43.6 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. 2 3 130.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 53.1 5.2 4.2 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 53.1 5.2 4.2 Total 4 120 4 100.0% 35.4 3.5 4.2 9.9 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 205 3 100.0% 7.2 8.1 6.1 Subtotal 5 306 5 100.0% 7.2 8.1 6.1 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 16.7 4.1 1.3 Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 16.7 4.1 1.3 Left Turn Through 6 490 6 100.0% 69.0 44.8 140.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 490 6 100.0% 69.0 44.8 140.8 Left Turn 2 16 2 100.0% 90.7 5.3 6.0 Through 8 58 8 100.0% 39.5 4.1 9.5 Right Turn Subtotal 10 74 10 100.0% 56.5 3.1 15.6 Total 23 889 23 100.0% 43.7 8.9 163.8 69.1 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 47.7 26.9 20.1 Right Turn Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 47.7 26.9 20.1 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 2 16 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 4 35 4 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 3 205 3 100.0% 47.0 18.9 40.2 Through Right Turn Subtotal 3 205 3 100.0% 47.0 18.9 40.2 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 17.1 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 5.2 10.7 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 5.2 10.7 0.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 268 4 100.0% 3.5 7.1 0.5 2.8 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 103 2 100.0% 49.4 8.3 21.2 Right Turn Subtotal 2 103 2 100.0% 49.4 8.3 21.2 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 139 2 100.0% 171.5 47.8 99.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 139 99.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 267 4 100.0% 33.0 5.6 120.5 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 154 6 100.0% 30.3 13.7 19.4 Subtotal 6 154 6 100.0% 30.3 13.7 19.4 Left Turn Through 3 201 3 100.0% 20.1 7.8 16.9 Right Turn Subtotal 3 201 3 100.0% 20.1 7.8 16.9 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 28.1 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 12 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 12 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 3 196 3 100.0% 29.3 7.3 23.9 Right Turn Subtotal 3 196 3 100.0% 29.3 7.3 23.9 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 6 198 6 100.0% 9.9 0.7 8.2 Subtotal 8 217 8 100.0% 9.9 0.7 8.2 Total 13 425 13 100.0% 16.6 2.9 32.1 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 38 1 100.0% 18.7 2.0 3.0 Right Turn Subtotal 38 3.0 Left Turn Through 1 9 1 100.0% 13.1 1.8 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 9 0.5 Left Turn Through 4 160 4 100.0% 86.7 15.6 57.8 Right Turn Subtotal 4 160 4 100.0% 86.7 15.6 57.8 Left Turn Through 4 29 4 97.5% 47.1 15.4 5.7 Right Turn Subtotal 4 29 4 97.5% 47.1 15.4 5.7 Total 8 236 8 98.8% 60.1 10.6 66.9 100.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 7 2 100.0% 7.2 4.0 0.2 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 7 2 100.0% 7.2 4.0 0.2 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 719 695 96.6% 4.5 2.1 A 57 Right Turn 413 397 96.1% 5.8 1.6 A 42 Subtotal 1,132 1,092 96.4% 5.0 1.8 A 99 Left Turn 130 131 100.5% 21.4 5.7 C 51 Through 667 666 99.8% 11.0 1.9 B 134 Right Turn Subtotal 797 797 99.9% 12.8 2.5 B 186 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 128 122 94.9% 44.5 6.6 D 99 Through Right Turn 61 61 100.0% 9.6 2.4 A 11 Subtotal 189 183 96.6% 33.4 6.0 C 110 Total 2,118 2,071 97.8% 11.9 1.3 B 394 46.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 13 13 102.3% 8.9 9.1 A 2 Through 1,064 1,031 96.9% 2.7 0.9 A 50 Right Turn 37 37 101.1% 2.5 1.2 A 2 Subtotal 1,114 1,082 97.1% 2.7 0.9 A 54 Left Turn 13 13 100.8% 22.6 10.0 C 5 Through 764 760 99.5% 6.5 0.9 A 90 Right Turn 18 17 92.8% 6.9 4.7 A 2 Subtotal 795 790 99.3% 6.8 0.8 A 97 Left Turn 51 51 99.2% 54.9 12.8 D 51 Through 25 38 150.0% 58.4 7.6 E 40 Right Turn 34 34 100.3% 47.0 12.2 D 29 Subtotal 110 122 111.1% 54.0 8.9 D 120 Left Turn 17 17 98.2% 47.9 17.4 D 15 Through 18 31 172.8% 42.0 6.3 D 24 Right Turn 17 16 91.2% 6.8 3.7 A 2 Subtotal 52 63 121.7% 37.1 8.3 D 41 Total 2,071 2,057 99.3% 9.3 1.1 A 312 58.4 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 140 145 103.6% 22.2 4.9 C 59 Through 851 831 97.6% 11.1 1.6 B 170 Right Turn 54 56 103.9% 10.2 3.4 B 11 Subtotal 1,045 1,032 98.8% 12.6 1.8 B 239 Left Turn 24 22 91.7% 23.7 15.4 C 10 Through 653 653 100.0% 7.6 1.6 A 91 Right Turn 138 135 97.8% 2.9 0.6 A 7 Subtotal 815 810 99.4% 7.4 1.6 A 107 Left Turn 258 248 96.1% 45.5 5.6 D 207 Through 27 27 98.1% 37.7 11.3 D 18 Right Turn 296 285 96.2% 32.5 18.5 C 170 Subtotal 581 559 96.2% 38.7 8.4 D 395 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 44.7 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,178 1,177 99.9% 3.3 0.8 A 72 Right Turn 154 155 100.9% 4.4 1.4 A 13 Subtotal 1,332 1,332 100.0% 3.5 0.9 A 85 Left Turn 123 118 96.1% 41.1 6.4 D 89 Through 768 746 97.1% 5.0 1.1 A 68 Right Turn Subtotal 891 864 97.0% 9.8 1.8 A 157 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 61 62 101.8% 47.6 4.2 D 54 Through Right Turn 37 37 99.7% 4.8 0.8 A 3 Subtotal 98 99 101.0% 31.8 3.7 C 57 Total 2,321 2,296 98.9% 7.0 1.1 A 299 42.5 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 56 54 96.6% 25.5 8.7 C 25 Through 946 943 99.7% 21.2 2.7 C 367 Right Turn 136 129 94.5% 16.1 2.5 B 38 Subtotal 1,138 1,126 98.9% 20.8 2.5 C 430 Left Turn 145 152 105.0% 33.0 5.5 C 92 Through 630 602 95.5% 6.9 0.8 A 76 Right Turn 54 54 99.4% 2.4 1.2 A 2 Subtotal 829 808 97.5% 11.9 1.4 B 171 Left Turn 241 237 98.2% 141.0 33.3 F 612 Through 713 730 102.3% 121.0 27.1 F 1,619 Right Turn 152 149 98.2% 83.6 30.3 F 229 Subtotal 1,106 1,116 100.9% 120.6 27.9 F 2,460 Left Turn 71 70 98.9% 55.2 7.4 E 71 Through 233 234 100.6% 40.5 3.6 D 174 Right Turn 145 151 104.3% 32.2 4.8 C 89 Subtotal 449 456 101.5% 39.9 3.3 D 335 Total 3,522 3,505 99.5% 56.4 10.5 E 3,395 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 24 24 99.6% 20.7 2.8 C 9 Through 33 32 96.4% 19.7 4.6 B 11 Right Turn 35 34 96.3% 11.2 3.8 B 7 Subtotal 92 89 97.2% 16.7 3.6 B 27 Left Turn 34 33 97.1% 21.9 5.1 C 13 Through 32 33 103.1% 20.0 8.5 B 12 Right Turn 18 21 117.8% 15.0 5.4 B 6 Subtotal 84 87 103.8% 18.9 4.5 B 31 Left Turn 53 49 91.9% 6.7 2.5 A 6 Through 441 422 95.7% 5.1 1.2 A 39 Right Turn 66 66 100.2% 5.3 1.5 A 6 Subtotal 560 537 95.9% 5.3 1.2 A 52 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 21.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 3 3 103.3% 8.6 13.0 A 0 Through 4 4 87.5% 18.2 18.8 B 1 Right Turn 20 20 98.0% 6.1 2.3 A 2 Subtotal 27 26 97.0% 9.2 5.5 A 4 Left Turn 36 35 95.8% 22.3 5.5 C 14 Through 9 9 95.6% 24.3 10.0 C 4 Right Turn 32 40 123.8% 9.0 3.0 A 7 Subtotal 77 83 107.4% 16.1 2.6 B 24 Left Turn 26 29 110.0% 10.9 3.4 B 6 Through 499 480 96.3% 5.0 1.8 A 44 Right Turn 5 5 98.0% 2.8 3.9 A 0 Subtotal 530 514 97.0% 5.3 1.7 A 50 Left Turn 2 2 100.0% 4.1 5.8 A 0 Through 150 146 97.3% 5.3 2.2 A 14 Right Turn 15 21 142.0% 5.9 2.1 A 2 Subtotal 167 169 101.4% 5.5 2.0 A 17 Total 801 792 98.9% 7.0 1.4 A 95 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 51 49 95.9% 16.5 3.8 B 15 Through 739 734 99.3% 18.6 2.4 B 250 Right Turn 111 106 95.8% 18.1 3.1 B 35 Subtotal 901 889 98.6% 18.5 2.2 B 300 Left Turn 91 87 95.3% 24.0 7.9 C 38 Through 547 549 100.4% 12.9 1.5 B 130 Right Turn 47 46 97.2% 11.8 3.8 B 10 Subtotal 685 682 99.5% 14.3 2.0 B 178 Left Turn 121 122 100.5% 35.9 3.7 D 80 Through 239 237 99.2% 39.6 6.0 D 172 Right Turn 153 153 99.9% 16.2 4.4 B 45 Subtotal 513 511 99.7% 31.8 3.7 C 298 Left Turn 100 96 95.5% 32.8 10.5 C 57 Through 109 116 106.1% 29.4 4.6 C 62 Right Turn 32 33 103.1% 6.0 1.5 A 4 Subtotal 241 244 101.3% 27.7 5.6 C 123 Total 2,340 2,326 99.4% 21.3 1.9 C 898 44.1 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 4 5 127.5% 1.4 2.2 A 0 Through 455 448 98.5% 0.5 0.1 A 4 Right Turn 69 69 99.4% 0.8 0.2 A 1 Subtotal 528 522 98.8% 0.6 0.1 A 5 Left Turn 33 32 95.8% 2.4 0.8 A 1 Through 272 275 101.0% 0.4 0.1 A 2 Right Turn 10 10 95.0% 0.5 0.2 A 0 Subtotal 315 316 100.3% 0.6 0.2 A 3 Left Turn 11 11 102.7% 13.2 8.1 B 3 Through 1 7 680.0% 23.6 5.3 C 3 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 0.5 1.6 A 0 Subtotal 13 19 147.7% 19.6 4.3 C 6 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Bike AM Peak Hour L Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 10 9 86.0% 16.5 12.3 2.8 Right Turn 5 4 88.0% 0.4 1.0 0.0 Subtotal 15 13 86.7% 9.9 5.2 2.8 Left Turn 15 11 72.7% 14.0 12.9 3.5 Through 4 2 57.5% 0.7 1.5 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 19 13 69.5% 11.3 10.4 3.6 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 5 4 84.0% 35.3 31.6 2.9 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 4 84.0% 35.3 31.6 2.9 Total 39 30 77.9% 14.9 7.6 9.3 29.4 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 12 87.1% 3.3 5.3 0.8 Right Turn 5 5 102.0% 0.9 2.0 0.1 Subtotal 19 17 91.1% 2.6 4.1 0.8 Left Turn 3 2 76.7% 5.8 17.4 0.3 Through 5 3 68.0% 0.2 0.3 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 9 7 72.2% 3.2 8.8 0.3 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 3.8 8.0 0.1 Through 140 139 98.9% 39.6 3.9 92.4 Right Turn 2 2 120.0% 7.4 16.9 0.2 Subtotal 143 142 99.4% 39.0 4.1 92.7 Left Turn Through 7 4 60.0% 34.0 36.3 4.0 Right Turn Subtotal 7 4 60.0% 34.0 36.3 4.0 Total 178 170 95.6% 34.0 4.9 97.81 35.1 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 100.0% 14.5 24.8 0 Through 6 12 203.3% 3.3 5.3 0.3 Right Turn 9 10 111.1% 0.2 0.4 0.0 Subtotal 16 23 145.0% 5.8 7.9 0.6 Left Turn 4 4 110.0% 18.4 26.2 1.2 Through 2 1 25.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 6 84.3% 18.0 26.4 1.2 Left Turn 8 7 92.5% 36.9 30.1 4.9 Through 112 112 99.6% 43.9 14.5 81.9 Right Turn 2 2 80.0% 4.7 13.5 0.2 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Bike AM Peak Hour L 44.2 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 11 12 110.9% 4.9 5.1 0.9 Right Turn 52 51 98.1% 0.7 0.7 0.6 Subtotal 63 63 100.3% 1.6 1.0 1.5 Left Turn 1 1 50.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 6 5 83.3% 5.3 11.0 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 7 6 78.6% 5.3 11.0 0.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 6 76.3% 38.0 25.1 5.1 Through Right Turn 7 6 82.9% 10.3 9.6 1.2 Subtotal 15 12 79.3% 27.5 15.8 6.3 Total 85 81 94.8% 5.6 2.8 8.3 38.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 41 40 96.8% 17.0 5.5 11.6 Right Turn Subtotal 41 40 96.8% 17.0 5.5 11.6 Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 13 10 74.6% 7.6 5.6 1.6 Right Turn Subtotal 14 11 75.0% 7.6 5.6 1.6 Left Turn 22 24 106.8% 68.3 12.4 25.0 Through 10 9 91.0% 22.6 15.8 3.8 Right Turn 4 4 87.5% 6.9 10.0 0.5 Subtotal 36 36 100.3% 51.0 9.9 29.3 Left Turn Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 92 86 93.8% 30.5 5.3 42.5 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 6 6 93.3% 18.8 14.7 1.9 Right Turn 21 21 99.5% 3.6 1.6 1.3 Subtotal 27 27 98.1% 7.5 3.2 3.2 Left Turn 6 7 120.0% 14.5 14.5 1.4 Through 2 2 120.0% 10.3 15.7 0.3 Right Turn Subtotal 8 10 120.0% 16.8 12.7 1.8 Left Turn 2 1 45.0% 10.2 26.6 0.3 Through 93 91 98.0% 12.4 3.1 19.3 Right Turn 2 2 75.0% 2.5 6.9 0.1 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Bike AM Peak Hour L 18.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 60.0% 0.9 3.0 0.0 Through 1 0 20.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 5 2 46.0% 1.6 1.8 0.1 Subtotal 7 3 44.3% 2.6 2.9 0.2 Left Turn 1 1 90.0% 0.1 0.3 0.0 Through 1 1 50.0% 4.2 13.2 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 2 1 70.0% 4.3 13.2 0.1 Left Turn 1 1 100.0% 7.3 15.5 0.1 Through 62 59 95.5% 11.6 3.1 12.0 Right Turn Subtotal 63 60 95.6% 12.2 3.8 12.1 Left Turn Through 3 2 60.0% 4.6 8.1 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 3 2 60.0% 4.6 8.1 0.2 Total 75 67 88.7% 10.9 2.9 12.6 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 4 3 80.0% 9.1 14.2 0.6 Right Turn 2 1 65.0% 8.0 14.1 0.3 Subtotal 6 5 75.0% 11.7 11.2 0.9 Left Turn 2 2 105.0% 0.2 0.6 0.0 Through 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 3 3 93.3% 0.2 0.6 0.0 Left Turn Through 57 54 95.1% 32.3 5.4 30.7 Right Turn Subtotal 57 54 95.1% 32.3 5.4 30.7 Left Turn 2 1 30.0% 7.8 15.5 0.3 Through Right Turn 1 1 90.0% 1.5 4.7 0.0 Subtotal 3 2 50.0% 8.1 13.5 0.3 Total 69 63 91.3% 27.6 4.7 31.9 30.2 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 13 93.6% 0.2 0.7 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 14 13 93.6% 0.2 0.7 0.1 Left Turn Through 5 5 102.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 5 5 102.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.8 1.8 0.0 Through Right Turn Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 1 1 90.0% 12.2 24.5 Subtotal 1 1 90.0% 12.2 24.5 Left Turn 8 7 92.5% 46.1 23.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 8 7 92.5% 46.1 23.0 Left Turn 26 22 85.4% 51.3 8.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 26 22 85.4% 51.3 8.1 Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 2 115.0% 41.1 40.1 Subtotal 2 2 115.0% 41.1 40.1 Total 37 33 88.6% 48.3 9.0 26.4 54.6 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 4 5 115.0% 34.0 40.1 Subtotal 4 5 115.0% 34.0 40.1 East Side 4 4 97.5% 20.3 24.9 West Side 20 22 110.5% 41.7 20.3 Subtotal 24 26 108.3% 42.4 17.8 North Side 45 46 101.8% 54.7 8.4 South Side 31 28 89.4% 56.4 12.4 Subtotal 76 74 96.7% 55.1 7.6 South Side North Side 2 1 70.0% 17.5 30.4 Subtotal 2 1 70.0% 17.5 30.4 Total 106 106 99.5% 50.9 6.0 89.4 54.7 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 80.0% 36.7 47.9 East Side 4 4 110.0% 41.4 38.7 Subtotal 5 5 104.0% 53.7 34.8 East Side 2 2 75.0% 43.5 47.3 West Side 2 2 95.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 4 3 85.0% 43.5 47.3 North Side 28 25 89.6% 46.3 10.3 South Side 51 50 98.6% 54.9 6.1 Subtotal 79 75 95.4% 51.2 4.5 South Side North Side 2 2 80.0% 13.7 30.6 Subtotal 2 2 80.0% 13.7 30.6 Total 90 86 95.1% 51.3 6.2 73.2 54.9 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Served Volume (pph) Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 26 27 103.5% 50.1 18.0 Subtotal 26 27 103.5% 50.1 18.0 East Side West Side Subtotal North Side 7 7 100.0% 36.1 30.2 South Side Subtotal 7 7 100.0% 36.1 30.2 South Side North Side 21 23 107.1% 54.4 8.3 Subtotal 21 23 107.1% 54.4 8.3 Total 54 56 104.4% 50.3 9.0 47.3 53.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 16 16 96.9% 61.0 24.6 East Side 26 25 97.3% 56.1 10.0 Subtotal 42 41 97.1% 57.0 8.0 East Side West Side 1 1 100.0% 5.6 14.7 Subtotal 1 1 100.0% 5.6 14.7 North Side 10 9 94.0% 61.7 25.3 South Side 11 11 100.9% 45.5 25.2 Subtotal 21 21 97.6% 51.5 12.6 South Side 4 4 105.0% 22.9 25.6 North Side Subtotal 4 4 105.0% 22.9 25.6 Total 68 67 97.8% 52.7 6.1 58.4 65.0 Intersection 7 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St WB Served Volume (pph) Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 9 8 93.3% 30.4 12.7 East Side 1 1 80.0% 2.1 4.4 Subtotal 10 9 92.0% 28.8 10.8 East Side 4 5 120.0% 25.2 16.3 West Side 4 3 75.0% 15.0 17.4 Subtotal 8 8 97.5% 29.1 10.8 North Side 10 10 97.0% 21.8 10.4 South Side 5 5 100.0% 14.7 16.2 Subtotal 15 15 98.0% 18.8 9.1 South Side North Side 3 3 93.3% 5.1 8.9 Subtotal 3 3 93.3% 5.1 8.9 Total 36 35 95.8% 21.8 4.6 12.5 30.4 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 110.0% 6.2 13.1 Through Right Turn 3 3 113.3% 19.2 18.3 Subtotal 4 5 112.5% 19.7 18.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 3 3 93.3% 14.5 19.9 Through Right Turn 2 2 115.0% 2.6 8.4 Subtotal 5 5 102.0% 17.2 19.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 9 10 106.7% 21.7 13.7 3.5 19.2 Intersection 10 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 2 2 105.0% 16.2 18.7 Right Turn Subtotal 2 2 105.0% 16.2 18.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 2 2 105.0% 16.2 18.7 0.6 Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 3 3 90.0% 28.5 32.0 Subtotal 3 3 90.0% 28.5 32.0 East Side 4 4 100.0% 30.1 35.3 West Side 3 3 106.7% 16.0 25.6 Subtotal 7 7 102.9% 32.0 27.0 North Side South Side 6 7 111.7% 48.8 31.9 Subtotal 6 7 111.7% 48.8 31.9 South Side 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 Total 17 17 97.6% 37.8 11.7 10.5 48.8 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 1 2 150.0% 0.0 0.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 2 150.0% 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 2 2 115.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 52.4 3.5 4.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 52.4 3.5 4.1 Total 4 120 4 100.0% 34.9 2.3 4.1 9.6 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 17.9 4.2 1.4 Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 17.9 4.2 1.4 Left Turn Through 11 490 11 100.0% 79.5 11.3 162.3 Right Turn Subtotal 11 490 11 100.0% 79.5 11.3 162.3 Left Turn Through 12 58 12 100.0% 57.9 18.7 14.0 Right Turn Subtotal 12 58 12 100.0% 57.9 18.7 14.0 Total 27 668 27 100.0% 57.3 6.6 177.7 75.2 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 42.4 20.7 17.8 Right Turn Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 42.4 20.7 17.8 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 19.0 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 4.3 4.5 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 4.3 4.5 0.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 268 4 100.0% 2.9 3.0 0.5 2.2 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 103 2 100.0% 53.3 8.2 22.9 Right Turn Subtotal 2 103 2 100.0% 53.3 8.2 22.9 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 139 2 100.0% 171.5 47.8 99.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 139 99.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 267 4 100.0% 35.5 5.5 122.2 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 154 6 100.0% 30.4 10.8 19.5 Subtotal 6 154 6 100.0% 30.4 10.8 19.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 29.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 12 6 100.0% 19.7 13.9 1.0 Subtotal 6 12 6 100.0% 19.7 13.9 1.0 Left Turn 5 196 5 100.0% 24.1 6.1 19.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 196 5 100.0% 24.1 6.1 19.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 198 6 100.0% 10.7 1.3 8.8 Subtotal 6 198 6 100.0% 10.7 1.3 8.8 Total 17 406 17 100.0% 18.7 5.6 29.5 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 38 1 100.0% 18.6 2.4 2.9 Right Turn Subtotal 38 2.9 Left Turn Through 1 9 1 100.0% 12.9 1.5 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 9 0.5 Left Turn Through 5 160 5 100.0% 88.3 17.8 58.9 Right Turn Subtotal 5 160 5 100.0% 88.3 17.8 58.9 Left Turn Through 6 29 6 100.0% 55.9 19.2 6.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 29 6 100.0% 55.9 19.2 6.8 Total 11 236 11 100.0% 76.2 12.2 69.1 90.8 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 6 26 6 100.0% 24.6 10.7 2.7 Right Turn Subtotal 6 26 6 100.0% 24.6 10.7 2.7 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 719 706 98.2% 6.0 2.1 A 78 Right Turn 413 405 98.1% 8.9 2.4 A 66 Subtotal 1,132 1,111 98.2% 7.1 2.2 A 144 Left Turn 130 132 101.5% 26.5 7.8 C 64 Through 667 657 98.5% 11.1 1.2 B 134 Right Turn Subtotal 797 789 99.0% 13.5 2.0 B 198 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 128 123 96.3% 44.4 5.6 D 100 Through Right Turn 61 58 94.3% 9.7 1.7 A 10 Subtotal 189 181 95.7% 33.7 4.5 C 111 Total 2,118 2,081 98.3% 11.6 1.6 B 453 47.4 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 13 13 99.2% 4.4 3.2 A 1 Through 1,064 1,045 98.2% 1.3 0.3 A 26 Right Turn 37 38 101.9% 1.4 0.5 A 1 Subtotal 1,114 1,096 98.4% 1.4 0.3 A 28 Left Turn 13 10 74.6% 15.2 11.6 B 3 Through 764 756 98.9% 5.5 0.9 A 76 Right Turn 18 17 96.7% 3.2 2.6 A 1 Subtotal 795 783 98.5% 5.6 0.9 A 80 Left Turn 51 52 102.0% 51.2 9.4 D 49 Through 25 37 149.6% 54.5 12.6 D 37 Right Turn 34 32 93.5% 49.9 10.5 D 29 Subtotal 110 121 110.2% 51.7 8.6 D 115 Left Turn 17 17 99.4% 37.1 15.6 D 12 Through 18 30 167.2% 41.8 8.9 D 23 Right Turn 17 16 92.9% 7.8 4.6 A 2 Subtotal 52 63 120.8% 33.9 8.5 C 37 Total 2,071 2,063 99.6% 7.8 1.0 A 259 54.5 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 140 143 102.0% 34.4 7.5 C 90 Through 851 837 98.4% 12.7 2.1 B 194 Right Turn 54 53 97.6% 11.2 1.8 B 11 Subtotal 1,045 1,033 98.8% 15.6 2.1 B 295 Left Turn 24 24 97.9% 32.7 14.7 C 14 Through 653 646 99.0% 9.5 2.2 A 112 Right Turn 138 135 98.0% 5.2 2.1 A 13 Subtotal 815 805 98.8% 9.6 1.9 A 139 Left Turn 258 257 99.5% 50.9 5.3 D 240 Through 27 27 100.4% 49.7 7.0 D 25 Right Turn 296 298 100.7% 46.1 3.5 D 252 Subtotal 581 582 100.2% 48.4 3.2 D 516 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 57.0 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,178 1,187 100.8% 3.7 0.9 A 81 Right Turn 154 148 96.4% 4.7 1.3 A 13 Subtotal 1,332 1,336 100.3% 3.8 0.9 A 94 Left Turn 123 120 97.8% 45.5 9.0 D 100 Through 768 754 98.2% 8.1 1.4 A 112 Right Turn Subtotal 891 875 98.2% 13.3 2.7 B 212 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 61 63 103.6% 48.3 7.3 D 56 Through Right Turn 37 35 95.7% 4.8 1.2 A 3 Subtotal 98 99 100.6% 33.6 5.1 C 59 Total 2,321 2,309 99.5% 8.6 1.4 A 365 45.2 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 56 56 100.5% 24.7 6.5 C 26 Through 946 941 99.4% 20.5 1.8 C 353 Right Turn 136 129 95.0% 15.2 3.9 B 36 Subtotal 1,138 1,126 99.0% 20.0 1.7 C 414 Left Turn 145 149 102.8% 34.6 7.0 C 94 Through 630 615 97.6% 4.2 1.4 A 48 Right Turn 54 55 102.6% 1.8 0.4 A 2 Subtotal 829 819 98.8% 10.0 2.4 B 144 Left Turn 241 244 101.3% 128.8 29.6 F 577 Through 713 716 100.5% 100.3 18.1 F 1318 Right Turn 152 153 100.9% 64.5 19.0 E 181 Subtotal 1,106 1,114 100.7% 101.3 17.9 F 2076 Left Turn 71 69 96.6% 50.6 9.5 D 64 Through 233 237 101.5% 42.7 1.5 D 185 Right Turn 145 148 102.3% 30.6 4.1 C 83 Subtotal 449 454 101.0% 40.0 1.9 D 332 Total 3,522 3,513 99.7% 48.6 6.3 D 2966 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 24 23 96.7% 30.4 10.9 C 13 Through 33 32 97.6% 26.9 6.4 C 16 Right Turn 35 34 97.4% 8.9 3.5 A 6 Subtotal 92 90 97.3% 21.1 4.6 C 34 Left Turn 34 34 100.0% 39.3 9.1 D 25 Through 32 31 97.5% 32.1 8.6 C 18 Right Turn 18 22 123.9% 17.6 4.4 B 7 Subtotal 84 88 104.2% 30.4 4.5 C 50 Left Turn 53 56 106.2% 44.5 8.6 D 46 Through 441 436 99.0% 12.6 4.2 B 101 Right Turn 66 65 98.3% 8.6 4.3 A 10 Subtotal 560 558 99.6% 15.3 4.1 B 157 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 43.9 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 3 2 80.0% 11.8 14.3 B 1 Through 4 4 100.0% 27.2 23.0 C 2 Right Turn 20 18 89.5% 29.9 10.3 C 10 Subtotal 27 24 90.0% 27.3 5.6 C 12 Left Turn 36 37 101.4% 26.5 7.4 C 18 Through 9 8 91.1% 22.1 17.5 C 3 Right Turn 32 38 119.7% 27.4 6.1 C 19 Subtotal 77 83 107.8% 27.1 3.9 C 40 Left Turn 26 32 121.9% 40.1 14.2 D 23 Through 499 497 99.6% 6.5 1.6 A 59 Right Turn 5 6 114.0% 5.7 11.1 A 1 Subtotal 530 535 100.9% 8.7 2.2 A 83 Left Turn 2 2 100.0% 11.2 17.1 B 0 Through 150 145 96.8% 8.0 2.6 A 21 Right Turn 15 22 146.7% 7.0 1.9 A 3 Subtotal 167 169 101.3% 8.0 2.3 A 24 Total 801 811 101.3% 12.0 1.7 B 160 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 51 52 102.0% 34.0 17.3 C 32 Through 739 720 97.4% 45.2 21.5 D 596 Right Turn 111 110 99.4% 50.6 24.2 D 102 Subtotal 901 882 97.9% 45.1 21.4 D 731 Left Turn 91 89 97.4% 29.5 6.1 C 48 Through 547 544 99.5% 21.8 2.7 C 217 Right Turn 47 45 95.5% 25.3 7.6 C 21 Subtotal 685 678 98.9% 23.0 2.8 C 286 Left Turn 121 122 100.5% 70.4 32.2 E 157 Through 239 244 102.0% 43.6 25.4 D 195 Right Turn 153 154 100.3% 67.4 41.1 E 190 Subtotal 513 519 101.1% 57.2 30.0 E 541 Left Turn 100 96 95.6% 80.2 34.1 F 141 Through 109 113 103.2% 26.1 4.1 C 54 Right Turn 32 33 102.5% 37.1 9.4 D 22 Subtotal 241 241 100.0% 49.8 14.4 D 217 Total 2,340 2,320 99.1% 43.1 13.0 D 1775 70.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 4 4 105.0% 1.5 1.7 A 0 Through 455 460 101.1% 4.6 0.7 A 38 Right Turn 69 69 100.1% 4.4 1.2 A 6 Subtotal 528 533 101.0% 4.5 0.8 A 44 Left Turn 33 30 92.1% 2.5 0.7 A 1 Through 272 282 103.7% 2.6 0.5 A 14 Right Turn 10 8 75.0% 3.9 3.0 A 1 Subtotal 315 320 101.6% 2.6 0.5 A 16 Left Turn 11 13 119.1% 2.8 1.6 A 1 Through 1 7 720.0% 4.4 3.3 A 1 Right Turn 1 1 60.0% 0.6 1.2 A 0 Subtotal 13 21 160.8% 3.5 1.6 A 1 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 10 11 111.0% 8.2 9.3 1.4 Right Turn 5 5 98.0% 0.9 1.3 0.1 Subtotal 15 16 106.7% 6.4 6.3 1.4 Left Turn 15 10 69.3% 21.8 13.1 5.4 Through 4 3 62.5% 2.0 4.3 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 19 13 67.9% 17.7 9.7 5.6 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 5 4 84.0% 40.5 28.7 3.4 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 4 84.0% 40.5 28.7 3.4 Total 39 33 84.9% 16.7 6.8 10.4 40.5 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 15 103.6% 3.8 5.8 0.9 Right Turn 5 5 102.0% 2.0 6.3 0.2 Subtotal 19 20 103.2% 3.3 3.9 1.1 Left Turn Through 5 4 74.0% 0.2 0.5 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 50.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 6 4 70.0% 0.2 0.5 0.0 Left Turn 1 2 150.0% 6.1 18.7 0.1 Through 140 136 97.1% 31.1 4.5 72.5 Right Turn 2 2 115.0% 9.3 19.7 0.3 Subtotal 143 140 97.7% 31.2 4.6 72.9 Left Turn Through 7 4 57.1% 45.4 32.7 5.3 Right Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 8 4 50.0% 45.4 32.7 5.3 Total 176 168 95.2% 28.23 4.9 79.28 29.1 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 4.0 9.4 0 Through 6 15 241.7% 5.4 4.7 0.5 Right Turn 9 9 101.1% 3.8 10.8 0.6 Subtotal 16 24 152.5% 6.3 7.4 1.2 Left Turn 4 4 110.0% 54.6 43.4 3.6 Through 2 1 40.0% 2.9 9.1 0.1 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 6 88.6% 53.2 40.5 3.7 Left Turn 8 9 116.3% 49.1 26.4 6.5 Through 112 104 92.4% 58.3 10.7 108.9 Right Turn 2 2 110.0% 9.6 25.7 0.3 Subtotal 122 115 94.3% 57.4 11.4 115.8 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 58.3 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 11 15 131.8% 5.4 4.7 1.0 Right Turn 52 50 96.7% 0.3 0.5 0.3 Subtotal 63 65 102.9% 1.3 0.9 1.3 Left Turn 1 1 130.0% 14.4 33.4 0.2 Through 6 5 75.0% 4.9 8.1 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 7 6 82.9% 16.6 32.7 0.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 6 71.3% 47.6 24.5 6.3 Through Right Turn 7 6 88.6% 14.2 11.1 1.7 Subtotal 15 12 79.3% 31.9 16.0 8.0 Total 85 83 97.1% 6.5 4.0 10.0 47.6 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 41 40 96.8% 14.0 4.9 9.5 Right Turn Subtotal 41 40 96.8% 14.0 4.9 9.5 Left Turn 1 0 30.0% 5.4 17.0 0.1 Through 13 10 75.4% 7.2 10.1 1.6 Right Turn Subtotal 14 10 72.1% 8.1 11.4 1.6 Left Turn 22 22 99.5% 62.9 15.2 23.1 Through 10 10 97.0% 33.7 26.6 5.6 Right Turn 4 5 120.0% 6.4 8.8 0.4 Subtotal 36 36 101.1% 50.2 14.4 29.1 Left Turn Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 92 86 93.7% 28.9 8.4 40.3 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 6 6 101.7% 16.8 22.3 1.7 Right Turn 21 22 103.3% 0.3 0.6 0.1 Subtotal 27 28 103.0% 5.1 7.1 1.8 Left Turn 6 5 90.0% 71.1 62.9 7.1 Through 2 2 115.0% 44.2 69.9 1.5 Right Turn Subtotal 8 8 96.3% 77.8 54.7 8.6 Left Turn 2 1 60.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 93 96 103.4% 12.4 6.8 19.3 Right Turn 2 1 60.0% 2.5 7.3 0.1 Subtotal 97 99 101.6% 12.2 6.4 19.3 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 30.2 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 7.9 16.8 0 Through 1 1 50.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 5 3 56.0% 3.0 3.8 0.3 Subtotal 7 4 58.6% 5.7 7.8 0.4 Left Turn 1 1 110.0% 1.2 3.9 0.0 Through 1 1 50.0% 15.5 25.2 0.3 Right Turn Subtotal 2 2 80.0% 16.7 24.7 0.3 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 62 66 106.8% 9.7 5.7 10.0 Right Turn Subtotal 63 66 105.1% 9.7 5.7 10.0 Left Turn Through 3 2 60.0% 3.8 8.0 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 3 2 60.0% 3.8 8.0 0.2 Total 75 74 98.3% 10.1 4.1 10.8 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 4 3 72.5% 26.6 23.2 1.8 Right Turn 2 1 65.0% 16.0 22.8 0.5 Subtotal 6 4 70.0% 30.2 22.7 2.3 Left Turn 2 3 160.0% 6.9 10.5 0.2 Through 1 1 80.0% 8.2 18.6 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 3 4 133.3% 10.5 13.6 0.4 Left Turn Through 57 60 104.7% 39.2 9.0 37.3 Right Turn Subtotal 57 60 104.7% 39.2 9.0 37.3 Left Turn 2 1 35.0% 6.9 14.7 0.2 Through Right Turn 1 1 50.0% 7.0 15.2 0.1 Subtotal 3 1 40.0% 13.9 18.5 0.3 Total 69 69 100.1% 35.9 7.1 40.3 37.1 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 13 90.0% 0.9 1.0 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 14 13 90.0% 0.9 1.0 0.2 Left Turn Through 5 4 84.0% 1.5 2.1 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 5 4 84.0% 1.5 2.1 0.1 Left Turn 1 1 60.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 1 60.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 1 1 120.0% 4.1 10.8 Subtotal 1 1 120.0% 4.1 10.8 Left Turn 8 9 112.5% 42.8 22.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 8 9 112.5% 42.8 22.1 Left Turn 26 26 100.0% 51.3 8.2 Through Right Turn Subtotal 26 26 100.0% 51.3 8.2 Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 2 90.0% 33.3 38.5 Subtotal 2 2 90.0% 33.3 38.5 Total 37 38 102.7% 46.5 9.3 29.4 48.5 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 4 4 90.0% 24.6 37.0 Subtotal 4 4 90.0% 24.6 37.0 East Side 4 3 85.0% 13.8 22.6 West Side 20 20 97.5% 53.1 16.2 Subtotal 24 23 95.4% 52.3 17.5 North Side 45 46 101.6% 55.4 14.3 South Side 31 29 93.5% 50.3 6.9 Subtotal 76 75 98.3% 52.6 8.7 South Side North Side 2 2 90.0% 20.8 37.5 Subtotal 2 2 90.0% 20.8 37.5 Total 106 103 97.2% 50.6 6.8 86.8 49.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 90.0% 25.5 44.0 East Side 4 4 110.0% 52.6 39.8 Subtotal 5 5 106.0% 62.9 37.7 East Side 2 2 115.0% 32.2 41.7 West Side 2 2 95.0% 26.6 42.9 Subtotal 4 4 105.0% 51.5 42.6 North Side 28 28 100.7% 59.5 9.5 South Side 51 49 95.5% 48.1 11.5 Subtotal 79 77 97.3% 53.2 8.8 South Side North Side 2 2 75.0% 8.1 17.8 Subtotal 2 2 75.0% 8.1 17.8 Total 90 88 97.7% 52.7 8.9 77.1 50.1 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St SB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 26 26 100.8% 42.3 15.6 Subtotal 26 26 100.8% 42.3 15.6 East Side West Side Subtotal North Side 7 8 108.6% 45.5 27.7 South Side Subtotal 7 8 108.6% 45.5 27.7 South Side North Side 21 21 100.0% 51.9 11.0 Subtotal 21 21 100.0% 51.9 11.0 Total 54 55 101.5% 46.4 9.8 42.4 51.9 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 16 16 100.6% 37.9 22.7 East Side 26 25 94.2% 110.5 85.0 Subtotal 42 41 96.7% 94.4 71.8 East Side West Side 1 1 80.0% 5.2 16.5 Subtotal 1 1 80.0% 5.2 16.5 North Side 10 11 111.0% 65.4 30.9 South Side 11 12 105.5% 53.0 18.3 Subtotal 21 23 108.1% 61.2 17.2 South Side 4 5 125.0% 28.2 29.0 North Side Subtotal 4 5 125.0% 28.2 29.0 Total 68 69 101.6% 70.0 24.4 80.6 73.6 Intersection 7 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side Subtotal East Side West Side 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 1 1 80.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 9 8 83.3% 36.8 24.6 East Side 1 1 90.0% 8.5 19.8 Subtotal 10 8 84.0% 45.3 17.5 East Side 4 5 135.0% 26.8 22.6 West Side 4 4 90.0% 26.6 28.0 Subtotal 8 9 112.5% 35.2 19.4 North Side 10 10 95.0% 28.3 12.7 South Side 5 6 122.0% 21.3 13.8 Subtotal 15 16 104.0% 28.4 10.9 South Side North Side 10 10 95.0% 28.3 12.7 Subtotal 3 3 90.0% 19.2 29.5 Total 36 36 99.2% 32.8 9.8 19.5 34.7 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 60.0% 1.9 6.2 East Side 3 3 96.7% 23.0 24.8 Subtotal 4 4 87.5% 21.9 23.5 East Side West Side Subtotal North Side 3 4 133.3% 12.8 15.3 South Side 2 2 90.0% 0.9 3.0 Subtotal 5 6 116.0% 13.7 14.7 South Side North Side Subtotal Total 9 9 103.3% 19.1 16.6 3.0 12.2 Intersection 10 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side Subtotal East Side 2 2 105.0% 20.3 19.3 West Side Subtotal 2 2 105.0% 20.3 19.3 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 2 2 105.0% 20.3 19.3 0.7 13.4 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand NB SB EB WB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 3 3 106.7% 19.7 26.4 Subtotal 3 3 106.7% 19.7 26.4 East Side 4 3 75.0% 30.4 32.5 West Side 3 3 83.3% 25.3 30.1 Subtotal 7 6 78.6% 33.3 22.4 North Side South Side 6 8 128.3% 34.5 26.8 Subtotal 6 8 128.3% 34.5 26.8 South Side 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 Total 17 16 96.5% 34.1 11.3 9.3 40.3 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 120.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side Subtotal 1 1 120.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 1 1 120.0% 0.0 0.0 West Side Subtotal 1 1 120.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 2 2 120.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 51.9 5.3 4.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 51.9 5.3 4.1 Total 4 120 4 100.0% 34.6 3.6 4.1 13.6 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 0.3 0.3 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 0.3 0.3 0.1 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 11 490 11 100.0% 62.6 5.0 127.7 Right Turn Subtotal 11 490 11 100.0% 62.6 5.0 127.7 Left Turn Through 12 58 12 102.5% 50.5 5.7 12.2 Right Turn Subtotal 12 58 12 102.5% 50.5 5.7 12.2 Total 27 668 27 101.1% 43.1 3.7 140.1 62.6 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 52.3 27.6 22.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 52.3 27.6 22.0 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 22.0 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 6.6 9.2 0.7 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 6.6 9.2 0.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 268 4 100.0% 4.4 6.1 0.7 2.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 103 2 100.0% 45.6 6.0 19.6 Right Turn Subtotal 2 103 2 100.0% 45.6 6.0 19.6 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 139 2 100.0% 57.5 6.2 33.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 139 33.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 267 4 100.0% 30.4 4.0 52.8 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 154 6 100.0% 25.6 6.4 16.5 Subtotal 6 154 6 100.0% 25.6 6.4 16.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 23.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 12 6 98.3% 16.8 20.5 0.8 Subtotal 6 12 6 98.3% 16.8 20.5 0.8 Left Turn 5 196 5 100.0% 41.2 19.9 33.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 196 5 100.0% 41.2 19.9 33.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 198 6 100.0% 12.8 3.2 10.6 Subtotal 6 198 6 100.0% 12.8 3.2 10.6 Total 17 406 17 99.4% 22.0 6.6 45.1 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 38 1 100.0% 45.2 21.5 7.2 Right Turn Subtotal 1 38 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 7.2 Left Turn Through 1 9 1 100.0% 21.8 2.7 0.8 Right Turn Subtotal 1 9 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.8 Left Turn Through 5 160 5 100.0% 68.5 17.3 45.7 Right Turn Subtotal 5 160 5 100.0% 68.5 17.3 45.7 Left Turn Through 6 29 6 100.0% 47.6 15.9 5.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 29 6 100.0% 47.6 15.9 5.8 Total 13 236 11 84.6% 51.6 13.1 59.4 64.6 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 6 26 6 100.0% 7.8 5.5 0.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 26 6 100.0% 7.8 5.5 0.8 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 719 701 97.5% 3.4 1.3 A 44 Right Turn 413 404 97.8% 5.8 2.1 A 43 Subtotal 1,132 1,105 97.6% 4.3 1.6 A 87 Left Turn 130 132 101.5% 18.7 2.1 B 45 Through 667 656 98.4% 10.4 1.4 B 125 Right Turn Subtotal 797 788 98.9% 11.8 1.5 B 171 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 128 123 96.3% 44.4 4.8 D 100 Through Right Turn 61 59 96.6% 9.5 1.7 A 10 Subtotal 189 182 96.3% 33.4 3.8 C 111 Total 2,118 2,075 98.0% 11.1 0.7 B 368 48.3 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 13 12 93.8% 5.7 4.9 A 1 Through 1,064 1,041 97.9% 1.3 0.1 A 25 Right Turn 37 43 115.9% 1.2 0.4 A 1 Subtotal 1,114 1,096 98.4% 1.4 0.1 A 27 Left Turn 13 10 76.2% 18.9 14.4 B 3 Through 764 755 98.9% 5.6 0.9 A 78 Right Turn 18 17 92.8% 5.1 4.5 A 2 Subtotal 795 782 98.4% 5.9 1.0 A 83 Left Turn 51 52 101.6% 49.5 9.1 D 47 Through 25 32 126.8% 56.6 11.1 E 33 Right Turn 34 33 97.9% 52.5 7.7 D 32 Subtotal 110 117 106.2% 52.0 7.9 D 112 Left Turn 17 29 169.4% 52.4 7.6 D 28 Through 18 17 95.6% 31.8 16.8 C 10 Right Turn 17 17 98.2% 12.6 7.3 B 4 Subtotal 52 63 120.6% 37.3 6.7 D 42 Total 2,071 2,058 99.4% 8.2 0.8 A 264 56.6 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 140 143 101.9% 36.5 8.0 D 95 Through 851 836 98.3% 12.7 1.5 B 194 Right Turn 54 53 98.0% 11.7 2.1 B 11 Subtotal 1,045 1,032 98.7% 15.9 1.6 B 301 Left Turn 24 23 96.3% 40.1 20.8 D 17 Through 653 644 98.6% 9.1 2.2 A 107 Right Turn 138 151 109.1% 5.9 2.1 A 16 Subtotal 815 817 100.3% 9.6 2.2 A 141 Left Turn 258 259 100.5% 51.8 8.0 D 246 Through 27 29 107.8% 52.9 12.4 D 28 Right Turn 296 295 99.7% 49.9 5.5 D 270 Subtotal 581 583 100.4% 50.9 5.9 D 544 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 54.5 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,178 1,187 100.7% 3.7 0.9 A 80 Right Turn 154 150 97.1% 4.4 1.3 A 12 Subtotal 1,332 1,336 100.3% 3.7 0.9 A 92 Left Turn 123 122 99.5% 48.1 9.0 D 108 Through 768 747 97.3% 8.9 1.5 A 122 Right Turn Subtotal 891 870 97.6% 14.4 2.7 B 230 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 61 61 100.7% 46.0 8.6 D 52 Through Right Turn 37 37 101.1% 4.9 1.3 A 3 Subtotal 98 99 100.8% 30.0 7.1 C 55 Total 2,321 2,305 99.3% 8.7 1.4 A 377 43.4 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 56 59 105.5% 24.0 8.0 C 26 Through 946 938 99.2% 19.9 2.5 B 343 Right Turn 136 131 96.5% 13.8 4.5 B 33 Subtotal 1,138 1,129 99.2% 19.5 2.3 B 402 Left Turn 145 145 99.9% 32.5 9.1 C 86 Through 630 610 96.8% 5.2 1.6 A 58 Right Turn 54 54 99.3% 2.0 0.6 A 2 Subtotal 829 808 97.5% 10.2 2.7 B 146 Left Turn 241 244 101.0% 131.0 28.1 F 585 Through 713 717 100.6% 103.4 17.7 F 1360 Right Turn 152 154 101.4% 71.5 17.9 E 202 Subtotal 1,106 1,115 100.8% 104.6 17.9 F 2146 Left Turn 71 71 100.3% 51.6 9.5 D 67 Through 233 235 101.0% 43.4 1.8 D 187 Right Turn 145 147 101.7% 33.2 5.2 C 90 Subtotal 449 454 101.1% 41.2 2.4 D 344 Total 3,522 3,506 99.5% 50.2 7.3 D 3039 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 24 24 101.7% 24.4 5.6 C 11 Through 33 31 92.4% 26.6 5.2 C 15 Right Turn 35 35 99.4% 29.4 7.6 C 19 Subtotal 92 90 97.5% 27.2 4.1 C 45 Left Turn 34 32 94.4% 27.3 5.3 C 16 Through 32 31 97.5% 25.9 5.9 C 15 Right Turn 18 15 81.1% 24.9 13.5 C 7 Subtotal 84 78 92.7% 26.6 4.0 C 38 Left Turn 53 54 101.3% 46.7 8.4 D 46 Through 441 433 98.3% 16.5 5.0 B 131 Right Turn 66 66 99.8% 7.6 2.4 A 9 Subtotal 560 553 98.7% 18.4 5.1 B 186 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 45.3 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 3 3 83.3% 13.7 13.9 B 1 Through 4 4 102.5% 18.3 14.0 B 1 Right Turn 20 18 90.0% 21.9 8.0 C 7 Subtotal 27 25 91.1% 21.5 8.5 C 9 Left Turn 36 35 97.8% 24.1 5.9 C 16 Through 9 9 95.6% 17.3 10.3 B 3 Right Turn 32 33 102.2% 26.5 7.1 C 16 Subtotal 77 77 99.4% 25.2 4.3 C 34 Left Turn 26 26 98.8% 32.9 7.0 C 16 Through 499 500 100.2% 6.4 1.4 A 58 Right Turn 5 6 128.0% 5.6 6.7 A 1 Subtotal 530 532 100.4% 7.7 1.6 A 75 Left Turn 2 2 95.0% 9.7 12.6 A 0 Through 150 145 96.7% 5.1 2.0 A 14 Right Turn 15 21 140.0% 8.6 3.6 A 3 Subtotal 167 168 100.6% 5.6 1.7 A 17 Total 801 801 100.0% 10.2 1.4 B 135 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 51 51 100.2% 38.8 20.3 D 36 Through 739 729 98.7% 44.4 19.8 D 594 Right Turn 111 111 100.1% 52.2 22.6 D 106 Subtotal 901 892 99.0% 45.0 20.0 D 736 Left Turn 91 89 98.2% 31.7 7.1 C 52 Through 547 539 98.6% 21.9 3.3 C 216 Right Turn 47 44 94.3% 25.4 8.5 C 21 Subtotal 685 673 98.2% 23.6 3.2 C 289 Left Turn 121 122 100.4% 75.1 30.6 E 167 Through 239 241 100.9% 44.8 27.5 D 198 Right Turn 153 153 100.2% 66.3 38.0 E 186 Subtotal 513 516 100.6% 58.5 30.3 E 551 Left Turn 100 93 93.4% 84.7 38.1 F 145 Through 109 114 104.2% 25.0 3.7 C 52 Right Turn 32 34 105.9% 39.1 10.6 D 24 Subtotal 241 241 100.0% 51.1 15.1 D 221 Total 2,340 2,321 99.2% 43.7 13.2 D 1798 65.9 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 4 4 105.0% 1.6 1.7 A 0 Through 455 463 101.8% 4.8 0.7 A 41 Right Turn 69 66 95.8% 4.3 1.1 A 5 Subtotal 528 534 101.1% 4.8 0.7 A 46 Left Turn 33 29 89.1% 3.2 0.9 A 2 Through 272 281 103.2% 2.7 0.4 A 14 Right Turn 10 7 73.0% 4.6 3.8 A 1 Subtotal 315 317 100.7% 2.8 0.3 A 16 Left Turn 11 13 116.4% 3.3 1.8 A 1 Through 1 7 720.0% 5.5 2.9 A 1 Right Turn 1 1 60.0% 0.4 1.1 A 0 Subtotal 13 21 158.5% 4.4 1.7 A 2 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 10 11 109.0% 21.0 15.8 3.5 Right Turn 5 4 86.0% 1.2 1.6 0.1 Subtotal 15 15 101.3% 16.5 15.6 3.6 Left Turn 15 11 74.0% 12.5 10.8 3.1 Through 4 2 57.5% 1.8 3.9 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 19 13 70.5% 11.6 10.0 3.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 5 4 78.0% 29.3 29.8 2.4 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 4 78.0% 29.3 29.8 2.4 Total 39 33 83.3% 16.5 9.9 9.3 40.8 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 14 99.3% 3.3 4.8 0.8 Right Turn 5 6 114.0% 0.5 1.6 0.0 Subtotal 19 20 103.2% 3.1 4.3 0.8 Left Turn Through 5 3 64.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Right Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.1 0.3 0.0 Subtotal 6 4 65.0% 0.2 0.4 0.0 Left Turn 1 1 140.0% 9.9 21.6 0.2 Through 140 136 97.1% 31.5 3.1 73.6 Right Turn 2 2 115.0% 17.1 28.7 0.6 Subtotal 143 140 97.7% 31.8 3.4 74.3 Left Turn Through 7 4 55.7% 34.6 33.3 4.0 Right Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 8 4 48.8% 34.6 33.3 4.0 Total 176 167 94.9% 28.23 3.4 79.15 33.8 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 5.2 13.1 0 Through 6 14 231.7% 3.7 2.9 0.4 Right Turn 9 9 96.7% 3.7 10.8 0.5 Subtotal 16 23 146.3% 5.5 7.2 1.0 Left Turn 4 4 102.5% 58.2 47.9 3.9 Through 2 1 30.0% 5.8 18.4 0.2 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.2 0.5 0.0 Subtotal 7 6 81.4% 59.9 44.0 4.1 Left Turn 8 9 117.5% 46.6 24.3 6.2 Through 112 104 93.0% 58.2 8.7 108.7 Right Turn 2 2 120.0% 13.8 27.1 0.5 Subtotal 122 116 95.1% 57.5 8.2 115.4 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 58.2 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 11 14 126.4% 3.3 4.8 0.6 Right Turn 52 50 96.2% 1.0 1.1 0.9 Subtotal 63 64 101.4% 1.5 1.7 1.5 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 2.2 7.1 0.0 Through 6 5 75.0% 5.1 7.2 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 7 6 81.4% 7.3 8.8 0.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 6 76.3% 37.1 23.2 4.9 Through Right Turn 7 6 84.3% 10.5 13.3 1.2 Subtotal 15 12 80.0% 34.3 18.6 6.2 Total 85 82 96.0% 7.4 3.0 8.2 43.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 41 40 97.1% 18.8 8.9 12.9 Right Turn Subtotal 41 40 97.1% 18.8 8.9 12.9 Left Turn 1 1 60.0% 5.8 12.7 0.1 Through 13 10 73.8% 12.3 16.2 2.7 Right Turn Subtotal 14 10 72.9% 13.3 15.8 2.8 Left Turn 22 21 95.9% 49.8 15.3 18.3 Through 10 9 94.0% 28.3 27.5 4.7 Right Turn 4 5 127.5% 6.8 7.6 0.5 Subtotal 36 36 98.9% 40.8 7.5 23.4 Left Turn Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 92 86 93.0% 26.4 7.5 39.1 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 6 6 100.0% 34.4 25.3 3.4 Right Turn 21 22 103.8% 23.9 12.2 8.4 Subtotal 27 28 103.0% 28.6 8.9 11.8 Left Turn 6 5 81.7% 19.7 23.1 2.0 Through 2 2 110.0% 4.0 7.3 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 8 7 88.8% 17.0 18.5 2.1 Left Turn 2 1 65.0% 9.1 14.1 0.3 Through 93 94 100.9% 13.4 4.9 20.8 Right Turn 2 1 55.0% 6.1 19.1 0.2 Subtotal 97 96 99.2% 13.7 5.0 21.3 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 30.3 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 3.3 10.5 0 Through 1 1 60.0% 4.9 12.6 0.1 Right Turn 5 3 58.0% 2.8 3.6 0.2 Subtotal 7 4 60.0% 5.9 7.7 0.4 Left Turn 1 1 110.0% 1.4 4.4 0.0 Through 1 0 40.0% 13.9 22.5 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 2 2 75.0% 15.3 22.0 0.3 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 62 62 99.8% 8.8 5.4 9.1 Right Turn Subtotal 63 62 98.3% 8.8 5.4 9.1 Left Turn Through 3 2 73.3% 1.8 5.7 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 3 2 73.3% 1.8 5.7 0.1 Total 75 70 93.1% 9.3 4.2 9.8 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 4 4 90.0% 15.3 23.6 1.0 Right Turn 2 1 65.0% 2.1 5.5 0.1 Subtotal 6 5 81.7% 12.1 15.2 1.1 Left Turn 2 3 135.0% 1.4 4.5 0.0 Through 1 1 50.0% 3.7 9.6 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 3 3 106.7% 3.1 8.0 0.1 Left Turn Through 57 56 98.9% 40.0 5.1 38.0 Right Turn Subtotal 57 56 98.9% 40.0 5.1 38.0 Left Turn 2 1 30.0% 10.5 33.3 0.4 Through Right Turn 1 0 40.0% 7.2 22.9 0.1 Subtotal 3 1 33.3% 17.8 38.2 0.5 Total 69 66 94.9% 33.9 4.1 39.6 40.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 14 100.7% 0.5 0.7 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 14 14 100.7% 0.5 0.7 0.1 Left Turn Through 5 4 86.0% 0.3 0.6 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 5 4 86.0% 0.3 0.6 0.0 Left Turn 1 1 90.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 1 90.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 4.7 12.2 Subtotal 1 1 100.0% 4.7 12.2 Left Turn 8 8 101.3% 32.6 21.5 Through Right Turn Subtotal 8 8 101.3% 32.6 21.5 Left Turn 26 26 99.2% 49.9 13.8 Through Right Turn Subtotal 26 26 99.2% 49.9 13.8 Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 2 105.0% 74.2 157.9 Subtotal 2 2 105.0% 74.2 157.9 Total 37 37 100.0% 48.5 18.7 29.9 50.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 4 3 85.0% 20.0 34.7 Subtotal 4 3 85.0% 20.0 34.7 East Side 4 4 95.0% 22.2 23.7 West Side 20 19 95.0% 56.7 15.5 Subtotal 24 23 95.0% 55.4 14.0 North Side 45 46 101.6% 50.4 4.8 South Side 31 30 95.8% 54.3 9.4 Subtotal 76 75 99.2% 51.7 5.6 South Side North Side 2 2 100.0% 29.6 42.2 Subtotal 2 2 100.0% 29.6 42.2 Total 106 104 97.7% 51.1 5.0 88.2 54.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 90.0% 14.0 31.8 East Side 4 4 95.0% 32.3 41.9 Subtotal 5 5 94.0% 43.4 43.6 East Side 2 2 110.0% 29.2 42.0 West Side 2 2 90.0% 18.1 38.3 Subtotal 4 4 100.0% 40.0 44.8 North Side 28 27 96.1% 58.2 8.6 South Side 51 49 95.5% 45.9 12.9 Subtotal 79 76 95.7% 51.0 8.3 South Side North Side 2 2 85.0% 11.2 19.0 Subtotal 2 2 85.0% 11.2 19.0 Total 90 86 95.6% 49.2 8.9 70.5 51.4 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 26 26 100.8% 37.4 8.5 Subtotal 26 26 100.8% 37.4 8.5 East Side West Side Subtotal North Side 7 7 95.7% 41.7 35.0 South Side Subtotal 7 7 95.7% 41.7 35.0 South Side North Side 21 21 101.4% 62.0 21.8 Subtotal 21 21 101.4% 62.0 21.8 Total 54 54 100.4% 47.0 5.9 42.5 54.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 16 16 96.9% 37.0 18.0 East Side 26 25 94.2% 124.2 86.3 Subtotal 42 40 95.2% 99.7 73.1 East Side West Side 1 1 90.0% 5.2 16.3 Subtotal 1 1 90.0% 5.2 16.3 North Side 10 11 106.0% 49.4 16.3 South Side 11 12 110.0% 53.1 20.6 Subtotal 21 23 108.1% 54.4 9.5 South Side 4 5 122.5% 34.0 30.5 North Side Subtotal 4 5 122.5% 34.0 30.5 Total 68 69 100.7% 68.4 23.5 78.1 74.9 Intersection 7 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side Subtotal East Side West Side 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 9 7 82.2% 45.6 23.0 East Side 1 1 130.0% 7.2 18.3 Subtotal 10 9 87.0% 49.5 17.7 East Side 4 5 112.5% 24.6 18.5 West Side 4 4 92.5% 26.7 26.0 Subtotal 8 8 102.5% 31.7 14.7 North Side 10 10 96.0% 35.0 24.8 South Side 5 6 114.0% 12.8 16.7 Subtotal 15 15 102.0% 28.3 18.9 South Side North Side 10 10 96.0% 35.0 24.8 Subtotal 3 3 103.3% 19.6 27.1 Total 36 35 98.1% 34.9 10.9 20.5 33.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 60.0% 5.1 16.2 East Side 3 3 90.0% 19.3 25.1 Subtotal 4 3 82.5% 19.4 25.1 East Side West Side Subtotal North Side 3 4 120.0% 6.1 11.6 South Side 2 2 95.0% 3.0 8.3 Subtotal 5 6 110.0% 9.1 12.8 South Side North Side Subtotal Total 9 9 97.8% 15.9 14.0 2.3 13.7 Intersection 10 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side Subtotal East Side 2 2 95.0% 15.4 17.3 West Side Subtotal 2 2 95.0% 15.4 17.3 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 2 2 95.0% 15.4 17.3 0.5 9.1 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 3 3 103.3% 21.2 25.7 Subtotal 3 3 103.3% 21.2 25.7 East Side 4 3 85.0% 27.6 33.8 West Side 3 3 83.3% 21.2 29.5 Subtotal 7 6 84.3% 30.7 24.5 North Side South Side 6 7 113.3% 40.4 27.4 Subtotal 6 7 113.3% 40.4 27.4 South Side 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side Subtotal 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 Total 17 16 92.9% 34.6 12.1 9.1 41.5 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 130.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side Subtotal 1 1 130.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 West Side Subtotal 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 2 2 115.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Delay (min) WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB NB SB EB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 51.5 5.7 4.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 51.5 5.7 4.1 Total 4 120 4 100.0% 34.4 3.8 4.1 9.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 0.5 0.9 0.2 Right Turn 5 205 5 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 306 7 100.0% 0.5 0.9 0.2 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 6 490 6 100.0% 64.0 4.8 130.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 490 6 100.0% 64.0 4.8 130.8 Left Turn 12 58 12 102.5% 61.2 5.6 14.8 Through Right Turn Subtotal 12 58 12 102.5% 61.2 5.6 14.8 Total 27 873 27 101.1% 48.7 4.3 145.7 64.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 101 2 100.0% 48.0 28.6 20.2 Right Turn Subtotal 2 101 2 100.0% 48.0 28.6 20.2 Left Turn Through 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 12 16 12 102.5% 4.9 3.3 0.3 Subtotal 14 35 14 102.1% 4.9 3.3 0.3 Left Turn 5 205 5 100.0% 66.8 26.3 57.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 205 5 100.0% 66.8 26.3 57.0 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 28.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 243 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 6.6 7.3 0.7 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 6.6 7.3 0.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 268 4 100.0% 4.4 4.9 0.7 6.1 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 103 2 100.0% 43.6 5.7 18.7 Right Turn Subtotal 2 103 2 100.0% 43.6 5.7 18.7 Left Turn Through 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 25 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 139 2 100.0% 57.5 6.2 33.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 139 33.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 267 4 100.0% 29.1 3.8 52.0 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 5 355 5 100.0% 22.4 6.8 33.1 Right Turn Subtotal 5 355 5 100.0% 22.4 6.8 33.1 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit AM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 11.4 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 5 196 5 100.0% 30.1 10.1 24.6 Right Turn Subtotal 5 196 5 100.0% 30.1 10.1 24.6 Left Turn Through 6 12 6 100.0% 13.1 3.3 0.7 Right Turn 6 198 6 100.0% 13.5 2.3 11.2 Subtotal 12 210 12 100.0% 13.4 1.9 11.8 Total 17 406 17 100.0% 18.6 3.0 36.4 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 38 1 100.0% 44.4 19.8 7.0 Right Turn Subtotal 1 38 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 7.0 Left Turn Through 1 9 1 100.0% 21.9 3.3 0.8 Right Turn Subtotal 1 9 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.8 Left Turn Through 5 160 5 100.0% 72.1 25.6 48.1 Right Turn Subtotal 5 160 5 100.0% 72.1 25.6 48.1 Left Turn Through 6 29 6 100.0% 64.5 29.6 7.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 29 6 100.0% 64.5 29.6 7.8 Total 13 236 11 84.6% 54.7 13.0 63.7 68.7 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 6 7 6 100.0% 6.6 3.2 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 6 7 6 100.0% 6.6 3.2 0.2 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 858 838 97.7% 8.3 2.7 A 128 Right Turn 428 412 96.2% 11.6 2.4 B 87 Subtotal 1,286 1,250 97.2% 9.4 2.4 A 215 Left Turn 99 96 96.7% 52.3 9.1 D 92 Through 971 920 94.7% 17.5 1.8 B 295 Right Turn Subtotal 1,070 1,016 94.9% 20.9 1.9 C 387 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 497 491 98.7% 71.2 15.4 E 640 Through Right Turn 154 149 96.8% 42.5 15.3 D 116 Subtotal 651 640 98.2% 64.1 15.1 E 756 Total 3,007 2,905 96.6% 24.8 3.8 C 1358 53.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 63 90.1% 98.7 82.1 F 114 Through 1,205 1,175 97.5% 4.7 1.5 A 100 Right Turn 56 51 91.8% 3.4 2.2 A 3 Subtotal 1,331 1,290 96.9% 8.8 4.4 A 218 Left Turn 18 19 104.4% 45.3 24.3 D 16 Through 1,390 1,334 96.0% 8.1 1.9 A 199 Right Turn 60 59 99.0% 6.9 1.0 A 8 Subtotal 1,468 1,412 96.2% 8.6 2.0 A 222 Left Turn 59 59 99.7% 77.7 34.3 E 84 Through 23 25 109.1% 83.2 35.2 F 38 Right Turn 61 57 93.0% 82.2 31.8 F 85 Subtotal 143 141 98.3% 79.9 32.2 E 207 Left Turn 56 51 90.4% 74.5 27.1 E 69 Through 24 27 111.7% 58.2 15.6 E 29 Right Turn 22 19 87.7% 25.5 9.3 C 9 Subtotal 102 97 94.8% 60.1 18.1 E 107 Total 3,044 2,939 96.6% 13.6 2.7 B 754 69.7 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 273 250 91.6% 136.7 58.3 F 627 Through 1,001 971 97.0% 52.4 36.5 D 932 Right Turn 57 56 97.9% 40.2 36.2 D 41 Subtotal 1,331 1,277 96.0% 66.8 40.2 E 1601 Left Turn 10 10 95.0% 34.4 30.9 C 6 Through 1,067 1,015 95.1% 25.1 7.0 C 468 Right Turn 430 412 95.8% 16.2 4.6 B 122 Subtotal 1,507 1,436 95.3% 22.7 6.1 C 596 Left Turn 324 316 97.6% 57.3 10.2 E 332 Through 48 49 101.9% 58.9 14.4 E 53 Right Turn 379 366 96.5% 63.8 20.6 E 427 Subtotal 751 731 97.3% 61.0 11.7 E 812 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 62.6 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,268 1,259 99.3% 2.9 0.8 A 68 Right Turn 52 51 98.8% 3.1 1.3 A 3 Subtotal 1,320 1,311 99.3% 2.9 0.8 A 71 Left Turn 92 87 94.9% 37.1 9.4 D 59 Through 1,360 1,291 94.9% 13.2 6.2 B 312 Right Turn Subtotal 1,452 1,379 94.9% 14.7 6.6 B 371 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 117 118 101.0% 55.5 9.3 E 120 Through Right Turn 157 154 98.1% 9.3 3.5 A 26 Subtotal 274 272 99.3% 30.0 7.3 C 146 Total 3,046 2,961 97.2% 11.2 3.4 B 588 56.1 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 160 155 96.8% 56.5 10.6 E 160 Through 908 904 99.6% 35.7 3.8 D 591 Right Turn 137 134 98.1% 23.9 6.2 C 59 Subtotal 1,205 1,193 99.0% 37.3 4.8 D 810 Left Turn 218 226 103.7% 54.6 7.5 D 226 Through 1,080 1,013 93.8% 22.4 5.7 C 416 Right Turn 179 165 92.2% 14.0 4.5 B 42 Subtotal 1,477 1,404 95.1% 26.7 4.7 C 685 Left Turn 158 160 101.3% 65.0 12.9 E 191 Through 396 396 99.9% 40.2 2.6 D 292 Right Turn 159 157 98.8% 20.8 5.4 C 60 Subtotal 713 713 100.0% 41.5 4.8 D 543 Left Turn 196 195 99.6% 89.8 15.6 F 321 Through 637 625 98.1% 78.7 12.3 E 902 Right Turn 254 243 95.6% 80.6 16.3 F 359 Subtotal 1,087 1,063 97.8% 81.3 13.3 F 1582 Total 4,482 4,373 97.6% 46.1 3.9 D 3620 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 152 97.8% 46.8 15.9 D 130 Through 107 101 94.7% 27.4 8.8 C 51 Right Turn 87 86 99.3% 23.2 9.8 C 37 Subtotal 349 339 97.2% 35.0 12.2 D 218 Left Turn 73 74 101.1% 20.9 5.5 C 28 Through 101 99 98.0% 17.2 3.2 B 31 Right Turn 51 57 112.4% 18.8 3.8 B 20 Subtotal 225 230 102.3% 18.8 2.7 B 79 Left Turn 61 61 99.3% 17.3 5.0 B 19 Through 508 504 99.1% 9.0 1.0 A 83 Right Turn 96 98 101.6% 9.9 2.0 A 18 Subtotal 665 662 99.5% 9.9 1.1 A 120 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 25.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 95.0% 3.1 6.8 A 0 Through 26 23 89.2% 24.5 7.7 C 10 Right Turn 35 34 98.3% 7.8 2.8 A 5 Subtotal 63 60 94.4% 13.7 3.9 B 15 Left Turn 36 36 100.0% 23.5 4.4 C 16 Through 22 23 104.1% 22.9 10.3 C 10 Right Turn 74 76 103.2% 14.5 5.7 B 20 Subtotal 132 135 102.5% 18.6 3.4 B 45 Left Turn 47 46 98.3% 20.3 13.5 C 17 Through 531 527 99.2% 6.1 1.1 A 59 Right Turn 6 6 105.0% 9.5 9.0 A 1 Subtotal 584 579 99.2% 7.5 2.0 A 77 Left Turn 39 41 105.4% 6.0 2.2 A 5 Through 622 583 93.7% 7.3 4.8 A 78 Right Turn 47 52 110.2% 11.9 9.2 B 11 Subtotal 708 676 95.4% 7.5 4.7 A 94 Total 1,487 1,450 97.5% 9.0 3.1 A 232 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 136 133 98.0% 33.9 2.9 C 83 Through 577 572 99.2% 21.8 3.5 C 229 Right Turn 129 125 97.2% 19.9 6.7 B 46 Subtotal 842 831 98.7% 23.4 3.4 C 357 Left Turn 106 107 101.1% 42.8 12.5 D 84 Through 768 765 99.6% 30.7 5.7 C 431 Right Turn 84 81 96.5% 29.8 5.3 C 44 Subtotal 958 953 99.5% 32.1 5.9 C 559 Left Turn 162 157 96.9% 77.3 39.3 E 222 Through 305 305 99.9% 58.0 31.2 E 324 Right Turn 121 120 99.2% 37.6 30.8 D 83 Subtotal 588 582 98.9% 59.7 33.5 E 629 Left Turn 178 164 92.2% 45.1 17.3 D 136 Through 319 303 95.1% 39.0 10.7 D 217 Right Turn 77 71 92.6% 8.9 2.7 A 12 Subtotal 574 539 93.9% 36.7 6.6 D 364 Total 2,962 2,905 98.1% 35.5 7.3 D 1910 45.2 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 90.0% 1.6 2.1 A 0 Through 322 329 102.1% 0.5 0.1 A 3 Right Turn 83 83 99.8% 1.0 0.2 A 1 Subtotal 407 413 101.5% 0.6 0.1 A 5 Left Turn 73 75 102.6% 4.5 1.3 A 6 Through 537 540 100.5% 0.5 0.1 A 5 Right Turn 7 6 84.3% 0.6 0.5 A 0 Subtotal 617 621 100.6% 1.1 0.3 A 12 Left Turn 2 2 120.0% 7.4 11.7 A 0 Through Right Turn 3 4 130.0% 2.6 2.7 A 0 Subtotal 5 6 126.0% 7.1 10.1 A 1 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 3 3 100.0% 2.4 3.9 0.1 Right Turn 5 5 98.0% 0.4 1.0 0.0 Subtotal 8 8 98.8% 1.4 1.8 0.2 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 6 5 90.0% 40.9 32.1 4.1 Through Right Turn 7 7 95.7% 25.5 29.9 3.0 Subtotal 13 12 93.1% 33.8 17.3 7.1 Total 23 20 87.0% 19.0 12.6 7.2 38.9 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 2 200.0% 86.9 152.4 1.4 Through 7 6 85.7% 1.7 3.6 0.2 Right Turn 3 1 26.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 11 9 80.0% 50.9 66.1 1.6 Left Turn Through 5 3 62.0% 1.0 2.2 0.1 Right Turn 2 2 120.0% 1.3 2.1 0.0 Subtotal 7 6 78.6% 1.6 2.1 0.1 Left Turn 1 1 110.0% 25.0 43.4 0.4 Through 36 35 98.3% 36.3 12.1 21.8 Right Turn Subtotal 37 37 98.6% 37.7 11.6 22.2 Left Turn 2 2 110.0% 36.7 50.6 1.2 Through 119 116 97.7% 42.1 10.0 83.4 Right Turn Subtotal 121 119 97.9% 42.5 10.4 84.6 Total 176 169 96.2% 40.28 7.3 108.61 40.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 2 1 65.0% 12.3 26.6 0 Through 9 6 66.7% 6.4 11.7 1.0 Right Turn 5 4 74.0% 0.4 0.9 0.0 Subtotal 16 11 68.8% 8.5 12.2 1.4 Left Turn 1 1 90.0% 5.9 18.7 0.1 Through 3 2 56.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 3 86.7% 0.6 0.9 0.0 Subtotal 7 5 74.3% 4.4 12.5 0.1 Left Turn 1 1 80.0% 6.1 19.2 0.1 Through 12 11 95.0% 51.5 25.1 10.3 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 16.5 36.8 0.3 Subtotal 14 13 95.0% 51.9 26.7 10.7 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 43.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 9 6 66.7% 6.4 11.7 1.0 Right Turn Subtotal 9 6 66.7% 6.4 11.7 1.0 Left Turn Through 7 5 74.3% 9.2 10.8 1.1 Right Turn Subtotal 7 5 74.3% 9.2 10.8 1.1 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 7 91.3% 35.5 20.9 4.7 Through Right Turn 7 6 82.9% 8.8 8.0 1.0 Subtotal 15 13 87.3% 29.2 11.7 5.8 Total 31 24 78.4% 19.2 7.5 7.8 45.7 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 25 21 84.0% 30.3 13.3 12.6 Right Turn 1 1 140.0% 1.1 1.8 0.0 Subtotal 27 22 83.0% 28.3 13.1 12.6 Left Turn Through 15 12 81.3% 18.0 12.1 4.5 Right Turn Subtotal 15 12 81.3% 18.0 12.1 4.5 Left Turn 9 7 76.7% 73.3 33.1 11.0 Through 2 2 90.0% 13.0 23.0 0.4 Right Turn Subtotal 11 9 79.1% 72.0 33.4 11.4 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 53 43 81.7% 32.7 10.7 28.6 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 3 3 83.3% 15.3 21.9 1 Through 9 9 101.1% 14.8 9.7 2.2 Right Turn 4 3 82.5% 4.6 8.0 0.3 Subtotal 16 15 93.1% 16.6 9.8 3.3 Left Turn 5 6 110.0% 18.2 13.7 1.5 Through 8 7 83.8% 18.9 11.5 2.5 Right Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.7 1.5 0.0 Subtotal 14 13 92.1% 19.3 5.0 4.0 Left Turn 1 1 100.0% 8.7 17.8 0.1 Through 29 29 100.3% 15.6 3.5 7.5 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 31 31 100.3% 16.0 3.1 7.7 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 15.4 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 2 95.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Right Turn 2 2 105.0% 0.8 1.7 0.0 Subtotal 4 4 100.0% 0.7 1.4 0.0 Left Turn 3 3 100.0% 27.6 20.2 1.4 Through 12 13 105.0% 23.1 17.1 4.6 Right Turn 11 12 104.5% 2.1 3.7 0.4 Subtotal 26 27 104.2% 18.3 8.1 6.4 Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.8 1.8 0.0 Through 38 37 98.4% 9.8 5.5 6.2 Right Turn Subtotal 39 38 97.7% 9.8 5.5 6.3 Left Turn Through 69 67 97.2% 6.4 3.0 7.4 Right Turn 4 3 80.0% 0.6 1.0 0.0 Subtotal 73 70 96.3% 6.2 2.8 7.4 Total 142 140 98.2% 9.1 2.4 20.1 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 2 1 55.0% 2.6 7.8 0.1 Right Turn 2 1 65.0% 9.9 18.6 0.3 Subtotal 5 3 62.0% 10.2 15.7 0.4 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 47 45 96.0% 30.8 10.1 24.1 Right Turn Subtotal 47 45 96.0% 30.8 10.1 24.1 Left Turn Through 47 47 100.0% 44.2 10.0 34.6 Right Turn 1 1 130.0% 3.3 7.0 0.1 Subtotal 48 48 100.6% 43.6 10.2 34.7 Total 100 97 96.5% 37.2 6.9 59.2 28.8 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 44 44 100.5% 0.6 1.3 0.4 Right Turn 4 4 102.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 48 48 100.6% 0.6 1.3 0.4 Left Turn Through 29 26 87.9% 0.2 0.5 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 29 26 87.9% 0.2 0.5 0.1 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 11 10 90.9% 66.9 35.2 Subtotal 11 10 90.9% 66.9 35.2 Left Turn 1 1 140.0% 18.0 28.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 1 140.0% 18.0 28.3 Left Turn 13 14 105.4% 54.0 21.9 Through Right Turn Subtotal 13 14 105.4% 54.0 21.9 Left Turn Through Right Turn 39 38 97.2% 57.1 12.3 Subtotal 39 38 97.2% 57.1 12.3 Total 64 63 98.4% 58.5 7.7 61.4 65.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 70.0% 6.4 17.1 East Side 14 15 107.9% 61.7 29.1 Subtotal 15 16 105.3% 62.8 26.7 East Side 1 1 100.0% 8.8 27.7 West Side 9 10 106.7% 65.5 30.2 Subtotal 10 11 106.0% 65.8 30.3 North Side 24 24 100.0% 57.7 17.1 South Side 15 15 102.0% 47.5 21.1 Subtotal 39 39 100.8% 54.3 12.8 South Side 31 31 100.6% 53.6 16.2 North Side 62 58 93.1% 57.6 12.7 Subtotal 93 89 95.6% 57.3 6.4 Total 157 155 98.5% 58.6 6.6 151.1 58.1 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 5 5 106.0% 38.0 36.5 East Side 3 4 120.0% 35.6 39.8 Subtotal 8 9 111.3% 50.3 35.6 East Side 4 4 95.0% 25.2 42.3 West Side 4 4 105.0% 41.8 28.1 Subtotal 8 8 100.0% 56.7 31.4 North Side 20 21 104.0% 61.9 9.7 South Side 14 13 90.7% 68.3 21.4 Subtotal 34 34 98.5% 63.9 12.4 South Side 68 69 101.5% 54.5 6.6 North Side 44 43 97.0% 59.2 7.2 Subtotal 112 112 99.7% 56.1 5.6 Total 162 162 100.1% 57.2 6.3 154.6 68.3 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St SB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 6 7 113.3% 26.4 35.5 Subtotal 6 7 113.3% 26.4 35.5 East Side 9 10 106.7% 60.2 21.1 West Side Subtotal 9 10 106.7% 60.2 21.1 North Side 5 4 84.0% 30.2 40.7 South Side Subtotal 5 4 84.0% 30.2 40.7 South Side North Side 5 5 94.0% 42.6 27.2 Subtotal 5 5 94.0% 42.6 27.2 Total 25 25 101.2% 43.7 13.8 18.4 43.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 8 8 101.3% 43.0 27.2 East Side 8 9 106.3% 108.5 158.8 Subtotal 16 17 103.8% 85.5 69.9 East Side 21 22 105.7% 50.3 13.6 West Side 10 11 110.0% 58.2 26.5 Subtotal 31 33 107.1% 56.9 13.0 North Side 3 3 103.3% 31.0 37.9 South Side 6 6 103.3% 40.5 37.3 Subtotal 9 9 103.3% 56.5 25.3 South Side 7 7 92.9% 138.6 245.0 North Side 8 9 106.3% 54.9 53.1 Subtotal 15 15 100.0% 79.8 38.3 Total 71 74 104.4% 67.3 19.2 83.1 74.0 Intersection 7 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 6 6 95.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 2 2 95.0% 0.8 1.7 Subtotal 8 8 95.0% 0.2 0.4 East Side 1 2 160.0% 5.7 9.1 West Side 6 6 95.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 7 104.3% 2.3 3.5 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 15 15 99.3% 1.3 1.9 0.3 2.8 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 32 32 100.3% 45.8 24.0 East Side 19 20 106.8% 26.8 8.4 Subtotal 51 52 102.7% 37.9 13.7 East Side 42 42 101.0% 38.1 23.1 West Side 19 18 93.2% 26.6 7.2 Subtotal 61 60 98.5% 35.0 16.0 North Side 35 35 99.7% 30.1 5.8 South Side 37 38 103.5% 23.2 8.0 Subtotal 72 73 101.7% 26.9 5.6 South Side 32 35 108.1% 26.7 4.7 North Side 35 35 99.7% 30.1 5.8 Subtotal 55 59 107.1% 26.8 4.3 Total 239 245 102.3% 31.2 3.5 127.2 41.1 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 90.0% 5.8 17.5 East Side 2 2 120.0% 8.3 13.7 Subtotal 3 3 110.0% 9.0 16.6 East Side 7 7 98.6% 28.1 19.4 West Side 1 1 50.0% 6.6 15.8 Subtotal 8 7 92.5% 28.2 19.5 North Side 6 6 103.3% 15.3 15.5 South Side 8 8 102.5% 16.3 14.4 Subtotal 14 14 102.9% 19.2 10.6 South Side 6 5 90.0% 13.9 9.5 North Side 9 10 110.0% 17.3 13.7 Subtotal 15 15 102.0% 17.3 6.5 Total 40 40 101.0% 20.8 6.1 14.0 28.1 Intersection 10 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 60.0% 5.2 11.1 East Side Subtotal 1 1 60.0% 5.2 11.1 East Side 3 3 100.0% 24.3 21.1 West Side Subtotal 3 3 100.0% 24.3 21.1 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 4 4 90.0% 24.0 15.3 1.4 19.2 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand NB SB EB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 7 7 98.6% 24.5 27.3 East Side 4 5 117.5% 40.2 82.5 Subtotal 11 12 105.5% 37.1 58.1 East Side 3 3 83.3% 20.5 33.5 West Side 9 9 104.4% 53.2 46.8 Subtotal 12 12 99.2% 63.5 39.5 North Side 5 4 80.0% 29.3 31.9 South Side 8 10 123.8% 37.6 18.5 Subtotal 13 14 106.9% 39.9 16.6 South Side 7 7 97.1% 48.2 20.4 North Side 7 7 105.7% 32.8 26.7 Subtotal 14 14 101.4% 44.7 13.0 Total 50 52 103.2% 49.4 22.1 42.5 53.2 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 3 2 66.7% 0.0 0.0 East Side 2 2 85.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 5 4 74.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 2 2 110.0% 0.0 0.0 West Side 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 3 3 106.7% 0.0 0.0 North Side 2 2 95.0% 2.3 5.2 South Side 1 1 120.0% 0.5 1.7 Subtotal 3 3 103.3% 2.9 5.2 South Side North Side 1 1 100.0% 1.6 4.9 Subtotal 1 1 100.0% 1.6 4.9 Total 12 11 91.7% 1.2 2.1 0.2 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 73 2 100.0% 98.3 43.0 29.9 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 98.3 43.0 29.9 Total 4 92 4 100.0% 65.5 28.7 29.9 4.3 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 62 3 100.0% 3.5 5.3 0.9 Subtotal 5 80 5 100.0% 3.5 5.3 0.9 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 11.6 7.7 3.5 Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 11.6 7.7 3.5 Left Turn Through 6 211 6 100.0% 106.7 39.5 93.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 211 6 100.0% 106.7 39.5 93.8 Left Turn 2 90 2 100.0% 126.6 48.8 47.5 Through 8 795 8 100.0% 58.1 24.8 192.5 Right Turn Subtotal 10 885 10 100.0% 80.9 28.1 240.0 Total 23 1,249 23 100.0% 60.8 15.2 338.2 92.8 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 64.4 15.0 4.8 Right Turn Subtotal 2 18 2 100.0% 64.4 15.0 4.8 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 2 90 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 4 163 4 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 3 62 3 100.0% 58.6 17.5 15.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 3 62 3 100.0% 58.6 17.5 15.1 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 62.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 15.7 14.9 4.9 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 15.7 14.9 4.9 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 199 4 100.0% 10.5 9.9 4.9 1.5 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 26 2 100.0% 19.6 8.3 2.1 Right Turn Subtotal 2 26 2 100.0% 19.6 8.3 2.1 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 99 2 100.0% 57.5 6.2 23.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 99 23.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 200 4 100.0% 13.1 5.6 25.8 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 365 6 100.0% 77.2 16.7 117.4 Subtotal 6 365 6 100.0% 77.2 16.7 117.4 Left Turn Through 3 71 3 100.0% 30.1 14.3 8.9 Right Turn Subtotal 3 71 3 100.0% 30.1 14.3 8.9 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Volume and Delay by Movement 60.4 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 199 2 100.0% 45.7 13.1 37.9 Subtotal 2 199 2 100.0% 45.7 13.1 37.9 Left Turn Through 3 74 3 100.0% 18.0 20.1 5.6 Right Turn Subtotal 3 74 3 100.0% 18.0 20.1 5.6 Left Turn Through 2 88 2 90.0% 18.4 14.9 6.7 Right Turn 6 316 6 98.3% 15.0 4.6 19.8 Subtotal 8 404 8 96.3% 16.9 6.8 26.5 Total 13 677 13 97.7% 24.1 4.7 69.9 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 14 1 100.0% 21.8 3.5 1.3 Right Turn Subtotal 14 1.3 Left Turn Through 13 1 100.0% 30.7 5.7 1.7 Right Turn Subtotal 13 1.7 Left Turn Through 4 71 4 87.5% 83.4 30.8 24.7 Right Turn Subtotal 4 71 4 87.5% 83.4 30.8 24.7 Left Turn Through 4 261 4 100.0% 70.4 43.3 76.6 Right Turn Subtotal 4 261 4 100.0% 70.4 43.3 76.6 Total 8 359 8 93.8% 79.7 29.0 104.2 98.9 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 59 2 100.0% 2.5 0.8 0.6 Subtotal 2 59 2 100.0% 2.5 0.8 0.6 Left Turn 2 6 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 6 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 858 834 97.2% 8.0 2.2 A 123 Right Turn 428 418 97.7% 10.2 2.1 B 78 Subtotal 1,286 1,253 97.4% 8.8 2.0 A 201 Left Turn 99 93 94.0% 49.6 7.3 D 85 Through 971 921 94.8% 18.2 2.4 B 307 Right Turn Subtotal 1,070 1,014 94.7% 21.0 2.5 C 392 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 497 489 98.4% 76.5 19.8 E 686 Through Right Turn 154 150 97.5% 48.7 27.0 D 134 Subtotal 651 639 98.2% 69.5 21.3 E 820 Total 3,007 2,905 96.6% 26.2 5.8 C 1413 49.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 64 91.9% 104.8 78.1 F 124 Through 1,205 1,172 97.3% 4.6 1.1 A 98 Right Turn 56 50 89.8% 3.6 1.9 A 3 Subtotal 1,331 1,287 96.7% 9.3 4.3 A 225 Left Turn 18 19 107.8% 50.5 24.5 D 18 Through 1,390 1,333 95.9% 9.6 3.2 A 235 Right Turn 60 59 98.8% 8.4 2.2 A 9 Subtotal 1,468 1,411 96.1% 10.2 3.1 B 262 Left Turn 59 58 98.5% 75.4 16.5 E 80 Through 23 32 139.1% 82.3 15.1 F 48 Right Turn 61 56 91.3% 73.0 8.9 E 75 Subtotal 143 146 102.0% 75.1 10.2 E 203 Left Turn 56 49 87.3% 67.4 23.7 E 60 Through 24 31 127.5% 67.2 24.0 E 38 Right Turn 22 20 91.4% 24.4 16.1 C 9 Subtotal 102 100 97.6% 57.5 19.4 E 107 Total 3,044 2,944 96.7% 14.4 2.9 B 798 72.6 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 273 249 91.1% 117.4 38.9 F 535 Through 1,001 974 97.3% 45.8 24.8 D 818 Right Turn 57 55 96.3% 39.1 21.1 D 39 Subtotal 1,331 1,278 96.0% 60.3 27.5 E 1393 Left Turn 10 10 97.0% 46.5 18.8 D 8 Through 1,067 1,008 94.4% 22.0 4.6 C 407 Right Turn 430 411 95.5% 13.5 3.1 B 102 Subtotal 1,507 1,428 94.8% 19.8 4.0 B 517 Left Turn 324 310 95.7% 67.0 16.8 E 381 Through 48 49 102.9% 67.3 15.4 E 61 Right Turn 379 363 95.8% 64.3 17.5 E 428 Subtotal 751 723 96.2% 66.0 12.2 E 869 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 58.1 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,268 1,255 99.0% 2.8 0.5 A 63 Right Turn 52 57 109.0% 2.5 1.3 A 3 Subtotal 1,320 1,312 99.4% 2.8 0.5 A 66 Left Turn 92 85 92.1% 36.2 7.9 D 56 Through 1,360 1,286 94.6% 11.1 2.8 B 261 Right Turn Subtotal 1,452 1,371 94.4% 12.7 2.9 B 317 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 117 120 102.6% 52.5 8.9 D 116 Through Right Turn 157 154 98.2% 9.7 3.1 A 27 Subtotal 274 274 100.0% 29.5 6.1 C 143 Total 3,046 2,957 97.1% 10.1 1.6 B 526 58.7 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 160 154 95.9% 55.1 9.5 E 155 Through 908 910 100.2% 34.1 2.9 C 569 Right Turn 137 131 95.5% 24.1 4.2 C 58 Subtotal 1,205 1,194 99.1% 35.7 3.7 D 782 Left Turn 218 225 103.2% 58.5 12.7 E 241 Through 1,080 1,006 93.1% 19.1 4.0 B 352 Right Turn 179 169 94.4% 11.0 2.1 B 34 Subtotal 1,477 1,399 94.7% 24.5 4.9 C 628 Left Turn 158 155 97.9% 70.0 18.0 E 199 Through 396 395 99.7% 39.3 4.8 D 285 Right Turn 159 162 101.8% 20.5 5.0 C 61 Subtotal 713 712 99.8% 42.5 6.8 D 544 Left Turn 196 192 97.8% 94.1 13.9 F 331 Through 637 624 98.0% 84.7 20.6 F 970 Right Turn 254 245 96.3% 89.7 21.8 F 402 Subtotal 1,087 1,061 97.6% 87.6 19.3 F 1702 Total 4,482 4,366 97.4% 46.7 6.9 D 3656 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 153 98.7% 48.6 17.9 D 136 Through 107 102 95.7% 31.4 8.8 C 59 Right Turn 87 88 100.6% 23.6 10.4 C 38 Subtotal 349 343 98.3% 37.3 13.6 D 233 Left Turn 73 70 95.9% 22.1 5.6 C 28 Through 101 96 94.8% 17.6 3.0 B 31 Right Turn 51 53 103.9% 19.5 3.8 B 19 Subtotal 225 219 97.2% 19.4 2.5 B 78 Left Turn 61 60 98.7% 18.1 4.7 B 20 Through 508 500 98.3% 8.4 1.2 A 77 Right Turn 96 95 99.1% 9.5 1.9 A 17 Subtotal 665 655 98.5% 9.5 1.5 A 113 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 25.5 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 115.0% 17.2 17.7 B 1 Through 26 24 92.3% 24.4 5.6 C 11 Right Turn 35 34 97.1% 7.0 3.4 A 4 Subtotal 63 60 95.7% 14.9 4.5 B 16 Left Turn 36 36 98.9% 29.4 6.5 C 19 Through 22 24 106.8% 27.9 7.7 C 12 Right Turn 74 78 105.5% 18.2 8.9 B 26 Subtotal 132 137 103.9% 22.6 4.9 C 57 Left Turn 47 53 112.3% 19.6 5.8 B 19 Through 531 518 97.6% 5.2 1.5 A 50 Right Turn 6 6 93.3% 3.0 3.5 A 0 Subtotal 584 577 98.7% 6.6 1.6 A 69 Left Turn 39 40 101.8% 12.3 4.1 B 9 Through 622 584 93.8% 9.8 4.2 A 105 Right Turn 47 49 104.0% 10.8 5.5 B 10 Subtotal 708 672 94.9% 10.1 4.0 B 123 Total 1,487 1,446 97.3% 9.9 2.9 A 265 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 136 131 96.6% 32.9 5.8 C 79 Through 577 576 99.9% 23.1 2.7 C 244 Right Turn 129 128 99.1% 20.5 6.2 C 48 Subtotal 842 835 99.2% 24.1 2.7 C 371 Left Turn 106 106 99.8% 43.5 11.7 D 84 Through 768 756 98.4% 30.9 5.3 C 428 Right Turn 84 84 99.5% 28.5 6.9 C 44 Subtotal 958 945 98.6% 32.2 5.4 C 556 Left Turn 162 159 98.3% 82.4 62.6 F 241 Through 305 305 99.8% 60.5 47.5 E 338 Right Turn 121 120 98.8% 40.8 46.3 D 89 Subtotal 588 583 99.2% 63.1 53.4 E 668 Left Turn 178 165 92.7% 49.3 20.3 D 149 Through 319 308 96.4% 45.0 9.7 D 254 Right Turn 77 71 91.6% 12.3 5.5 B 16 Subtotal 574 543 94.6% 42.0 11.9 D 419 Total 2,962 2,907 98.1% 37.1 9.5 D 2014 43.8 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 80.0% 1.9 3.1 A 0 Through 322 329 102.1% 0.5 0.1 A 3 Right Turn 83 84 101.2% 1.0 0.2 A 1 Subtotal 407 415 101.8% 0.6 0.1 A 5 Left Turn 73 72 97.9% 4.6 0.9 A 6 Through 537 531 99.0% 0.5 0.1 A 5 Right Turn 7 5 64.3% 0.6 0.4 A 0 Subtotal 617 607 98.4% 1.0 0.3 A 11 Left Turn 2 2 115.0% 5.3 9.9 A 0 Through Right Turn 3 4 133.3% 6.9 8.6 A 1 Subtotal 5 6 126.0% 7.9 9.1 A 1 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 3 3 83.3% 13.3 15.1 0.7 Right Turn 5 5 98.0% 1.3 2.2 0.1 Subtotal 8 7 92.5% 6.4 6.7 0.8 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 6 6 91.7% 43.7 29.6 4.4 Through Right Turn 7 6 90.0% 23.8 21.2 2.8 Subtotal 13 12 90.8% 41.6 24.2 7.1 Total 23 19 83.5% 24.4 14.5 7.9 46.4 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 2 230.0% 45.7 86.5 0.8 Through 7 6 81.4% 4.2 7.5 0.5 Right Turn 3 1 20.0% 3.0 9.4 0.1 Subtotal 11 9 78.2% 41.5 59.7 1.4 Left Turn Through 5 3 64.0% 1.9 2.9 0.2 Right Turn 2 2 115.0% 3.9 5.3 0.1 Subtotal 7 6 78.6% 4.4 3.9 0.3 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 42.2 50.9 0.7 Through 36 35 95.8% 38.0 11.9 22.8 Right Turn Subtotal 37 36 96.5% 40.2 13.1 23.5 Left Turn 2 2 90.0% 47.6 48.3 1.6 Through 119 116 97.7% 41.9 11.2 83.2 Right Turn Subtotal 121 118 97.6% 42.6 11.6 84.8 Total 176 168 95.4% 40.71 8.4 109.98 42.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 2 1 50.0% 8.9 12.2 0 Through 9 6 63.3% 6.3 10.3 0.9 Right Turn 5 4 86.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 16 11 68.8% 8.6 10.8 1.2 Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 13.5 39.1 0.2 Through 3 2 53.3% 0.5 1.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 3 86.7% 1.1 3.5 0.1 Subtotal 7 5 70.0% 14.3 38.9 0.3 Left Turn 1 1 50.0% 9.4 29.8 0.2 Through 12 12 101.7% 56.0 26.8 11.2 Right Turn 1 1 80.0% 7.8 21.5 0.1 Subtotal 14 14 96.4% 50.4 22.1 11.5 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 46.2 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 9 6 63.3% 7.2 12.8 1.1 Right Turn Subtotal 9 6 63.3% 7.2 12.8 1.1 Left Turn Through 7 5 65.7% 3.5 6.9 0.4 Right Turn Subtotal 7 5 65.7% 3.5 6.9 0.4 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 7 86.3% 40.7 30.8 5.4 Through Right Turn 7 6 88.6% 11.6 11.8 1.3 Subtotal 15 13 87.3% 32.7 14.8 6.8 Total 31 23 75.5% 20.4 8.0 8.3 50.5 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 2 150.0% 20.3 25.4 0.3 Through 25 21 84.0% 24.7 12.1 10.3 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 1.1 1.8 0.0 Subtotal 27 24 87.0% 25.3 13.5 10.6 Left Turn Through 15 11 74.7% 12.8 11.3 3.2 Right Turn Subtotal 15 11 74.7% 12.8 11.3 3.2 Left Turn 9 8 84.4% 89.7 33.9 13.5 Through 2 2 80.0% 6.0 18.8 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 11 9 83.6% 87.2 36.5 13.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 53 44 82.8% 32.4 11.0 27.5 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 3 3 103.3% 22.5 20.6 1 Through 9 9 102.2% 14.9 12.5 2.2 Right Turn 4 4 97.5% 2.5 3.8 0.2 Subtotal 16 16 101.3% 15.6 11.9 3.5 Left Turn 5 6 116.0% 13.2 10.2 1.1 Through 8 7 87.5% 15.2 10.5 2.0 Right Turn 1 1 60.0% 2.5 5.4 0.0 Subtotal 14 13 95.7% 16.8 3.8 3.2 Left Turn 1 1 140.0% 8.8 15.3 0.1 Through 29 28 97.6% 13.4 4.5 6.5 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.1 0.4 0.0 Subtotal 31 31 99.0% 13.3 4.9 6.6 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 23.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 2 85.0% 0.0 0.1 0.0 Right Turn 2 2 120.0% 1.5 1.9 0.0 Subtotal 4 4 102.5% 1.5 1.9 0.0 Left Turn 3 3 83.3% 20.3 19.0 1.0 Through 12 12 101.7% 17.8 11.0 3.6 Right Turn 11 12 106.4% 1.5 3.1 0.3 Subtotal 26 26 101.5% 12.3 7.2 4.8 Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 38 38 101.1% 12.3 5.2 7.8 Right Turn Subtotal 39 39 100.3% 12.3 5.2 7.8 Left Turn Through 69 69 100.6% 10.4 4.9 11.9 Right Turn 4 3 77.5% 9.2 17.7 0.6 Subtotal 73 73 99.3% 10.5 4.7 12.5 Total 142 142 100.1% 11.4 3.6 25.2 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 2 1 55.0% 1.9 6.1 0.1 Right Turn 2 2 80.0% 6.1 12.5 0.2 Subtotal 5 3 68.0% 4.2 8.1 0.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 47 48 101.7% 28.8 6.2 22.6 Right Turn Subtotal 47 48 101.7% 28.8 6.2 22.6 Left Turn Through 47 49 103.4% 39.9 7.4 31.2 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 8.3 15.8 0.1 Subtotal 48 50 103.5% 39.4 7.6 31.4 Total 100 101 100.9% 32.3 5.7 54.2 32.2 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 44 44 99.1% 0.1 0.2 0.1 Right Turn 4 4 105.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 48 48 99.6% 0.1 0.2 0.1 Left Turn Through 29 26 88.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 29 26 88.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 11 10 90.0% 49.7 35.7 Subtotal 11 10 90.0% 49.7 35.7 Left Turn 1 2 180.0% 16.8 30.9 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 2 180.0% 16.8 30.9 Left Turn 13 12 90.8% 54.2 22.6 Through Right Turn Subtotal 13 12 90.8% 54.2 22.6 Left Turn Through Right Turn 39 39 100.3% 60.5 10.0 Subtotal 39 39 100.3% 60.5 10.0 Total 64 63 97.8% 58.6 8.0 61.1 63.3 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 120.0% 3.0 6.4 East Side 14 16 110.7% 54.1 27.0 Subtotal 15 17 111.3% 54.2 23.2 East Side 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 West Side 9 9 101.1% 63.1 31.3 Subtotal 10 10 98.0% 63.1 31.3 North Side 24 24 100.8% 59.0 17.0 South Side 15 15 102.7% 46.8 20.0 Subtotal 39 40 101.5% 54.7 12.2 South Side 31 33 107.7% 53.0 15.8 North Side 62 59 95.0% 58.3 12.5 Subtotal 93 92 99.2% 56.5 8.0 Total 157 158 100.9% 56.9 6.9 150.1 58.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 5 4 80.0% 48.4 37.8 East Side 3 3 96.7% 31.6 42.3 Subtotal 8 7 86.3% 59.6 33.2 East Side 4 4 105.0% 56.7 49.1 West Side 4 4 105.0% 34.2 37.6 Subtotal 8 8 105.0% 68.0 38.6 North Side 20 21 104.0% 63.3 11.3 South Side 14 13 91.4% 64.6 20.0 Subtotal 34 34 98.8% 62.8 10.8 South Side 68 72 106.0% 56.5 6.4 North Side 44 45 101.4% 53.8 11.0 Subtotal 112 117 104.2% 55.3 6.7 Total 162 166 102.2% 57.3 6.4 158.1 64.6 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St SB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 6 7 120.0% 32.2 30.4 Subtotal 6 7 120.0% 32.2 30.4 East Side 9 8 91.1% 41.4 36.2 West Side Subtotal 9 8 91.1% 41.4 36.2 North Side 5 5 92.0% 59.5 42.6 South Side Subtotal 5 5 92.0% 59.5 42.6 South Side North Side 5 5 90.0% 41.4 28.6 Subtotal 5 5 90.0% 41.4 28.6 Total 25 25 98.0% 46.0 14.0 18.8 52.8 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 8 8 97.5% 41.0 25.3 East Side 8 9 106.3% 86.9 37.3 Subtotal 16 16 101.9% 71.4 23.0 East Side 21 22 104.3% 56.6 16.8 West Side 10 12 115.0% 58.0 14.8 Subtotal 31 33 107.7% 58.6 10.7 North Side 3 3 86.7% 37.1 42.5 South Side 6 6 98.3% 29.3 29.0 Subtotal 9 9 94.4% 44.9 27.2 South Side 7 7 102.9% 85.8 66.2 North Side 8 7 90.0% 50.7 43.3 Subtotal 15 14 96.0% 95.9 53.5 Total 71 73 102.3% 67.5 11.7 81.6 91.1 Intersection 7 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 6 5 90.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 2 1 60.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 8 7 82.5% 0.0 0.0 East Side 1 2 190.0% 5.5 11.7 West Side 6 6 103.3% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 8 115.7% 4.1 8.9 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 15 15 98.0% 1.8 3.9 0.5 0.8 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 32 31 95.3% 46.0 23.9 East Side 19 19 97.4% 20.1 12.8 Subtotal 51 49 96.1% 36.7 14.8 East Side 42 42 100.5% 34.3 23.5 West Side 19 19 100.0% 25.4 10.9 Subtotal 61 61 100.3% 32.8 16.0 North Side 35 36 103.4% 29.9 6.3 South Side 37 39 105.4% 24.7 4.9 Subtotal 72 75 104.4% 27.3 3.7 South Side 32 33 102.8% 30.3 7.0 North Side 35 36 103.4% 29.9 6.3 Subtotal 55 58 106.2% 26.5 5.0 Total 239 244 102.0% 30.1 4.4 122.4 34.1 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 80.0% 1.2 3.0 East Side 2 2 95.0% 5.6 14.1 Subtotal 3 3 90.0% 4.2 10.4 East Side 7 8 107.1% 25.4 14.3 West Side 1 1 50.0% 11.7 21.2 Subtotal 8 8 100.0% 26.5 14.9 North Side 6 7 115.0% 16.5 14.0 South Side 8 8 98.8% 19.2 16.4 Subtotal 14 15 105.7% 19.1 11.2 South Side 6 6 93.3% 12.9 12.3 North Side 9 9 102.2% 23.4 17.2 Subtotal 15 15 98.7% 25.6 12.9 Total 40 40 100.8% 23.9 3.5 16.1 29.7 Intersection 10 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 0 40.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side Subtotal 1 0 40.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 3 4 126.7% 24.2 18.4 West Side Subtotal 3 4 126.7% 24.2 18.4 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 4 4 105.0% 20.7 15.6 1.5 21.3 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand NB SB EB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 7 8 111.4% 29.4 19.2 East Side 4 5 115.0% 44.3 84.0 Subtotal 11 12 112.7% 42.0 51.5 East Side 3 2 56.7% 18.5 31.0 West Side 9 9 104.4% 50.4 47.7 Subtotal 12 11 92.5% 61.9 40.3 North Side 5 4 70.0% 41.5 35.4 South Side 8 11 135.0% 47.9 20.2 Subtotal 13 14 110.0% 49.7 20.4 South Side 7 7 102.9% 44.5 22.3 North Side 7 6 91.4% 38.4 30.5 Subtotal 14 14 97.1% 43.0 10.4 Total 50 51 102.8% 51.1 20.3 43.8 50.4 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 3 2 70.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 2 2 80.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 5 4 74.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 2 3 135.0% 0.0 0.0 West Side 1 1 50.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 3 3 106.7% 0.0 0.0 North Side 2 1 70.0% 2.2 5.1 South Side 1 2 150.0% 0.5 1.7 Subtotal 3 3 96.7% 2.8 5.1 South Side North Side 1 1 60.0% 2.8 8.5 Subtotal 1 1 60.0% 2.8 8.5 Total 12 10 86.7% 1.4 2.5 0.2 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 19 2 95.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 19 2 95.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 73 2 100.0% 88.5 32.9 26.9 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 88.5 32.9 26.9 Total 4 92 4 97.5% 59.0 21.9 26.9 4.9 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 18 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 13.7 5.5 4.2 Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 13.7 5.5 4.2 Left Turn Through 11 211 11 99.1% 89.9 15.4 79.0 Right Turn Subtotal 11 211 11 99.1% 89.9 15.4 79.0 Left Turn Through 12 795 12 100.0% 90.1 26.5 298.4 Right Turn Subtotal 12 795 12 100.0% 90.1 26.5 298.4 Total 27 1,097 27 99.6% 73.0 11.1 381.6 95.5 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 78.4 37.4 5.9 Right Turn Subtotal 2 18 2 100.0% 78.4 37.4 5.9 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 60.3 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 16.0 12.8 5.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 16.0 12.8 5.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 199 4 100.0% 10.6 8.5 5.0 0.3 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 26 2 100.0% 16.4 5.1 1.8 Right Turn Subtotal 2 26 2 100.0% 16.4 5.1 1.8 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 99 2 100.0% 57.5 6.2 23.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 99 23.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 200 4 100.0% 10.9 3.4 25.5 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 365 6 100.0% 74.5 10.6 113.3 Subtotal 6 365 6 100.0% 74.5 10.6 113.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 68.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 199 6 98.3% 43.2 17.4 35.8 Subtotal 6 199 6 98.3% 43.2 17.4 35.8 Left Turn 5 71 5 100.0% 38.9 14.6 11.5 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 71 5 100.0% 38.9 14.6 11.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 316 6 100.0% 18.1 10.5 23.8 Subtotal 6 316 6 100.0% 18.1 10.5 23.8 Total 17 586 17 99.4% 33.5 7.3 71.2 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 14 1 100.0% 23.1 2.7 1.3 Right Turn Subtotal 1 14 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 1.3 Left Turn Through 1 13 1 100.0% 30.9 5.3 1.7 Right Turn Subtotal 1 13 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 1.7 Left Turn Through 5 71 5 100.0% 80.5 23.8 23.8 Right Turn Subtotal 5 71 5 100.0% 80.5 23.8 23.8 Left Turn Through 6 261 6 100.0% 80.8 19.6 87.9 Right Turn Subtotal 6 261 6 100.0% 80.8 19.6 87.9 Total 13 359 11 84.6% 71.7 14.2 114.7 87.3 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 6 6 6 100.0% 23.6 7.3 0.6 Right Turn Subtotal 6 6 6 100.0% 23.6 7.3 0.6 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 858 835 97.3% 8.8 2.9 A 135 Right Turn 428 417 97.4% 11.9 3.8 B 91 Subtotal 1,286 1,252 97.3% 9.9 3.0 A 226 Left Turn 99 94 94.5% 51.1 13.9 D 88 Through 971 933 96.1% 20.2 4.1 C 345 Right Turn Subtotal 1,070 1,027 96.0% 23.2 3.5 C 433 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 497 488 98.2% 81.9 26.2 F 733 Through Right Turn 154 151 98.1% 53.2 27.9 D 147 Subtotal 651 639 98.2% 74.5 26.7 E 881 Total 3,007 2,918 97.0% 28.3 6.9 C 1540 50.8 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 64 92.0% 206.8 174.7 F 244 Through 1,205 1,177 97.7% 5.9 4.3 A 127 Right Turn 56 52 93.6% 5.2 3.2 A 5 Subtotal 1,331 1,294 97.2% 13.6 8.5 B 376 Left Turn 18 18 98.3% 51.7 24.7 D 17 Through 1,390 1,341 96.5% 13.4 5.4 B 328 Right Turn 60 59 97.5% 14.3 8.9 B 15 Subtotal 1,468 1,417 96.5% 13.8 5.7 B 360 Left Turn 59 58 97.5% 49.9 9.2 D 53 Through 23 33 141.3% 55.5 12.4 E 33 Right Turn 61 56 91.0% 49.1 8.0 D 50 Subtotal 143 146 101.7% 50.8 6.8 D 136 Left Turn 56 49 86.8% 53.5 10.3 D 48 Through 24 32 131.3% 54.8 14.6 D 32 Right Turn 22 20 90.0% 19.2 11.5 B 7 Subtotal 102 100 97.9% 46.0 7.6 D 86 Total 3,044 2,957 97.1% 16.3 4.9 B 958 68.2 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 273 255 93.2% 94.8 25.9 F 442 Through 1,001 990 98.9% 36.9 15.9 D 669 Right Turn 57 56 98.2% 27.1 16.5 C 28 Subtotal 1,331 1,301 97.7% 48.3 17.7 D 1139 Left Turn 10 9 91.0% 44.9 24.4 D 7 Through 1,067 1,006 94.3% 33.4 8.9 C 616 Right Turn 430 415 96.4% 23.7 6.5 C 180 Subtotal 1,507 1,430 94.9% 30.7 7.8 C 804 Left Turn 324 306 94.4% 53.2 9.8 D 298 Through 48 48 100.8% 49.9 10.9 D 44 Right Turn 379 366 96.6% 43.9 9.0 D 295 Subtotal 751 720 95.9% 48.2 8.4 D 637 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 65.5 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,268 1,266 99.9% 2.9 0.7 A 66 Right Turn 52 54 103.5% 2.6 1.7 A 3 Subtotal 1,320 1,320 100.0% 2.8 0.7 A 69 Left Turn 92 87 94.8% 39.0 7.4 D 62 Through 1,360 1,290 94.8% 14.1 5.3 B 333 Right Turn Subtotal 1,452 1,377 94.8% 15.7 5.4 B 395 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 117 119 101.9% 52.2 10.1 D 114 Through Right Turn 157 155 98.5% 9.5 2.8 A 27 Subtotal 274 274 100.0% 29.3 7.0 C 141 Total 3,046 2,971 97.5% 11.6 2.8 B 605 57.7 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 160 154 96.2% 47.2 10.6 D 133 Through 908 909 100.1% 34.2 2.3 C 570 Right Turn 137 133 97.2% 23.0 4.0 C 56 Subtotal 1,205 1,196 99.2% 34.7 2.9 C 760 Left Turn 218 228 104.6% 48.4 7.7 D 202 Through 1,080 1,003 92.8% 21.6 4.4 C 397 Right Turn 179 168 94.1% 12.9 2.8 B 40 Subtotal 1,477 1,399 94.7% 24.9 4.3 C 639 Left Turn 158 162 102.2% 67.5 16.4 E 200 Through 396 393 99.3% 38.6 3.7 D 279 Right Turn 159 159 100.1% 17.5 2.3 B 51 Subtotal 713 714 100.1% 41.1 5.9 D 530 Left Turn 196 194 99.1% 92.8 12.8 F 330 Through 637 619 97.2% 81.6 12.2 F 927 Right Turn 254 248 97.4% 87.5 16.1 F 397 Subtotal 1,087 1,061 97.6% 85.2 12.5 F 1654 Total 4,482 4,370 97.5% 45.8 4.4 D 3583 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 144 92.8% 95.4 24.0 F 252 Through 107 100 93.8% 65.1 21.8 E 120 Right Turn 87 87 100.3% 56.4 22.7 E 90 Subtotal 349 332 95.0% 75.4 23.1 E 462 Left Turn 73 68 93.4% 67.0 14.8 E 84 Through 101 96 95.3% 52.0 17.8 D 92 Right Turn 51 55 107.3% 35.0 15.5 C 35 Subtotal 225 219 97.4% 52.1 15.6 D 211 Left Turn 61 57 94.1% 76.3 12.6 E 80 Through 508 487 95.8% 34.0 6.1 C 304 Right Turn 96 95 98.6% 25.6 6.8 C 44 Subtotal 665 639 96.1% 36.2 5.9 D 428 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 71.1 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 115.0% 15.8 22.9 B 1 Through 26 24 93.8% 26.5 6.6 C 12 Right Turn 35 33 94.0% 22.0 7.2 C 13 Subtotal 63 60 94.6% 24.5 3.5 C 26 Left Turn 36 36 99.7% 31.9 13.1 C 21 Through 22 24 107.3% 24.0 15.0 C 10 Right Turn 74 78 105.7% 23.6 6.1 C 34 Subtotal 132 138 104.3% 25.6 4.8 C 65 Left Turn 47 51 107.7% 67.8 26.8 E 63 Through 531 508 95.6% 14.9 4.3 B 139 Right Turn 6 6 100.0% 9.4 7.2 A 1 Subtotal 584 564 96.6% 19.9 6.5 B 203 Left Turn 39 40 101.8% 49.4 11.0 D 36 Through 622 581 93.4% 26.8 5.0 C 286 Right Turn 47 49 104.5% 26.7 4.3 C 24 Subtotal 708 670 94.6% 28.1 4.9 C 346 Total 1,487 1,431 96.2% 24.7 1.9 C 640 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 136 131 96.0% 52.7 18.6 D 126 Through 577 559 96.8% 50.0 20.5 D 512 Right Turn 129 127 98.2% 55.3 23.0 E 129 Subtotal 842 816 96.9% 51.2 20.2 D 767 Left Turn 106 97 91.6% 93.3 14.4 F 166 Through 768 704 91.7% 86.2 11.2 F 1113 Right Turn 84 75 89.8% 88.7 8.7 F 123 Subtotal 958 877 91.5% 87.5 9.8 F 1401 Left Turn 162 160 98.8% 62.5 14.7 E 183 Through 305 299 98.0% 43.4 10.8 D 238 Right Turn 121 115 95.4% 69.5 27.1 E 147 Subtotal 588 574 97.7% 54.2 13.1 D 568 Left Turn 178 160 89.8% 62.6 14.7 E 184 Through 319 304 95.2% 34.9 8.2 C 194 Right Turn 77 73 94.2% 43.0 6.6 D 57 Subtotal 574 536 93.4% 44.6 8.9 D 435 Total 2,962 2,803 94.6% 61.8 5.6 E 3171 54.4 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 1 70.0% 3.9 5.4 A 0 Through 322 326 101.4% 4.8 1.3 A 29 Right Turn 83 81 97.5% 4.3 0.9 A 6 Subtotal 407 409 100.4% 4.7 1.1 A 35 Left Turn 73 70 95.8% 6.4 2.5 A 8 Through 537 538 100.1% 6.0 1.3 A 59 Right Turn 7 6 78.6% 5.3 3.9 A 1 Subtotal 617 613 99.4% 6.0 1.3 A 68 Left Turn 2 2 100.0% 2.0 2.8 A 0 Through Right Turn 3 3 106.7% 4.9 6.8 A 0 Subtotal 5 5 104.0% 5.0 6.1 A 0 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 3 3 100.0% 7.5 8.7 0.4 Right Turn 5 5 100.0% 1.7 2.1 0.1 Subtotal 8 8 100.0% 5.8 5.4 0.5 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 6 5 90.0% 53.0 41.2 5.3 Through Right Turn 7 6 90.0% 27.1 26.5 3.2 Subtotal 13 12 90.0% 45.6 26.0 8.5 Total 23 20 85.7% 25.8 17.0 9.0 39.4 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 2 220.0% 71.5 135.4 1.2 Through 7 6 88.6% 4.8 6.8 0.6 Right Turn 3 1 23.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 11 9 82.7% 27.1 42.0 1.7 Left Turn Through 5 3 68.0% 3.3 8.6 0.3 Right Turn 2 2 105.0% 1.2 1.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 6 78.6% 2.9 4.3 0.3 Left Turn 1 1 120.0% 21.5 38.3 0.4 Through 36 35 97.2% 41.1 11.0 24.7 Right Turn Subtotal 37 36 97.8% 41.8 9.6 25.0 Left Turn 2 2 115.0% 32.6 39.0 1.1 Through 119 116 97.2% 42.2 8.0 83.7 Right Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 122 118 96.7% 42.8 8.1 84.8 Total 177 169 95.4% 40.93 6.8 111.90 42.5 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 9 6 68.9% 5.9 9.8 0.9 Right Turn 5 3 68.0% 1.7 5.4 0.1 Subtotal 16 10 60.0% 5.9 9.5 1.0 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 3 2 60.0% 10.7 21.9 0.5 Right Turn 3 3 96.7% 0.5 1.4 0.0 Subtotal 7 5 67.1% 7.9 15.4 0.6 Left Turn 1 1 110.0% 17.4 37.0 0.3 Through 12 13 110.8% 47.5 20.5 9.5 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 14 15 110.0% 45.4 21.7 9.8 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 51.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 9 6 68.9% 4.8 6.8 0.7 Right Turn Subtotal 9 6 68.9% 4.8 6.8 0.7 Left Turn Through 7 5 75.7% 8.0 10.8 0.9 Right Turn Subtotal 7 5 75.7% 8.0 10.8 0.9 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 7 85.0% 48.0 26.5 6.4 Through Right Turn 7 6 88.6% 7.8 9.9 0.9 Subtotal 15 13 86.7% 32.1 18.9 7.3 Total 31 25 79.0% 17.9 8.8 9.0 47.8 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 25 22 86.4% 30.8 11.6 12.8 Right Turn 1 1 90.0% 0.5 1.2 0.0 Subtotal 27 23 83.3% 29.4 10.9 12.9 Left Turn Through 15 12 79.3% 11.9 12.0 3.0 Right Turn Subtotal 15 12 79.3% 11.9 12.0 3.0 Left Turn 9 7 80.0% 90.3 34.0 13.5 Through 2 2 85.0% 15.4 24.5 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 11 9 80.9% 79.5 32.1 14.1 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 53 43 81.7% 33.0 9.0 29.9 Intersection 8City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 3 3 90.0% 27.0 40.7 1 Through 9 8 92.2% 14.4 11.6 2.2 Right Turn 4 4 100.0% 0.7 1.6 0.0 Subtotal 16 15 93.8% 16.4 14.1 3.6 Left Turn Through 8 7 87.5% 32.3 33.2 4.3 Right Turn 1 1 90.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 9 8 87.8% 31.3 33.0 4.3 Left Turn 1 1 110.0% 29.4 40.1 0.5 Through 29 29 100.0% 30.9 17.8 15.0 Right Turn 1 2 180.0% 0.1 0.4 0.0 Subtotal 31 32 102.9% 32.1 19.1 15.4 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 53.9 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 2 75.0% 0.4 1.2 0.0 Right Turn 2 2 105.0% 4.4 8.5 0.1 Subtotal 4 4 90.0% 4.6 8.4 0.2 Left Turn 3 4 116.7% 20.4 16.7 1.0 Through 12 12 97.5% 17.7 11.6 3.5 Right Turn 11 10 93.6% 11.4 6.3 2.1 Subtotal 26 26 98.1% 18.2 5.3 6.7 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 38 39 102.4% 11.4 7.5 7.2 Right Turn Subtotal 39 39 99.7% 11.4 7.5 7.2 Left Turn Through 69 69 99.9% 11.0 3.4 12.7 Right Turn 4 3 85.0% 5.0 9.1 0.3 Subtotal 73 72 99.0% 11.0 3.3 13.0 Total 142 140 98.8% 13.0 2.4 27.1 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 0 40.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 2 1 60.0% 18.0 26.5 0.6 Right Turn 2 2 85.0% 14.4 22.8 0.5 Subtotal 5 3 66.0% 24.1 24.2 1.1 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 47 48 101.9% 36.4 7.3 28.5 Right Turn Subtotal 47 48 101.9% 36.4 7.3 28.5 Left Turn Through 47 48 101.9% 41.2 5.1 32.2 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 9.4 19.8 0.2 Subtotal 48 49 102.1% 41.4 4.9 32.4 Total 100 100 100.2% 38.6 4.8 62.0 35.1 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 44 41 94.1% 1.6 1.1 1.2 Right Turn 4 5 117.5% 1.0 1.6 0.1 Subtotal 48 46 96.0% 1.6 1.1 1.2 Left Turn Through 29 25 84.8% 1.4 0.9 0.7 Right Turn Subtotal 29 25 84.8% 1.4 0.9 0.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 11 10 87.3% 47.4 34.0 Subtotal 11 10 87.3% 47.4 34.0 Left Turn 1 2 160.0% 17.0 31.0 Through Right Turn Subtotal 1 2 160.0% 17.0 31.0 Left Turn 13 13 101.5% 56.1 23.1 Through Right Turn Subtotal 13 13 101.5% 56.1 23.1 Left Turn Through Right Turn 39 38 96.7% 61.3 11.1 Subtotal 39 38 96.7% 61.3 11.1 Total 64 62 97.0% 57.1 7.2 59.1 61.9 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 80.0% 1.4 4.6 East Side 14 14 98.6% 66.0 28.3 Subtotal 15 15 97.3% 67.4 24.7 East Side 1 1 90.0% 8.9 28.1 West Side 9 9 103.3% 75.6 23.2 Subtotal 10 10 102.0% 75.9 23.2 North Side 24 25 105.0% 54.9 14.3 South Side 15 14 95.3% 48.7 21.7 Subtotal 39 40 101.3% 53.8 12.2 South Side 31 32 102.3% 56.6 15.8 North Side 62 58 94.2% 54.7 12.3 Subtotal 93 90 96.9% 55.3 7.8 Total 157 154 98.3% 57.6 6.1 148.1 59.6 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 5 5 94.0% 60.5 38.6 East Side 3 3 113.3% 40.3 43.6 Subtotal 8 8 101.3% 68.0 34.0 East Side 4 3 85.0% 50.5 55.8 West Side 4 4 90.0% 40.4 37.5 Subtotal 8 7 87.5% 80.9 28.0 North Side 20 21 103.0% 60.7 9.5 South Side 14 13 93.6% 59.2 19.9 Subtotal 34 34 99.1% 59.2 10.8 South Side 68 71 104.6% 49.1 8.0 North Side 44 43 96.6% 54.6 15.5 Subtotal 112 114 101.4% 51.5 5.9 Total 162 162 100.2% 55.0 4.8 149.0 60.7 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St SB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 6 6 103.3% 29.2 30.0 Subtotal 6 6 103.3% 29.2 30.0 East Side 9 9 104.4% 46.0 29.0 West Side Subtotal 9 9 104.4% 46.0 29.0 North Side 5 4 80.0% 36.5 44.2 South Side Subtotal 5 4 80.0% 36.5 44.2 South Side North Side 5 6 110.0% 40.2 27.7 Subtotal 5 6 110.0% 40.2 27.7 Total 25 25 100.4% 42.5 14.5 17.8 51.6 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 8 8 103.8% 56.3 30.8 East Side 8 8 105.0% 102.4 45.3 Subtotal 16 17 104.4% 85.2 26.2 East Side 21 22 104.8% 52.2 17.3 West Side 10 11 109.0% 54.3 27.2 Subtotal 31 33 106.1% 55.2 10.1 North Side 3 2 66.7% 43.3 46.6 South Side 6 7 110.0% 41.1 31.4 Subtotal 9 9 95.6% 48.2 29.3 South Side 7 6 88.6% 44.2 39.0 North Side 8 9 111.3% 66.6 34.8 Subtotal 15 15 100.7% 68.4 23.0 Total 71 73 103.2% 63.4 9.6 77.5 86.2 Intersection 7 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 6 6 95.0% 0.0 0.0 East Side 2 2 90.0% 0.3 0.8 Subtotal 8 8 93.8% 0.2 0.8 East Side 1 2 170.0% 6.3 11.5 West Side 6 6 93.3% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 7 104.3% 3.0 5.8 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 15 15 98.7% 1.8 3.4 0.5 6.3 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 32 32 99.1% 60.1 21.2 East Side 19 20 105.8% 60.3 17.4 Subtotal 51 52 101.6% 59.3 18.5 East Side 42 41 97.6% 52.8 15.6 West Side 19 17 90.0% 55.2 15.0 Subtotal 61 58 95.2% 54.5 5.9 North Side 35 37 104.6% 59.2 11.2 South Side 37 36 98.4% 56.7 8.8 Subtotal 72 73 101.4% 58.2 6.8 South Side 32 34 105.9% 53.2 14.5 North Side 35 37 104.6% 59.2 11.2 Subtotal 55 60 109.3% 56.5 7.8 Total 239 243 101.7% 57.4 4.4 232.7 61.1 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 110.0% 13.4 22.9 East Side 2 3 135.0% 14.1 19.7 Subtotal 3 4 126.7% 15.7 21.1 East Side 7 7 94.3% 32.3 19.1 West Side 1 0 40.0% 6.0 16.3 Subtotal 8 7 87.5% 31.6 19.0 North Side 6 5 88.3% 16.7 15.7 South Side 8 8 103.8% 12.8 10.1 Subtotal 14 14 97.1% 18.9 10.9 South Side 6 6 93.3% 17.0 15.3 North Side 9 10 111.1% 16.2 17.3 Subtotal 15 16 104.0% 21.1 12.5 Total 40 40 100.0% 23.2 4.9 15.5 22.4 Intersection 10 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 80.0% 10.6 20.8 East Side Subtotal 1 1 80.0% 10.6 20.8 East Side 3 3 90.0% 18.5 25.1 West Side Subtotal 3 3 90.0% 18.5 25.1 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 4 4 87.5% 21.6 19.1 1.3 14.7 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand NB SB EB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 7 7 94.3% 27.1 25.4 East Side 4 4 87.5% 21.6 27.0 Subtotal 11 10 91.8% 30.2 23.1 East Side 3 3 93.3% 23.6 33.5 West Side 9 9 104.4% 39.0 20.8 Subtotal 12 12 101.7% 41.5 20.3 North Side 5 4 78.0% 26.8 35.3 South Side 8 10 122.5% 36.5 23.0 Subtotal 13 14 105.4% 49.0 14.2 South Side 7 7 94.3% 38.7 23.1 North Side 7 8 112.9% 45.5 22.1 Subtotal 14 15 103.6% 43.7 11.8 Total 50 51 101.0% 41.5 9.2 34.9 48.2 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 3 3 83.3% 0.8 2.5 East Side 2 2 90.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 5 4 86.0% 0.8 2.5 East Side 2 2 95.0% 0.0 0.0 West Side 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 3 3 96.7% 0.0 0.0 North Side 2 2 110.0% 0.0 0.0 South Side 1 1 70.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 3 3 96.7% 0.0 0.0 South Side North Side 1 1 120.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 1 1 120.0% 0.0 0.0 Total 12 11 94.2% 0.3 1.0 0.1 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 73 2 100.0% 98.4 43.2 29.9 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 98.4 43.2 29.9 Total 4 92 4 100.0% 65.6 28.8 29.9 2.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 1.5 1.5 0.1 Right Turn Subtotal 2 18 2 100.0% 1.5 1.5 0.1 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 11 211 11 100.0% 94.9 4.2 83.4 Right Turn Subtotal 11 211 11 100.0% 94.9 4.2 83.4 Left Turn Through 12 795 12 98.3% 64.9 5.1 214.9 Right Turn Subtotal 12 795 12 98.3% 64.9 5.1 214.9 Total 27 1,097 27 99.3% 60.0 2.8 298.4 94.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 62.8 9.0 4.7 Right Turn Subtotal 2 18 2 100.0% 62.8 9.0 4.7 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Volume and Delay by Movement 62.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 21.0 12.6 6.6 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 21.0 12.6 6.6 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 199 4 100.0% 14.0 8.4 6.6 1.6 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 26 2 100.0% 20.5 6.3 2.2 Right Turn Subtotal 2 26 2 100.0% 20.5 6.3 2.2 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn 2 99 2 100.0% 57.5 6.2 23.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 99 23.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 200 4 100.0% 13.6 4.2 25.9 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 365 6 100.0% 47.3 18.4 72.0 Subtotal 6 365 6 100.0% 47.3 18.4 72.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs Traffic Calming Volume and Delay by Movement 31.9 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 199 6 100.0% 6.6 7.4 5.5 Subtotal 6 199 6 100.0% 6.6 7.4 5.5 Left Turn 5 74 5 100.0% 44.4 24.7 13.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 74 5 100.0% 44.4 24.7 13.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn 6 316 6 100.0% 23.6 12.4 31.1 Subtotal 6 316 6 100.0% 23.6 12.4 31.1 Total 17 589 17 100.0% 25.6 7.1 50.3 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 14 1 100.0% 50.0 20.5 2.9 Right Turn Subtotal 1 14 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 2.9 Left Turn Through 1 13 1 100.0% 86.2 11.2 4.7 Right Turn Subtotal 1 13 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 4.7 Left Turn Through 5 71 5 100.0% 71.6 16.5 21.2 Right Turn Subtotal 5 71 5 100.0% 71.6 16.5 21.2 Left Turn Through 6 261 6 100.0% 62.1 25.1 67.6 Right Turn Subtotal 6 261 6 100.0% 62.1 25.1 67.6 Total 13 359 11 84.6% 59.8 14.4 96.3 66.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 6 6 6 100.0% 20.9 14.4 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 6 6 6 100.0% 20.9 14.4 0.5 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 858 826 96.3% 8.3 2.2 A 125 Right Turn 428 415 97.0% 9.5 2.0 A 72 Subtotal 1,286 1,241 96.5% 8.7 1.9 A 197 Left Turn 99 94 95.4% 49.3 12.7 D 85 Through 971 938 96.6% 20.9 4.9 C 359 Right Turn Subtotal 1,070 1,032 96.5% 23.6 4.3 C 444 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 497 494 99.3% 83.6 26.8 F 757 Through Right Turn 154 149 96.9% 55.8 29.8 E 153 Subtotal 651 643 98.7% 76.6 27.6 E 909 Total 3,007 2,916 97.0% 28.6 7.4 C 1551 56.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 61 86.9% 191.4 105.6 F 213 Through 1,205 1,167 96.8% 4.1 1.7 A 88 Right Turn 56 55 98.6% 2.8 1.4 A 3 Subtotal 1,331 1,283 96.4% 10.7 4.3 B 304 Left Turn 18 17 93.3% 37.6 16.3 D 12 Through 1,390 1,351 97.2% 16.2 6.2 B 401 Right Turn 60 57 95.5% 16.2 9.5 B 17 Subtotal 1,468 1,425 97.1% 16.4 6.3 B 430 Left Turn 59 56 95.4% 51.3 10.3 D 53 Through 23 28 121.7% 51.4 14.8 D 26 Right Turn 61 56 92.3% 51.8 7.9 D 53 Subtotal 143 141 98.3% 51.1 6.4 D 133 Left Turn 56 61 108.0% 57.3 12.5 E 64 Through 24 20 82.9% 47.9 17.4 D 17 Right Turn 22 20 88.6% 22.2 10.6 C 8 Subtotal 102 100 97.9% 48.2 10.4 D 89 Total 3,044 2,948 96.8% 16.4 4.7 B 956 65.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 273 259 95.0% 93.2 22.0 F 443 Through 1,001 980 97.9% 30.5 10.2 C 547 Right Turn 57 57 100.7% 26.3 13.4 C 28 Subtotal 1,331 1,297 97.4% 42.3 12.3 D 1018 Left Turn 10 9 94.0% 47.3 28.2 D 8 Through 1,067 1,008 94.5% 44.1 6.6 D 815 Right Turn 430 428 99.6% 32.7 5.6 C 256 Subtotal 1,507 1,446 95.9% 40.8 5.8 D 1080 Left Turn 324 307 94.7% 77.2 11.1 E 434 Through 48 45 93.3% 78.9 14.2 E 65 Right Turn 379 357 94.3% 70.9 8.7 E 464 Subtotal 751 709 94.4% 74.1 9.3 E 964 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 66.1 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,268 1,264 99.7% 2.7 0.2 A 62 Right Turn 52 54 103.3% 2.4 1.0 A 2 Subtotal 1,320 1,318 99.8% 2.7 0.2 A 64 Left Turn 92 90 97.6% 34.0 8.0 C 56 Through 1,360 1,286 94.6% 13.6 4.0 B 321 Right Turn Subtotal 1,452 1,376 94.8% 15.0 4.1 B 377 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 117 121 103.1% 51.4 8.2 D 114 Through Right Turn 157 154 98.0% 10.4 3.9 B 29 Subtotal 274 274 100.1% 28.2 5.3 C 143 Total 3,046 2,968 97.4% 11.0 2.1 B 584 55.7 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 160 155 96.7% 52.7 8.0 D 150 Through 908 906 99.8% 35.4 2.3 D 588 Right Turn 137 133 97.2% 23.1 3.6 C 56 Subtotal 1,205 1,194 99.1% 36.4 2.6 D 793 Left Turn 218 226 103.5% 52.8 10.3 D 218 Through 1,080 1,005 93.1% 21.2 4.6 C 391 Right Turn 179 171 95.5% 13.3 2.9 B 42 Subtotal 1,477 1,402 94.9% 25.3 5.4 C 651 Left Turn 158 159 100.7% 68.5 16.5 E 200 Through 396 395 99.7% 39.6 3.2 D 287 Right Turn 159 160 100.3% 18.3 2.6 B 53 Subtotal 713 714 100.1% 41.4 5.8 D 540 Left Turn 196 193 98.7% 93.6 17.0 F 332 Through 637 623 97.8% 82.5 15.2 F 942 Right Turn 254 248 97.7% 86.3 18.5 F 393 Subtotal 1,087 1,065 98.0% 85.6 15.7 F 1667 Total 4,482 4,375 97.6% 46.8 5.5 D 3652 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 147 94.6% 51.2 10.6 D 137 Through 107 94 87.9% 65.0 14.4 E 112 Right Turn 87 84 97.0% 64.0 13.9 E 99 Subtotal 349 325 93.2% 58.5 11.3 E 349 Left Turn 73 71 97.3% 30.4 5.7 C 40 Through 101 98 97.4% 47.3 10.9 D 85 Right Turn 51 48 94.5% 26.0 10.9 C 23 Subtotal 225 218 96.7% 37.7 6.9 D 148 Left Turn 61 57 93.0% 85.8 11.8 F 89 Through 508 482 94.9% 36.2 5.0 D 320 Right Turn 96 97 101.1% 13.6 3.5 B 24 Subtotal 665 636 95.6% 37.3 5.4 D 433 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 80.3 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 95.0% 12.2 18.5 B 0 Through 26 23 89.6% 19.1 9.3 B 8 Right Turn 35 33 93.1% 23.2 7.8 C 14 Subtotal 63 58 91.7% 22.5 5.0 C 22 Left Turn 36 37 102.2% 26.1 8.8 C 18 Through 22 22 100.5% 28.4 9.3 C 12 Right Turn 74 76 103.2% 25.2 5.4 C 35 Subtotal 132 135 102.5% 26.1 3.8 C 64 Left Turn 47 44 94.3% 34.6 7.4 C 28 Through 531 508 95.6% 14.2 3.3 B 132 Right Turn 6 7 110.0% 16.1 11.7 B 2 Subtotal 584 559 95.6% 15.8 3.1 B 162 Left Turn 39 40 103.3% 40.9 6.8 D 30 Through 622 584 93.9% 19.7 9.3 B 211 Right Turn 47 51 107.7% 13.7 10.9 B 13 Subtotal 708 675 95.4% 20.4 9.0 C 254 Total 1,487 1,427 95.9% 19.1 4.6 B 502 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 136 131 96.0% 54.2 17.2 D 130 Through 577 563 97.6% 48.6 18.4 D 502 Right Turn 129 125 96.7% 51.4 17.8 D 118 Subtotal 842 818 97.2% 50.0 17.7 D 749 Left Turn 106 93 87.9% 104.2 25.6 F 178 Through 768 712 92.7% 89.3 8.3 F 1165 Right Turn 84 75 88.9% 92.9 9.8 F 127 Subtotal 958 880 91.8% 91.6 9.8 F 1470 Left Turn 162 159 98.0% 73.5 24.1 E 214 Through 305 298 97.7% 52.6 24.0 D 287 Right Turn 121 118 97.3% 81.0 35.0 F 175 Subtotal 588 575 97.7% 64.9 26.2 E 676 Left Turn 178 161 90.7% 65.4 14.1 E 193 Through 319 307 96.2% 31.8 6.5 C 179 Right Turn 77 72 93.8% 42.1 9.5 D 56 Subtotal 574 540 94.1% 43.8 7.5 D 428 Total 2,962 2,813 95.0% 64.7 8.3 E 3323 54.5 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 95.0% 5.5 7.1 A 0 Through 322 327 101.6% 5.2 1.4 A 31 Right Turn 83 82 98.7% 4.3 0.9 A 6 Subtotal 407 411 100.9% 5.1 1.2 A 38 Left Turn 73 70 95.9% 6.2 2.7 A 8 Through 537 542 100.9% 6.2 1.5 A 62 Right Turn 7 6 82.9% 5.3 5.2 A 1 Subtotal 617 618 100.1% 6.2 1.5 A 70 Left Turn 2 2 100.0% 2.0 3.6 A 0 Through Right Turn 3 3 103.3% 6.8 7.8 A 0 Subtotal 5 5 102.0% 6.4 7.2 A 0 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 3 3 96.7% 6.0 9.1 0.3 Right Turn 5 5 90.0% 1.8 3.1 0.1 Subtotal 8 7 92.5% 5.1 5.7 0.4 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 6 6 96.7% 49.8 34.0 5.0 Through Right Turn 7 6 88.6% 25.6 14.3 3.0 Subtotal 13 12 92.3% 42.7 19.3 8.0 Total 23 19 84.3% 24.7 12.8 8.4 44.1 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 3 300.0% 58.3 122.9 1.0 Through 7 6 82.9% 6.4 8.6 0.7 Right Turn 3 1 26.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 11 10 87.3% 56.4 119.7 1.7 Left Turn Through 5 4 76.0% 3.7 5.1 0.3 Right Turn 2 2 105.0% 1.3 1.6 0.0 Subtotal 7 6 84.3% 3.9 4.1 0.4 Left Turn 1 1 100.0% 21.0 38.6 0.4 Through 36 35 96.9% 40.9 11.5 24.5 Right Turn Subtotal 37 36 97.0% 42.1 10.6 24.9 Left Turn 2 2 115.0% 30.1 40.0 1.0 Through 119 116 97.1% 42.3 8.4 83.9 Right Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 122 118 96.6% 43.0 8.7 84.9 Total 177 169 95.6% 40.97 6.5 111.84 43.5 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 2 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 9 6 64.4% 6.4 8.6 1.0 Right Turn 5 4 76.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 16 10 60.0% 3.0 3.4 1.0 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 3 2 63.3% 2.1 4.5 0.1 Right Turn 3 3 86.7% 0.7 1.5 0.0 Subtotal 7 5 64.3% 1.6 2.4 0.1 Left Turn 1 1 100.0% 15.4 29.2 0.3 Through 12 14 117.5% 61.5 21.3 12.3 Right Turn 1 1 70.0% 4.8 15.1 0.1 Subtotal 14 16 112.9% 61.0 19.3 12.6 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 51.2 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 9 6 64.4% 2.7 4.6 0.4 Right Turn Subtotal 9 6 64.4% 2.7 4.6 0.4 Left Turn Through 7 5 70.0% 2.6 4.6 0.3 Right Turn Subtotal 7 5 70.0% 2.6 4.6 0.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 8 7 86.3% 38.0 18.1 5.1 Through Right Turn 7 6 84.3% 10.3 8.9 1.2 Subtotal 15 13 85.3% 29.2 11.0 6.3 Total 31 24 75.8% 17.5 8.2 7.0 37.7 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0 Through 25 22 86.0% 22.8 12.9 9.5 Right Turn 1 1 140.0% 0.7 1.5 0.0 Subtotal 27 23 84.8% 21.8 12.8 9.5 Left Turn Through 15 12 76.7% 8.9 8.5 2.2 Right Turn Subtotal 15 12 76.7% 8.9 8.5 2.2 Left Turn 9 7 82.2% 74.1 41.0 11.1 Through 2 2 75.0% 19.8 29.5 0.7 Right Turn Subtotal 11 9 80.9% 75.1 36.3 11.8 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 53 43 81.7% 28.5 11.3 23.5 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 3 3 103.3% 33.3 26.7 2 Through 9 8 92.2% 51.3 24.2 7.7 Right Turn 4 4 87.5% 29.3 34.0 2.0 Subtotal 16 15 93.1% 47.1 20.0 11.3 Left Turn 5 6 128.0% 34.7 32.8 2.9 Through 8 6 77.5% 38.6 59.1 5.1 Right Turn 1 1 130.0% 10.1 19.4 0.2 Subtotal 14 14 99.3% 37.5 25.3 8.2 Left Turn 1 1 90.0% 17.9 37.8 0.3 Through 29 30 104.8% 24.5 7.6 11.9 Right Turn 1 2 190.0% 7.3 21.0 0.1 Subtotal 31 33 107.1% 25.9 10.1 12.3 Vissim Post‐Processor Bicycle PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 89.3 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 2 80.0% 4.6 10.0 0.2 Right Turn 2 2 95.0% 2.6 5.4 0.1 Subtotal 4 4 87.5% 6.2 9.1 0.2 Left Turn 3 4 136.7% 21.7 15.8 1.1 Through 12 12 96.7% 21.6 9.6 4.3 Right Turn 11 10 92.7% 12.3 14.1 2.3 Subtotal 26 26 99.6% 21.4 10.9 7.7 Left Turn 1 1 70.0% 3.2 10.1 0.1 Through 38 39 102.6% 9.7 7.8 6.2 Right Turn Subtotal 39 40 101.8% 10.1 7.9 6.2 Left Turn Through 69 71 102.2% 15.7 5.2 18.0 Right Turn 4 4 90.0% 11.2 14.7 0.7 Subtotal 73 74 101.5% 15.9 5.3 18.8 Total 142 143 100.8% 15.3 3.1 32.9 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn 1 1 50.0% 1.7 5.4 0 Through 2 1 60.0% 14.2 25.4 0.5 Right Turn 2 2 80.0% 24.7 39.2 0.8 Subtotal 5 3 66.0% 33.6 35.8 1.3 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 47 47 99.4% 35.3 7.2 27.6 Right Turn Subtotal 47 47 99.4% 35.3 7.2 27.6 Left Turn Through 47 47 99.4% 40.4 14.0 31.7 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 17.6 29.0 0.3 Subtotal 48 48 99.6% 41.3 13.9 32.0 Total 100 98 97.8% 38.5 8.0 60.9 36.7 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 44 42 94.5% 0.8 0.3 0.6 Right Turn 4 5 122.5% 0.7 1.3 0.0 Subtotal 48 47 96.9% 0.8 0.3 0.7 Left Turn Through 29 25 87.6% 1.0 0.7 0.5 Right Turn Subtotal 29 25 87.6% 1.0 0.7 0.5 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 11 10 89.1% 51.9 11.8 Subtotal 11 10 89.1% 51.9 11.8 East Side 1 1 120.0% 13.7 29.5 West Side Subtotal 1 1 120.0% 13.7 29.5 North Side 13 14 106.9% 58.0 23.0 South Side Subtotal 13 14 106.9% 58.0 23.0 South Side North Side 39 38 96.4% 64.5 20.7 Subtotal 39 38 96.4% 64.5 20.7 Total 64 63 97.7% 58.0 9.5 60.5 64.5 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 70.0% 7.3 18.7 East Side 14 13 95.0% 60.6 30.9 Subtotal 15 14 93.3% 62.3 27.7 East Side 1 1 100.0% 9.0 28.5 West Side 9 10 105.6% 65.4 32.4 Subtotal 10 11 105.0% 65.7 32.5 North Side 24 25 103.8% 49.7 14.8 South Side 15 14 94.0% 45.3 19.9 Subtotal 39 39 100.0% 49.5 11.4 South Side 31 31 99.0% 52.3 19.2 North Side 62 58 93.9% 55.5 12.2 Subtotal 93 89 95.6% 55.3 8.0 Total 157 152 97.1% 55.5 6.9 141.1 58.1 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 5 5 104.0% 56.4 34.7 East Side 3 3 110.0% 29.7 41.8 Subtotal 8 9 106.3% 67.1 30.9 East Side 4 4 90.0% 54.1 52.9 West Side 4 4 107.5% 42.7 35.8 Subtotal 8 8 98.8% 79.2 28.2 North Side 20 19 97.0% 60.2 9.4 South Side 14 13 93.6% 62.3 20.0 Subtotal 34 33 95.6% 60.1 10.3 South Side 68 68 100.3% 50.6 9.2 North Side 44 42 95.9% 55.5 9.0 Subtotal 112 110 98.6% 52.9 4.4 Total 162 159 98.3% 56.1 3.0 148.9 62.3 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side East Side 6 5 90.0% 27.4 31.3 Subtotal 6 5 90.0% 27.4 31.3 East Side 9 10 110.0% 47.9 26.1 West Side Subtotal 9 10 110.0% 47.9 26.1 North Side 5 4 80.0% 33.0 45.5 South Side Subtotal 5 4 80.0% 33.0 45.5 South Side North Side 5 5 106.0% 39.4 30.3 Subtotal 5 5 106.0% 39.4 30.3 Total 25 25 98.4% 42.4 14.9 17.4 45.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 8 8 103.8% 59.8 32.4 East Side 8 9 106.3% 96.2 53.0 Subtotal 16 17 105.0% 82.9 30.8 East Side 21 22 103.8% 55.3 17.1 West Side 10 10 102.0% 54.2 28.2 Subtotal 31 32 103.2% 56.3 10.8 North Side 3 3 96.7% 47.3 44.4 South Side 6 7 111.7% 45.6 30.9 Subtotal 9 10 106.7% 54.1 25.1 South Side 7 6 84.3% 38.6 41.2 North Side 8 8 97.5% 62.7 31.1 Subtotal 15 14 91.3% 68.5 23.0 Total 71 72 101.5% 64.4 10.4 77.4 74.6 Intersection 7 Ped Crossing/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 6 6 91.7% 0.0 0.1 East Side 2 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 8 8 93.8% 0.0 0.1 East Side 1 2 160.0% 4.7 8.2 West Side 6 5 88.3% 0.1 0.1 Subtotal 7 7 98.6% 2.6 4.3 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 15 14 96.0% 1.3 2.2 0.3 4.7 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 32 33 103.4% 56.4 9.6 East Side 19 21 111.6% 65.2 18.2 Subtotal 51 54 106.5% 61.4 12.2 East Side 42 43 102.4% 58.3 9.4 West Side 19 15 80.5% 61.0 26.5 Subtotal 61 58 95.6% 57.8 9.6 North Side 35 37 105.1% 57.7 9.6 South Side 37 38 103.0% 60.9 6.1 Subtotal 72 75 104.0% 59.5 5.9 South Side 32 35 108.8% 57.8 11.9 North Side 35 37 105.1% 57.7 9.6 Subtotal 55 59 107.8% 58.2 8.8 Total 239 247 103.3% 58.8 4.2 241.8 67.3 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 100.0% 8.6 14.1 East Side 2 3 140.0% 24.2 24.8 Subtotal 3 4 126.7% 19.6 19.5 East Side 7 7 97.1% 33.8 18.2 West Side 1 1 50.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 8 7 91.3% 33.8 18.2 North Side 6 5 80.0% 5.6 7.5 South Side 8 9 108.8% 19.0 12.7 Subtotal 14 14 96.4% 18.2 11.4 South Side 6 6 93.3% 20.3 19.5 North Side 9 9 102.2% 14.9 10.9 Subtotal 15 15 98.7% 20.4 10.0 Total 40 39 98.5% 22.6 6.0 14.9 21.4 Intersection 10 Ped Signal/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 1 1 90.0% 13.7 21.3 East Side Subtotal 1 1 90.0% 13.7 21.3 East Side 3 3 90.0% 18.0 24.3 West Side Subtotal 3 3 90.0% 18.0 24.3 North Side South Side Subtotal South Side North Side Subtotal Total 4 4 90.0% 23.4 17.7 1.4 14.8 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand NB SB EB Vissim Post‐Processor Crosswalk PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 7 7 95.7% 19.4 22.0 East Side 4 4 95.0% 23.7 30.4 Subtotal 11 11 95.5% 30.6 25.0 East Side 3 3 106.7% 22.6 32.1 West Side 9 10 105.6% 45.1 24.8 Subtotal 12 13 105.8% 46.9 24.9 North Side 5 4 82.0% 29.1 34.3 South Side 8 9 112.5% 35.1 23.7 Subtotal 13 13 100.8% 48.0 16.1 South Side 7 7 94.3% 32.5 23.2 North Side 7 8 117.1% 40.0 26.0 Subtotal 14 15 105.7% 39.1 13.6 Total 50 51 102.2% 40.5 9.3 34.5 45.9 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Demand Direction Movement Volume (pph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. West Side 3 3 86.7% 1.3 4.1 East Side 2 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 5 5 92.0% 1.3 4.1 East Side 2 2 90.0% 0.0 0.0 West Side 1 1 120.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 3 3 100.0% 0.0 0.0 North Side 2 3 125.0% 0.0 0.0 South Side 1 1 60.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 3 3 103.3% 0.0 0.0 South Side North Side 1 1 130.0% 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 1 1 130.0% 0.0 0.0 Total 12 12 100.0% 0.5 1.6 0.1 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 2 19 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 2 73 2 100.0% 101.3 42.1 30.8 Through Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 101.3 42.1 30.8 Total 4 92 4 100.0% 67.5 28.1 30.8 2.5 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 1.6 1.6 0.1 Right Turn 5 71 4 84.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 7 89 6 88.6% 1.6 1.6 0.1 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 6 211 6 100.0% 89.0 15.8 78.2 Right Turn Subtotal 6 211 6 100.0% 89.0 15.8 78.2 Left Turn 12 795 12 99.2% 72.9 9.0 241.6 Through Right Turn Subtotal 12 795 12 99.2% 72.9 9.0 241.6 Total 27 1,168 26 96.7% 62.8 5.7 320.0 89.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 18 2 100.0% 64.4 11.8 4.8 Right Turn Subtotal 2 18 2 100.0% 64.4 11.8 4.8 Left Turn Through 2 73 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 12 455 12 99.2% 17.2 13.7 32.6 Subtotal 14 528 14 99.3% 17.2 13.7 32.6 Left Turn 5 71 4 84.0% 95.5 22.7 28.3 Through Right Turn Subtotal 5 71 4 84.0% 95.5 22.7 28.3 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 59.5 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 124 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 100.0% 18.4 14.0 5.8 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 100.0% 18.4 14.0 5.8 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 199 4 100.0% 12.3 9.4 5.8 1.6 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 26 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Left Turn Through 2 75 2 95.0% 17.1 32.6 5.4 Right Turn Subtotal 2 75 2 95.0% 17.1 32.6 5.4 Left Turn 2 99 2 100.0% 57.5 6.2 23.7 Through Right Turn Subtotal 99 23.7 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 200 4 97.5% 11.4 21.7 29.1 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 5 71 5 100.0% 38.8 20.9 11.5 Right Turn Subtotal 5 71 5 100.0% 38.8 20.9 11.5 Vissim Post‐Processor Transit PM Peak Average Results from 10 Runs MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement 20.6 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 5 74 5 100.0% 45.1 10.1 13.9 Right Turn Subtotal 5 74 5 100.0% 45.1 10.1 13.9 Left Turn Through 6 199 6 100.0% 16.6 4.8 13.7 Right Turn 6 316 6 100.0% 19.3 10.2 25.4 Subtotal 12 515 12 100.0% 18.4 6.6 39.1 Total 17 589 17 100.0% 27.7 4.5 53.0 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through 1 14 1 100.0% 48.6 18.4 2.8 Right Turn Subtotal 1 14 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 2.8 Left Turn Through 1 13 1 100.0% 89.3 8.3 4.8 Right Turn Subtotal 1 13 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 4.8 Left Turn Through 5 71 5 100.0% 84.2 46.5 24.9 Right Turn Subtotal 5 71 5 100.0% 84.2 46.5 24.9 Left Turn Through 6 261 6 100.0% 59.1 26.5 64.2 Right Turn Subtotal 6 261 6 100.0% 59.1 26.5 64.2 Total 13 359 11 84.6% 56.9 22.9 96.8 67.6 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Riders (pp4h) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn Through 6 6 6 100.0% 23.2 18.0 0.6 Right Turn Subtotal 6 6 6 100.0% 23.2 18.0 0.6 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 850 829 97.5% 8.0 2.8 A 122 Right Turn 490 471 96.1% 10.5 2.6 B 90 Subtotal 1,340 1,300 97.0% 8.9 2.7 A 212 Left Turn 155 156 100.9% 34.7 10.8 C 100 Through 790 783 99.1% 12.1 1.1 B 174 Right Turn Subtotal 945 939 99.4% 15.8 2.2 B 274 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 155 146 94.3% 45.1 4.3 D 121 Through Right Turn 75 70 92.7% 11.4 3.5 B 14 Subtotal 230 216 93.8% 34.2 4.0 C 135 Total 2,515 2,455 97.6% 13.5 1.6 B 621 44.8 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 20 15 76.5% 11.4 6.8 B 3 Through 1,260 1,227 97.4% 3.6 1.6 A 81 Right Turn 45 46 102.0% 3.8 1.8 A 3 Subtotal 1,325 1,289 97.2% 3.7 1.6 A 88 Left Turn 20 14 68.0% 26.2 24.9 C 7 Through 905 898 99.2% 5.5 0.7 A 90 Right Turn 25 20 80.4% 4.3 2.6 A 2 Subtotal 950 932 98.1% 5.9 0.9 A 98 Left Turn 65 58 89.8% 63.5 17.1 E 68 Through 30 37 123.7% 67.4 15.9 E 46 Right Turn 45 40 88.7% 67.0 19.3 E 49 Subtotal 140 135 96.7% 64.6 14.6 E 163 Left Turn 25 22 88.0% 50.8 25.7 D 20 Through 25 28 113.2% 34.3 9.6 C 18 Right Turn 25 20 79.2% 14.4 8.3 B 5 Subtotal 75 70 93.5% 34.3 9.2 C 43 Total 2,490 2,426 97.4% 10.1 1.4 B 392 67.4 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 170 162 95.5% 32.4 4.7 C 97 Through 1,005 970 96.5% 11.1 3.1 B 198 Right Turn 70 62 88.9% 9.7 3.3 A 11 Subtotal 1,245 1,195 96.0% 14.0 2.4 B 306 Left Turn 30 26 85.7% 53.5 15.1 D 25 Through 775 769 99.2% 8.2 2.4 A 115 Right Turn 170 166 97.4% 3.8 0.6 A 12 Subtotal 975 960 98.5% 8.9 2.0 A 152 Left Turn 315 317 100.6% 48.3 5.6 D 281 Through 35 36 103.7% 52.2 11.7 D 35 Right Turn 360 357 99.3% 53.6 25.3 D 351 Subtotal 710 711 100.1% 51.3 14.2 D 667 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 46.2 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,395 1,372 98.3% 5.0 1.0 A 125 Right Turn 185 175 94.6% 5.7 1.5 A 18 Subtotal 1,580 1,547 97.9% 5.1 1.0 A 143 Left Turn 150 145 96.7% 50.5 12.1 D 134 Through 910 901 99.0% 7.0 3.3 A 115 Right Turn Subtotal 1,060 1,046 98.7% 13.3 4.6 B 249 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 75 71 94.1% 47.0 8.2 D 61 Through Right Turn 45 45 99.1% 5.5 1.4 A 4 Subtotal 120 115 96.0% 31.9 4.8 C 65 Total 2,760 2,708 98.1% 9.8 2.1 A 458 54.4 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 68 97.0% 35.0 8.4 D 44 Through 1,120 1,107 98.8% 27.0 4.7 C 549 Right Turn 165 155 94.1% 21.9 7.4 C 62 Subtotal 1,355 1,330 98.1% 26.8 4.9 C 655 Left Turn 175 178 101.4% 41.5 6.5 D 135 Through 745 728 97.8% 7.9 2.2 A 106 Right Turn 65 63 96.2% 4.7 1.5 A 5 Subtotal 985 968 98.3% 14.2 2.3 B 247 Left Turn 285 264 92.6% 381.2 56.8 F 1,845 Through 845 792 93.8% 375.3 55.3 F 5,451 Right Turn 180 165 91.7% 342.7 56.5 F 1,037 Subtotal 1,310 1,221 93.2% 372.4 55.3 F 8,332 Left Turn 85 83 97.1% 63.5 17.4 E 96 Through 275 274 99.5% 3.0 1.4 A 15 Right Turn 175 174 99.1% 19.1 3.3 B 61 Subtotal 535 530 99.0% 18.0 4.4 B 172 Total 4,185 4,049 96.8% 135.2 17.3 F 9,405 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 30 27 89.3% 20.5 3.9 C 10 Through 45 40 88.7% 19.4 4.4 B 14 Right Turn 45 44 98.0% 10.1 4.3 B 8 Subtotal 120 111 92.3% 15.7 2.5 B 32 Left Turn 45 40 89.8% 22.8 6.1 C 17 Through 40 39 98.3% 18.7 4.2 B 13 Right Turn 25 26 102.8% 15.7 5.5 B 7 Subtotal 110 105 95.8% 19.3 2.5 B 38 Left Turn 70 65 92.1% 7.3 1.9 A 9 Through 545 532 97.6% 5.9 0.6 A 58 Right Turn 85 82 96.4% 6.0 1.7 A 9 Subtotal 700 678 96.9% 6.1 0.6 A 75 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 21.5 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 60.0% 7.2 10.0 A 0 Through 5 6 114.0% 15.1 9.0 B 2 Right Turn 25 24 94.0% 5.7 1.3 A 2 Subtotal 35 32 92.0% 8.2 3.4 A 4 Left Turn 45 42 93.6% 20.6 4.1 C 16 Through 15 11 72.7% 21.5 8.8 C 4 Right Turn 40 40 99.0% 7.4 1.0 A 5 Subtotal 100 93 92.6% 14.7 2.7 B 26 Left Turn 35 28 79.7% 4.3 1.9 A 2 Through 615 609 99.1% 4.2 1.2 A 47 Right Turn 10 6 60.0% 4.5 5.6 A 0 Subtotal 660 643 97.4% 4.3 1.2 A 50 Left Turn 5 2 44.0% 2.7 3.4 A 0 Through 185 170 91.8% 2.7 0.6 A 9 Right Turn 20 22 108.0% 6.0 2.2 A 2 Subtotal 210 194 92.2% 3.2 0.6 A 11 Total 1,005 962 95.7% 5.6 1.1 A 91 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 65 65 99.7% 26.7 10.0 C 32 Through 910 898 98.7% 30.7 11.4 C 505 Right Turn 140 137 97.6% 31.7 10.3 C 79 Subtotal 1,115 1,099 98.6% 30.6 11.0 C 616 Left Turn 115 111 96.2% 32.6 4.3 C 66 Through 675 675 100.0% 17.2 2.2 B 213 Right Turn 60 53 88.0% 17.1 4.2 B 17 Subtotal 850 838 98.6% 19.2 2.3 B 296 Left Turn 150 151 100.5% 52.2 18.1 D 144 Through 295 291 98.8% 59.8 15.8 E 320 Right Turn 190 192 100.9% 37.1 16.3 D 130 Subtotal 635 634 99.8% 51.2 16.5 D 594 Left Turn 125 111 88.4% 43.3 15.0 D 88 Through 135 130 96.1% 30.0 4.0 C 71 Right Turn 40 37 92.8% 7.0 2.1 A 5 Subtotal 300 277 92.5% 32.1 6.8 C 164 Total 2,900 2,849 98.2% 32.5 6.7 C 1,670 49.1 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 5 98.0% 3.4 2.3 A 0 Through 560 560 100.1% 0.6 0.1 A 6 Right Turn 85 88 103.5% 0.9 0.1 A 2 Subtotal 650 653 100.5% 0.7 0.1 A 8 Left Turn 45 41 90.2% 6.3 2.3 A 5 Through 335 338 100.8% 0.5 0.2 A 3 Right Turn 15 10 63.3% 0.5 0.2 A 0 Subtotal 395 388 98.2% 1.1 0.3 A 8 Left Turn 15 13 89.3% 20.4 7.4 C 5 Through 5 1 18.0% 5.7 13.2 A 0 Right Turn 5 1 20.0% 0.5 1.6 A 0 Subtotal 25 15 61.2% 20.0 7.1 C 5 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,040 929 89.3% 22.7 11.7 C 387 Right Turn 520 461 88.6% 25.0 8.7 C 211 Subtotal 1,560 1,390 89.1% 23.5 10.6 C 598 Left Turn 120 110 92.0% 134.9 43.4 F 273 Through 1,175 1,121 95.4% 78.3 27.3 E 1608 Right Turn Subtotal 1,295 1,231 95.1% 83.1 28.5 F 1881 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 605 489 80.8% 445.1 179.8 F 3987 Through Right Turn 190 160 84.1% 267.8 144.2 F 785 Subtotal 795 648 81.6% 403.5 178.5 F 4771 Total 3,650 3,269 89.6% 97.4 21.3 F 7250 59.6 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 85 73 85.6% 110.5 62.7 F 147 Through 1,460 1,314 90.0% 17.7 14.6 B 427 Right Turn 70 59 83.9% 14.8 13.0 B 16 Subtotal 1,615 1,445 89.5% 22.8 15.3 C 590 Left Turn 25 19 77.2% 102.2 27.6 F 36 Through 1,685 1,506 89.4% 41.6 6.5 D 1149 Right Turn 75 65 86.9% 41.5 8.6 D 50 Subtotal 1,785 1,591 89.1% 42.4 6.6 D 1234 Left Turn 75 65 86.9% 274.0 134.3 F 328 Through 30 29 97.7% 274.6 127.3 F 147 Right Turn 75 66 88.1% 282.5 133.3 F 342 Subtotal 180 161 89.2% 278.2 131.9 F 817 Left Turn 70 60 85.3% 97.0 44.9 F 106 Through 30 34 111.7% 95.2 52.2 F 58 Right Turn 30 22 73.3% 49.7 34.2 D 20 Subtotal 130 115 88.6% 87.2 42.6 F 185 Total 3,710 3,312 89.3% 46.8 8.6 D 2827 76.1 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 320 273 85.3% 291.5 60.9 F 1459 Through 1,215 1,095 90.1% 181.0 33.2 F 3633 Right Turn 70 62 88.6% 154.5 30.0 F 176 Subtotal 1,605 1,430 89.1% 199.7 38.3 F 5268 Left Turn 15 12 82.0% 82.1 45.1 F 19 Through 1,295 1,141 88.1% 50.3 8.8 D 1052 Right Turn 505 462 91.4% 23.8 3.6 C 201 Subtotal 1,815 1,615 89.0% 43.2 6.3 D 1271 Left Turn 380 353 92.9% 70.7 18.5 E 457 Through 55 55 99.3% 73.2 20.1 E 73 Right Turn 445 403 90.5% 49.2 13.8 D 363 Subtotal 880 810 92.1% 60.3 11.7 E 894 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 105.0 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,535 1,452 94.6% 29.5 17.0 C 786 Right Turn 65 58 88.6% 23.8 12.6 C 25 Subtotal 1,600 1,509 94.3% 29.3 16.8 C 811 Left Turn 115 93 80.9% 199.8 45.1 F 341 Through 1,650 1,397 84.7% 128.5 31.6 F 3292 Right Turn Subtotal 1,765 1,490 84.4% 133.6 31.2 F 3633 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 145 141 97.3% 69.6 13.4 E 180 Through Right Turn 190 183 96.2% 54.7 31.0 D 183 Subtotal 335 324 96.7% 61.8 21.6 E 363 Total 3,700 3,323 89.8% 79.6 15.9 E 4807 56.1 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 195 182 93.3% 144.0 42.4 F 480 Through 1,100 1,056 96.0% 124.1 53.3 F 2403 Right Turn 170 155 91.1% 106.4 54.6 F 302 Subtotal 1,465 1,393 95.1% 125.3 51.3 F 3185 Left Turn 265 242 91.4% 83.8 20.7 F 372 Through 1,310 1,102 84.1% 39.5 4.7 D 798 Right Turn 220 181 82.1% 24.5 3.3 C 81 Subtotal 1,795 1,525 85.0% 45.2 5.9 D 1251 Left Turn 195 183 93.9% 74.2 15.1 E 249 Through 480 478 99.6% 41.9 3.9 D 368 Right Turn 195 195 100.1% 22.4 4.4 C 80 Subtotal 870 857 98.4% 43.8 4.3 D 697 Left Turn 240 228 94.8% 110.6 31.7 F 461 Through 775 751 96.9% 96.7 38.3 F 1331 Right Turn 310 289 93.2% 110.5 70.8 F 585 Subtotal 1,325 1,267 95.6% 102.3 42.2 F 2377 Total 5,455 5,042 92.4% 80.6 22.4 F 7510 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 180 167 92.7% 74.2 39.6 E 227 Through 125 114 91.0% 57.6 38.9 E 120 Right Turn 100 96 96.2% 51.8 35.1 D 91 Subtotal 405 377 93.0% 63.2 38.6 E 438 Left Turn 85 79 93.3% 23.8 8.6 C 35 Through 115 109 94.9% 18.4 4.9 B 37 Right Turn 60 61 101.5% 18.0 4.9 B 20 Subtotal 260 249 95.9% 20.0 4.9 C 91 Left Turn 70 64 91.9% 20.7 4.7 C 24 Through 575 563 97.9% 8.5 0.8 A 88 Right Turn 110 106 96.3% 9.2 1.7 A 18 Subtotal 755 733 97.1% 9.6 0.6 A 130 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 26.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 2 40.0% 5.1 11.8 A 0 Through 30 25 83.0% 21.3 7.6 C 10 Right Turn 40 36 90.0% 7.6 2.2 A 5 Subtotal 75 63 83.9% 13.2 3.8 B 15 Left Turn 45 42 92.4% 18.4 4.0 B 14 Through 25 25 101.6% 23.4 5.5 C 11 Right Turn 85 85 99.5% 14.9 7.4 B 23 Subtotal 155 152 97.8% 17.1 4.1 B 48 Left Turn 55 51 92.7% 36.1 23.7 D 34 Through 605 582 96.2% 7.0 1.5 A 75 Right Turn 10 6 58.0% 8.9 9.2 A 1 Subtotal 670 639 95.4% 9.4 3.0 A 110 Left Turn 45 43 94.9% 8.9 3.1 A 7 Through 705 661 93.7% 10.4 5.9 B 125 Right Turn 55 57 102.7% 12.1 10.0 B 12 Subtotal 805 760 94.4% 10.4 5.7 B 145 Total 1,705 1,613 94.6% 10.8 4.0 B 317 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 150 96.9% 42.8 16.0 D 118 Through 655 656 100.1% 27.1 5.4 C 326 Right Turn 150 145 96.4% 24.1 5.4 C 64 Subtotal 960 951 99.0% 29.3 7.0 C 507 Left Turn 120 116 96.4% 75.6 16.1 E 160 Through 870 844 97.0% 59.5 11.3 E 920 Right Turn 95 85 89.1% 56.8 12.2 E 88 Subtotal 1,085 1,044 96.3% 61.1 11.1 E 1169 Left Turn 185 177 95.6% 143.1 90.2 F 464 Through 345 332 96.2% 101.3 67.3 F 616 Right Turn 140 131 93.4% 80.7 66.2 F 194 Subtotal 670 639 95.4% 108.8 73.4 F 1274 Left Turn 205 191 93.0% 66.9 22.2 E 234 Through 365 340 93.1% 51.3 25.7 D 320 Right Turn 90 80 88.3% 20.3 15.5 C 30 Subtotal 660 610 92.4% 51.6 22.5 D 583 Total 3,375 3,244 96.1% 57.7 12.5 E 3533 46.5 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 56.0% 4.1 3.9 A 0 Through 365 362 99.3% 0.5 0.2 A 4 Right Turn 95 98 103.5% 0.9 0.2 A 2 Subtotal 465 464 99.7% 0.7 0.2 A 5 Left Turn 85 86 101.4% 5.2 1.6 A 8 Through 610 603 98.9% 0.6 0.1 A 7 Right Turn 10 8 78.0% 0.7 0.5 A 0 Subtotal 705 697 98.9% 1.2 0.2 A 15 Left Turn 5 3 54.0% 9.1 12.3 A 0 Through Right Turn 5 4 76.0% 3.7 2.6 A 0 Subtotal 10 7 65.0% 8.6 6.8 A 1 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 850 828 97.4% 5.1 2.0 A 78 Right Turn 490 469 95.6% 8.0 1.5 A 69 Subtotal 1,340 1,297 96.8% 6.2 1.5 A 146 Left Turn 155 158 101.7% 30.0 5.4 C 87 Through 790 789 99.9% 12.9 1.5 B 187 Right Turn Subtotal 945 947 100.2% 16.1 2.1 B 273 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 155 144 93.1% 47.4 6.0 D 125 Through Right Turn 75 72 95.3% 11.6 2.2 B 15 Subtotal 230 216 93.8% 35.9 3.7 D 141 Total 2,515 2,459 97.8% 14.0 1.6 B 560 42.6 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 20 15 72.5% 13.1 12.2 B 3 Through 1,260 1,216 96.5% 4.7 1.8 A 104 Right Turn 45 46 101.3% 3.8 2.0 A 3 Subtotal 1,325 1,276 96.3% 4.8 1.8 A 111 Left Turn 20 14 70.0% 38.0 25.1 D 10 Through 905 901 99.6% 6.9 1.4 A 114 Right Turn 25 22 88.0% 5.4 2.9 A 2 Subtotal 950 937 98.6% 7.4 1.4 A 126 Left Turn 65 64 98.8% 57.9 15.1 E 68 Through 30 38 125.7% 67.0 13.1 E 46 Right Turn 45 40 88.7% 62.9 15.7 E 46 Subtotal 140 142 101.3% 61.5 13.1 E 160 Left Turn 25 19 76.0% 45.9 20.3 D 16 Through 25 33 130.4% 45.7 10.5 D 27 Right Turn 25 21 85.2% 14.2 5.4 B 6 Subtotal 75 73 97.2% 36.3 10.1 D 49 Total 2,490 2,428 97.5% 10.4 1.1 B 446 64.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 170 165 97.1% 36.1 9.8 D 109 Through 1,005 964 95.9% 12.1 3.1 B 213 Right Turn 70 65 92.6% 11.6 5.3 B 14 Subtotal 1,245 1,194 95.9% 15.4 3.5 B 336 Left Turn 30 26 86.3% 42.4 19.8 D 20 Through 775 774 99.8% 8.9 2.0 A 126 Right Turn 170 159 93.6% 3.4 0.8 A 10 Subtotal 975 959 98.3% 9.0 1.5 A 156 Left Turn 315 313 99.2% 49.4 9.9 D 283 Through 35 33 93.7% 60.3 28.2 E 36 Right Turn 360 359 99.7% 59.7 33.5 E 393 Subtotal 710 704 99.2% 55.2 22.1 E 712 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 52.6 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,395 1,378 98.8% 4.2 1.0 A 107 Right Turn 185 180 97.0% 5.4 1.3 A 18 Subtotal 1,580 1,557 98.6% 4.4 1.1 A 125 Left Turn 150 142 94.3% 55.9 10.9 E 145 Through 910 910 100.0% 6.9 1.8 A 116 Right Turn Subtotal 1,060 1,051 99.2% 14.2 3.9 B 261 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 75 74 98.1% 43.2 9.8 D 58 Through Right Turn 45 43 95.3% 4.4 0.6 A 3 Subtotal 120 117 97.1% 29.3 8.8 C 62 Total 2,760 2,725 98.7% 9.0 2.1 A 447 55.9 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 63 90.4% 32.1 10.1 C 37 Through 1,120 1,116 99.6% 30.4 5.6 C 621 Right Turn 165 151 91.8% 22.3 6.8 C 62 Subtotal 1,355 1,330 98.2% 29.7 5.4 C 721 Left Turn 175 178 101.6% 51.3 14.8 D 167 Through 745 734 98.5% 9.1 1.7 A 122 Right Turn 65 69 105.4% 2.6 0.6 A 3 Subtotal 985 980 99.5% 16.3 3.6 B 293 Left Turn 285 263 92.1% 404.1 41.8 F 1,945 Through 845 789 93.4% 390.4 40.2 F 5,647 Right Turn 180 165 91.5% 355.0 40.3 F 1,072 Subtotal 1,310 1,216 92.8% 389.4 39.8 F 8,664 Left Turn 85 83 97.5% 60.9 14.1 E 93 Through 275 276 100.5% 43.1 3.6 D 218 Right Turn 175 173 98.9% 18.1 2.3 B 57 Subtotal 535 532 99.5% 38.1 3.2 D 368 Total 4,185 4,059 97.0% 140.5 9.1 F 10,046 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 30 30 100.3% 19.1 2.7 B 11 Through 45 42 92.9% 19.7 5.5 B 15 Right Turn 45 42 94.2% 11.5 4.0 B 9 Subtotal 120 114 95.3% 16.4 3.7 B 35 Left Turn 45 42 93.3% 20.9 3.5 C 16 Through 40 37 93.3% 20.6 5.4 C 14 Right Turn 25 26 105.2% 15.2 6.9 B 7 Subtotal 110 106 96.0% 19.3 3.2 B 38 Left Turn 70 68 97.1% 7.3 3.8 A 9 Through 545 527 96.6% 5.7 1.5 A 55 Right Turn 85 82 95.9% 6.2 1.5 A 9 Subtotal 700 676 96.6% 6.0 1.5 A 74 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 20.1 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 64.0% 5.8 9.2 A 0 Through 5 5 96.0% 13.4 10.8 B 1 Right Turn 25 24 95.2% 6.5 2.8 A 3 Subtotal 35 32 90.9% 9.6 4.1 A 4 Left Turn 45 43 95.6% 23.0 2.6 C 18 Through 15 10 67.3% 19.6 7.8 B 4 Right Turn 40 46 113.8% 7.5 1.3 A 6 Subtotal 100 99 98.6% 15.8 1.7 B 28 Left Turn 35 39 111.1% 11.1 3.3 B 8 Through 615 607 98.8% 5.2 1.1 A 58 Right Turn 10 6 59.0% 3.1 3.7 A 0 Subtotal 660 652 98.8% 5.5 1.1 A 66 Left Turn 5 3 60.0% 5.7 8.4 A 0 Through 185 174 93.8% 6.6 0.9 A 21 Right Turn 20 23 113.0% 6.5 2.6 A 3 Subtotal 210 199 94.8% 6.6 1.0 A 24 Total 1,005 982 97.7% 7.4 1.0 A 123 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 65 62 94.8% 24.4 6.0 C 28 Through 910 914 100.5% 27.4 7.8 C 460 Right Turn 140 133 95.0% 27.2 7.9 C 66 Subtotal 1,115 1,109 99.5% 27.3 7.5 C 554 Left Turn 115 109 94.8% 33.5 5.1 C 67 Through 675 674 99.8% 17.8 2.0 B 220 Right Turn 60 57 95.5% 16.9 5.9 B 18 Subtotal 850 840 98.8% 19.8 1.9 B 305 Left Turn 150 151 100.7% 45.8 11.3 D 127 Through 295 295 100.0% 54.2 10.8 D 293 Right Turn 190 194 102.1% 32.0 8.5 C 114 Subtotal 635 640 100.8% 45.6 10.1 D 534 Left Turn 125 117 93.5% 45.2 22.2 D 97 Through 135 136 100.7% 31.5 5.3 C 78 Right Turn 40 40 99.5% 6.2 2.0 A 5 Subtotal 300 293 97.5% 34.1 12.0 C 180 Total 2,900 2,882 99.4% 30.2 5.2 C 1,572 49.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 4 86.0% 2.4 2.9 A 0 Through 560 569 101.6% 0.7 0.1 A 7 Right Turn 85 85 99.4% 1.0 0.2 A 2 Subtotal 650 658 101.2% 0.8 0.1 A 9 Left Turn 45 40 89.6% 8.0 2.7 A 6 Through 335 339 101.2% 0.4 0.1 A 2 Right Turn 15 11 70.0% 0.3 0.3 A 0 Subtotal 395 390 98.7% 1.2 0.4 A 8 Left Turn 15 14 94.7% 21.2 11.3 C 6 Through 5 7 142.0% 29.2 8.5 D 4 Right Turn 5 1 24.0% 4.4 8.8 A 0 Subtotal 25 23 90.0% 23.9 7.2 C 9 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,040 908 87.3% 17.0 4.4 B 283 Right Turn 520 452 86.9% 22.7 5.2 C 188 Subtotal 1,560 1,360 87.2% 18.9 4.6 B 471 Left Turn 120 104 86.9% 170.2 70.3 F 325 Through 1,175 1,125 95.7% 75.4 25.2 E 1555 Right Turn Subtotal 1,295 1,229 94.9% 83.8 29.7 F 1880 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 605 511 84.5% 407.3 177.7 F 3818 Through Right Turn 190 161 84.5% 221.3 120.1 F 651 Subtotal 795 672 84.5% 364.0 170.5 F 4469 Total 3,650 3,261 89.3% 98.1 15.7 F 6821 55.1 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 85 72 84.9% 87.9 30.2 F 116 Through 1,460 1,273 87.2% 12.3 9.9 B 288 Right Turn 70 55 79.0% 12.6 9.8 B 13 Subtotal 1,615 1,401 86.7% 16.5 10.5 B 417 Left Turn 25 20 79.2% 87.9 40.6 F 32 Through 1,685 1,534 91.1% 36.8 5.6 D 1036 Right Turn 75 67 89.3% 39.7 6.8 D 49 Subtotal 1,785 1,621 90.8% 37.5 5.7 D 1116 Left Turn 75 68 90.3% 171.1 68.6 F 212 Through 30 38 125.3% 176.5 58.8 F 122 Right Turn 75 66 88.0% 170.6 73.5 F 206 Subtotal 180 171 95.2% 170.6 67.5 F 540 Left Turn 70 57 81.0% 58.4 16.3 E 61 Through 30 39 131.3% 59.3 13.8 E 43 Right Turn 30 22 74.3% 23.8 10.5 C 10 Subtotal 130 118 91.1% 53.9 9.9 D 113 Total 3,710 3,311 89.3% 37.3 7.9 D 2187 72.3 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 320 255 79.6% 326.9 44.9 F 1527 Through 1,215 1,064 87.6% 205.1 23.3 F 4003 Right Turn 70 60 85.9% 182.7 23.5 F 201 Subtotal 1,605 1,379 85.9% 225.4 27.8 F 5731 Left Turn 15 12 78.7% 58.5 34.8 E 13 Through 1,295 1,159 89.5% 42.8 7.5 D 910 Right Turn 505 471 93.2% 26.5 4.4 C 229 Subtotal 1,815 1,641 90.4% 38.4 5.6 D 1151 Left Turn 380 332 87.4% 91.4 22.6 F 557 Through 55 52 94.0% 92.6 20.5 F 88 Right Turn 445 374 84.0% 107.9 11.5 F 739 Subtotal 880 758 86.1% 100.5 10.5 F 1383 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 154.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,535 1,405 91.5% 38.1 14.9 D 980 Right Turn 65 59 90.5% 31.5 13.1 C 34 Subtotal 1,600 1,464 91.5% 37.8 14.8 D 1014 Left Turn 115 87 75.5% 184.5 49.3 F 294 Through 1,650 1,404 85.1% 110.8 50.3 F 2853 Right Turn Subtotal 1,765 1,491 84.5% 115.7 49.5 F 3147 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 145 142 98.1% 89.8 41.3 F 234 Through Right Turn 190 180 94.6% 78.2 53.9 E 258 Subtotal 335 322 96.1% 84.1 48.0 F 492 Total 3,700 3,277 88.6% 78.8 25.4 E 4653 58.2 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 195 170 87.3% 232.0 73.9 F 724 Through 1,100 1,008 91.6% 218.9 74.7 F 4044 Right Turn 170 143 84.1% 190.7 67.5 F 500 Subtotal 1,465 1,321 90.2% 217.8 73.3 F 5268 Left Turn 265 239 90.2% 75.3 19.4 E 330 Through 1,310 1,109 84.6% 33.4 8.7 C 679 Right Turn 220 187 85.1% 20.2 6.9 C 69 Subtotal 1,795 1,535 85.5% 38.5 9.3 D 1079 Left Turn 195 187 95.7% 85.3 14.5 F 292 Through 480 477 99.4% 43.5 5.0 D 381 Right Turn 195 197 100.8% 23.7 4.1 C 85 Subtotal 870 861 98.9% 47.6 4.9 D 758 Left Turn 240 228 95.2% 121.5 40.3 F 509 Through 775 726 93.7% 118.2 48.3 F 1573 Right Turn 310 287 92.5% 157.3 85.0 F 827 Subtotal 1,325 1,241 93.7% 127.9 54.3 F 2909 Total 5,455 4,957 90.9% 105.5 24.3 F 10014 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 180 171 94.7% 87.8 65.6 F 274 Through 125 112 89.4% 82.5 95.2 F 169 Right Turn 100 93 93.1% 78.5 82.9 E 134 Subtotal 405 375 92.7% 84.2 78.5 F 577 Left Turn 85 80 94.4% 32.4 22.6 C 48 Through 115 106 91.8% 18.0 4.2 B 35 Right Turn 60 62 102.7% 18.5 5.3 B 21 Subtotal 260 247 95.2% 22.5 8.3 C 103 Left Turn 70 66 94.4% 34.6 37.0 C 42 Through 575 564 98.1% 27.0 42.2 C 279 Right Turn 110 106 95.9% 20.2 30.9 C 39 Subtotal 755 736 97.4% 26.6 40.1 C 360 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 TSM Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 25.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 2 46.0% 2.4 5.0 A 0 Through 30 23 75.3% 24.2 6.7 C 10 Right Turn 40 35 88.3% 8.0 3.5 A 5 Subtotal 75 60 80.3% 14.9 5.7 B 15 Left Turn 45 42 93.3% 25.6 2.7 C 20 Through 25 27 108.0% 25.3 4.8 C 13 Right Turn 85 85 100.2% 15.8 4.3 B 25 Subtotal 155 154 99.5% 20.2 2.8 C 57 Left Turn 55 58 105.5% 18.3 7.0 B 19 Through 605 591 97.7% 6.7 1.1 A 72 Right Turn 10 7 66.0% 5.5 5.2 A 1 Subtotal 670 655 97.8% 7.8 1.4 A 92 Left Turn 45 45 99.8% 12.1 4.4 B 10 Through 705 652 92.5% 11.5 2.9 B 138 Right Turn 55 55 99.3% 12.6 4.3 B 13 Subtotal 805 752 93.4% 11.7 2.8 B 161 Total 1,705 1,621 95.1% 11.1 2.1 B 325 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 151 97.5% 40.1 8.4 D 111 Through 655 646 98.6% 26.9 3.3 C 318 Right Turn 150 147 97.9% 25.8 4.2 C 69 Subtotal 960 944 98.3% 28.8 3.9 C 499 Left Turn 120 118 98.1% 75.5 16.8 E 163 Through 870 843 96.9% 56.9 11.8 E 880 Right Turn 95 84 88.2% 54.4 14.9 D 84 Subtotal 1,085 1,045 96.3% 58.8 12.3 E 1127 Left Turn 185 177 95.5% 106.8 78.4 F 346 Through 345 342 99.2% 77.7 55.5 E 488 Right Turn 140 132 94.5% 55.9 51.6 E 136 Subtotal 670 651 97.2% 81.5 61.5 F 969 Left Turn 205 187 91.1% 79.7 49.9 E 273 Through 365 335 91.7% 49.1 16.2 D 301 Right Turn 90 81 89.4% 14.9 9.5 B 22 Subtotal 660 602 91.2% 53.3 22.7 D 596 Total 3,375 3,242 96.0% 52.7 12.3 D 3190 50.3 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 54.0% 4.1 4.0 A 0 Through 365 360 98.5% 0.5 0.1 A 4 Right Turn 95 96 100.5% 1.0 0.1 A 2 Subtotal 465 458 98.4% 0.7 0.1 A 6 Left Turn 85 80 93.6% 5.4 1.4 A 8 Through 610 605 99.1% 0.6 0.2 A 7 Right Turn 10 8 75.0% 0.6 0.4 A 0 Subtotal 705 692 98.1% 1.2 0.3 A 15 Left Turn 5 2 46.0% 4.9 8.8 A 0 Through Right Turn 5 4 76.0% 2.5 2.6 A 0 Subtotal 10 6 61.0% 6.2 7.2 A 0 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 850 822 96.7% 6.3 2.7 A 95 Right Turn 490 464 94.6% 8.3 2.3 A 70 Subtotal 1,340 1,285 95.9% 7.0 2.3 A 165 Left Turn 155 160 103.0% 30.9 5.4 C 90 Through 790 781 98.8% 13.2 2.2 B 190 Right Turn Subtotal 945 940 99.5% 16.4 2.5 B 280 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 155 145 93.6% 45.4 5.6 D 121 Through Right Turn 75 70 92.8% 11.8 3.3 B 15 Subtotal 230 215 93.3% 34.7 4.1 C 136 Total 2,515 2,440 97.0% 14.4 1.8 B 581 41.2 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 20 16 81.5% 15.8 7.2 B 5 Through 1,260 1,204 95.5% 1.6 0.4 A 35 Right Turn 45 48 106.7% 2.3 0.8 A 2 Subtotal 1,325 1,268 95.7% 1.8 0.4 A 42 Left Turn 20 13 66.5% 21.0 15.4 C 5 Through 905 895 98.9% 5.7 1.2 A 94 Right Turn 25 21 83.2% 3.5 2.8 A 1 Subtotal 950 929 97.8% 6.0 1.3 A 101 Left Turn 65 65 100.2% 55.4 8.8 E 66 Through 30 44 145.3% 49.4 9.5 D 39 Right Turn 45 44 98.7% 50.2 11.8 D 41 Subtotal 140 153 109.4% 52.6 8.9 D 146 Left Turn 25 20 79.6% 38.4 14.7 D 14 Through 25 33 133.6% 37.1 10.7 D 23 Right Turn 25 20 78.4% 13.2 5.6 B 5 Subtotal 75 73 97.2% 32.0 8.1 C 41 Total 2,490 2,423 97.3% 8.4 1.0 A 330 55.4 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 170 163 95.6% 49.2 13.3 D 147 Through 1,005 964 95.9% 15.3 2.4 B 270 Right Turn 70 62 88.7% 11.9 3.0 B 14 Subtotal 1,245 1,188 95.4% 19.8 3.5 B 430 Left Turn 30 26 85.7% 54.9 14.9 D 26 Through 775 770 99.4% 10.8 1.8 B 153 Right Turn 170 162 95.5% 5.6 2.0 A 17 Subtotal 975 958 98.3% 11.2 1.8 B 196 Left Turn 315 298 94.7% 59.3 9.4 E 324 Through 35 30 84.6% 57.6 13.4 E 31 Right Turn 360 348 96.5% 50.1 7.5 D 319 Subtotal 710 675 95.1% 54.6 7.7 D 675 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 56.7 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,395 1,373 98.4% 4.3 1.2 A 109 Right Turn 185 177 95.4% 5.4 1.7 A 18 Subtotal 1,580 1,550 98.1% 4.5 1.2 A 127 Left Turn 150 139 92.5% 61.9 10.8 E 157 Through 910 898 98.6% 10.1 2.6 B 166 Right Turn Subtotal 1,060 1,036 97.8% 17.8 4.5 B 323 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 75 74 98.5% 44.8 9.5 D 61 Through Right Turn 45 44 96.7% 5.5 2.3 A 4 Subtotal 120 117 97.8% 29.9 7.1 C 65 Total 2,760 2,703 97.9% 10.5 2.3 B 515 61.9 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 66 94.3% 37.3 7.3 D 45 Through 1,120 1,108 98.9% 32.3 7.3 C 656 Right Turn 165 157 95.0% 22.7 6.2 C 65 Subtotal 1,355 1,330 98.2% 31.6 6.9 C 767 Left Turn 175 174 99.1% 44.7 10.2 D 142 Through 745 723 97.1% 5.5 0.9 A 74 Right Turn 65 68 104.3% 1.8 0.5 A 2 Subtotal 985 964 97.9% 12.6 2.8 B 218 Left Turn 285 266 93.3% 406.2 31.3 F 1980 Through 845 788 93.3% 391.3 33.2 F 5654 Right Turn 180 170 94.6% 355.0 38.8 F 1108 Subtotal 1,310 1,224 93.5% 390.1 31.9 F 8743 Left Turn 85 82 96.6% 52.8 6.0 D 79 Through 275 279 101.6% 41.5 3.9 D 212 Right Turn 175 171 97.8% 18.7 3.3 B 59 Subtotal 535 533 99.6% 36.1 2.8 D 351 Total 4,185 4,052 96.8% 141.4 11.1 F 10078 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 30 28 93.0% 34.6 11.9 C 18 Through 45 39 86.4% 28.6 8.5 C 20 Right Turn 45 42 94.0% 11.1 5.6 B 9 Subtotal 120 109 90.9% 22.6 8.3 C 47 Left Turn 45 18 39.6% 37.8 11.6 D 12 Through 40 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 A 0 Right Turn 25 89 356.0% 6.6 1.3 A 11 Subtotal 110 107 97.1% 12.3 2.9 B 23 Left Turn 70 66 94.3% 47.6 5.3 D 58 Through 545 531 97.3% 13.9 2.9 B 135 Right Turn 85 77 90.7% 11.9 4.5 B 17 Subtotal 700 674 96.2% 16.8 3.0 B 209 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 47.6 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 56.0% 10.4 17.5 B 1 Through 5 6 118.0% 12.1 16.1 B 1 Right Turn 25 25 100.4% 29.6 11.9 C 14 Subtotal 35 34 96.6% 29.4 10.0 C 15 Left Turn 45 44 97.1% 26.9 6.8 C 22 Through 15 10 68.0% 22.6 22.5 C 4 Right Turn 40 42 105.0% 27.3 6.6 C 21 Subtotal 100 96 95.9% 27.6 4.8 C 47 Left Turn 35 37 105.7% 61.7 37.2 E 42 Through 615 602 97.8% 10.3 9.1 B 114 Right Turn 10 6 63.0% 10.2 17.8 B 1 Subtotal 660 645 97.7% 13.2 11.9 B 157 Left Turn 5 3 64.0% 17.6 24.1 B 1 Through 185 153 82.9% 6.9 2.3 A 19 Right Turn 20 36 179.5% 6.2 2.2 A 4 Subtotal 210 193 91.7% 7.2 2.2 A 25 Total 1,005 967 96.2% 13.6 8.1 B 243 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 65 60 92.9% 70.3 9.9 E 78 Through 910 866 95.1% 87.4 10.0 F 1386 Right Turn 140 126 90.2% 91.0 10.6 F 211 Subtotal 1,115 1,052 94.4% 86.9 9.4 F 1675 Left Turn 115 110 95.9% 39.6 7.7 D 80 Through 675 676 100.1% 24.0 2.4 C 297 Right Turn 60 59 97.7% 26.3 6.3 C 28 Subtotal 850 845 99.4% 26.3 2.5 C 406 Left Turn 150 148 98.7% 220.8 78.9 F 599 Through 295 293 99.2% 168.7 70.8 F 905 Right Turn 190 188 99.1% 209.8 68.5 F 724 Subtotal 635 629 99.1% 193.7 71.8 F 2229 Left Turn 125 102 81.7% 124.4 39.3 F 233 Through 135 124 92.1% 32.6 11.4 C 74 Right Turn 40 36 91.0% 34.0 8.2 C 23 Subtotal 300 263 87.6% 70.3 21.8 E 330 Total 2,900 2,789 96.2% 93.7 14.9 F 4639 171.1 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 4 78.0% 5.1 4.1 A 0 Through 560 564 100.8% 6.4 1.5 A 66 Right Turn 85 86 100.7% 6.0 1.9 A 9 Subtotal 650 654 100.6% 6.3 1.5 A 76 Left Turn 45 38 83.3% 4.3 1.5 A 3 Through 335 345 102.9% 3.8 0.8 A 24 Right Turn 15 12 76.7% 3.4 3.1 A 1 Subtotal 395 394 99.7% 3.8 0.7 A 28 Left Turn 15 14 91.3% 5.3 3.6 A 1 Through 5 7 144.0% 7.3 4.3 A 1 Right Turn 5 1 16.0% 2.7 4.3 A 0 Subtotal 25 22 86.8% 6.4 1.8 A 2 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,040 938 90.1% 23.2 9.1 C 398 Right Turn 520 459 88.2% 28.3 9.3 C 238 Subtotal 1,560 1,396 89.5% 24.8 9.0 C 636 Left Turn 120 97 80.7% 265.3 79.3 F 471 Through 1,175 998 84.9% 168.5 16.4 F 3081 Right Turn Subtotal 1,295 1,094 84.5% 176.6 19.7 F 3552 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 605 561 92.8% 239.5 115.1 F 2465 Through Right Turn 190 173 91.2% 130.3 94.2 F 414 Subtotal 795 735 92.4% 212.5 107.1 F 2878 Total 3,650 3,225 88.4% 113.5 23.2 F 7066 54.1 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 85 72 84.4% 92.6 19.2 F 122 Through 1,460 1,315 90.0% 12.7 13.0 B 307 Right Turn 70 54 76.9% 11.8 14.2 B 12 Subtotal 1,615 1,440 89.2% 16.4 12.5 B 440 Left Turn 25 21 82.8% 92.1 36.5 F 35 Through 1,685 1,461 86.7% 43.9 4.0 D 1175 Right Turn 75 65 86.7% 41.9 8.8 D 50 Subtotal 1,785 1,546 86.6% 44.3 4.0 D 1259 Left Turn 75 64 85.7% 385.3 126.8 F 454 Through 30 32 106.3% 389.6 117.9 F 228 Right Turn 75 61 81.1% 391.2 120.4 F 436 Subtotal 180 157 87.2% 390.3 122.1 F 1118 Left Turn 70 58 82.4% 114.5 78.9 F 121 Through 30 36 119.7% 95.8 68.0 F 63 Right Turn 30 24 80.0% 70.3 40.4 E 31 Subtotal 130 118 90.5% 99.6 67.3 F 215 Total 3,710 3,261 87.9% 50.5 6.2 D 3033 76.2 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 320 280 87.6% 271.9 62.4 F 1397 Through 1,215 1,108 91.2% 179.5 40.2 F 3646 Right Turn 70 65 92.9% 157.6 36.2 F 188 Subtotal 1,605 1,453 90.5% 196.1 44.6 F 5230 Left Turn 15 10 68.0% 73.9 43.4 E 14 Through 1,295 1,097 84.7% 60.3 5.5 E 1212 Right Turn 505 449 89.0% 41.7 4.3 D 344 Subtotal 1,815 1,557 85.8% 55.3 4.4 E 1570 Left Turn 380 331 87.1% 96.4 18.1 F 585 Through 55 52 94.4% 91.1 17.8 F 87 Right Turn 445 401 90.1% 86.0 23.0 F 633 Subtotal 880 784 89.1% 90.8 19.7 F 1304 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 110.1 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,535 1,476 96.2% 28.1 16.9 C 761 Right Turn 65 61 94.5% 20.6 12.4 C 23 Subtotal 1,600 1,538 96.1% 27.8 16.6 C 785 Left Turn 115 87 75.8% 142.1 39.8 F 227 Through 1,650 1,385 83.9% 80.6 39.9 F 2045 Right Turn Subtotal 1,765 1,472 83.4% 84.7 39.5 F 2273 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 145 143 98.9% 72.7 26.6 E 191 Through Right Turn 190 182 95.7% 57.1 40.6 E 190 Subtotal 335 325 97.1% 64.4 33.3 E 381 Total 3,700 3,335 90.1% 56.6 17.3 E 3438 57.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 195 178 91.1% 118.3 41.1 F 386 Through 1,100 1,070 97.3% 85.9 32.7 F 1685 Right Turn 170 154 90.6% 65.9 30.0 E 186 Subtotal 1,465 1,402 95.7% 88.0 32.4 F 2257 Left Turn 265 238 89.8% 80.9 11.5 F 353 Through 1,310 1,096 83.7% 38.4 6.2 D 772 Right Turn 220 184 83.5% 23.6 5.5 C 79 Subtotal 1,795 1,518 84.6% 43.8 6.6 D 1205 Left Turn 195 189 96.7% 82.5 14.5 F 285 Through 480 475 98.9% 43.4 4.7 D 378 Right Turn 195 197 100.9% 22.8 3.4 C 82 Subtotal 870 860 98.8% 46.7 4.6 D 745 Left Turn 240 232 96.7% 115.8 42.9 F 493 Through 775 747 96.4% 99.7 50.9 F 1365 Right Turn 310 292 94.1% 113.8 86.3 F 609 Subtotal 1,325 1,271 95.9% 105.7 56.4 F 2467 Total 5,455 5,051 92.6% 71.3 20.2 E 6673 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 180 160 89.1% 144.8 45.4 F 426 Through 125 110 88.3% 108.4 39.8 F 219 Right Turn 100 96 95.9% 100.2 43.3 F 176 Subtotal 405 367 90.5% 121.6 43.2 F 821 Left Turn 85 79 92.9% 76.0 19.1 E 110 Through 115 108 93.6% 62.3 19.4 E 123 Right Turn 60 62 103.3% 51.5 23.3 D 58 Subtotal 260 249 95.6% 64.1 19.5 E 291 Left Turn 70 65 92.4% 88.3 16.4 F 105 Through 575 547 95.1% 46.4 10.5 D 466 Right Turn 110 111 100.5% 39.0 12.6 D 79 Subtotal 755 722 95.7% 49.3 10.4 D 649 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Traffic Calming Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 75.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 52.0% 7.0 13.2 A 0 Through 30 24 78.3% 23.8 12.2 C 10 Right Turn 40 37 92.3% 25.4 5.3 C 17 Subtotal 75 63 84.0% 24.0 3.1 C 28 Left Turn 45 41 91.6% 25.5 5.1 C 19 Through 25 27 107.2% 25.4 10.0 C 12 Right Turn 85 88 103.8% 26.9 6.1 C 44 Subtotal 155 156 100.8% 26.8 2.9 C 75 Left Turn 55 54 98.9% 93.3 39.4 F 93 Through 605 578 95.6% 30.8 16.7 C 326 Right Turn 10 7 66.0% 9.9 14.8 A 1 Subtotal 670 639 95.4% 35.7 18.5 D 421 Left Turn 45 44 98.2% 62.9 13.9 E 51 Through 705 649 92.1% 35.7 9.4 D 425 Right Turn 55 55 100.0% 34.5 8.9 C 35 Subtotal 805 748 93.0% 37.2 9.0 D 510 Total 1,705 1,607 94.2% 35.2 8.7 D 1034 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 147 95.0% 66.6 17.0 E 180 Through 655 650 99.2% 42.7 6.7 D 508 Right Turn 150 144 95.7% 45.0 7.7 D 119 Subtotal 960 940 98.0% 46.5 7.2 D 807 Left Turn 120 116 96.6% 122.3 25.9 F 260 Through 870 828 95.2% 96.5 18.7 F 1465 Right Turn 95 86 90.0% 98.2 23.1 F 154 Subtotal 1,085 1,029 94.9% 99.5 19.6 F 1879 Left Turn 185 172 92.8% 189.3 62.3 F 596 Through 345 337 97.7% 141.3 58.8 F 873 Right Turn 140 130 92.5% 172.7 56.8 F 410 Subtotal 670 638 95.3% 161.9 59.4 F 1879 Left Turn 205 177 86.1% 123.2 27.2 F 399 Through 365 334 91.5% 74.6 28.2 E 457 Right Turn 90 80 89.0% 86.0 24.4 F 126 Subtotal 660 591 89.5% 91.4 25.7 F 982 Total 3,375 3,199 94.8% 93.4 14.1 F 5547 92.6 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 52.0% 2.7 2.4 A 0 Through 365 366 100.4% 6.0 0.7 A 40 Right Turn 95 95 99.6% 5.4 0.7 A 9 Subtotal 465 464 99.7% 5.9 0.7 A 50 Left Turn 85 81 94.8% 9.4 2.6 A 14 Through 610 615 100.9% 9.0 2.9 A 102 Right Turn 10 7 66.0% 8.7 5.4 A 1 Subtotal 705 703 99.7% 9.1 2.8 A 117 Left Turn 5 3 54.0% 2.7 4.5 A 0 Through Right Turn 5 4 76.0% 5.1 8.4 A 0 Subtotal 10 7 65.0% 6.3 8.1 A 0 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 850 819 96.4% 9.3 2.7 A 140 Right Turn 490 461 94.1% 11.1 1.7 B 94 Subtotal 1,340 1,280 95.5% 9.9 2.3 A 234 Left Turn 155 159 102.5% 32.4 6.2 C 94 Through 790 781 98.8% 12.2 1.2 B 175 Right Turn Subtotal 945 940 99.4% 15.5 1.9 B 269 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 155 142 91.9% 45.0 6.4 D 117 Through Right Turn 75 72 95.6% 11.9 2.5 B 16 Subtotal 230 214 93.1% 33.7 4.0 C 133 Total 2,515 2,434 96.8% 14.0 1.8 B 636 40.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 20 13 67.0% 12.8 6.8 B 3 Through 1,260 1,197 95.0% 1.5 0.3 A 33 Right Turn 45 48 105.8% 1.8 0.7 A 2 Subtotal 1,325 1,258 95.0% 1.6 0.4 A 37 Left Turn 20 15 74.5% 29.2 13.0 C 8 Through 905 890 98.4% 5.6 1.2 A 91 Right Turn 25 21 82.4% 3.3 2.6 A 1 Subtotal 950 926 97.4% 5.9 1.1 A 100 Left Turn 65 62 95.2% 55.5 11.0 E 63 Through 30 36 118.3% 50.3 13.4 D 33 Right Turn 45 40 88.7% 50.4 6.1 D 37 Subtotal 140 137 98.1% 52.6 9.4 D 133 Left Turn 25 32 127.2% 50.3 7.1 D 29 Through 25 20 79.2% 34.1 18.9 C 12 Right Turn 25 21 83.6% 14.4 5.5 B 6 Subtotal 75 73 96.7% 36.3 6.1 D 47 Total 2,490 2,394 96.1% 8.3 1.2 A 317 55.5 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 170 162 95.2% 46.5 13.7 D 138 Through 1,005 965 96.0% 15.4 3.2 B 273 Right Turn 70 63 90.3% 10.8 4.1 B 13 Subtotal 1,245 1,190 95.6% 19.3 3.6 B 423 Left Turn 30 25 82.3% 49.9 14.8 D 23 Through 775 769 99.2% 10.0 1.7 B 141 Right Turn 170 169 99.4% 5.7 1.2 A 18 Subtotal 975 962 98.7% 10.4 1.6 B 181 Left Turn 315 294 93.4% 58.3 8.4 E 314 Through 35 31 89.1% 60.0 13.4 E 34 Right Turn 360 335 93.2% 52.6 7.3 D 324 Subtotal 710 661 93.1% 55.7 7.4 E 672 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 51.6 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,395 1,374 98.5% 4.6 1.2 A 116 Right Turn 185 181 97.8% 6.1 1.4 A 20 Subtotal 1,580 1,555 98.4% 4.8 1.2 A 136 Left Turn 150 137 91.5% 61.1 19.4 E 154 Through 910 885 97.2% 9.3 2.9 A 151 Right Turn Subtotal 1,060 1,022 96.4% 17.1 6.3 B 305 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 75 72 96.5% 43.9 10.1 D 58 Through Right Turn 45 44 98.7% 5.3 1.5 A 4 Subtotal 120 117 97.3% 30.3 8.2 C 63 Total 2,760 2,693 97.6% 10.3 2.9 B 503 61.1 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 65 93.1% 33.6 9.0 C 40 Through 1,120 1,109 99.0% 27.1 3.6 C 551 Right Turn 165 156 94.3% 21.9 6.7 C 63 Subtotal 1,355 1,330 98.1% 26.8 3.9 C 654 Left Turn 175 170 97.3% 47.1 10.7 D 147 Through 745 718 96.4% 5.3 1.6 A 70 Right Turn 65 68 104.3% 2.1 0.8 A 3 Subtotal 985 956 97.0% 12.6 3.5 B 219 Left Turn 285 265 92.9% 415.8 30.5 F 2018 Through 845 785 92.9% 399.9 36.4 F 5752 Right Turn 180 171 95.1% 364.3 34.0 F 1143 Subtotal 1,310 1,220 93.2% 398.6 34.2 F 8913 Left Turn 85 81 94.9% 60.2 10.5 E 89 Through 275 276 100.3% 41.2 3.9 D 208 Right Turn 175 175 100.2% 19.3 2.1 B 62 Subtotal 535 532 99.4% 37.1 3.7 D 359 Total 4,185 4,038 96.5% 143.8 9.9 F 10145 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 30 28 93.0% 18.6 9.9 B 10 Through 45 40 89.8% 30.3 6.5 C 22 Right Turn 45 44 97.3% 31.4 5.9 C 25 Subtotal 120 112 93.4% 28.4 3.4 C 57 Left Turn 45 50 111.1% 18.3 3.5 B 17 Through 40 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 A 0 Right Turn 25 51 205.2% 28.9 5.4 C 27 Subtotal 110 101 92.1% 23.6 3.6 C 44 Left Turn 70 69 99.0% 51.0 9.7 D 65 Through 545 522 95.8% 18.9 4.9 B 181 Right Turn 85 78 92.0% 10.4 5.4 B 15 Subtotal 700 670 95.7% 21.2 4.4 C 260 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 51.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 64.0% 15.9 13.1 B 1 Through 5 6 110.0% 14.9 19.5 B 2 Right Turn 25 24 97.6% 23.0 10.0 C 10 Subtotal 35 33 94.6% 20.6 7.8 C 13 Left Turn 45 43 94.4% 25.3 5.9 C 20 Through 15 10 68.0% 21.7 11.0 C 4 Right Turn 40 38 95.8% 24.9 4.9 C 17 Subtotal 100 91 91.0% 24.8 4.7 C 41 Left Turn 35 33 93.7% 35.8 9.3 D 22 Through 615 603 98.0% 9.1 2.0 A 100 Right Turn 10 6 64.0% 8.1 10.7 A 1 Subtotal 660 642 97.2% 10.8 2.2 B 123 Left Turn 5 3 58.0% 20.7 18.0 C 1 Through 185 163 88.1% 5.6 1.6 A 17 Right Turn 20 20 102.0% 7.1 1.4 A 3 Subtotal 210 186 88.7% 6.4 1.7 A 21 Total 1,005 952 94.7% 12.3 1.5 B 198 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 65 60 91.8% 79.6 11.5 E 87 Through 910 872 95.8% 90.3 9.8 F 1444 Right Turn 140 126 89.6% 94.3 11.0 F 217 Subtotal 1,115 1,057 94.8% 90.2 9.8 F 1748 Left Turn 115 113 98.3% 40.6 8.9 D 84 Through 675 681 100.9% 25.3 3.6 C 316 Right Turn 60 58 96.5% 27.3 5.4 C 29 Subtotal 850 852 100.3% 27.6 3.6 C 429 Left Turn 150 145 96.5% 226.9 70.3 F 602 Through 295 292 98.8% 185.5 70.4 F 991 Right Turn 190 185 97.6% 208.9 73.6 F 710 Subtotal 635 622 97.9% 203.1 70.0 F 2304 Left Turn 125 104 83.0% 129.6 50.2 F 247 Through 135 124 92.1% 30.9 8.0 C 70 Right Turn 40 35 88.5% 36.3 10.9 D 24 Subtotal 300 264 87.9% 71.3 20.6 E 340 Total 2,900 2,795 96.4% 97.1 16.1 F 4822 142.5 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 4 88.0% 5.6 5.4 A 0 Through 560 566 101.1% 7.0 1.8 A 73 Right Turn 85 83 97.9% 6.3 1.8 A 10 Subtotal 650 654 100.6% 6.9 1.8 A 83 Left Turn 45 41 91.1% 4.2 0.8 A 3 Through 335 345 102.8% 4.1 0.9 A 26 Right Turn 15 11 72.0% 1.7 1.5 A 0 Subtotal 395 396 100.3% 4.1 0.8 A 29 Left Turn 15 13 86.7% 5.0 2.0 A 1 Through 5 7 136.0% 6.5 3.6 A 1 Right Turn 5 1 22.0% 2.1 5.1 A 0 Subtotal 25 21 83.6% 6.0 1.9 A 2 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,040 916 88.1% 24.7 12.5 C 414 Right Turn 520 459 88.3% 23.2 10.2 C 196 Subtotal 1,560 1,375 88.2% 24.3 11.5 C 610 Left Turn 120 97 81.0% 246.5 79.0 F 439 Through 1,175 1,020 86.8% 158.3 15.7 F 2961 Right Turn Subtotal 1,295 1,118 86.3% 165.8 18.0 F 3400 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 605 553 91.3% 244.6 148.1 F 2478 Through Right Turn 190 173 90.8% 142.2 76.7 F 450 Subtotal 795 725 91.2% 220.9 130.9 F 2928 Total 3,650 3,218 88.2% 112.1 21.6 F 6938 58.1 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 85 73 85.3% 108.3 49.4 F 144 Through 1,460 1,293 88.6% 11.8 13.2 B 281 Right Turn 70 59 84.4% 10.1 13.1 B 11 Subtotal 1,615 1,425 88.2% 17.2 13.2 B 436 Left Turn 25 21 82.0% 75.8 24.4 E 28 Through 1,685 1,468 87.1% 43.0 8.2 D 1158 Right Turn 75 68 90.4% 42.5 12.7 D 53 Subtotal 1,785 1,556 87.2% 43.4 8.1 D 1239 Left Turn 75 66 87.3% 281.5 156.2 F 338 Through 30 31 104.7% 276.5 152.7 F 159 Right Turn 75 63 84.0% 286.1 135.1 F 330 Subtotal 180 160 88.8% 282.4 143.8 F 828 Left Turn 70 70 99.6% 104.5 47.6 F 134 Through 30 25 84.7% 96.8 86.4 F 45 Right Turn 30 23 78.0% 48.3 32.3 D 21 Subtotal 130 119 91.2% 92.3 47.1 F 199 Total 3,710 3,259 87.8% 45.3 8.3 D 2702 65.9 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 320 273 85.4% 280.7 69.6 F 1406 Through 1,215 1,117 91.9% 176.1 40.8 F 3606 Right Turn 70 66 94.9% 156.0 36.1 F 190 Subtotal 1,605 1,456 90.7% 194.4 45.9 F 5202 Left Turn 15 11 72.7% 82.5 22.0 F 16 Through 1,295 1,109 85.6% 58.5 4.5 E 1190 Right Turn 505 465 92.1% 46.7 14.1 D 398 Subtotal 1,815 1,585 87.3% 55.3 6.8 E 1604 Left Turn 380 307 80.8% 111.9 8.4 F 630 Through 55 50 91.1% 102.2 11.2 F 94 Right Turn 445 367 82.5% 103.1 10.4 F 693 Subtotal 880 724 82.3% 106.6 6.6 F 1417 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 106.5 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,535 1,473 96.0% 30.8 16.7 C 832 Right Turn 65 64 98.5% 24.5 14.4 C 29 Subtotal 1,600 1,537 96.1% 30.5 16.5 C 861 Left Turn 115 89 77.7% 137.1 55.9 F 225 Through 1,650 1,372 83.2% 71.9 51.9 E 1809 Right Turn Subtotal 1,765 1,462 82.8% 76.2 52.1 E 2034 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 145 141 96.9% 72.9 19.8 E 188 Through Right Turn 190 184 97.1% 54.2 31.7 D 183 Subtotal 335 325 97.0% 62.8 25.1 E 371 Total 3,700 3,323 89.8% 54.6 26.4 D 3266 54.0 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 195 179 91.9% 118.7 43.2 F 390 Through 1,100 1,069 97.2% 99.7 48.6 F 1953 Right Turn 170 154 90.7% 83.0 46.8 F 235 Subtotal 1,465 1,402 95.7% 100.5 47.0 F 2577 Left Turn 265 238 89.8% 72.1 14.2 E 315 Through 1,310 1,084 82.7% 33.6 8.0 C 668 Right Turn 220 181 82.1% 22.5 6.2 C 75 Subtotal 1,795 1,503 83.7% 38.6 7.5 D 1057 Left Turn 195 190 97.3% 86.3 19.9 F 300 Through 480 474 98.7% 40.9 3.5 D 355 Right Turn 195 195 100.0% 22.5 4.0 C 80 Subtotal 870 859 98.7% 46.1 5.7 D 736 Left Turn 240 229 95.4% 100.7 36.8 F 423 Through 775 748 96.5% 88.7 41.8 F 1216 Right Turn 310 295 95.0% 92.9 65.2 F 502 Subtotal 1,325 1,271 95.9% 91.7 45.0 F 2141 Total 5,455 5,035 92.3% 69.7 21.8 E 6511 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 180 161 89.2% 152.7 59.6 F 450 Through 125 102 81.8% 157.1 59.2 F 295 Right Turn 100 90 90.0% 165.1 70.6 F 272 Subtotal 405 353 87.1% 157.8 62.0 F 1017 Left Turn 85 76 89.8% 56.7 17.0 E 79 Through 115 106 91.9% 59.5 13.4 E 115 Right Turn 60 57 95.3% 47.6 11.7 D 50 Subtotal 260 239 92.0% 56.2 12.9 E 245 Left Turn 70 61 87.6% 128.0 20.3 F 144 Through 575 534 92.8% 82.8 19.2 F 811 Right Turn 110 102 92.6% 53.9 14.0 D 101 Subtotal 755 697 92.3% 82.2 19.0 F 1055 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 MAX Alt Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 91.3 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 52.0% 8.2 12.8 A 0 Through 30 27 89.0% 24.6 6.1 C 12 Right Turn 40 35 87.0% 25.4 6.4 C 16 Subtotal 75 64 85.5% 24.9 5.7 C 29 Left Turn 45 45 99.3% 24.8 5.2 C 20 Through 25 27 106.8% 25.2 8.7 C 12 Right Turn 85 81 95.4% 26.4 3.7 C 39 Subtotal 155 153 98.4% 25.9 1.8 C 72 Left Turn 55 52 94.0% 41.0 9.9 D 39 Through 605 573 94.6% 13.7 1.0 B 143 Right Turn 10 7 67.0% 7.8 7.3 A 1 Subtotal 670 631 94.2% 15.8 1.3 B 183 Left Turn 45 44 96.7% 52.2 17.5 D 42 Through 705 642 91.1% 29.3 14.4 C 345 Right Turn 55 54 98.5% 24.8 18.3 C 25 Subtotal 805 740 91.9% 30.1 14.7 C 411 Total 1,705 1,587 93.1% 23.8 7.4 C 695 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 150 96.5% 72.5 27.9 E 199 Through 655 637 97.3% 45.3 13.0 D 530 Right Turn 150 143 95.5% 48.3 13.1 D 127 Subtotal 960 930 96.9% 49.9 14.7 D 855 Left Turn 120 114 94.8% 126.7 23.0 F 264 Through 870 823 94.6% 101.4 21.3 F 1530 Right Turn 95 85 89.5% 100.7 21.3 F 157 Subtotal 1,085 1,022 94.1% 104.0 21.1 F 1951 Left Turn 185 168 90.9% 238.0 76.6 F 733 Through 345 324 93.9% 193.3 73.0 F 1149 Right Turn 140 126 89.6% 221.4 76.2 F 509 Subtotal 670 618 92.2% 212.1 74.2 F 2392 Left Turn 205 173 84.6% 134.4 68.9 F 427 Through 365 321 88.1% 85.2 58.4 F 502 Right Turn 90 81 89.8% 88.8 53.6 F 132 Subtotal 660 576 87.2% 101.4 60.2 F 1061 Total 3,375 3,145 93.2% 106.3 16.9 F 6259 87.3 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 2 40.0% 1.8 2.3 A 0 Through 365 362 99.0% 5.9 0.9 A 39 Right Turn 95 95 99.6% 5.0 1.0 A 9 Subtotal 465 458 98.5% 5.7 0.9 A 48 Left Turn 85 79 92.7% 9.2 2.8 A 13 Through 610 613 100.6% 9.2 2.9 A 104 Right Turn 10 8 82.0% 11.4 5.8 B 2 Subtotal 705 700 99.3% 9.3 2.8 A 119 Left Turn 5 3 52.0% 2.5 5.5 A 0 Through Right Turn 5 4 84.0% 6.2 8.8 A 0 Subtotal 10 7 68.0% 7.0 8.8 A 1 APPENDIX: CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGNS & INTERIM DESIGN CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS OF RECOMMENDED DESIGN & INTERIM DESIGN appendix: E West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor MATCH LINE MATCH LINE Recommended Design Plum St CSU Campus Roundabout ROW Acquisition, typ. Planted Median Potential Location for Enhanced Bicycle/ Pedestrian Crossing, Exact Location/Details to be Determined During Final Design 11’ Travel Lane 11’ Travel Lane Relocated RRFB, Future HAWK Crossing Potential Future Enhanced Bike/ Ped Crossing (e.g. RRFB)* Lane Drop Protected Intersection 10’ Travel Lane ROW Acquisition, typ. ROW Acquisition, typ. 6’ Tree Lawn, Typ. Canal Crossing Improvements - Widening to Accommodate New Walk Alignment Protected Bike Lane 8’ Min. 1’ Wide Curb, Typ. Protected Bike Lane 8’ Min. 1’ Wide Curb, Typ. Protected Bike Lane 6’ Min. 1’ Wide Curb, Typ. Initial Access Management Concept. - Alternative Designs Will be Evaluated During the Next Steps to Consider Access for Properties on the Northwest Corner of Taft Hill and West Elizabeth Bus Pull-Out, Typ. Potential Canal Crossing Improvements to Accommodate Sidewalk Re-Alignment Existing 4-Way Stop The District 6’ Bike Lane w/ 2’ Buffer Shared Bikeway Connection to Skyline Dr. Enhanced Shared Path Access to Skyline Dr. 6’ Tree Lawn, Typ. 6’ Walk, Typ. Section B Existing Ped. Crossing w/ Loading Zone Area Proposed PHB/HAWK Improved Intersection, Designated Left, Through, Right Turn, Bike Lane 6’ Walk, Typ. Buffered Bike Lane, Typ. West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor MATCH LINE MATCH LINE Interim Design Plum St Remove Left Turn Lane, to Accommodate Future Enhancements Remove On-Street Parking. Relocate Crossing and Upgrade to RRFB (Planned Summer 2016) Existing RRFB Pedestrian Crossing TAFT HILL DRIVE TO SKYLINE DRIVE: Pedestrian Facility Enhancements: • East Side Intersection Re-Alignment to Accommodate Bike Lanes. • Reconstruct Curb, Gutter, 6’ Parkway, and 6’ Walk to Accommodate Future Phasing, South Side Only. Roadway Striping Enhancements: • Re-stripe Bike Lane to Accommodate New South Curb Alignment • Re-stripe Intersection to Allow for Bike Lanes AZURO DRIVE TO HILLCREST DRIVE: Pedestrian Facility Enhancements: • Construct Curb, Gutter, 6’ Parkway (where possible with R.O.W.), 6’ Walk to Accommodate Future Phasing. • Widen Existing walk to meet ADA Standards where necessary. Roadway Striping Enhancements: • Stripe Bike Lanes. (Remove On-Street Parking between Cypress and Ponderosa Drive) • Re-stripe Lanes to Accommodate Future Phasing. TIERRA LANE TO AZURO DRIVE: Pedestrian Facility Enhancements: • Curb, Gutter, 6’ Parkway, 6’ Walk to Accommodate Future Phasing. Roadway Striping Enhancements: • Stripe Bike Lanes • Re-stripe Lanes to Accommodate Future Phasing. HILLCREST DRIVE TO TAFT HILL ROAD: Pedestrian Facility Enhancements: • Re-Align East Side Intersection to Accommodate Bike Lanes. • Construct Curb, Gutter, 6’ Parkway, and 6’ Walk to Accommodate Future Phasing. Roadway Striping Enhancements: • Re-Stripe Intersection to Accommodate Bike Lane, and Green Striping at Conflict Zones. Roadway Striping Enhancements: • Two-Stage Bike Turn Box Roadway Striping Enhancements: • Two-Stage Bike Turn Box Pedestrian Facility Enhancements: • Construct Detached Walk (6’ tree lawn, 6’ walk) Shared Bikeway Connection to Skyline Dr. Enhanced Shared Path Access to Skyline Dr. The District LEGEND Striping Adjustments Pedestrian Facility Enhancements Bus Stop Location to 50' 0 25' 50' 100' N O R T H 30' 0 15' 30' 60' N O R T H 30' 0 15' 30' 60' N O R T H West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Typical Bus Stop Island Design Enlargement Bike Lane Speed Table to 6’ Walk Behind Bike Lane Accommodate ADA Access Bike Lane Speed Table to Accommodate ADA Access 6’ Bike Lane Behind Bus Stop Island 6’ Bike Lane Behind Bus Stop Island Fencing to Provide Separation From Bike Lane Kiosk Shelter Covered Bike Parking Potential for 4 Bike Spaces Bench Seating Bus Stop Island to Accommodate Articulated Bus Loading/Unloading. Allow for Stubouts for Future BRT Facilities RECOMMENDED DESIGN RECOMMENDED DESIGN W/ BRT IMPLEMENTATION Striped Taper to Accommodate Bike Movement Striped Taper to Accommodate Bike Movement 0 5’ 10’ 20’ Scale: 1”=5’ West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor CSU Transit Center Lory Student Center Engineering Center Transit Center Lagoon Plum St. Green Hall Allison Hall BRT Stop, typ. Re-designed Parking Area to Accommodate New BRT Stop Existing Pedestrian Crossing, typ. Potential Pedestrian Corridor 0 40’ 80’ 120’ Scale: 1”=40’ Proposed Phasing: Proposed Phasing: Project Summary Handout  Highest ridership corridor – about 5,000 riders a day  Overcrowded buses, people left behind  Not enough amenities  Not enough service (late-night, weekend, summer)  Inability to support existing travel demands and anticipated growth  Inadequate transit service  Challenge connecting between modes  Unique and adaptable – transit service is customized to demand, implemented in stages  Safe and comfortable – convenient, easily accessed stops with enhanced amenities  Prioritize public transportation – premium transit that minimizes delay  Tweaks to existing routes - Makes routes easier to understand - Adds service to high demand locations  New connection from West Elizabeth to Downtown/MAX  Transit stop improvements  Transit Signal Priority (TSP) improves transit reliability  Foothills Campus transit turnaround and Park-n-Ride  High-frequency transit service on West Elizabeth and Plum  Enhanced transit stops and amenities  New Foothills Campus internal shuttle route  Connection to MAX via Prospect Road Route  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – like transit service (or future technology) - High-frequency service focused on West Elizabeth through Campus West - Branded service/vehicles (MAX-like) - Off-board fare payment  Direct connection to MAX  High number of cyclists – over 2,000 per day in Campus West  High number of crashes  Challenging intersections  Lots of driveway conflicts in Campus West  Inconsistent facilities in west segment  Inability to support existing travel demands and anticipated growth  Uncomfortable and inconsistent bicycle facilities and safety concerns  Challenge connecting between modes  Unique and adaptable – bike facilities are phased in over time  Safe and comfortable, encourage active Proposed Phasing: Proposed Phasing: Project Summary Handout  High numbers of pedestrians – over 100 crossing during peak hours at signalized intersections in Campus West  Inconsistent facilities, lack of sidewalks  Not comfortable  Many segments not ADA compliant (~36%)  Hard to cross Elizabeth north/south  Inability to support existing travel demands and anticipated growth  Uncomfortable and incomplete pedestrian facilities and safety concerns  Challenge connecting between modes  Unique and adaptable – sidewalks vary depending on the context of corridor  Safe and comfortable – new N/S crossings are planned throughout corridor  Interconnectivity – amenities are provided at bus stops for pedestrians  Beautiful and vibrant – complete sidewalk network and tree lawns  Skyline N/S crossing relocated east of Skyline  Completion of sidewalk network on West Elizabeth to comply with ADA guidance  Intersection treatments to address access to signal push buttons and upgraded curb ramps  Enhanced sidewalk network with detached sidewalks and landscaped parkways (where feasible)  New and/or enhanced crossings (upgrades to Campus West mid-block crossing, new crossing at Woodbridge Senior Housing, Ponderosa and Rocky/Azuro)  Conflict points reduced as access points consolidate with redevelopment  Traffic varies from 4,400 in the west to over 18,000 per day in the east  Perceived speeding, especially in the western segments  Challenging to make left turns  Conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists  Sight distance issues  Inability to support existing travel demands and anticipated growth  Vehicular mobility, safety and access concerns  Challenge connecting between modes  Unique and adaptable – street design varies depending on traffic volumes  Safe and comfortable – medians, parkways, pedestrian crossings, and roundabout calm traffic and reduce conflict points  Interconnectivity – park-n-ride and potential APPENDIX: RESPONDING TO PROJECT NEED RESPONDING appendix: TO THE PROJECT F NEED Responding to the Project Need The Recommended Design responds specifically to the project Vision and statement of Project Need: • Inability to support existing travel demands and anticipated growth, which will exacerbate existing deficiencies in transit service, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities and vehicle safety. The transit operations strategy provides efficient routing and high frequency service, this will significantly increase bus capacity to reduce or eliminate instances of leaving passengers behind. • Inadequate transit service due primarily to insufficient system connectivity, low and inconsistent route frequencies, poor reliability, lack of capacity to serve current and future demands, and lack of patron stop amenities. The transit operations strategy will improve connectivity by providing a year-round, one seat ride from West Elizabeth Street to Downtown Fort Collins. In addition to increasing bus capacity, frequent service will ensure that passengers do not need to consult a schedule prior to their trip. Transit Signal Priority and bus stop islands will improve bus reliability. Lastly, bus stop islands will feature basic amenities such as signage, benches, shelters and bike racks. • Uncomfortable and inconsistent bicycle facilities and safety concerns due to incomplete bike lanes and inadequate intersection treatments. There is also higher than expected rates of bicycle- and vehicle-related crashes in several locations. The Recommended Design will provide a complete network of protected bike lanes or buffered bike lanes along West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to Overland Trail. A variety of innovative intersection treatments will improve ease of turning as well as safety, including green colored pavement, two-stage turn queue boxes and the City’s first pilot of a protected intersection. These improvements are specifically targeted at locations with high crash histories. • Uncomfortable and incomplete pedestrian facilities and safety concerns due to inconsistent and missing sidewalks, as well as sidewalks that are not ADA-compliant; in addition, there are limited north/south crossing opportunities and pedestrians experience significant delays crossing West Elizabeth Street. The Recommended Design will provide a complete, ADA-compliant sidewalk network along West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and Overland Trail. This will significantly improve comfort for people walking along West Elizabeth Street. Additionally, two existing crossings of West Elizabeth Street will be upgraded, one new crossing will be provided, and at least two additional crossings can be accommodated once demand justifies their installation. • Vehicular mobility, safety and access concerns exist due to intersection and driveway turning conflicts, as well as queue spillback (traffic backed up at a left-turn lane, for example) at some signalized intersections. The Recommended Design maintains reasonable travel times for people driving and provides several safety improvements for people driving, including access management in Campus West and west of Taft Hill Road and a roundabout at Overland Trail. • Challenge connecting between modes for trips in the corridor including inadequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities to and at transit stops and parking challenges in the corridor. By completing and improving sidewalks and bike lanes and by implementing a robust transit operations strategy, people biking, riding transit and walking will be able to more seamlessly connect between modes. The Park-n-Ride at the CSU Foothills Campus Equine Center will improve connectivity between driving and transit. Connectivity between bicycling and other modes will be improved with bike share stations on the corridor and bike racks at bus stops to facilitate bicycle-transit trips. APPENDIX: TRAFFIC OPERATIONS CALCULATIONS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS appendix: CALCULATIONS G MEMORANDUM Date: June 22, 2016 To: Amy Lewin, Emma Belmont and Rachel Prelog From: Charlie Alexander Subject: Traffic Operations Analysis for West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan DN15-0488 This technical memorandum summarizes the findings of the traffic operations analysis for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. EXISTING & EXISTING + RECOMMENDED DESIGN Table 1 shows results of AM and PM peak hour analysis for Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Recommended Design conditions at study intersections affected by the Recommended Design: West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail, West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road, West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, West Elizabeth/City Park Avenue, West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street and Plum Street/Shields Street. TABLE 1: DELAY / LEVEL OF SERVICE – EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Existing Existing + Recommended Design AM PM AM PM West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 3 / A 22 / C (WBL) 3 / A 30 / D (WBL) 5 / A 7 / A West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 21 / C 36 / D 22 / C 42 / D West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 6 / A 9 / A 10 / B 17 / B West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 8 / A 17 / B 14 / B 25 / C West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 17 / B 46 / D 13 / B 42 / D Shields Street/Plum Street 9 / A 14 / B 12 / B 18 / B Key findings from the Existing Plus Recommended Design analysis are: • At West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail, average delay increases by two seconds in the AM peak hour and four seconds in the PM peak hour; however, level of service for westbound left-turning vehicles improves to LOS B during both peak hours. • At West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road, average delay increases by one second in the AM peak hour and six seconds in the PM peak hour due to the introduction of Transit Signal Priority. • At West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue, average delay increases by four seconds in the AM peak hour and eight seconds in the PM peak hour due to the introduction of Transit Signal Priority and the restriction of northbound and southbound right-turn on red for two-stage turn queue boxes. • At West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue, average delay increases by six seconds in the AM peak hour and eight seconds in the PM peak hour due to the introduction of Transit Signal Priority and eastbound/westbound protected-only left-turns due to the protected intersection. • At West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street, average delay decreases in both the AM and PM peak hour due to changes in eastbound/westbound lane configurations, the removal of the crosswalk across the intersection’s north leg and the re-optimization of green time away from the westbound phase to other phases. VISSIM analysis is showing that eastbound right-turning vehicles operations are significantly affected by the presence of pedestrians in the intersection’s south crosswalk. The VISSIM model currently assumes only at-grade improvements from the IGA project (no undercrossing); therefore, pedestrian volumes from the north crosswalk were re-assigned to the south crosswalk. Implementing improvements that reduce the number of pedestrians in the south crosswalk would likely result in an even more substantial improvement to level of service at this intersection. • At Plum Street/Shields Street, average delay increases by three seconds in the AM peak hour and four seconds in the PM peak hour due to the introduction of Transit Signal Priority. 2040 & 2040 + RECOMMENDED DESIGN Table 2 shows results of AM and PM peak hour analysis for 2040 Conditions and 2040 Plus Recommended Design conditions at study intersections affected by the Recommended Design TABLE 1: DELAY / LEVEL OF SERVICE – 2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection 2040 2040 + Recommended Design AM PM AM PM West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail 3 / A 25 / D (WBL) 4 / A 29 / D (WBL) 8 / A 9 / A West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road 33 / C 58 / E 32 / C 54 / D West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue 6 / A 11 / B 12 / B 19 / B West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 8 / A 23 / C 15 / B 34 / C West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 22 / C >80 / F 17 / B >80 / F Shields Street/Plum Street 10 / B 47 / D 12 / B 45 / D The 2040 Plus Recommended Design analysis indicates that changes to delay due to the project in 2040 are similar to changes to delay due to the project in existing conditions. At intersections with a relatively low level of congestion (West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail, West Elizabeth Street/Constitution Avenue and West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue), delay generally increases between five and 11 seconds without causing unacceptable conditions (LOS D or worse). At congested intersections (West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road, West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street and Shields Street/Plum Street., the Recommended Design does not have a significant impact as LOS is generally unchanged. Detailed technical calculations are attached as an appendix. Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 719 707 98.3% 3.6 0.8 A 47 Right Turn 413 395 95.6% 5.2 1.2 A 38 Subtotal 1,132 1,101 97.3% 4.2 0.8 A 85 Left Turn 130 129 98.8% 20.9 2.7 C 49 Through 667 670 100.4% 10.4 1.4 B 127 Right Turn Subtotal 797 798 100.2% 12.2 1.4 B 177 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 128 121 94.3% 46.9 2.5 D 104 Through Right Turn 61 61 100.2% 10.1 2.5 B 11 Subtotal 189 182 96.2% 35.3 2.6 D 115 Total 2,118 2,081 98.3% 11.5 0.6 B 377 43.0 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 13 13 96.9% 6.1 7.5 A 1 Through 1,064 1,039 97.6% 2.6 1.0 A 50 Right Turn 37 40 108.9% 2.6 1.5 A 2 Subtotal 1,114 1,091 98.0% 2.7 1.0 A 53 Left Turn 13 14 103.8% 17.8 14.4 B 4 Through 764 761 99.6% 5.4 0.8 A 75 Right Turn 18 18 98.3% 5.6 2.7 A 2 Subtotal 795 792 99.7% 5.7 0.7 A 81 Left Turn 51 51 100.0% 54.3 9.9 D 51 Through 25 31 124.4% 59.0 6.4 E 34 Right Turn 34 34 100.3% 50.8 15.8 D 32 Subtotal 110 116 105.6% 55.1 7.8 E 116 Left Turn 17 18 105.9% 49.8 24.2 D 16 Through 18 27 149.4% 42.4 11.6 D 21 Right Turn 17 16 93.5% 7.9 3.1 A 2 Subtotal 52 61 116.9% 36.1 10.6 D 40 Total 2,071 2,061 99.5% 8.9 0.7 A 290 59.0 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 140 143 102.4% 24.1 6.9 C 63 Through 851 827 97.1% 10.9 2.3 B 166 Right Turn 54 55 101.3% 8.6 1.5 A 9 Subtotal 1,045 1,025 98.1% 12.6 2.5 B 238 Left Turn 24 23 95.8% 34.1 18.1 C 14 Through 653 651 99.6% 7.3 1.7 A 87 Right Turn 138 139 100.9% 2.9 0.4 A 7 Subtotal 815 813 99.8% 7.5 1.3 A 109 Left Turn 258 262 101.4% 41.9 5.4 D 201 Through 27 26 95.9% 44.1 18.3 D 21 Right Turn 296 297 100.2% 32.9 12.1 C 179 Subtotal 581 584 100.5% 37.8 5.6 D 400 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 45.7 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,178 1,171 99.4% 2.9 0.8 A 63 Right Turn 154 151 98.0% 3.8 1.1 A 11 Subtotal 1,332 1,322 99.2% 3.0 0.8 A 73 Left Turn 123 120 97.6% 36.1 12.7 D 80 Through 768 756 98.4% 5.6 1.6 A 78 Right Turn Subtotal 891 876 98.3% 10.2 3.7 B 158 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 61 60 99.0% 49.5 8.6 D 55 Through Right Turn 37 36 98.4% 4.9 1.0 A 3 Subtotal 98 97 98.8% 32.4 5.4 C 58 Total 2,321 2,294 98.8% 7.5 1.8 A 289 42.4 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 56 55 98.9% 26.4 5.0 C 27 Through 946 942 99.6% 20.7 2.9 C 357 Right Turn 136 130 95.2% 15.8 1.9 B 38 Subtotal 1,138 1,127 99.0% 20.4 2.6 C 422 Left Turn 145 155 107.2% 33.7 5.2 C 96 Through 630 606 96.2% 6.6 1.2 A 73 Right Turn 54 53 97.8% 2.6 0.9 A 3 Subtotal 829 815 98.3% 11.6 1.4 B 171 Left Turn 241 228 94.8% 154.2 42.7 F 646 Through 713 732 102.6% 132.7 36.7 F 1,780 Right Turn 152 151 99.5% 95.9 34.1 F 266 Subtotal 1,106 1,112 100.5% 132.4 36.8 F 2,692 Left Turn 71 66 92.4% 52.1 8.7 D 63 Through 233 242 103.7% 41.6 3.4 D 184 Right Turn 145 149 102.6% 34.4 5.1 C 94 Subtotal 449 456 101.6% 40.8 2.9 D 341 Total 3,522 3,509 99.6% 60.5 13.5 E 3,626 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 24 23 95.8% 21.6 3.5 C 9 Through 33 31 94.2% 19.3 5.8 B 11 Right Turn 35 36 101.4% 10.2 4.0 B 7 Subtotal 92 90 97.4% 16.2 3.9 B 27 Left Turn 34 33 95.9% 19.8 6.1 B 12 Through 32 33 103.4% 19.1 7.1 B 12 Right Turn 18 23 128.9% 11.9 3.9 B 5 Subtotal 84 89 105.8% 17.2 4.4 B 28 Left Turn 53 51 96.8% 9.3 4.3 A 9 Through 441 440 99.8% 5.7 0.9 A 46 Right Turn 66 65 98.0% 5.2 1.3 A 6 Subtotal 560 556 99.3% 6.0 1.1 A 61 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 20.6 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 3 3 110.0% 12.0 13.2 B 1 Through 4 5 115.0% 17.7 14.4 B 1 Right Turn 20 21 106.0% 5.7 2.3 A 2 Subtotal 27 29 107.8% 9.3 4.7 A 4 Left Turn 36 34 95.3% 19.0 6.0 B 12 Through 9 9 103.3% 21.7 5.5 C 4 Right Turn 32 36 112.2% 7.8 2.1 A 5 Subtotal 77 80 103.2% 14.3 3.3 B 21 Left Turn 26 26 100.8% 7.4 5.7 A 4 Through 499 500 100.1% 4.0 1.3 A 36 Right Turn 5 6 110.0% 2.0 2.8 A 0 Subtotal 530 531 100.3% 4.1 1.2 A 40 Left Turn 2 2 80.0% 0.8 1.4 A 0 Through 150 151 100.5% 4.1 2.8 A 11 Right Turn 15 21 139.3% 6.9 3.8 A 3 Subtotal 167 173 103.7% 4.4 2.7 A 14 Total 801 813 101.5% 5.7 1.1 A 79 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 51 47 91.6% 16.4 2.1 B 14 Through 739 740 100.2% 18.7 2.0 B 253 Right Turn 111 108 97.4% 18.4 2.5 B 37 Subtotal 901 895 99.4% 18.5 1.6 B 304 Left Turn 91 90 98.5% 23.1 6.0 C 38 Through 547 544 99.5% 13.1 1.8 B 130 Right Turn 47 48 101.5% 12.3 5.0 B 11 Subtotal 685 681 99.5% 14.4 2.1 B 179 Left Turn 121 120 99.0% 33.6 5.3 C 74 Through 239 248 103.8% 40.3 3.0 D 183 Right Turn 153 154 100.7% 16.8 3.4 B 47 Subtotal 513 522 101.7% 31.9 2.7 C 304 Left Turn 100 100 99.6% 31.6 8.6 C 58 Through 109 117 107.3% 30.2 6.5 C 65 Right Turn 32 31 96.9% 5.5 1.9 A 3 Subtotal 241 248 102.7% 27.6 4.0 C 126 Total 2,340 2,346 100.3% 21.3 1.6 C 913 44.0 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 4 4 100.0% 1.2 2.2 A 0 Through 455 449 98.7% 0.5 0.1 A 4 Right Turn 69 74 106.7% 0.9 0.2 A 1 Subtotal 528 527 99.8% 0.6 0.1 A 6 Left Turn 33 34 103.6% 3.3 1.7 A 2 Through 272 278 102.1% 0.3 0.1 A 2 Right Turn 10 11 111.0% 0.5 0.2 A 0 Subtotal 315 323 102.5% 0.7 0.2 A 4 Left Turn 11 13 117.3% 11.3 6.5 B 3 Through 1 1 110.0% 5.5 12.2 A 0 Right Turn 1 1 70.0% 1.0 2.1 A 0 Subtotal 13 15 113.1% 11.3 6.7 B 3 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 858 838 97.7% 8.3 2.7 A 128 Right Turn 428 412 96.2% 11.6 2.4 B 87 Subtotal 1,286 1,250 97.2% 9.4 2.4 A 215 Left Turn 99 96 96.7% 52.3 9.1 D 92 Through 971 920 94.7% 17.5 1.8 B 295 Right Turn Subtotal 1,070 1,016 94.9% 20.9 1.9 C 387 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 497 491 98.7% 71.2 15.4 E 640 Through Right Turn 154 149 96.8% 42.5 15.3 D 116 Subtotal 651 640 98.2% 64.1 15.1 E 756 Total 3,007 2,905 96.6% 24.8 3.8 C 1358 53.7 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 63 90.1% 98.7 82.1 F 114 Through 1,205 1,175 97.5% 4.7 1.5 A 100 Right Turn 56 51 91.8% 3.4 2.2 A 3 Subtotal 1,331 1,290 96.9% 8.8 4.4 A 218 Left Turn 18 19 104.4% 45.3 24.3 D 16 Through 1,390 1,334 96.0% 8.1 1.9 A 199 Right Turn 60 59 99.0% 6.9 1.0 A 8 Subtotal 1,468 1,412 96.2% 8.6 2.0 A 222 Left Turn 59 59 99.7% 77.7 34.3 E 84 Through 23 25 109.1% 83.2 35.2 F 38 Right Turn 61 57 93.0% 82.2 31.8 F 85 Subtotal 143 141 98.3% 79.9 32.2 E 207 Left Turn 56 51 90.4% 74.5 27.1 E 69 Through 24 27 111.7% 58.2 15.6 E 29 Right Turn 22 19 87.7% 25.5 9.3 C 9 Subtotal 102 97 94.8% 60.1 18.1 E 107 Total 3,044 2,939 96.6% 13.6 2.7 B 754 69.7 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 273 250 91.6% 136.7 58.3 F 627 Through 1,001 971 97.0% 52.4 36.5 D 932 Right Turn 57 56 97.9% 40.2 36.2 D 41 Subtotal 1,331 1,277 96.0% 66.8 40.2 E 1601 Left Turn 10 10 95.0% 34.4 30.9 C 6 Through 1,067 1,015 95.1% 25.1 7.0 C 468 Right Turn 430 412 95.8% 16.2 4.6 B 122 Subtotal 1,507 1,436 95.3% 22.7 6.1 C 596 Left Turn 324 316 97.6% 57.3 10.2 E 332 Through 48 49 101.9% 58.9 14.4 E 53 Right Turn 379 366 96.5% 63.8 20.6 E 427 Subtotal 751 731 97.3% 61.0 11.7 E 812 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 62.6 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,268 1,259 99.3% 2.9 0.8 A 68 Right Turn 52 51 98.8% 3.1 1.3 A 3 Subtotal 1,320 1,311 99.3% 2.9 0.8 A 71 Left Turn 92 87 94.9% 37.1 9.4 D 59 Through 1,360 1,291 94.9% 13.2 6.2 B 312 Right Turn Subtotal 1,452 1,379 94.9% 14.7 6.6 B 371 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 117 118 101.0% 55.5 9.3 E 120 Through Right Turn 157 154 98.1% 9.3 3.5 A 26 Subtotal 274 272 99.3% 30.0 7.3 C 146 Total 3,046 2,961 97.2% 11.2 3.4 B 588 56.1 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 160 155 96.8% 56.5 10.6 E 160 Through 908 904 99.6% 35.7 3.8 D 591 Right Turn 137 134 98.1% 23.9 6.2 C 59 Subtotal 1,205 1,193 99.0% 37.3 4.8 D 810 Left Turn 218 226 103.7% 54.6 7.5 D 226 Through 1,080 1,013 93.8% 22.4 5.7 C 416 Right Turn 179 165 92.2% 14.0 4.5 B 42 Subtotal 1,477 1,404 95.1% 26.7 4.7 C 685 Left Turn 158 160 101.3% 65.0 12.9 E 191 Through 396 396 99.9% 40.2 2.6 D 292 Right Turn 159 157 98.8% 20.8 5.4 C 60 Subtotal 713 713 100.0% 41.5 4.8 D 543 Left Turn 196 195 99.6% 89.8 15.6 F 321 Through 637 625 98.1% 78.7 12.3 E 902 Right Turn 254 243 95.6% 80.6 16.3 F 359 Subtotal 1,087 1,063 97.8% 81.3 13.3 F 1582 Total 4,482 4,373 97.6% 46.1 3.9 D 3620 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 152 97.8% 46.8 15.9 D 130 Through 107 101 94.7% 27.4 8.8 C 51 Right Turn 87 86 99.3% 23.2 9.8 C 37 Subtotal 349 339 97.2% 35.0 12.2 D 218 Left Turn 73 74 101.1% 20.9 5.5 C 28 Through 101 99 98.0% 17.2 3.2 B 31 Right Turn 51 57 112.4% 18.8 3.8 B 20 Subtotal 225 230 102.3% 18.8 2.7 B 79 Left Turn 61 61 99.3% 17.3 5.0 B 19 Through 508 504 99.1% 9.0 1.0 A 83 Right Turn 96 98 101.6% 9.9 2.0 A 18 Subtotal 665 662 99.5% 9.9 1.1 A 120 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Existing Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 25.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 95.0% 3.1 6.8 A 0 Through 26 23 89.2% 24.5 7.7 C 10 Right Turn 35 34 98.3% 7.8 2.8 A 5 Subtotal 63 60 94.4% 13.7 3.9 B 15 Left Turn 36 36 100.0% 23.5 4.4 C 16 Through 22 23 104.1% 22.9 10.3 C 10 Right Turn 74 76 103.2% 14.5 5.7 B 20 Subtotal 132 135 102.5% 18.6 3.4 B 45 Left Turn 47 46 98.3% 20.3 13.5 C 17 Through 531 527 99.2% 6.1 1.1 A 59 Right Turn 6 6 105.0% 9.5 9.0 A 1 Subtotal 584 579 99.2% 7.5 2.0 A 77 Left Turn 39 41 105.4% 6.0 2.2 A 5 Through 622 583 93.7% 7.3 4.8 A 78 Right Turn 47 52 110.2% 11.9 9.2 B 11 Subtotal 708 676 95.4% 7.5 4.7 A 94 Total 1,487 1,450 97.5% 9.0 3.1 A 232 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 136 133 98.0% 33.9 2.9 C 83 Through 577 572 99.2% 21.8 3.5 C 229 Right Turn 129 125 97.2% 19.9 6.7 B 46 Subtotal 842 831 98.7% 23.4 3.4 C 357 Left Turn 106 107 101.1% 42.8 12.5 D 84 Through 768 765 99.6% 30.7 5.7 C 431 Right Turn 84 81 96.5% 29.8 5.3 C 44 Subtotal 958 953 99.5% 32.1 5.9 C 559 Left Turn 162 157 96.9% 77.3 39.3 E 222 Through 305 305 99.9% 58.0 31.2 E 324 Right Turn 121 120 99.2% 37.6 30.8 D 83 Subtotal 588 582 98.9% 59.7 33.5 E 629 Left Turn 178 164 92.2% 45.1 17.3 D 136 Through 319 303 95.1% 39.0 10.7 D 217 Right Turn 77 71 92.6% 8.9 2.7 A 12 Subtotal 574 539 93.9% 36.7 6.6 D 364 Total 2,962 2,905 98.1% 35.5 7.3 D 1910 45.2 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 90.0% 1.6 2.1 A 0 Through 322 329 102.1% 0.5 0.1 A 3 Right Turn 83 83 99.8% 1.0 0.2 A 1 Subtotal 407 413 101.5% 0.6 0.1 A 5 Left Turn 73 75 102.6% 4.5 1.3 A 6 Through 537 540 100.5% 0.5 0.1 A 5 Right Turn 7 6 84.3% 0.6 0.5 A 0 Subtotal 617 621 100.6% 1.1 0.3 A 12 Left Turn 2 2 120.0% 7.4 11.7 A 0 Through Right Turn 3 4 130.0% 2.6 2.7 A 0 Subtotal 5 6 126.0% 7.1 10.1 A 1 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 11 Runs Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 719 701 97.5% 5.0 1.2 A 64 Right Turn 413 395 95.7% 7.8 2.6 A 57 Subtotal 1,132 1,096 96.8% 6.0 1.4 A 120 Left Turn 130 133 102.2% 21.4 6.0 C 52 Through 667 653 97.9% 10.2 1.5 B 122 Right Turn Subtotal 797 786 98.6% 12.1 2.4 B 174 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 128 121 94.5% 45.8 4.0 D 102 Through Right Turn 61 60 98.2% 10.3 2.1 B 11 Subtotal 189 181 95.7% 34.6 3.1 C 113 Total 2,118 2,063 97.4% 12.2 1.4 B 407 45.2 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 13 12 93.8% 17.9 10.7 B 4 Through 1,064 1,032 97.0% 9.2 1.1 A 174 Right Turn 37 41 111.1% 8.8 4.4 A 7 Subtotal 1,114 1,086 97.4% 9.3 1.1 A 185 Left Turn 13 11 84.6% 15.9 14.9 B 3 Through 764 748 97.9% 7.0 1.6 A 96 Right Turn 18 18 97.2% 7.7 5.8 A 2 Subtotal 795 777 97.7% 7.2 1.6 A 102 Left Turn 51 50 98.6% 54.4 9.2 D 50 Through 25 31 123.6% 39.4 9.1 D 22 Right Turn 34 33 97.4% 45.1 13.4 D 27 Subtotal 110 114 103.9% 48.8 6.2 D 100 Left Turn 17 23 132.4% 38.7 18.7 D 16 Through 18 23 127.8% 29.1 17.4 C 12 Right Turn 17 17 98.2% 8.9 5.1 A 3 Subtotal 52 62 119.6% 27.2 11.0 C 31 Total 2,071 2,039 98.4% 12.1 1.2 B 417 54.4 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 140 145 103.2% 22.4 2.9 C 59 Through 851 823 96.7% 7.2 2.5 A 109 Right Turn 54 54 99.1% 6.7 3.6 A 7 Subtotal 1,045 1,021 97.7% 9.3 2.3 A 175 Left Turn 24 23 96.7% 18.8 6.1 B 8 Through 653 641 98.1% 7.5 3.3 A 88 Right Turn 138 140 101.4% 3.2 0.6 A 8 Subtotal 815 804 98.7% 7.1 2.7 A 105 Left Turn 258 254 98.6% 43.8 6.5 D 204 Through 27 26 96.3% 28.8 17.0 C 14 Right Turn 296 297 100.4% 14.1 2.5 B 77 Subtotal 581 578 99.4% 27.7 3.3 C 295 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 11 Runs Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 63.9 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,178 1,174 99.7% 3.7 0.8 A 80 Right Turn 154 149 97.0% 4.3 1.2 A 12 Subtotal 1,332 1,324 99.4% 3.8 0.7 A 92 Left Turn 123 120 97.8% 45.5 6.9 D 100 Through 768 753 98.0% 5.8 1.5 A 80 Right Turn Subtotal 891 873 98.0% 11.4 2.8 B 180 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 61 63 102.6% 47.6 7.3 D 55 Through Right Turn 37 36 97.6% 5.5 1.1 A 4 Subtotal 98 99 100.7% 32.5 6.3 C 58 Total 2,321 2,296 98.9% 7.8 1.2 A 330 43.4 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 56 59 105.9% 22.9 5.7 C 25 Through 946 933 98.6% 21.1 2.0 C 361 Right Turn 136 134 98.4% 14.6 3.8 B 36 Subtotal 1,138 1,126 98.9% 20.4 1.7 C 422 Left Turn 145 149 102.4% 33.0 6.9 C 90 Through 630 609 96.7% 8.2 1.6 A 92 Right Turn 54 57 105.9% 2.6 0.8 A 3 Subtotal 829 815 98.3% 12.8 1.8 B 185 Left Turn 241 241 100.2% 134.3 27.4 F 594 Through 713 717 100.6% 111.5 16.5 F 1466 Right Turn 152 155 102.0% 75.6 18.1 E 215 Subtotal 1,106 1,114 100.7% 111.5 19.1 F 2275 Left Turn 71 70 98.6% 48.6 10.1 D 62 Through 233 234 100.6% 41.9 2.9 D 180 Right Turn 145 148 101.8% 31.8 6.4 C 86 Subtotal 449 452 100.6% 39.7 2.8 D 328 Total 3,522 3,506 99.6% 53.6 6.8 D 3209 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 24 22 91.7% 34.8 19.8 C 14 Through 33 31 94.8% 23.6 5.5 C 14 Right Turn 35 37 106.3% 9.5 4.8 A 6 Subtotal 92 91 98.4% 20.2 4.5 C 34 Left Turn 34 33 97.1% 30.7 13.4 C 19 Through 32 33 104.4% 26.3 6.7 C 16 Right Turn 18 23 126.1% 10.2 3.7 B 4 Subtotal 84 89 106.1% 22.9 5.1 C 39 Left Turn 53 56 105.1% 40.0 3.7 D 41 Through 441 440 99.9% 10.8 1.7 B 87 Right Turn 66 64 97.1% 9.1 1.8 A 11 Subtotal 560 560 100.0% 13.5 1.7 B 139 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 11 Runs Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 39.1 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 3 2 63.3% 18.6 20.2 B 1 Through 4 5 117.5% 15.9 16.3 B 1 Right Turn 20 18 91.0% 20.5 8.2 C 7 Subtotal 27 25 91.9% 21.6 8.7 C 9 Left Turn 36 35 96.4% 27.0 9.0 C 17 Through 9 8 93.3% 20.8 15.3 C 3 Right Turn 32 32 100.3% 24.7 4.4 C 15 Subtotal 77 75 97.7% 25.1 4.0 C 35 Left Turn 26 27 102.3% 8.8 3.8 A 4 Through 499 503 100.7% 8.6 1.7 A 80 Right Turn 5 6 126.0% 4.0 5.1 A 0 Subtotal 530 536 101.0% 8.6 1.7 A 84 Left Turn 2 2 80.0% 1.5 2.2 A 0 Through 150 148 98.6% 3.6 1.4 A 10 Right Turn 15 20 130.0% 7.5 3.1 A 3 Subtotal 167 169 101.2% 4.0 1.4 A 13 Total 801 805 100.4% 10.4 1.6 B 141 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 51 52 102.2% 15.5 3.7 B 15 Through 739 721 97.5% 18.3 3.4 B 241 Right Turn 111 112 100.8% 15.7 4.9 B 32 Subtotal 901 885 98.2% 17.9 3.3 B 289 Left Turn 91 88 96.6% 22.3 4.8 C 36 Through 547 557 101.9% 13.1 1.7 B 134 Right Turn 47 44 94.5% 10.7 4.0 B 9 Subtotal 685 690 100.7% 14.1 1.5 B 179 Left Turn 121 118 97.4% 40.3 6.8 D 87 Through 239 244 102.1% 43.4 8.1 D 194 Right Turn 153 158 103.3% 18.1 6.4 B 52 Subtotal 513 520 101.3% 35.5 6.5 D 333 Left Turn 100 98 97.6% 33.6 8.2 C 60 Through 109 111 101.5% 31.9 9.6 C 65 Right Turn 32 30 94.7% 5.5 1.3 A 3 Subtotal 241 239 99.0% 29.8 7.8 C 128 Total 2,340 2,332 99.7% 22.1 2.7 C 929 43.7 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 4 4 95.0% 1.7 1.9 A 0 Through 455 460 101.0% 4.4 0.9 A 37 Right Turn 69 69 99.4% 4.1 1.3 A 5 Subtotal 528 532 100.7% 4.3 1.0 A 42 Left Turn 33 30 91.2% 3.4 1.4 A 2 Through 272 285 104.9% 2.9 0.4 A 15 Right Turn 10 7 74.0% 3.5 2.5 A 0 Subtotal 315 323 102.5% 2.9 0.4 A 18 Left Turn 11 12 112.7% 4.4 2.7 A 1 Through 1 7 740.0% 4.9 3.6 A 1 Right Turn 1 1 50.0% 0.6 1.2 A 0 Subtotal 13 20 156.2% 4.5 2.5 A 2 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 858 836 97.4% 13.9 5.1 B 213 Right Turn 428 424 99.0% 15.4 4.0 B 120 Subtotal 1,286 1,260 97.9% 14.4 4.7 B 333 Left Turn 99 98 98.8% 51.3 8.4 D 92 Through 971 929 95.7% 22.9 9.4 C 390 Right Turn Subtotal 1,070 1,027 95.9% 25.8 8.6 C 482 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 497 494 99.4% 83.2 24.9 F 754 Through Right Turn 154 149 96.6% 56.1 29.6 E 153 Subtotal 651 643 98.8% 76.5 26.3 E 907 Total 3,007 2,929 97.4% 31.8 5.8 C 1721 54.4 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 64 91.1% 116.1 101.6 F 136 Through 1,205 1,184 98.2% 12.3 2.5 B 268 Right Turn 56 55 98.8% 12.4 3.6 B 13 Subtotal 1,331 1,303 97.9% 17.4 6.0 B 416 Left Turn 18 21 113.9% 35.0 12.4 C 13 Through 1,390 1,342 96.5% 13.7 5.2 B 337 Right Turn 60 61 101.2% 11.1 6.4 B 12 Subtotal 1,468 1,423 96.9% 13.9 5.2 B 362 Left Turn 59 59 99.3% 56.2 8.4 E 60 Through 23 27 117.8% 42.0 16.2 D 21 Right Turn 61 56 92.1% 54.5 12.6 D 56 Subtotal 143 142 99.2% 53.2 8.6 D 137 Left Turn 56 54 97.1% 55.7 18.6 E 56 Through 24 27 111.3% 34.1 22.1 C 17 Right Turn 22 20 89.1% 16.3 11.7 B 6 Subtotal 102 101 98.7% 42.3 10.8 D 78 Total 3,044 2,969 97.5% 18.4 4.0 B 994 56.8 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 273 254 92.9% 78.8 22.4 E 366 Through 1,001 987 98.6% 27.4 10.7 C 497 Right Turn 57 59 103.0% 22.2 9.5 C 24 Subtotal 1,331 1,299 97.6% 37.5 13.0 D 887 Left Turn 10 11 106.0% 44.6 19.3 D 9 Through 1,067 1,015 95.1% 27.2 7.8 C 506 Right Turn 430 415 96.5% 16.5 4.9 B 126 Subtotal 1,507 1,441 95.6% 24.3 6.9 C 641 Left Turn 324 314 97.0% 51.8 7.0 D 298 Through 48 47 98.3% 53.6 16.4 D 46 Right Turn 379 338 89.1% 114.8 17.8 F 710 Subtotal 751 699 93.1% 81.8 8.9 F 1055 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 72.8 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,268 1,271 100.2% 2.9 0.4 A 67 Right Turn 52 56 107.7% 3.3 2.6 A 3 Subtotal 1,320 1,327 100.5% 2.9 0.4 A 70 Left Turn 92 85 92.0% 38.5 8.2 D 60 Through 1,360 1,265 93.0% 14.8 3.1 B 342 Right Turn Subtotal 1,452 1,350 93.0% 16.2 3.1 B 402 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 117 120 102.4% 53.4 9.5 D 117 Through Right Turn 157 154 98.2% 10.5 3.6 B 30 Subtotal 274 274 100.0% 30.2 7.6 C 147 Total 3,046 2,951 96.9% 11.9 1.8 B 619 51.6 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 160 153 95.6% 48.1 13.7 D 135 Through 908 912 100.4% 33.7 4.7 C 563 Right Turn 137 132 96.1% 23.1 6.2 C 56 Subtotal 1,205 1,197 99.3% 34.6 6.1 C 754 Left Turn 218 221 101.2% 52.3 7.1 D 212 Through 1,080 993 91.9% 19.9 4.5 B 363 Right Turn 179 163 91.3% 12.3 2.9 B 37 Subtotal 1,477 1,377 93.2% 24.2 3.6 C 612 Left Turn 158 160 101.5% 68.5 15.9 E 201 Through 396 394 99.4% 40.4 4.0 D 292 Right Turn 159 158 99.1% 20.3 4.7 C 59 Subtotal 713 712 99.8% 42.7 5.6 D 552 Left Turn 196 191 97.4% 106.3 33.1 F 372 Through 637 613 96.2% 100.7 33.6 F 1131 Right Turn 254 250 98.6% 103.6 33.4 F 475 Subtotal 1,087 1,054 97.0% 102.5 33.2 F 1978 Total 4,482 4,339 96.8% 50.2 9.2 D 3896 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 158 101.7% 45.1 15.7 D 130 Through 107 100 93.5% 28.3 9.1 C 52 Right Turn 87 86 99.1% 20.9 6.7 C 33 Subtotal 349 344 98.5% 34.2 11.9 C 215 Left Turn 73 70 95.3% 25.8 5.4 C 33 Through 101 99 98.0% 19.5 4.6 B 35 Right Turn 51 56 109.8% 14.2 3.6 B 15 Subtotal 225 225 99.8% 20.0 3.7 C 83 Left Turn 61 56 91.3% 43.0 7.3 D 44 Through 508 499 98.3% 24.7 5.5 C 226 Right Turn 96 92 96.1% 19.6 6.8 B 33 Subtotal 665 647 97.4% 25.6 5.1 C 303 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 36.8 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 105.0% 9.7 20.5 A 0 Through 26 23 88.8% 16.6 6.5 B 7 Right Turn 35 31 88.0% 21.3 7.1 C 12 Subtotal 63 56 88.9% 19.7 6.2 B 19 Left Turn 36 36 100.0% 27.2 6.4 C 18 Through 22 26 117.3% 21.8 6.2 C 10 Right Turn 74 74 99.6% 24.2 4.4 C 33 Subtotal 132 136 102.7% 25.0 3.7 C 61 Left Turn 47 50 105.5% 25.1 6.9 C 23 Through 531 520 97.9% 15.9 3.1 B 151 Right Turn 6 6 106.7% 14.8 15.6 B 2 Subtotal 584 576 98.6% 16.6 3.1 B 176 Left Turn 39 41 104.4% 23.4 8.9 C 17 Through 622 598 96.1% 14.8 3.0 B 162 Right Turn 47 52 110.0% 14.6 4.1 B 14 Subtotal 708 690 97.5% 15.2 3.1 B 193 Total 1,487 1,458 98.0% 16.9 2.1 B 449 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 136 132 97.1% 35.1 5.4 D 85 Through 577 574 99.5% 24.5 4.5 C 258 Right Turn 129 124 95.7% 21.1 5.6 C 48 Subtotal 842 830 98.6% 25.7 4.3 C 391 Left Turn 106 104 98.1% 51.9 12.8 D 99 Through 768 755 98.4% 41.7 10.4 D 577 Right Turn 84 80 95.5% 38.3 11.3 D 56 Subtotal 958 940 98.1% 42.5 10.4 D 732 Left Turn 162 160 99.0% 79.3 41.1 E 233 Through 305 306 100.4% 62.4 34.8 E 350 Right Turn 121 117 97.0% 45.0 32.7 D 97 Subtotal 588 584 99.3% 63.9 36.7 E 680 Left Turn 178 170 95.2% 54.3 16.1 D 169 Through 319 307 96.3% 45.0 10.4 D 253 Right Turn 77 74 95.7% 14.0 8.0 B 19 Subtotal 574 550 95.9% 43.8 11.8 D 441 Total 2,962 2,904 98.0% 42.2 10.8 D 2244 43.5 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 2 2 95.0% 2.1 3.4 A 0 Through 322 324 100.5% 4.6 1.2 A 27 Right Turn 83 83 100.0% 4.5 1.0 A 7 Subtotal 407 408 100.3% 4.6 1.1 A 34 Left Turn 73 72 98.8% 7.5 3.3 A 10 Through 537 541 100.7% 7.2 2.2 A 71 Right Turn 7 7 94.3% 7.8 5.0 A 1 Subtotal 617 620 100.4% 7.2 2.2 A 82 Left Turn 2 2 100.0% 3.8 4.2 A 0 Through Right Turn 3 3 103.3% 8.0 11.8 A 0 Subtotal 5 5 102.0% 6.9 6.6 A 1 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 850 829 97.5% 8.0 2.8 A 122 Right Turn 490 471 96.1% 10.5 2.6 B 90 Subtotal 1,340 1,300 97.0% 8.9 2.7 A 212 Left Turn 155 156 100.9% 34.7 10.8 C 100 Through 790 783 99.1% 12.1 1.1 B 174 Right Turn Subtotal 945 939 99.4% 15.8 2.2 B 274 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 155 146 94.3% 45.1 4.3 D 121 Through Right Turn 75 70 92.7% 11.4 3.5 B 14 Subtotal 230 216 93.8% 34.2 4.0 C 135 Total 2,515 2,455 97.6% 13.5 1.6 B 621 44.8 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 20 15 76.5% 11.4 6.8 B 3 Through 1,260 1,227 97.4% 3.6 1.6 A 81 Right Turn 45 46 102.0% 3.8 1.8 A 3 Subtotal 1,325 1,289 97.2% 3.7 1.6 A 88 Left Turn 20 14 68.0% 26.2 24.9 C 7 Through 905 898 99.2% 5.5 0.7 A 90 Right Turn 25 20 80.4% 4.3 2.6 A 2 Subtotal 950 932 98.1% 5.9 0.9 A 98 Left Turn 65 58 89.8% 63.5 17.1 E 68 Through 30 37 123.7% 67.4 15.9 E 46 Right Turn 45 40 88.7% 67.0 19.3 E 49 Subtotal 140 135 96.7% 64.6 14.6 E 163 Left Turn 25 22 88.0% 50.8 25.7 D 20 Through 25 28 113.2% 34.3 9.6 C 18 Right Turn 25 20 79.2% 14.4 8.3 B 5 Subtotal 75 70 93.5% 34.3 9.2 C 43 Total 2,490 2,426 97.4% 10.1 1.4 B 392 67.4 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 170 162 95.5% 32.4 4.7 C 97 Through 1,005 970 96.5% 11.1 3.1 B 198 Right Turn 70 62 88.9% 9.7 3.3 A 11 Subtotal 1,245 1,195 96.0% 14.0 2.4 B 306 Left Turn 30 26 85.7% 53.5 15.1 D 25 Through 775 769 99.2% 8.2 2.4 A 115 Right Turn 170 166 97.4% 3.8 0.6 A 12 Subtotal 975 960 98.5% 8.9 2.0 A 152 Left Turn 315 317 100.6% 48.3 5.6 D 281 Through 35 36 103.7% 52.2 11.7 D 35 Right Turn 360 357 99.3% 53.6 25.3 D 351 Subtotal 710 711 100.1% 51.3 14.2 D 667 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 46.2 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,395 1,372 98.3% 5.0 1.0 A 125 Right Turn 185 175 94.6% 5.7 1.5 A 18 Subtotal 1,580 1,547 97.9% 5.1 1.0 A 143 Left Turn 150 145 96.7% 50.5 12.1 D 134 Through 910 901 99.0% 7.0 3.3 A 115 Right Turn Subtotal 1,060 1,046 98.7% 13.3 4.6 B 249 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 75 71 94.1% 47.0 8.2 D 61 Through Right Turn 45 45 99.1% 5.5 1.4 A 4 Subtotal 120 115 96.0% 31.9 4.8 C 65 Total 2,760 2,708 98.1% 9.8 2.1 A 458 54.4 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 68 97.0% 35.0 8.4 D 44 Through 1,120 1,107 98.8% 27.0 4.7 C 549 Right Turn 165 155 94.1% 21.9 7.4 C 62 Subtotal 1,355 1,330 98.1% 26.8 4.9 C 655 Left Turn 175 178 101.4% 41.5 6.5 D 135 Through 745 728 97.8% 7.9 2.2 A 106 Right Turn 65 63 96.2% 4.7 1.5 A 5 Subtotal 985 968 98.3% 14.2 2.3 B 247 Left Turn 285 264 92.6% 381.2 56.8 F 1,845 Through 845 792 93.8% 375.3 55.3 F 5,451 Right Turn 180 165 91.7% 342.7 56.5 F 1,037 Subtotal 1,310 1,221 93.2% 372.4 55.3 F 8,332 Left Turn 85 83 97.1% 63.5 17.4 E 96 Through 275 274 99.5% 3.0 1.4 A 15 Right Turn 175 174 99.1% 19.1 3.3 B 61 Subtotal 535 530 99.0% 18.0 4.4 B 172 Total 4,185 4,049 96.8% 135.2 17.3 F 9,405 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 30 27 89.3% 20.5 3.9 C 10 Through 45 40 88.7% 19.4 4.4 B 14 Right Turn 45 44 98.0% 10.1 4.3 B 8 Subtotal 120 111 92.3% 15.7 2.5 B 32 Left Turn 45 40 89.8% 22.8 6.1 C 17 Through 40 39 98.3% 18.7 4.2 B 13 Right Turn 25 26 102.8% 15.7 5.5 B 7 Subtotal 110 105 95.8% 19.3 2.5 B 38 Left Turn 70 65 92.1% 7.3 1.9 A 9 Through 545 532 97.6% 5.9 0.6 A 58 Right Turn 85 82 96.4% 6.0 1.7 A 9 Subtotal 700 678 96.9% 6.1 0.6 A 75 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 21.5 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 60.0% 7.2 10.0 A 0 Through 5 6 114.0% 15.1 9.0 B 2 Right Turn 25 24 94.0% 5.7 1.3 A 2 Subtotal 35 32 92.0% 8.2 3.4 A 4 Left Turn 45 42 93.6% 20.6 4.1 C 16 Through 15 11 72.7% 21.5 8.8 C 4 Right Turn 40 40 99.0% 7.4 1.0 A 5 Subtotal 100 93 92.6% 14.7 2.7 B 26 Left Turn 35 28 79.7% 4.3 1.9 A 2 Through 615 609 99.1% 4.2 1.2 A 47 Right Turn 10 6 60.0% 4.5 5.6 A 0 Subtotal 660 643 97.4% 4.3 1.2 A 50 Left Turn 5 2 44.0% 2.7 3.4 A 0 Through 185 170 91.8% 2.7 0.6 A 9 Right Turn 20 22 108.0% 6.0 2.2 A 2 Subtotal 210 194 92.2% 3.2 0.6 A 11 Total 1,005 962 95.7% 5.6 1.1 A 91 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 65 65 99.7% 26.7 10.0 C 32 Through 910 898 98.7% 30.7 11.4 C 505 Right Turn 140 137 97.6% 31.7 10.3 C 79 Subtotal 1,115 1,099 98.6% 30.6 11.0 C 616 Left Turn 115 111 96.2% 32.6 4.3 C 66 Through 675 675 100.0% 17.2 2.2 B 213 Right Turn 60 53 88.0% 17.1 4.2 B 17 Subtotal 850 838 98.6% 19.2 2.3 B 296 Left Turn 150 151 100.5% 52.2 18.1 D 144 Through 295 291 98.8% 59.8 15.8 E 320 Right Turn 190 192 100.9% 37.1 16.3 D 130 Subtotal 635 634 99.8% 51.2 16.5 D 594 Left Turn 125 111 88.4% 43.3 15.0 D 88 Through 135 130 96.1% 30.0 4.0 C 71 Right Turn 40 37 92.8% 7.0 2.1 A 5 Subtotal 300 277 92.5% 32.1 6.8 C 164 Total 2,900 2,849 98.2% 32.5 6.7 C 1,670 49.1 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 5 98.0% 3.4 2.3 A 0 Through 560 560 100.1% 0.6 0.1 A 6 Right Turn 85 88 103.5% 0.9 0.1 A 2 Subtotal 650 653 100.5% 0.7 0.1 A 8 Left Turn 45 41 90.2% 6.3 2.3 A 5 Through 335 338 100.8% 0.5 0.2 A 3 Right Turn 15 10 63.3% 0.5 0.2 A 0 Subtotal 395 388 98.2% 1.1 0.3 A 8 Left Turn 15 13 89.3% 20.4 7.4 C 5 Through 5 1 18.0% 5.7 13.2 A 0 Right Turn 5 1 20.0% 0.5 1.6 A 0 Subtotal 25 15 61.2% 20.0 7.1 C 5 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,040 929 89.3% 22.7 11.7 C 387 Right Turn 520 461 88.6% 25.0 8.7 C 211 Subtotal 1,560 1,390 89.1% 23.5 10.6 C 598 Left Turn 120 110 92.0% 134.9 43.4 F 273 Through 1,175 1,121 95.4% 78.3 27.3 E 1608 Right Turn Subtotal 1,295 1,231 95.1% 83.1 28.5 F 1881 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 605 489 80.8% 445.1 179.8 F 3987 Through Right Turn 190 160 84.1% 267.8 144.2 F 785 Subtotal 795 648 81.6% 403.5 178.5 F 4771 Total 3,650 3,269 89.6% 97.4 21.3 F 7250 59.6 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 85 73 85.6% 110.5 62.7 F 147 Through 1,460 1,314 90.0% 17.7 14.6 B 427 Right Turn 70 59 83.9% 14.8 13.0 B 16 Subtotal 1,615 1,445 89.5% 22.8 15.3 C 590 Left Turn 25 19 77.2% 102.2 27.6 F 36 Through 1,685 1,506 89.4% 41.6 6.5 D 1149 Right Turn 75 65 86.9% 41.5 8.6 D 50 Subtotal 1,785 1,591 89.1% 42.4 6.6 D 1234 Left Turn 75 65 86.9% 274.0 134.3 F 328 Through 30 29 97.7% 274.6 127.3 F 147 Right Turn 75 66 88.1% 282.5 133.3 F 342 Subtotal 180 161 89.2% 278.2 131.9 F 817 Left Turn 70 60 85.3% 97.0 44.9 F 106 Through 30 34 111.7% 95.2 52.2 F 58 Right Turn 30 22 73.3% 49.7 34.2 D 20 Subtotal 130 115 88.6% 87.2 42.6 F 185 Total 3,710 3,312 89.3% 46.8 8.6 D 2827 76.1 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 320 273 85.3% 291.5 60.9 F 1459 Through 1,215 1,095 90.1% 181.0 33.2 F 3633 Right Turn 70 62 88.6% 154.5 30.0 F 176 Subtotal 1,605 1,430 89.1% 199.7 38.3 F 5268 Left Turn 15 12 82.0% 82.1 45.1 F 19 Through 1,295 1,141 88.1% 50.3 8.8 D 1052 Right Turn 505 462 91.4% 23.8 3.6 C 201 Subtotal 1,815 1,615 89.0% 43.2 6.3 D 1271 Left Turn 380 353 92.9% 70.7 18.5 E 457 Through 55 55 99.3% 73.2 20.1 E 73 Right Turn 445 403 90.5% 49.2 13.8 D 363 Subtotal 880 810 92.1% 60.3 11.7 E 894 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 105.0 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,535 1,452 94.6% 29.5 17.0 C 786 Right Turn 65 58 88.6% 23.8 12.6 C 25 Subtotal 1,600 1,509 94.3% 29.3 16.8 C 811 Left Turn 115 93 80.9% 199.8 45.1 F 341 Through 1,650 1,397 84.7% 128.5 31.6 F 3292 Right Turn Subtotal 1,765 1,490 84.4% 133.6 31.2 F 3633 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 145 141 97.3% 69.6 13.4 E 180 Through Right Turn 190 183 96.2% 54.7 31.0 D 183 Subtotal 335 324 96.7% 61.8 21.6 E 363 Total 3,700 3,323 89.8% 79.6 15.9 E 4807 56.1 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 195 182 93.3% 144.0 42.4 F 480 Through 1,100 1,056 96.0% 124.1 53.3 F 2403 Right Turn 170 155 91.1% 106.4 54.6 F 302 Subtotal 1,465 1,393 95.1% 125.3 51.3 F 3185 Left Turn 265 242 91.4% 83.8 20.7 F 372 Through 1,310 1,102 84.1% 39.5 4.7 D 798 Right Turn 220 181 82.1% 24.5 3.3 C 81 Subtotal 1,795 1,525 85.0% 45.2 5.9 D 1251 Left Turn 195 183 93.9% 74.2 15.1 E 249 Through 480 478 99.6% 41.9 3.9 D 368 Right Turn 195 195 100.1% 22.4 4.4 C 80 Subtotal 870 857 98.4% 43.8 4.3 D 697 Left Turn 240 228 94.8% 110.6 31.7 F 461 Through 775 751 96.9% 96.7 38.3 F 1331 Right Turn 310 289 93.2% 110.5 70.8 F 585 Subtotal 1,325 1,267 95.6% 102.3 42.2 F 2377 Total 5,455 5,042 92.4% 80.6 22.4 F 7510 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 180 167 92.7% 74.2 39.6 E 227 Through 125 114 91.0% 57.6 38.9 E 120 Right Turn 100 96 96.2% 51.8 35.1 D 91 Subtotal 405 377 93.0% 63.2 38.6 E 438 Left Turn 85 79 93.3% 23.8 8.6 C 35 Through 115 109 94.9% 18.4 4.9 B 37 Right Turn 60 61 101.5% 18.0 4.9 B 20 Subtotal 260 249 95.9% 20.0 4.9 C 91 Left Turn 70 64 91.9% 20.7 4.7 C 24 Through 575 563 97.9% 8.5 0.8 A 88 Right Turn 110 106 96.3% 9.2 1.7 A 18 Subtotal 755 733 97.1% 9.6 0.6 A 130 Vissim Post‐Processor WCAP W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 26.0 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 2 40.0% 5.1 11.8 A 0 Through 30 25 83.0% 21.3 7.6 C 10 Right Turn 40 36 90.0% 7.6 2.2 A 5 Subtotal 75 63 83.9% 13.2 3.8 B 15 Left Turn 45 42 92.4% 18.4 4.0 B 14 Through 25 25 101.6% 23.4 5.5 C 11 Right Turn 85 85 99.5% 14.9 7.4 B 23 Subtotal 155 152 97.8% 17.1 4.1 B 48 Left Turn 55 51 92.7% 36.1 23.7 D 34 Through 605 582 96.2% 7.0 1.5 A 75 Right Turn 10 6 58.0% 8.9 9.2 A 1 Subtotal 670 639 95.4% 9.4 3.0 A 110 Left Turn 45 43 94.9% 8.9 3.1 A 7 Through 705 661 93.7% 10.4 5.9 B 125 Right Turn 55 57 102.7% 12.1 10.0 B 12 Subtotal 805 760 94.4% 10.4 5.7 B 145 Total 1,705 1,613 94.6% 10.8 4.0 B 317 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 150 96.9% 42.8 16.0 D 118 Through 655 656 100.1% 27.1 5.4 C 326 Right Turn 150 145 96.4% 24.1 5.4 C 64 Subtotal 960 951 99.0% 29.3 7.0 C 507 Left Turn 120 116 96.4% 75.6 16.1 E 160 Through 870 844 97.0% 59.5 11.3 E 920 Right Turn 95 85 89.1% 56.8 12.2 E 88 Subtotal 1,085 1,044 96.3% 61.1 11.1 E 1169 Left Turn 185 177 95.6% 143.1 90.2 F 464 Through 345 332 96.2% 101.3 67.3 F 616 Right Turn 140 131 93.4% 80.7 66.2 F 194 Subtotal 670 639 95.4% 108.8 73.4 F 1274 Left Turn 205 191 93.0% 66.9 22.2 E 234 Through 365 340 93.1% 51.3 25.7 D 320 Right Turn 90 80 88.3% 20.3 15.5 C 30 Subtotal 660 610 92.4% 51.6 22.5 D 583 Total 3,375 3,244 96.1% 57.7 12.5 E 3533 46.5 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Side‐street Stop Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 3 56.0% 4.1 3.9 A 0 Through 365 362 99.3% 0.5 0.2 A 4 Right Turn 95 98 103.5% 0.9 0.2 A 2 Subtotal 465 464 99.7% 0.7 0.2 A 5 Left Turn 85 86 101.4% 5.2 1.6 A 8 Through 610 603 98.9% 0.6 0.1 A 7 Right Turn 10 8 78.0% 0.7 0.5 A 0 Subtotal 705 697 98.9% 1.2 0.2 A 15 Left Turn 5 3 54.0% 9.1 12.3 A 0 Through Right Turn 5 4 76.0% 3.7 2.6 A 0 Subtotal 10 7 65.0% 8.6 6.8 A 1 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 11 Runs 2040 Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 850 820 96.5% 6.7 1.5 A 100 Right Turn 490 464 94.7% 10.2 1.9 B 87 Subtotal 1,340 1,284 95.9% 8.0 1.6 A 187 Left Turn 155 155 100.1% 30.8 6.5 C 88 Through 790 769 97.4% 13.0 1.3 B 183 Right Turn Subtotal 945 924 97.8% 16.1 2.0 B 271 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 155 143 92.5% 45.4 5.8 D 119 Through Right Turn 75 71 94.3% 11.9 3.3 B 15 Subtotal 230 214 93.0% 34.6 4.5 C 135 Total 2,515 2,423 96.3% 14.7 1.5 B 592 43.0 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 20 15 75.5% 20.9 11.9 C 6 Through 1,260 1,208 95.9% 10.5 1.9 B 232 Right Turn 45 47 104.7% 9.0 2.3 A 8 Subtotal 1,325 1,271 95.9% 10.5 1.8 B 246 Left Turn 20 13 66.5% 22.1 22.0 C 5 Through 905 883 97.5% 6.2 1.0 A 100 Right Turn 25 20 78.8% 6.9 3.6 A 3 Subtotal 950 916 96.4% 6.6 1.0 A 108 Left Turn 65 59 90.8% 50.2 7.5 D 54 Through 30 35 116.7% 40.9 8.5 D 26 Right Turn 45 40 89.8% 46.7 11.3 D 35 Subtotal 140 134 96.0% 47.0 5.1 D 115 Left Turn 25 26 103.2% 41.3 21.1 D 20 Through 25 26 104.4% 25.5 16.1 C 12 Right Turn 25 20 80.0% 12.3 6.8 B 5 Subtotal 75 72 95.9% 28.4 9.0 C 36 Total 2,490 2,393 96.1% 12.4 1.5 B 505 50.2 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 170 165 97.1% 32.3 7.1 C 98 Through 1,005 953 94.8% 10.3 3.2 B 180 Right Turn 70 63 90.6% 8.3 2.7 A 10 Subtotal 1,245 1,181 94.9% 13.4 3.1 B 287 Left Turn 30 27 90.3% 30.6 13.4 C 15 Through 775 754 97.3% 9.6 4.4 A 133 Right Turn 170 166 97.8% 3.8 1.0 A 12 Subtotal 975 947 97.2% 9.4 3.4 A 160 Left Turn 315 311 98.7% 44.1 6.6 D 252 Through 35 31 89.1% 44.8 14.5 D 26 Right Turn 360 367 101.8% 18.8 4.1 B 126 Subtotal 710 709 99.8% 31.3 4.4 C 404 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 11 Runs 2040 Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 65.9 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,395 1,368 98.0% 4.4 1.4 A 110 Right Turn 185 174 94.1% 5.4 1.5 A 17 Subtotal 1,580 1,542 97.6% 4.5 1.4 A 128 Left Turn 150 142 94.3% 50.6 13.0 D 131 Through 910 905 99.5% 7.3 2.4 A 121 Right Turn Subtotal 1,060 1,047 98.7% 13.0 4.4 B 252 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 75 75 99.6% 45.2 6.8 D 62 Through Right Turn 45 42 94.2% 6.0 1.8 A 5 Subtotal 120 117 97.6% 30.2 6.1 C 67 Total 2,760 2,706 98.0% 8.9 2.2 A 446 45.8 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 70 69 98.4% 38.6 12.5 D 49 Through 1,120 1,103 98.5% 35.8 11.3 D 724 Right Turn 165 156 94.8% 31.4 11.5 C 90 Subtotal 1,355 1,328 98.0% 35.4 11.2 D 863 Left Turn 175 177 101.1% 46.6 11.0 D 151 Through 745 731 98.1% 11.3 2.9 B 152 Right Turn 65 68 104.2% 3.3 0.8 A 4 Subtotal 985 976 99.1% 17.5 3.9 B 307 Left Turn 285 263 92.2% 261.0 31.7 F 1257 Through 845 780 92.3% 223.4 20.1 F 3194 Right Turn 180 167 92.8% 179.0 13.8 F 548 Subtotal 1,310 1,210 92.4% 226.3 18.1 F 4999 Left Turn 85 84 98.7% 55.4 8.7 E 85 Through 275 277 100.8% 40.4 2.2 D 205 Right Turn 175 172 98.1% 33.9 5.8 C 107 Subtotal 535 533 99.6% 40.5 1.9 D 397 Total 4,185 4,047 96.7% 91.1 5.1 F 6567 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 30 27 91.0% 29.8 9.8 C 15 Through 45 39 85.6% 25.7 6.9 C 18 Right Turn 45 45 98.9% 9.2 4.3 A 7 Subtotal 120 110 91.9% 20.1 2.9 C 41 Left Turn 45 41 90.9% 26.6 5.7 C 20 Through 40 41 101.3% 24.6 5.7 C 18 Right Turn 25 28 112.0% 11.0 3.6 B 6 Subtotal 110 109 99.5% 22.0 4.5 C 44 Left Turn 70 68 97.3% 38.7 3.7 D 48 Through 545 541 99.3% 12.5 2.0 B 124 Right Turn 85 80 93.5% 9.6 1.4 A 14 Subtotal 700 689 98.4% 14.9 2.3 B 186 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 11 Runs 2040 Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement AM Peak Hour 41.2 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 2 44.0% 6.5 9.7 A 0 Through 5 6 128.0% 14.8 15.8 B 2 Right Turn 25 23 90.4% 24.2 9.5 C 10 Subtotal 35 31 89.1% 23.0 5.2 C 12 Left Turn 45 44 96.9% 27.4 6.7 C 22 Through 15 10 68.7% 28.0 8.9 C 5 Right Turn 40 39 97.0% 23.8 5.3 C 17 Subtotal 100 93 92.7% 26.0 4.6 C 44 Left Turn 35 33 93.4% 10.6 5.6 B 6 Through 615 617 100.4% 10.8 1.5 B 122 Right Turn 10 7 67.0% 7.5 9.3 A 1 Subtotal 660 657 99.5% 10.9 1.4 B 130 Left Turn 5 2 44.0% 6.2 11.0 A 0 Through 185 174 93.8% 3.5 1.3 A 11 Right Turn 20 23 116.0% 5.0 1.2 A 2 Subtotal 210 199 94.7% 3.8 0.9 A 14 Total 1,005 980 97.5% 12.0 1.5 B 199 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 65 64 98.6% 27.2 9.4 C 32 Through 910 892 98.0% 29.1 10.6 C 475 Right Turn 140 136 97.3% 29.2 13.6 C 73 Subtotal 1,115 1,092 97.9% 29.0 10.7 C 580 Left Turn 115 110 95.7% 33.2 4.0 C 67 Through 675 684 101.3% 18.0 2.4 B 225 Right Turn 60 55 92.3% 15.7 3.2 B 16 Subtotal 850 849 99.9% 19.7 1.9 B 308 Left Turn 150 148 98.5% 57.1 13.4 E 155 Through 295 298 101.0% 58.1 13.5 E 317 Right Turn 190 197 103.7% 38.3 13.1 D 138 Subtotal 635 643 101.2% 52.1 12.9 D 610 Left Turn 125 117 93.3% 54.6 18.5 D 117 Through 135 131 97.3% 28.8 2.6 C 69 Right Turn 40 36 89.8% 5.5 2.0 A 4 Subtotal 300 284 94.6% 36.4 8.3 D 190 Total 2,900 2,868 98.9% 32.4 5.9 C 1688 52.7 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 4 76.0% 5.6 5.4 A 0 Through 560 565 100.8% 6.5 1.4 A 67 Right Turn 85 87 102.1% 5.8 1.2 A 9 Subtotal 650 655 100.8% 6.5 1.3 A 77 Left Turn 45 36 80.4% 4.0 1.0 A 3 Through 335 349 104.2% 4.0 0.9 A 25 Right Turn 15 10 67.3% 2.7 2.3 A 1 Subtotal 395 396 100.1% 3.9 0.8 A 28 Left Turn 15 14 92.7% 4.0 2.3 A 1 Through 5 8 150.0% 11.1 3.3 B 2 Right Turn 5 1 14.0% 1.8 4.1 A 0 Subtotal 25 22 88.4% 7.4 1.5 A 3 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour Intersection 2 Shields St/W Laurel St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,040 891 85.6% 21.2 11.6 C 346 Right Turn 520 450 86.4% 23.0 7.8 C 189 Subtotal 1,560 1,340 85.9% 21.8 10.0 C 536 Left Turn 120 105 87.2% 107.0 34.7 F 205 Through 1,175 1,060 90.2% 64.2 26.8 E 1247 Right Turn Subtotal 1,295 1,164 89.9% 67.6 26.5 E 1452 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 605 529 87.5% 261.4 46.1 F 2536 Through Right Turn 190 160 84.3% 246.7 45.4 F 724 Subtotal 795 689 86.7% 256.6 40.1 F 3261 Total 3,650 3,194 87.5% 83.1 16.6 F 5248 82.9 Intersection 3 Shields St/W Plum St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 85 53 61.9% 785.9 444.0 F 758 Through 1,460 1,253 85.8% 40.7 21.4 D 936 Right Turn 70 58 83.4% 27.5 12.4 C 29 Subtotal 1,615 1,364 84.5% 58.3 23.3 E 1724 Left Turn 25 21 84.8% 140.0 80.1 F 54 Through 1,685 1,488 88.3% 29.4 10.8 C 801 Right Turn 75 66 87.9% 25.1 13.5 C 30 Subtotal 1,785 1,575 88.2% 31.0 11.3 C 886 Left Turn 75 66 87.5% 74.0 14.0 E 89 Through 30 32 107.0% 61.2 18.5 E 36 Right Turn 75 70 93.3% 62.1 6.0 E 80 Subtotal 180 168 93.2% 67.0 8.7 E 205 Left Turn 70 66 93.7% 63.9 22.4 E 77 Through 30 32 106.3% 37.0 13.6 D 22 Right Turn 30 23 78.0% 32.6 16.6 C 14 Subtotal 130 121 93.0% 51.3 18.7 D 112 Total 3,710 3,228 87.0% 45.0 13.1 D 2927 79.4 Intersection 4 Shields St/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 320 274 85.7% 264.7 52.9 F 1331 Through 1,215 1,057 87.0% 176.8 47.1 F 3425 Right Turn 70 64 91.3% 151.4 47.1 F 177 Subtotal 1,605 1,395 86.9% 192.0 45.8 F 4933 Left Turn 15 11 76.0% 75.7 36.1 E 16 Through 1,295 1,130 87.2% 47.1 11.5 D 975 Right Turn 505 465 92.1% 32.4 7.0 C 276 Subtotal 1,815 1,606 88.5% 42.8 9.7 D 1267 Left Turn 380 333 87.5% 70.7 9.3 E 431 Through 55 48 86.7% 68.0 24.5 E 59 Right Turn 445 368 82.8% 108.3 31.9 F 731 Subtotal 880 749 85.1% 88.7 16.0 F 1222 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 84.2 Intersection 5 Shields St/Lake St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn Through 1,535 1,416 92.2% 19.5 14.1 B 505 Right Turn 65 60 92.3% 15.0 11.6 B 16 Subtotal 1,600 1,476 92.3% 19.3 14.0 B 522 Left Turn 115 97 84.4% 133.8 41.1 F 238 Through 1,650 1,382 83.8% 79.6 39.4 E 2018 Right Turn Subtotal 1,765 1,480 83.8% 83.3 39.2 F 2256 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Left Turn 145 143 98.6% 61.6 5.4 E 161 Through Right Turn 190 185 97.5% 29.4 17.5 C 100 Subtotal 335 328 97.9% 44.8 10.8 D 261 Total 3,700 3,284 88.7% 50.8 18.0 D 3039 54.9 Intersection 6 Shields St/Prospect Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 195 183 93.7% 107.9 32.3 F 362 Through 1,100 1,056 96.0% 82.2 15.0 F 1593 Right Turn 170 158 92.9% 67.1 14.5 E 194 Subtotal 1,465 1,397 95.4% 84.1 16.5 F 2149 Left Turn 265 242 91.2% 83.8 19.4 F 371 Through 1,310 1,094 83.5% 39.1 6.7 D 784 Right Turn 220 184 83.7% 25.4 4.4 C 86 Subtotal 1,795 1,520 84.7% 45.1 7.7 D 1241 Left Turn 195 184 94.4% 82.5 12.6 F 278 Through 480 477 99.3% 40.4 4.0 D 353 Right Turn 195 197 101.1% 20.6 2.9 C 74 Subtotal 870 858 98.6% 44.5 4.5 D 706 Left Turn 240 192 80.1% 237.1 17.7 F 836 Through 775 626 80.8% 253.6 29.8 F 2912 Right Turn 310 244 78.6% 261.7 29.1 F 1170 Subtotal 1,325 1,063 80.2% 252.4 26.9 F 4918 Total 5,455 4,838 88.7% 101.2 6.0 F 9013 Intersection 8 City Park Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 180 163 90.7% 68.1 29.8 E 204 Through 125 111 88.4% 44.8 23.0 D 91 Right Turn 100 100 100.0% 42.1 22.8 D 77 Subtotal 405 374 92.3% 54.8 24.5 D 372 Left Turn 85 77 90.2% 29.1 13.0 C 41 Through 115 117 101.5% 20.8 3.9 C 45 Right Turn 60 62 103.7% 16.9 2.2 B 19 Subtotal 260 256 98.3% 22.5 4.6 C 105 Left Turn 70 63 90.4% 58.2 19.3 E 68 Through 575 541 94.1% 41.6 19.7 D 413 Right Turn 110 104 94.9% 37.0 14.4 D 71 Subtotal 755 709 93.9% 42.4 18.6 D 552 Vissim Post‐Processor W Elizabeth St Average Results from 10 Runs 2040 Recommended Design Volume and Delay by Movement PM Peak Hour 41.4 Intersection 9 Constitution Ave/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 2 44.0% 7.7 13.9 A 0 Through 30 26 86.7% 22.0 11.4 C 10 Right Turn 40 37 93.5% 24.4 10.8 C 17 Subtotal 75 66 87.5% 24.1 10.3 C 28 Left Turn 45 41 91.1% 28.8 5.2 C 22 Through 25 26 102.4% 26.5 8.1 C 12 Right Turn 85 82 96.6% 24.9 8.3 C 37 Subtotal 155 149 95.9% 26.4 5.6 C 72 Left Turn 55 52 94.5% 27.2 5.5 C 26 Through 605 569 94.0% 15.7 4.1 B 164 Right Turn 10 8 77.0% 11.8 10.9 B 2 Subtotal 670 629 93.8% 16.6 4.0 B 191 Left Turn 45 42 93.8% 28.1 7.7 C 22 Through 705 660 93.6% 18.9 3.8 B 228 Right Turn 55 60 109.1% 17.7 3.9 B 19 Subtotal 805 762 94.7% 19.3 3.6 B 269 Total 1,705 1,605 94.1% 18.9 2.4 B 560 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Signal Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 155 150 97.0% 39.8 7.3 D 110 Through 655 648 98.9% 26.9 4.6 C 319 Right Turn 150 143 95.5% 25.0 7.9 C 66 Subtotal 960 941 98.1% 28.6 4.4 C 494 Left Turn 120 112 93.3% 68.4 5.6 E 140 Through 870 830 95.4% 56.6 5.4 E 861 Right Turn 95 91 95.3% 55.2 8.9 E 92 Subtotal 1,085 1,033 95.2% 57.7 4.9 E 1093 Left Turn 185 184 99.2% 114.8 71.1 F 386 Through 345 331 96.0% 89.9 61.3 F 546 Right Turn 140 131 93.4% 70.4 56.5 E 169 Subtotal 670 645 96.3% 93.2 62.5 F 1101 Left Turn 205 184 89.7% 58.7 14.2 E 198 Through 365 335 91.8% 47.6 10.5 D 292 Right Turn 90 81 90.1% 24.3 18.1 C 36 Subtotal 660 600 90.9% 48.1 10.7 D 526 Total 3,375 3,220 95.4% 53.8 12.7 D 3214 53.8 Intersection 12 Overland Trail/W Elizabeth St Roundabout Demand Total Delay (sec/veh) Direction Movement Volume (vph) Average Percent Average Std. Dev. LOS Left Turn 5 2 48.0% 2.7 3.7 A 0 Through 365 368 100.7% 6.1 1.2 A 41 Right Turn 95 93 97.5% 5.2 1.0 A 9 Subtotal 465 463 99.5% 5.9 1.1 A 50 Left Turn 85 78 92.2% 10.2 2.0 B 15 Through 610 615 100.8% 10.1 2.5 B 114 Right Turn 10 7 70.0% 9.9 6.2 A 1 Subtotal 705 700 99.3% 10.1 2.3 B 130 Left Turn 5 2 48.0% 6.4 9.7 A 0 Through Right Turn 5 4 74.0% 5.2 6.2 A 0 Subtotal 10 6 61.0% 7.7 7.5 A 1 APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES SUMMARY & METHODOLOGY COST ESTIMATES SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY appendix: H Table A: Estimated Unit Costs Treatment Type Unit Cost Per Unit (1) Contingency for Conceptual Estimate (15%) Engineering Cost (20%) Inspection (10%) Mobilzation and Insurance (5%) Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (10%) Total Cost Intersection Treatments Enhanced Intersection with Roundabout (135' diameter) L.S. $ 750,000 $ 112,500 $ 150,000 $ 75,000 $ 37,500 $ 75,000 $ 1,200,000 Enhanced Intersection with Small Modern Roundabout (100' diameter) L.S. $ 250,000 $ 37,500 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ 12,500 $ 25,000 $ 400,000 Improved Intersection with Two Stage Bike Turn Lane and Striping L.S. $ 200,000 $ 30,000 $ 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 320,000 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Local) L.S. $ 40,030 $ 6,005 $ 8,006 $ 4,003 $ 2,002 $ 4,003 $ 64,048 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Collector) L.S. $ 52,245 $ 7,837 $ 10,449 $ 5,225 $ 2,612 $ 5,225 $ 83,592 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Arterial) L.S. $ 66,045 $ 9,907 $ 13,209 $ 6,605 $ 3,302 $ 6,605 $ 105,672 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (T‐Intersection‐Local) L.S. $ 21,645 $ 3,247 $ 4,329 $ 2,165 $ 1,082 $ 2,165 $ 34,632 Intersection Realignment L.S. $ 220,000 $ 33,000 $ 44,000 $ 22,000 $ 11,000 $ 22,000 $ 352,000 Driveway Reconstruction L.S. $ 1,200 $ 180 $ 240 $ 120 $ 60 $ 120 $ 1,920 Access Improvements L.S. $ 1,500 $ 225 $ 300 $ 150 $ 75 $ 150 $ 2,400 Bike Treatments (See Also Pedestrian Treatments "Shared Path") 6' Protected Bike Lane including "raised curb" L.F. $ 225 $ 34 $ 45 $ 23 $ 11 $ 23 $ 360 6' Bike Lane with 2' Stripped Buffer L.F. $ 30 $ 5 $ 6 $ 3 $ 2 $ 3 $ 48 Pedestrian Treatments 6' Detached Sidewalk including Landscaping L.F. $ 100 $ 15 $ 20 $ 10 $ 5 $ 10 $ 160 6' Attached Sidewalk L.F. $ 37 $ 6 $ 7 $ 4 $ 2 $ 4 $ 59 Shared Path including "raised curb" L.F. $ 250 $ 38 $ 50 $ 25 $ 13 $ 25 $ 400 Mid‐Block Pedestrian Crossing L.S. $ 40,000 $ 6,000 $ 8,000 $ 4,000 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 64,000 Signalized Pedestrian Crossing L.S. $ 80,000 $ 12,000 $ 16,000 $ 8,000 $ 4,000 $ 8,000 $ 128,000 Roadway Treatments Planted Medians L.F. $ 400 $ 60 $ 80 $ 40 $ 20 $ 40 $ 640 Striping L.F. $ 5 $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 0 $ 1 $ 8 Roadway and Drainage Improvements 1 1/2" Mill and Overlay L.F. $ 163 $ 24 $ 33 $ 16 $ 8 $ 16 $ 261 Curb & Gutter L.F. $ 35 $ 5 $ 7 $ 4 $ 2 $ 4 $ 56 Drainage Improvements and Stormwater Management L.F. $ 80 $ 12 $ 16 $ 8 $ 4 $ 8 $ 128 Ditch Crossing Improvements (replace existing structure and widen crossing) L.S. $ 150,000 $ 22,500 $ 30,000 $ 15,000 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 $ 240,000 Transit Improvements Bus Stop Enhancements L.S. $ 9,000 $ 1,350 $ 1,800 $ 900 $ 450 $ 900 $ 14,400 Table B: Estimated Unit Costs ‐ Phase 2 Length of Segment Excluding Main Intersections (Linear Feet) 3700 1320 2480 2760 3450 Treatment Type Overland Trail to Ponderosa Dr. (Includes Overland Intersection) Ponderosa Dr. to Taft Hill Rd. (includes Ponderosa Intersection) Taft Hill Rd. to Constitution Dr. (Includes Taft Hill Intersection) Constitution Dr. to Shields St. (includes Constitution and Shields Intersections) Plum Street Intersection Treatments Enhanced Intersection with Roundabout Enhanced Intersection with Small Modern Roundabout Improved Intersection with Two Stage Bike Turn Lane and Striping Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Local) 1 1 2 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Collector) Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Arterial) Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (T‐Intersection) 4 Intersection Realignment 1 Driveway Reconstruction Access Improvements (Except SF Home Driveway) Bike Treatments (See Also Pedestrian Treatments "Shared Path") 6' Protected Bike Lane including "raised curb" 6' Bike Lane with 2' Stripped Buffer Pedestrian Treatments 6' Detached Sidewalk including Landscaping 1000 800 1400 6' Attached Sidewalk 1600 200 Shared Path including "raised curb" Mid‐Block Pedestrian Crossing Signalized Pedestrian Crossing Roadway Treatments Planted Median Stripping 2700 1000 Roadway and Drainage Improvements 1 1/2" Mill and Overlay Curb & Gutter 2600 1000 1400 Drainage Improvements and Stormwater Management 1400 Ditch Crossing Improvements Transit Improvements Bus Stop Enhancements 2 2 2 5 Total Cost per Street Segment $ 514,768 $ 259,888 $ 1,008,928 $ 156,896 $ 72,000 Total Cost of Phase 2 Improvements $ 2,012,480 Low Probable Cost $ 1,408,736 High Probable Cost $ 2,616,224 Cost per Mile of Project (~2.6 miles) $ 774,031 Low Probable Cost $ 541,822 High Probable Cost $ 1,006,240 Assumptions: Street Segments Conceptual cost estimates were completed for the recommended traffic calming measures in order to provide a magnitude of cost. It is important to point out that the estimates were not completed based on topographic survey and preliminay or final engineering drawings, which would be required for accurate costing and implementation. Quantities and unit costs were extracted from conceptual plan Table C: Estimated Unit Costs ‐ Phase 3 Length of Segment Excluding Main Intersections (Linear Feet) 3700 1320 2480 2760 3450 Treatment Type Overland Trail to Ponderosa Dr. (Includes Overland Intersection) Ponderosa Dr. to Taft Hill Rd. (includes Ponderosa Intersection) Taft Hill Rd. to Constitution Dr. (Includes Taft Hill Intersection) Constitution Dr. to Shields St. (includes Constitution and Shields Intersections) Plum Street Intersection Treatments Enhanced Intersection with Roundabout 1 Enhanced Intersection with Small Modern Roundabout 1 Improved Intersection with Two Stage Bike Turn Lane and Striping 12 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Local) 1 1 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Collector) 1 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (Arterial) 11 Improved Intersection with Striping/Pedestrian Ramps (T‐Intersection) 7151 Intersection Realignment 1 1 Driveway Reconstruction 22 4 14 Access Improvements (Except SF Home Driveway) 3 9 3 19 9 Bike Treatments (See Also Pedestrian Treatments "Shared Path") 6' Protected Bike Lane including "raised curb" 1220 3000 3145 6' Bike Lane with 2' Stripped Buffer 7400 1735 1360 6400 Pedestrian Treatments 6' Detached Sidewalk including Landscaping 3840 1220 4320 2800 6' Attached Sidewalk 2200 Shared Path including "raised curb" 200 2240 Mid‐Block Pedestrian Crossing 1 Signalized Pedestrian Crossing 2 Roadway Treatments Planted Median 860 860 600 Stripping 3840 1420 2570 2700 Roadway and Drainage Improvements 1 1/2" Mill and Overlay 3800 1420 2570 2800 Curb & Gutter 7600 2840 5140 2700 Drainage Improvements and Stormwater Management 3700 1420 2570 2700 Ditch Crossing Improvements 111 Transit Improvements Bus Stop Enhancements 6 1 Total Cost per Street Segment $ 5,435,272 $ 1,982,488 $ 4,977,328 $ 5,430,744 $ 868,760 Total Cost of Phase 3 Improvements $ 18,694,592 Low Probable Cost $ 13,086,214 High Probable Cost $ 24,302,970 Cost per Mile of Project (~2.6 miles) $ 7,190,228 Low Probable Cost $ 5,033,159 High Probable Cost $ 9,347,296 Assumptions: Street Segments Conceptual cost estimates were completed for the recommended traffic calming measures in order to provide a magnitude of cost. It is important to point out that the estimates were not completed based on topographic survey and preliminay or final engineering drawings, which would be required for accurate costing and implementation. Quantities and unit costs were extracted from conceptual plan Existing Study Area Transit Service Route Route Length, round-trip (mi) Peak Frequency (hr) Peak Hours Peak Span Off-Peak Frequency (hr) Off-Peak Hours Off-Peak Span Running Speed (MPH) Running Time (Min) Recovery Time (Min) at 25% 2 6.7 0.500 6 AM - 10 PM 16 0.000 N/A 0 18 22.5 5.6 31 2.6 0.167 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.000 N/A 0 13 11.9 3.0 32 6.5 0.500 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.000 N/A 0 16 24.2 6.1 33 7.8 0.500 7 AM - 6 PM 11 0.000 N/A 0 18 25.8 6.5 HORN 6.0 0.167 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.000 N/A 0 16 22.7 5.7 Interim Design Transit Service Route Route Length, round-trip (mi) Peak Frequency (hr) Peak Hours Peak Span Off-Peak Frequency (hr) Off-Peak Hours Off-Peak Span Running Speed (MPH) Running Time (Min) Recovery Time at 15% (Min) 2 7.4 0.500 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.000 N/A 0 18 24.7 3.7 3 8.0 0.250 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 7 PM - 10 PM 3 18 26.7 4.0 31 2.6 0.167 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.000 N/A 0 13 12 1.8 HORN 6.3 0.167 6:30 AM - 5 PM 10.5 0.333 5 PM - 8 PM 3 16 23.6 3.5 Foothills Campus Shuttle 11.1 1.000 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.000 N/A 0 16 41.6 6.2 Recommended Design Transit Service Route Route Length, round-trip (mi) Peak Frequency (hr) Peak Hours Peak Span Off-Peak Frequency (hr) Off-Peak Hours Off-Peak Span Running Speed (MPH) Running Time (Min) Recovery Time at 15% (Min) 2 7.4 0.250 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 7 PM - 10 PM 3 18 24.7 3.7 3 8.0 0.167 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 7 PM - 10 PM 3 18 26.7 4.0 31 2.6 0.083 7 AM - 5 PM 10 0.167 5 PM - 7 PM 2 13 12 1.8 HORN 6.5 0.167 6:30 AM - 5 PM 10.5 0.333 5 PM - 8 PM 3 16 24.4 3.7 Foothills Campus Shuttle 5.0 0.500 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 N/A 0 16 18.8 2.8 Planning for Redevelopment Transit Service Route Route Length, round-trip (mi) Peak Frequency (hr) Peak Hours Peak Span Off-Peak Frequency (hr) Off-Peak Hours Off-Peak Span Running Speed (MPH) Running Time (Min) Recovery Time at 15% (Min) Standard Service 2 7.4 0.250 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 7 PM - 10 PM 3 18 24.7 3.7 31 2.6 0.083 7 AM - 5 PM 10 0.167 5 PM - 7 PM 2 13 12 1.8 HORN 6.5 0.167 6:30 AM - 5 PM 10.5 0.333 5 PM - 8 PM 3 16 24.4 3.7 Foothills Campus Shuttle 5 0.500 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 N/A 0 16 18.8 2.8 BRT BRT EB 3.1 0.167 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 7 PM - 10 PM 3 16 11.6 1.7 BRT WB 3.1 0.167 7 AM - 7 PM 12 0.500 7 PM - 10 PM 3 16 11.6 1.7 Existing Cycle Time (Min) Adj. Cycle Time (Min) Peak Veh. Req. Off-Peak Veh. Req. Weekday Revenue Miles Peak Revenue Hours Off-Peak Revenue Hours Weekday Revenue Hours Annual Revenue Hours (x256) Annual Revenue Miles (x256) 28.1 30 1 216 16 16 14.9 15 2 185 24 24 30.3 30 1 155 12 12 32.3 30 1 171 11 11 28.4 30 3 435 36 36 8 1,162 99 99 25,344 297,472 Interim Design Cycle Time (Min) Adj. Cycle Time (Min) Peak Veh. Req. Off-Peak Veh. Req. Weekday Revenue Miles Peak Revenue Hours Off-Peak Revenue Hours Weekday Revenue Hours Annual Revenue Hours (x256) Annual Revenue Miles (x256) 28.4 30 1 178 12 0 12 30.7 30 2 1 432 24 3 27 13.8 15 2 187 24 0 24 27.1 30 3 2 454 31.5 6 38 47.8 60 1 133 12 0 12 9 3 1,384 103.5 9 113 Delta over existing 1 222 14 3,456 56,832 Recommended Design Cycle Time (Min) Adj. Cycle Time (Min) Peak Veh. Req. Off-Peak Veh. Req. Weekday Revenue Miles Peak Revenue Hours Off-Peak Revenue Hours Weekday Revenue Hours Annual Revenue Hours (x256) Annual Revenue Miles (x256) 28.4 30 2 1 400 24 3 27 30.7 30 3 1 624 36 3 39 13.8 15 3 2 343 30 4 34 28.1 30 3 2 468 31.5 6 38 21.6 30 1 1 120 12 0 12 12 7 1,955 133.5 16 150 Delta over existing 4 793 51 12,928 203,008 Planning for Redevelopment Cycle Time (Min) Adj. Cycle Time (Min) Peak Veh. Req. Off-Peak Veh. Req. Weekday Revenue Miles Peak Revenue Hours Off-Peak Revenue Hours Weekday Revenue Hours Annual Revenue Hours (x256) Annual Revenue Miles (x256) 28.4 30 2 1 400 24 3 27 13.8 15 3 2 343 30 4 34 28.1 30 3 2 468 31.5 6 37.5 21.6 30 1 1 120 12 0 12 1331 97.5 13 110.5 Delta over existing 169 11.5 2,944 43,264 13.3 15 2 1 241 24 3 27 13.3 15 2 1 241 24 3 27 Delta over existing 4 482 48 6 54 13,824 123,392 COST CALCULATIONS - West Elizabeth P2 Interim 07/19/2016 Assumptions Fixed Route Operations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost of Maintenance per Revenue Mile $ 1.37 $ 1.40 $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.48 $ 1.51 Cost of Fuel per Revenue Mile (7.5% Increase) $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.77 $ 0.79 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 Cost of Insurance & Medical per Revenue Mile $ 0.13 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 Cost of Personnel per Revenue Hour $ 34.84 $ 35.89 $ 36.96 $ 38.07 $ 39.21 $ 40.39 Associated Dial A Ride -Cost (# of trips) per Rev Mile $ 0.81 $ 0.89 $ 0.98 $ 1.07 $ 1.17 $ 1.28 Offsetting Fixed Route Fares per Revenue Mile $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) Offsetting DAR Fares per Rev Mile $ (0.05) $ (0.06) $ (0.07) $ (0.08) $ (0.09) $ (0.10) Support Services - Per Revenue Mile Cost $ 2.43 $ 2.48 $ 2.54 $ 2.59 $ 2.65 $ 2.70 Support Services - Per Revenue Hour Cost $ 31.67 $ 32.34 $ 33.03 $ 33.73 $ 34.45 $ 35.18 Colorado State University Expense per Service Hour $ 73.50 $ 74.97 $ 76.47 $ 78.00 $ 79.56 $ 81.15 Operating Expense per Service Hour - support $ 100.80 $ 103.42 $ 106.11 $ 108.87 $ 111.69 $ 114.60 Operating Expense per Service Hour - no support $ 72.00 $ 73.87 $ 75.79 $ 77.76 $ 79.78 $ 81.86 97.6 Templates for Pricing Service Enter Value Revenue Hours 3,456 *increment above existing service levels Revenue Miles 56,832 *increment above existing service levels Associated DAR 0 Dispatch 0 Without Overhead 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour $ 120,411 $ 124,024 $ 127,745 $ 131,578 $ 135,525 $ 139,591 Cost Per Revenue Mile $ 127,720 $ 130,275 $ 132,880 $ 135,538 $ 138,249 $ 141,014 Cost for Dispatch Only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) Total Cost $ 225,399 $ 231,566 $ 237,892 $ 244,383 $ 251,041 $ 257,872 With Overhead - Miles and Hours 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Revenue Hours $ 120,411 $ 124,024 $ 127,745 $ 131,578 $ 135,525 $ 139,591 Revenue Miles $ 127,720 $ 130,275 $ 132,880 $ 135,538 $ 138,249 $ 141,014 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Support Services $ 126,686 $ 129,382 $ 132,135 $ 134,948 $ 137,820 $ 140,753 Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) Total Cost $ 352,085 $ 360,948 $ 370,028 $ 379,330 $ 388,861 $ 398,625 With Overhead, Hours Only 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Overhead $ 348,365 $ 357,419 $ 366,708 $ 376,238 $ 386,017 $ 396,049 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) $ (22,733) Total Cost $ 325,632 $ 334,686 $ 343,975 $ 353,506 $ 363,284 $ 373,316 CSU Funded Service 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Limited Overhead $ 254,016 $ 259,096 $ 264,278 $ 269,564 $ 274,955 $ 280,454 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Cost $ 254,016 $ 259,096 $ 264,278 $ 269,564 $ 274,955 $ 280,454 COST CALCULATIONS - West Elizabeth P3 Recommended Design 07/19/2016 Assumptions Fixed Route Operations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost of Maintenance per Revenue Mile $ 1.37 $ 1.40 $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.48 $ 1.51 Cost of Fuel per Revenue Mile (7.5% Increase) $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.77 $ 0.79 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 Cost of Insurance & Medical per Revenue Mile $ 0.13 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 Cost of Personnel per Revenue Hour $ 34.84 $ 35.89 $ 36.96 $ 38.07 $ 39.21 $ 40.39 Associated Dial A Ride -Cost (# of trips) per Rev Mile $ 0.81 $ 0.89 $ 0.98 $ 1.07 $ 1.17 $ 1.28 Offsetting Fixed Route Fares per Revenue Mile $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) Offsetting DAR Fares per Rev Mile $ (0.05) $ (0.06) $ (0.07) $ (0.08) $ (0.09) $ (0.10) Support Services - Per Revenue Mile Cost $ 2.43 $ 2.48 $ 2.54 $ 2.59 $ 2.65 $ 2.70 Support Services - Per Revenue Hour Cost $ 31.67 $ 32.34 $ 33.03 $ 33.73 $ 34.45 $ 35.18 Colorado State University Expense per Service Hour $ 73.50 $ 74.97 $ 76.47 $ 78.00 $ 79.56 $ 81.15 Operating Expense per Service Hour - support $ 100.80 $ 103.42 $ 106.11 $ 108.87 $ 111.69 $ 114.60 Operating Expense per Service Hour - no support $ 72.00 $ 73.87 $ 75.79 $ 77.76 $ 79.78 $ 81.86 97.6 Templates for Pricing Service Enter Value Revenue Hours 12,928 *increment above existing service levels Revenue Miles 203,008 *increment above existing service levels Associated DAR 0 Dispatch 0 Without Overhead 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour $ 450,428 $ 463,942 $ 477,861 $ 492,198 $ 506,964 $ 522,174 Cost Per Revenue Mile $ 456,226 $ 465,351 $ 474,658 $ 484,151 $ 493,834 $ 503,711 Cost for Dispatch Only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) Total Cost $ 825,451 $ 848,089 $ 871,315 $ 895,145 $ 919,595 $ 944,682 With Overhead - Miles and Hours 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Revenue Hours $ 450,428 $ 463,942 $ 477,861 $ 492,198 $ 506,964 $ 522,174 Revenue Miles $ 456,226 $ 465,351 $ 474,658 $ 484,151 $ 493,834 $ 503,711 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Support Services $ 459,914 $ 469,703 $ 479,699 $ 489,908 $ 500,335 $ 510,983 Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) Total Cost $ 1,285,366 $ 1,317,792 $ 1,351,014 $ 1,385,053 $ 1,419,930 $ 1,455,665 With Overhead, Hours Only 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Overhead $ 1,303,142 $ 1,337,011 $ 1,371,759 $ 1,407,410 $ 1,443,988 $ 1,481,517 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) $ (81,203) Total Cost $ 1,221,939 $ 1,255,807 $ 1,290,556 $ 1,326,207 $ 1,362,785 $ 1,400,314 CSU Funded Service 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Limited Overhead $ 950,208 $ 969,212 $ 988,596 $ 1,008,368 $ 1,028,536 $ 1,049,106 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Cost $ 950,208 $ 969,212 $ 988,596 $ 1,008,368 $ 1,028,536 $ 1,049,106 COST CALCULATIONS - West Elizabeth P4 Redevelopment (Standard Service) 07/19/2016 Assumptions Fixed Route Operations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost of Maintenance per Revenue Mile $ 1.37 $ 1.40 $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.48 $ 1.51 Cost of Fuel per Revenue Mile (7.5% Increase) $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.77 $ 0.79 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 Cost of Insurance & Medical per Revenue Mile $ 0.13 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 Cost of Personnel per Revenue Hour $ 34.84 $ 35.89 $ 36.96 $ 38.07 $ 39.21 $ 40.39 Associated Dial A Ride -Cost (# of trips) per Rev Mile $ 0.81 $ 0.89 $ 0.98 $ 1.07 $ 1.17 $ 1.28 Offsetting Fixed Route Fares per Revenue Mile $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) Offsetting DAR Fares per Rev Mile $ (0.05) $ (0.06) $ (0.07) $ (0.08) $ (0.09) $ (0.10) Support Services - Per Revenue Mile Cost $ 2.43 $ 2.48 $ 2.54 $ 2.59 $ 2.65 $ 2.70 Support Services - Per Revenue Hour Cost $ 31.67 $ 32.34 $ 33.03 $ 33.73 $ 34.45 $ 35.18 Colorado State University Expense per Service Hour $ 73.50 $ 74.97 $ 76.47 $ 78.00 $ 79.56 $ 81.15 Operating Expense per Service Hour - support $ 100.80 $ 103.42 $ 106.11 $ 108.87 $ 111.69 $ 114.60 Operating Expense per Service Hour - no support $ 72.00 $ 73.87 $ 75.79 $ 77.76 $ 79.78 $ 81.86 97.6 Templates for Pricing Service Enter Value Revenue Hours 2,944 *increment above existing service levels Revenue Miles 43,264 *increment above existing service levels Associated DAR 0 Dispatch 0 Without Overhead 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour $ 102,573 $ 105,650 $ 108,820 $ 112,085 $ 115,447 $ 118,911 Cost Per Revenue Mile $ 97,229 $ 99,173 $ 101,157 $ 103,180 $ 105,243 $ 107,348 Cost for Dispatch Only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) Total Cost $ 182,496 $ 187,518 $ 192,671 $ 197,959 $ 203,385 $ 208,954 With Overhead - Miles and Hours 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Revenue Hours $ 102,573 $ 105,650 $ 108,820 $ 112,085 $ 115,447 $ 118,911 Revenue Miles $ 97,229 $ 99,173 $ 101,157 $ 103,180 $ 105,243 $ 107,348 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Support Services $ 100,407 $ 102,544 $ 104,726 $ 106,955 $ 109,231 $ 111,556 Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) Total Cost $ 282,902 $ 290,061 $ 297,397 $ 304,914 $ 312,616 $ 320,509 With Overhead, Hours Only 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Overhead $ 296,755 $ 304,468 $ 312,381 $ 320,499 $ 328,829 $ 337,375 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) $ (17,306) Total Cost $ 279,450 $ 287,162 $ 295,075 $ 303,194 $ 311,523 $ 320,070 CSU Funded Service 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Limited Overhead $ 216,384 $ 220,712 $ 225,126 $ 229,628 $ 234,221 $ 238,905 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Cost $ 216,384 $ 220,712 $ 225,126 $ 229,628 $ 234,221 $ 238,905 COST CALCULATIONS - West Elizabeth P4 Redevelopment (BRT) 07/19/2016 Assumptions Fixed Route Operations 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost of Maintenance per Revenue Mile $ 1.37 $ 1.40 $ 1.43 $ 1.46 $ 1.48 $ 1.51 Cost of Fuel per Revenue Mile (7.5% Increase) $ 0.74 $ 0.76 $ 0.77 $ 0.79 $ 0.80 $ 0.82 Cost of Insurance & Medical per Revenue Mile $ 0.13 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.14 $ 0.15 $ 0.15 Cost of Personnel per Revenue Hour $ 34.84 $ 35.89 $ 36.96 $ 38.07 $ 39.21 $ 40.39 Associated Dial A Ride -Cost (# of trips) per Rev Mile $ 0.81 $ 0.89 $ 0.98 $ 1.07 $ 1.17 $ 1.28 Offsetting Fixed Route Fares per Revenue Mile $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) $ (0.40) Offsetting DAR Fares per Rev Mile $ (0.05) $ (0.06) $ (0.07) $ (0.08) $ (0.09) $ (0.10) Support Services - Per Revenue Mile Cost $ 2.43 $ 2.48 $ 2.54 $ 2.59 $ 2.65 $ 2.70 Support Services - Per Revenue Hour Cost $ 31.67 $ 32.34 $ 33.03 $ 33.73 $ 34.45 $ 35.18 Colorado State University Expense per Service Hour $ 73.50 $ 74.97 $ 76.47 $ 78.00 $ 79.56 $ 81.15 Operating Expense per Service Hour - support $ 100.80 $ 103.42 $ 106.11 $ 108.87 $ 111.69 $ 114.60 Operating Expense per Service Hour - no support $ 72.00 $ 73.87 $ 75.79 $ 77.76 $ 79.78 $ 81.86 97.6 Templates for Pricing Service Enter Value Revenue Hours 13,824 *increment above existing service levels Revenue Miles 123,392 *increment above existing service levels Associated DAR 0 Dispatch 0 Without Overhead 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour $ 481,646 $ 496,096 $ 510,980 $ 526,310 $ 542,100 $ 558,364 Cost Per Revenue Mile $ 277,303 $ 282,849 $ 288,506 $ 294,276 $ 300,161 $ 306,165 Cost for Dispatch Only $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) Total Cost $ 709,592 $ 729,588 $ 750,129 $ 771,229 $ 792,905 $ 815,172 With Overhead - Miles and Hours 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Revenue Hours $ 481,646 $ 496,096 $ 510,980 $ 526,310 $ 542,100 $ 558,364 Revenue Miles $ 277,303 $ 282,849 $ 288,506 $ 294,276 $ 300,161 $ 306,165 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Cost for Support Services $ 355,118 $ 362,676 $ 370,394 $ 378,277 $ 386,328 $ 394,550 Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) Total Cost $ 1,064,710 $ 1,092,264 $ 1,120,523 $ 1,149,507 $ 1,179,233 $ 1,209,722 With Overhead, Hours Only 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Overhead $ 1,393,459 $ 1,429,675 $ 1,466,831 $ 1,504,954 $ 1,544,067 $ 1,584,196 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Offsetting Fares (Fixed & DAR) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) $ (49,357) Total Cost $ 1,344,102 $ 1,380,318 $ 1,417,474 $ 1,455,597 $ 1,494,710 $ 1,534,839 CSU Funded Service 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Cost Per Revenue Hour with Limited Overhead $ 1,016,064 $ 1,036,385 $ 1,057,113 $ 1,078,255 $ 1,099,820 $ 1,121,817 Cost for Associated DAR $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Cost $ 1,016,064 $ 1,036,385 $ 1,057,113 $ 1,078,255 $ 1,099,820 $ 1,121,817 APPENDIX: MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS MAINTENANCE appendix: CONSIDERATIONS I Appendix I: Maintenance Considerations Date Prepared: 9/30/16 1 INTRODUCTION The following section highlights maintenance considerations and responsibilities for the improvements to the streets proposed in the West Elizabeth ETC Plan. Topics include: - Tree Lawn/Median Maintenance - Snow Removal - Street Sweeping - Sidewalk/Curb/Gutter Maintenance TREE LAWN/MEDIAN MAINTENANCE - Responsibility: If tree lawns and median plantings are part of a City capital project, maintenance of tree lawn (plantings between the sidewalk and the curb/edge of the roadway) and medians is the responsibility of the City of Fort Collins - Estimated Cost: $0.20 per square foot per year - Related Policies/Programs: City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards - Notes: o Concerns may be reported to Neighborhood Services at 970-416-2200 or Access Fort Collins at fcgov.com/accessfortcollins. SNOW REMOVAL SIDEWALKS - Responsibility: Snow removal on sidewalks along property frontage is the responsibility of the resident/property owner or HOA. Standard practice of the City of Fort Collins is to do sidewalk snow removal adjacent to arterial roads that are plowed, as shown on the sidewalk clearing map at http://www.fcgov.com/streets/maps/snowmaps/sidewalk_removal_type.html. With the capital improvements proposed in the West Elizabeth ETC Plan, the sidewalks on the north side of West Elizabeth between Andrews Peak Drive and Hillcrest Drive would be added to the City’s sidewalk clearing map. - Estimated Cost: $4,000 per mile per year - Related Policies/Programs: City code requires clearing of public sidewalks of snow and ice within 24 hours of accumulation (i.e., end of the snow event). - Notes: o If a sidewalk that is designated on the map as regularly cleared by the City has not been cleared within 24 hours of the end of accumulation (i.e., end of the snow event), please contact the Streets Department at 970-221-6615. o Concerns may be reported to the Nuisance Hotline at 970-416-2200 or Access Fort Collins at fcgov.com/accessfortcollins. Appendix I: Maintenance Considerations Date Prepared: 9/30/16 2 o The City’s Adopt-A-Neighbor program matches volunteers with elderly or disabled residents who are physically unable to clear snow and ice from their public sidewalks and cannot afford to hire someone. Residents needing assistance must apply to be matched with a volunteer in advance at fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/adopt.php or by calling 970-224-6046. BIKE LANES - Responsibility: snow removal is the responsibility of the City of Fort Collins. Conventional/buffered bike lanes typically are cleared with plowing of the roadway; protected bike lanes require special equipment and additional labor. - Estimated Cost: o Conventional/buffered bike lane: $3,970 per mile per year per direction o Protected bike lane: $50,000 per mile per year per direction - Related Policies/Programs: Streets department Snow Plowing: http://www.fcgov.com/streets/snow-additional.php - Notes: o Concerns may be reported to the City’s Streets Department at 970-221-6615 or Access Fort Collins at fcgov.com/accessfortcollins. BUS STOPS - Responsibility: City of Fort Collins/Transfort - Estimated Cost: o Bus Rapid Transit Station: $1,000 per station per year - Notes: o Concerns may be reported to Transfort at 970-221-6620 or Access Fort Collins at fcgov.com/accessfortcollins. STREET SWEEPING - Responsibility: City of Fort Collins - Estimated Cost: o Conventional/buffered bike lane: $900 per mile per year o Protected bike lane: $4,900 per mile per year - Related Policies/Programs: Streets department Street Sweeping: http://www.fcgov.com/streets/sweeping.php - Notes: o Concerns may be reported to the City’s Streets Department at 970-221-6615 or Access Fort Collins at fcgov.com/accessfortcollins. Appendix I: Maintenance Considerations Date Prepared: 9/30/16 3 SIDEWALK/CURB/GUTTER MAINTENANCE - Responsibility: City of Fort Collins - Estimated Cost: $5,000 per mile per year (plus additional cost if curbing used for protected bike lanes) - Related Policies/Programs: Street Maintenance Program (SMP), Pedestrian Improvement Program - Notes: o This maintenance is usually not needed until several years after initial construction APPENDIX: MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS FINAL DESIGN appendix: CONSIDERATIONS J 1 Appendix J: Final Design Considerations INTRODUCTION During plan development, City staff worked with various private property owners to identify existing conditions and understand interests/concerns specific to their properties. This appendix is intended to document the discussions and provide a starting point for considerations for final design. It is not intended to represent ALL issues for consideration, and others may be added in the future. This appendix includes the following elements: • Wells • Drainage and Irrigation Ditches • Driveways and Parking • Existing Fences • Sight Distance • Trees • Sidewalks and Tree Lawns • Noise • Temporary Construction Easements • Maintenance WELLS Several historic wells exist throughout the west segment of the corridor, the majority of which are on private property and are not expected to be impacted by the Recommended Design. One well has been identified as being within the public right-of-way (ROW) and is documented in more detail than others that are not expected to be impacted in any way by the Recommended Design. The final design should take note of these wells and strive to avoid potential impacts to their structures. The following images depict the various wells identified throughout the conceptual design phase. Well within public right-of-way (ROW) 2730 West Elizabeth Street - Well • Well owner name: Peter Rhoades, 2730 West Elizabeth Street • Registered in 2005, constructed (hand-dug and brick-lined) in 1932 • Because it was constructed prior to well permits being required it is considered “grandfathered” by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. • The well platform is approximately 5’ and is located within the public right-of-way (ROW) approximately 11’ from the property line (north of well) and approximately 11’ from the edge of the existing pavement (south of well). 2 Appendix J: Final Design Considerations • The final design should be done in a way to avoid damage to the well structure (likely extremely sensitive due to the hand-dug nature); owner requested that final design concrete work stay 5’ from the well and that pre, during and post inspections be performed by an inspector who is selected by the property owner. Wells outside of the public ROW The Recommended Design work is not expected to impact these wells as they are outside of the public ROW; however, they are documented here for future reference. 2510 West Elizabeth - Well 2504 West Elizabeth - Well 2450 West Elizabeth - Well Other addresses with well permits from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (wells not visible from the street): • 2830 West Elizabeth • 2740 West Elizabeth • 2736 West Elizabeth • 2621 West Elizabeth DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION DITCHES At least one (and possibly more) drainage and/or irrigation ditch runs east/west along the north side of West Elizabeth Street between approximately Kimball Road and Ponderosa Drive. These are located on private property and are not anticipated to be impacted by the Recommended Design. The following images were taken of the existing facilities in the area: Drainage and irrigation ditches between Kimball and Ponderosa 3 Appendix J: Final Design Considerations Drainage improvements will be made as part of the West Elizabeth project in a manner consistent with all City and State regulations. These facilities will be built within the public ROW to handle both conveyance and water quality treatment requirements of all additional runoff that will be generated by this project. Whenever possible, sustainable green infrastructure methods will be used to convey and treat such runoff. Additionally, areas that are currently draining into the ROW will be accommodated to prevent any flooding hazards and to treat and minimize any pollution from that runoff to the maximum extent practicable and in compliance with the City’s Municipal Separated Sewer System (MS4) permit issued by the State of Colorado. DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING Currently many driveways have access on West Elizabeth Street. The Recommended Design was developed to minimize impacts to driveways as much as possible. For example, protected barriers for bike lanes are not included in areas where they would impede driveways and driveway length is preserved (or lengthened in several cases) in the majority of locations. Many driveways throughout the corridor are long enough to accommodate double stacking of vehicles as shown in the photos. During final design, the City’s Engineering Department will work with property owners on an individual basis to ensure driveways are viable. If needed, some of the possible improvements that can be made to private property owner driveways include: increasing a single drive-cut to a double (increasing the parking area in front of one’s home) and/or possibly shifting a driveway off of West Elizabeth to a lower volume side street (if feasible). Example between Cypress and Ponderosa Example between Taft Hill and Skyline The north side of West Elizabeth between Taft Hill and Skyline is one area where driveways may be reduced by a few feet; all other driveway lengths in the corridor are either preserved or lengthened. 4 Appendix J: Final Design Considerations EXISTING FENCES Several properties have front yard fences that are actually located within the City ROW. During final design, the City will meet with individual property owners to find a mutually agreeable solution for fence location. The City will work with owners to either relocate or reconstruct fences, at the cost of the project. Per current City code, fences shall be located at least 2’ behind the ROW line or at least 2’ behind the back of sidewalk; in some cases variances to the City’s fence code may be required. SIGHT DISTANCE The corridor has several side streets that have limited sight distance for turning onto West Elizabeth, Ponderosa being one of the most commonly mentioned and shown below. In addition, some comments have been noted that trees depicted in the Recommended Design drawings may, upon growth, become sight distance challenges. During final design, the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) sight distance analysis will be considered when tree placement is finalized. South facing vehicle turning left on to West Elizabeth from Ponderosa 5 Appendix J: Final Design Considerations TREES There are many mature trees in the West Elizabeth corridor and it is the City’s intent to preserve and support the tree canopy. During final design, the City’s Engineering Department will work with the City’s Forestry Department to limit the impact to existing trees, and where tree removal is necessary, mitigation trees will be planted in the area per City Code. In cases where existing mature trees are within the LCUASS sight distance triangle, a case by case evaluation of potential mitigation will be made that balances public safety and tree preservation. Existing mature tree at 2510 West Elizabeth Existing tree berm at 2450 West Elizabeth Existing tree at 2738 West Elizabeth and existing tree lawn on south side of Elizabeth near Azuro SIDEWALKS AND TREE LAWNS The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires sidewalks to be a minimum of 4’ wide with a 5’ passing zone at least every 200’. The City’s typical standard is to provide 6’ sidewalks on arterial streets like West Elizabeth Street based on extensive research completed on the pedestrian environment and overall community character as part of the development of the Land Use Code in 1997. The research included a visual preference survey to help identify the desired pedestrian environment. This survey overwhelmingly revealed that citizens prefer detached sidewalks (in which a tree lawn separates the sidewalk from the roadway) to sidewalks attached to the street curb. Staff carefully considered the minimum preferred 6 Appendix J: Final Design Considerations dimensions for the tree lawn, thinking about comfortable separation for people walking in a defined sidewalk’s space, long-term tree health, long-term protection of concrete flatwork from tree root heaving, and the ability to irrigate turf grass. Staff also evaluated sidewalk widths by taking neutral people out on different width sidewalks. The experience showed that 4.5’ is the absolute minimum width that two people can walk together and deemed this width appropriate for local residential streets. On collector and arterial streets with more potential activity, 5-7’ sidewalks were preferred as a way to increase pedestrian comfort and to provide enough room for people passing each other and bikes occasionally using sidewalks due to higher traffic volumes. The Recommended Design proposes a combination of 5’ and 6’ sidewalks throughout the west segment of the corridor. Five-foot sidewalks are proposed in locations where ROW is limited and/or specific site constraints exist, whereas 6’ sidewalks are proposed in areas where adequate ROW exists. A context- sensitive approach will be applied during final design. For example, some 6’ sidewalks may be reduced to 5’ to help preserve existing mature trees or wells. Existing sidewalks are narrow and incomplete as noted in the project’s Corridor Understanding Report. The images below show some of the existing sidewalk conditions. Existing sidewalks West of Ponderosa (5’) West of Ponderosa (3.5’) West of Skyway (5’) West of City Park (5’) East of Skyway (3.5’) 7 Appendix J: Final Design Considerations NOISE Property owners have indicated that they regularly experience high levels of noise from the traffic on West Elizabeth Street. The Recommended Design does not increase speed limits in the area, but rather intends to increase the compliance with the existing speed limit of 30 MPH. Some of the design elements intended to reduce speeds include: narrowing of travel lanes, adding central landscaped medians and landscaped parkways in areas where spaces allows, and adding new pedestrian crossings and bus stop islands. These design elements have been proven to help slow traffic and are appropriate for an arterial street like West Elizabeth Street. Additionally, in most cases travel lanes are proposed to be further away from homes than the current travel lanes which may help reduce traffic noise by a small amount. Other approaches to reducing sound that may be considered include: Transfort’s transition to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses, which are quieter than common diesel engines; and the potential for taller fences and potential shrub landscaping. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS During final design, the City will meet with individual property owner’s to determine if Temporary Construction Easements (TCEs) are needed to complete the work. TCEs are often needed for improvements such as relocating fences, reconstructing landscaping, and constructing sidewalks/driveway aprons. A TCE is a “rented” space used during construction to provide access for the Contractor. The property owner is financially compensated for the use of the space and the TCE agreement expires at the end of construction. MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS The Recommended Design includes many elements that are new to many of the property owners in the West Elizabeth Corridor and as such there have been many questions about maintenance responsibilities and how they will change over time. This information is documented in Appendix I. 8 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 18, 2016 City Council STAFF Travis Storin, Accounting Director Travis Paige, Community Engagement Manager SUBJECT Resolution 2016-082 Directing the Mayor to Submit a Letter to the United States Secretary of the Treasury Urging the Adoption of Internal Revenue Service Regulations or Other Laws to Exclude Water Conservation Rebates Provided by Water Utilities from the Taxable Gross Income of Individuals Under the Federal Income Tax. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to demonstrate official support for the exclusion of water conservation rebates from a residential utility customer’s taxable gross income under federal tax law. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Fort Collins Utilities aims to help preserve the environment and save its residential customers money through water conservation and energy efficiency programs. Customers receive these rebates by participating in and providing information to Utilities staff and Platte River Power Authority on equipment purchased and installed. Qualified equipment eligible for water conservation rebates include toilets, showerheads, sprinkler equipment and Xeriscape installations. Energy rebates are exempted from an individual’s taxable gross income under federal tax law and the 1099- MISC federal tax form requirement based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines, assuming the rebates were delivered directly to the customer (IRS Publication 525). Water rebates are not tax exempt for residential customers and, thus, do require issuance of 1099-MISC federal tax forms for rebate amounts greater than, or equal to, $600 under Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Fort Collins City Council, along with Colorado’s United States Senators and the WaterNow Alliance, supports a tax exemption for water conservation rebates similar to that on energy rebates. This exemption will allow communities to continue and expand consumer rebates and subsidies which are the most cost effective and efficient tools for increasing water supply resilience and maintaining water affordability. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Staff researched water rebates processed for residential customers in 2015 and discovered no single rebate was issued to any customer exceeding the $600 threshold. In 2016, Utilities Xeriscape program was restructured and the rebate amount of $500 per installation was increased to $750. Staff has and will continue to adhere to IRS rules and requirements for any rebate exceeding $600 for this program. Rebate recipients will be asked to submit an IRS Form W-9 to the City as a condition of rebate payment, so that the City files the requisite information with the IRS and taxpayer. 10 Packet Pg. 169 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 Staff also researched energy rebates exceeding the $600 threshold and found 137 rebates processed through the Efficiency Works Home program, and 94 solar rebates were processed. In cases where a contractor is completing the work for the customer and deducting the amount of the energy rebate in their pricing to the customer, CLEAResult (third party administrator for the Efficiency Works Program) is collecting W9’s and will issue 1099-MISC forms when necessary. Business energy rebates do not have the same tax exemption as residential. Through the collaborative administration with Platte River Power Authority for business incentives, the collection of W-9 tax information and issuance of 1099 forms is done as a normal part of the program process. ATTACHMENTS 1. Water Now Alliance/National League of Cities Letter (PDF) 2. Congressional Letter of Support (PDF) 3. U.S. Senate Letter of Support (PDF) 4. Internal Revenue Service Response Letter (PDF) 5. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 10 Packet Pg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acket Pg. 176 Attachment: Congressional Letter of Support (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) 10.2 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Congressional Letter of Support (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) 10.2 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Congressional Letter of Support (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) 10.2 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Congressional Letter of Support (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) 10.2 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Congressional Letter of Support (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) ATTACHMENT 3 10.3 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: U.S. Senate Letter of Support (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) 10.3 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: U.S. Senate Letter of Support (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) ATTACHMENT 4 10.4 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Internal Revenue Service Response Letter (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) Water Efficiency Rebate Taxability Travis Storin, Accounting Director Travis Paige, Community Engagement Manager 10-18-16 ATTACHMENT 5 10.5 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) Current Tax Code • Section 136 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) allows for a gross income exclusion for any subsidy by a public utility to a customer for purchase or installation of any energy conservation measure. • “Energy conservation measure” is further defined by this section as any installation or modification primarily designed to reduce consumption of electricity or natural gas. • IRC is silent with respect to water conservation efforts; thus such subsidies or rebates are taxable. 2 10.5 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) Recent Events 12/11/15: Letter from CA Congressional delegation to IRS and US Treasury 1/5/16: Response from IRS directs legislative change 2/25/16: HR 4615 introduced, referred to Ways and Means 5/26/16: Letter from CA, WA, CO, and NV Senators to US Treasury requesting moratorium from IRS 3 10.5 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. • The Resolution authorizes and directs the Mayor to send a letter to the U.S. Treasury urging an exemption for water conservation • The Resolution also expressly affirms the Council’s support for incentivizing the installation of water conservation improvements. 4 10.5 Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) -1- RESOLUTION 2016-082 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY URGING THE ADOPTION OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE REGULATIONS OR OTHER LAWS TO EXCLUDE WATER CONSERVATION REBATES PROVIDED BY WATER UTILITIES FROM THE TAXABLE GROSS INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utility Services aims to help preserve the environment and its customers money by offering rebates to its residential customers who participate in water conservation and energy efficiency programs by purchasing and installing certain qualifying equipment and improvements that contribute to water conservation and energy efficiency; and WHEREAS, the rebates Utility Services provides to its residential customers under its energy efficiency program are currently excluded from the customer’s federal taxable gross income under Internal Revenue Code Section 136, but the rebates it provides to its residential customers under its water conservation program are not; and WHEREAS, Colorado’s United States Senators and the WaterNow Alliance have all sent letters to the Internal Revenue Service and United States Treasury Department urging the adoption of regulations by the Internal Revenue Service or for the support of other laws to exclude from an individual’s federal taxable gross income, water conservations rebates received from water utilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it would be in the best interest of its Utility Services customers to be able to exclude such rebates from their gross income taxed under the federal income tax and it would increase the incentive for customers to purchase and install water conservation equipment and improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign and send the attached letter to the United States Secretary of the Treasury in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” subject to minor modifications as the Mayor, in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney, may determine to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interest of the City and Utility Services or to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. Packet Pg. 188 -2- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th day of October, A.D. 2016. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 189 City Manager’s Office City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com October 20, 2016 The Honorable Secretary of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20220 Dear Secretary Lew, On behalf of the Fort Collins City Council, I am writing in support of resolving the uncertainty related to the taxability of water conservation rebates paid to residential utility customers and how the IRS taxes these rebates and to encourage an exemption from taxation for them similar to that provided for energy efficiency rebates. Energy efficiency rebates are exempted from an individual’s taxable gross income under federal tax law and from the 1099-MISC federal tax form requirement. Fort Collins Utilities aims to help preserve the environment and save our customers money through water conservation and energy efficiency programs. Customers receive these rebates by participating in and providing information to Utilities staff on equipment purchased and installed. Qualified equipment eligible for water conservation rebates include toilets, showerheads, sprinkler equipment and Xeriscape installations. The Fort Collins City Council, along with Colorado’s United States Senators and the WaterNow Alliance, support a tax exemption for water rebates similar to that on energy rebates. This exemption and clarity on tax liability will allow communities to continue and expand consumer rebates and subsidies which are the most cost effective and efficient tools for increasing water supply resilience and maintaining water affordability. Living in a region where water conservation is critical, we continually look for ways and means to educate and incentivize conservation efforts in both the residential and business sectors. We encourage innovation and partnerships and do not want the threat of tax liability to be a hurdle in our efforts. Thank you for your attention and efforts in this matter. Sincerely, Wade Troxell Mayor, Fort Collins, CO Cc: Michael Bennet, United States Senator Cory Gardner, United States Senator Jared Polis, United States Representative EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit A (4897 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates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acket Pg. 175 Attachment: Water Now Alliance/National League of Cities Letter (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates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acket Pg. 174 Attachment: Water Now Alliance/National League of Cities Letter (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) - ( )6*- ( - -"- /'-&6*0)$' ( - )/'-'' 4/ -$./-$/6 $/4*!*. ( 6  //# 206886- .$ )/ --4 -"0.*)64*--*> ( $> )$).0'/ -$./-$/ ) 0)+$./-)*6  / 1  *-)6- .$ )/ *(0*$.6*0)$' ( - 0-$..$( $''./ -$./-$/6 $/4*!'*'/*6  *)$- ) -"6*0)$' ( - $''- )6$- /*- $/4*!))/*)$*6 *0/#*.// -$./-$/6  **)  *+ 56 ) -')" -  *#) 8 6$- /*- *0'/*)$" '/ -$./-$/ '( *0)/4/ -$./-$/  / /++ '0(6$/4*0)$'( ( -  --4 *-&64*--* ( *0' -6 /8*''$).6  /#4 *'$)6*0)/4*(($..$*) - 1$$#$).6$/4*0)$'( ( - )/ 6  .6  -*'4)&*24-6*0)$'( ( - -&88$/# ''64*- $''*)6  (+ 6  -$ - 6*0)$' ( - 0.) **6$/4*0)$' ( - $/4*!0-*-6  *0$.1$'' 6  $ )$*2' -6 *0$.1$''  /-**0)$'( ( - #&/$6*0)$'- .$ )/ $/4*! *0$.1$'' 6   & 2**6  4)/#$-//6 +0/44*- ')/*6 -864*- $/4*!  46 ./*)6  - 1$)8 *#).*)64*- *$) )$ #6*0)$'2*() $/4*! ) + ) ) 6  )1 -6  --4- ..' -64*- #-' .$#-.*)6*0)$' ( - (-6  0-*-6  0- $/# ''6$ - .$ )/6$/4*0)$' / +#)$ **.$'' -6#$ ! +0/4' -& '$.0-46 $*0)/46  *)) .*0-) 6*0)$'( ( - #*(-)#*-)6*0)$'( ( - **4 -6  ($)*' 6   )4 ! )64*- *)$- ) -"6$/4*0)$'() ) -.*)6 ))/*)$*6 10.1 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Water Now Alliance/National League of Cities Letter (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates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acket Pg. 172 Attachment: Water Now Alliance/National League of Cities Letter (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates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acket Pg. 171 Attachment: Water Now Alliance/National League of Cities Letter (4889 : Council Support to Exempt Water Efficiency Rebates) drawings in order to define the basic limits of work for the estimates, but are limited in accuracy due to the plan format and detail. All of the conceptual traffic calming measures are assumed to be completed within the existing legal right‐of‐way and that roadway improvements can be contained within the existing paved secton. It is also assumed that the roadway cross‐sections and profiles do not need to be modified and that drainage is currently adequate to serve the proposed section. drawings in order to define the basic limits of work for the estimates, but are limited in accuracy due to the plan format and detail. All of the conceptual traffic calming measures are assumed to be completed within the existing legal right‐of‐way and that roadway improvements can be contained within the existing paved secton. It is also assumed that the roadway cross‐sections and profiles do not need to be modified and that drainage is currently adequate to serve the proposed section. Left Turn 80 71 88.6% 13.2 3.8 B 17 Through 10 11 112.0% 30.3 8.6 D 6 Right Turn 80 71 88.8% 13.0 4.1 B 17 Subtotal 170 153 90.1% 14.4 2.7 B 40 Total 1,350 1,322 97.9% 9.2 1.2 A 221 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 6/27/2016 Left Turn 105 95 90.7% 39.5 4.0 D 69 Through 555 523 94.3% 16.4 1.2 B 158 Right Turn 90 77 85.6% 14.2 4.3 B 20 Subtotal 750 695 92.7% 19.3 1.5 B 247 Total 2,170 2,034 93.7% 34.1 8.1 C 1275 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 6/27/2016 Left Turn 75 70 93.5% 109.6 47.3 F 141 Through 45 43 94.9% 108.7 57.7 F 85 Right Turn 10 6 61.0% 56.1 54.0 E 6 Subtotal 130 119 91.5% 108.4 49.5 F 232 Total 4,430 3,869 87.3% 104.2 17.7 F 7654 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 6/27/2016 Left Turn 65 62 94.6% 23.8 6.0 C 27 Through 5 11 210.0% 29.1 10.2 D 6 Right Turn 80 76 95.0% 21.2 5.5 C 29 Subtotal 150 148 98.7% 23.1 4.9 C 62 Total 1,220 1,221 100.1% 7.8 0.9 A 170 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 6/27/2016 Left Turn 40 34 83.8% 36.1 9.0 D 22 Through 200 187 93.3% 8.2 2.2 A 28 Right Turn 60 54 89.2% 6.3 2.9 A 6 Subtotal 300 274 91.2% 11.4 1.9 B 56 Total 1,230 1,182 96.1% 15.3 1.6 B 327 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 6/27/2016 Left Turn 20 17 87.0% 53.6 32.0 D 17 Through 10 6 60.0% 31.0 41.0 C 3 Right Turn 10 5 45.0% 16.0 26.6 B 1 Subtotal 40 28 69.8% 57.3 13.4 E 22 Total 2,970 2,865 96.5% 16.9 1.7 B 872 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 6/27/2016 Left Turn 80 74 92.4% 29.3 6.4 D 40 Through 10 6 56.0% 28.1 13.6 D 3 Right Turn 80 72 90.0% 14.5 1.7 B 19 Subtotal 170 152 89.1% 22.8 3.8 C 62 Total 1,350 1,319 97.7% 3.6 0.7 A 83 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/29/2016 Left Turn 105 97 92.8% 38.3 13.5 D 68 Through 555 523 94.2% 10.0 0.9 B 96 Right Turn 90 74 82.4% 10.5 2.0 B 14 Subtotal 750 695 92.6% 14.4 3.1 B 179 Total 2,170 2,053 94.6% 23.3 7.7 C 838 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/29/2016 Left Turn 75 71 95.1% 53.2 8.7 D 70 Through 45 45 99.6% 46.6 9.7 D 38 Right Turn 10 6 58.0% 17.1 12.2 B 2 Subtotal 130 122 93.8% 49.3 7.3 D 110 Total 4,430 3,977 89.8% 102.5 10.6 F 7543 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/29/2016 Left Turn 65 62 95.1% 25.0 16.0 D 28 Through 5 5 100.0% 15.1 9.2 C 1 Right Turn 80 81 101.1% 19.7 12.7 C 29 Subtotal 150 148 98.5% 22.2 13.7 C 59 Total 1,220 1,204 98.7% 3.3 1.3 A 80 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 40 34 86.0% 16.1 4.0 B 10 Through 200 180 90.2% 5.9 1.3 A 19 Right Turn 60 52 86.7% 4.0 1.3 A 4 Subtotal 300 267 88.9% 6.8 1.2 A 33 Total 1,230 1,161 94.4% 8.3 0.6 A 179 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 20 16 80.5% 37.2 25.9 D 11 Through 10 6 63.0% 22.2 30.5 C 3 Right Turn 10 5 50.0% 7.4 10.9 A 1 Subtotal 40 27 68.5% 37.3 16.7 D 14 Total 2,970 2,893 97.4% 21.7 2.8 C 1,138 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 69 62 89.7% 12.3 3.1 B 14 Through 5 11 226.0% 23.8 6.1 C 5 Right Turn 67 64 95.1% 13.9 5.0 B 16 Subtotal 141 137 97.1% 14.3 3.0 B 35 Total 1,170 1,170 100.0% 7.2 1.2 A 152 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 6/17/2016 Left Turn 89 91 102.1% 36.8 7.7 D 61 Through 491 470 95.7% 16.2 1.6 B 139 Right Turn 77 66 86.1% 16.4 2.3 B 20 Subtotal 657 627 95.4% 19.1 1.8 B 221 Total 1,896 1,843 97.2% 24.5 3.7 C 821 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 6/17/2016 Left Turn 61 59 96.6% 99.5 31.3 F 107 Through 36 37 102.8% 88.1 26.8 F 60 Right Turn 6 5 75.0% 53.1 60.1 D 4 Subtotal 103 100 97.5% 94.8 27.2 F 172 Total 3,692 3,539 95.9% 42.3 6.3 D 2754 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 6/17/2016 Left Turn 51 49 96.7% 14.7 5.4 B 13 Through 4 10 247.5% 29.2 7.8 D 5 Right Turn 65 63 96.5% 16.1 6.8 C 19 Subtotal 120 122 101.6% 16.6 4.8 C 37 Total 976 997 102.2% 5.4 0.8 A 98 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/17/2016 Left Turn 30 29 97.3% 35.5 11.7 D 19 Through 160 160 100.1% 7.9 2.1 A 23 Right Turn 45 46 101.3% 6.4 2.5 A 5 Subtotal 235 235 100.0% 10.7 2.2 B 48 Total 971 975 100.4% 14.2 1.7 B 259 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/17/2016 Left Turn 15 14 96.0% 60.0 15.1 E 16 Through 5 5 106.0% 27.5 25.5 C 3 Right Turn 5 4 78.0% 52.5 38.2 D 4 Subtotal 25 24 94.4% 54.8 10.9 D 22 Total 2,466 2,426 98.4% 13.4 1.9 B 597 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/17/2016 Left Turn 69 67 96.4% 29.6 7.2 D 36 Through 5 6 122.0% 14.8 14.1 B 2 Right Turn 67 64 96.1% 10.3 3.5 B 12 Subtotal 141 137 97.2% 20.5 5.7 C 50 Total 1,170 1,177 100.6% 3.3 0.9 A 67 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 89 89 99.9% 28.7 8.5 C 47 Through 491 463 94.2% 9.2 1.2 A 78 Right Turn 77 69 89.2% 9.4 2.2 A 12 Subtotal 657 620 94.4% 11.8 1.6 B 136 Total 1,896 1,851 97.6% 16.6 2.3 B 553 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 61 61 99.3% 49.8 9.8 D 55 Through 36 36 100.8% 46.0 7.3 D 31 Right Turn 6 6 91.7% 9.3 11.1 A 1 Subtotal 103 102 99.4% 46.8 7.0 D 87 Total 3,692 3,547 96.1% 46.4 15.0 D 3096 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 51 52 102.7% 21.6 6.3 C 21 Through 4 4 105.0% 10.4 10.1 B 1 Right Turn 65 69 106.5% 12.9 6.6 B 16 Subtotal 120 126 104.8% 16.5 5.9 C 38 Total 976 990 101.5% 3.4 1.0 A 50 Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 30 30 101.3% 11.5 5.9 B 6 Through 160 161 100.7% 5.1 1.7 A 15 Right Turn 45 43 94.9% 3.6 1.0 A 3 Subtotal 235 234 99.7% 5.6 1.5 A 24 Total 971 969 99.8% 7.9 1.1 A 141 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 15 13 88.7% 50.4 31.5 D 12 Through 5 5 108.0% 21.4 25.8 C 2 Right Turn 5 4 84.0% 10.1 21.5 B 1 Subtotal 25 23 91.6% 40.7 22.2 D 15 Total 2,466 2,445 99.1% 17.4 2.0 B 762 Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles future parking district increases motorist options  No proposed changes  Completion of bike lanes throughout the corridor will help reduce conflicts between cyclists and motorists  Four travel lanes in busiest segments of corridor  Center turn lanes through majority of corridor  Medians in select locations to help calm traffic  Access management around Campus West, at Taft Hill  Roundabout at Overland Trail eases turning movements and calms traffic  Conflict points reduced as access points consolidate with redevelopment  Potential shared parking district Walking Existing Conditions: Identified Needs: How the Vision is Addressed: Proposed for 2016 Interim Improvements Recommended Design What if Campus West Redevelops? Driving Existing Conditions: Identified Needs: How the Vision is Addressed: Proposed for 2016 Interim Improvements Recommended Design What if Campus West Redevelops? Updated: 7/20/2016 transportation –protected/buffered lanes, protected intersection, intersection treatments  Interconnectivity – bike racks at stops, bike share Transit Existing Conditions: Identified Needs: How the Vision is Addressed: Proposed for 2016 Interim Improvements Recommended Design What if Campus West Redevelops? Biking Existing Conditions: Identified Needs: How the Vision is Addressed: Proposed for 2016 Interim Improvements Recommended Design What if Campus West Redevelops?  Skyline N/S crossing relocated east of Skyline  Completion of bike lanes  Intersection improvements (e.g., bike lanes continue through intersections, signal timing improvements)  One-way protected, buffered bike lanes  Intersection treatments (green paint and two-stage turn boxes)  Pilot protected intersection at City Park/West Elizabeth  N/S crossing improvements at Rocky/Azuro, Ponderosa, Constitution, and Skyline  Bus stop islands with bike passing lane  Protected bike lanes are extended through Campus West  Conflict points are reduced as access points consolidate with redevelopment Remain Relocated/Merged Bus Stop Relocated/Merged + Improved Bus Stop Improved Bus Stop (ADA Compliant and Passenger Amenities) Existing Conditions Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) CSU Campus CSU Campus Potential Underpass Under Consideration (Designed by Others and not yet Detailed or Complete) Known Critical Issues to be Addressed Include: • Business Access • Driveway Crossings • Connections to Mid-Block Crossing Transit Station and Park & Ride Overland Trail Taft Hill Dr Meadowbrook Dr Meadowbrook Dr Glenmoor Dr Cragmore Dr Caslterock Dr Skyline Dr Constitution Dr Bryan Ave City Park Ave Shields St Cuerto Ln Tierra Ln Andrews Peak Dr CSU Equine Center Arancia Dr Bianco Dr Plum St Azuro Dr Kimball Rd Rocky Rd Timber Ln Cypress Dr Ponderosa Dr Hillcrest Dr Taft Hill Rd King Soopers 0 80’ 160’ 320’ Scale: 1”=80’ Buffered Bike Lane, Typ. 6’ Walk, Typ. Section C Enhanced Canal Crossing - Widening to Accommodate New Walk Section A Section A2 Access Management Access Management, Typ. Requires Min. 9’ Wide Turn Lanes Loading Zone Area Potential Future Enhanced Bike/Ped Crossing (e.g. RRFB)* Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing ROW Acquisition-dependent on Re-Development 6’ Wide Tree Lawn, Typ. Desired Detached Sidewalk Condition, Interim-Condition Shown Due to ROW Constraints, Typ. Pedestrian Crossing w/ Pedestrian Refuge Median Desired Detached Sidewalk Condition, Interim-Condition Shown Due to ROW Constraints, Typ. Planted Median Improved Intersection w/, Green Striping @ Conflict Facility, and Intersection Re-Alignment LEGEND Phase 2 Implementation Existing Conditions Two Stage Bike Turn Box, Typ. Bus Stop Island w/ Stubouts for Future BRT Facilities Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) * Designs Shown are Conceptual; More Details to be Refined in Detailed Design Phases Subsequent to this Plan. On Street Parking Removed to Allow for Bike Lane. Enhanced “Traffic Calming” Medians, will Require U-Turn to Access Some Driveways Potential Underpass Under Consideration (Designed by Others and not yet Detailed or Complete) Known Critical Issues to be Addressed Include: • Business Access • Driveway Crossings • Connections to Mid-Block Crossing Transit Station and Park & Ride Overland Trail Taft Hill Dr Meadowbrook Dr Meadowbrook Dr Glenmoor Dr Cragmore Dr Caslterock Dr Skyline Dr Constitution Dr Bryan Ave City Park Ave Shields St Cuerto Ln Tierra Ln Andrews Peak Dr CSU Equine Center Arancia Dr Bianco Dr Plum St Azuro Dr Kimball Rd Rocky Rd Timber Ln Cypress Dr Ponderosa Dr Hillcrest Dr Taft Hill Rd King Soopers 0 80’ 160’ 320’ Scale: 1”=80’ Section A: Overland Trail to Taft Hill Road Interim Condition: Attached Walk (if Right-of-Way no Available) Existing Right-of-Way Varies 60’-100’ Setback /Median Setback 73’ RIGHT-OF-WAY (COMPARED TO 84’ STANDARD) 78’ RIGHT-OF-WAY (COMPARED TO 84’ STANDARD) Section B: Taft Hill Road to City Park Avenue /Median Ex. Parkway Min. Ex. 92’ AVG ROW Section C: City Park Avenue to Shields Street - Recommended Design Without Redevelopment 7.5’ Bike Lane 7.5’ Bike Lane /Median Section A2: Cypress Dr. to Ponderosa Dr. Existing Right-of-Way Varies 60’ Yard w/in R.O.W. Existing 60’ RIGHT-OF-WAY (COMPARED TO 84’ STANDARD) Left Turn 80 67 83.3% 7.2 2.5 A 9 Through 10 12 115.0% 8.5 4.6 A 2 Right Turn 80 69 86.4% 6.9 2.5 A 9 Subtotal 170 147 86.6% 7.4 1.6 A 19 Total 1,350 1,313 97.2% 7.8 1.4 A 187 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 105 95 90.3% 118.0 40.0 F 205 Through 555 509 91.7% 50.6 34.3 D 472 Right Turn 90 71 79.1% 36.1 28.2 D 47 Subtotal 750 675 90.0% 58.0 34.6 E 724 Total 2,170 1,964 90.5% 83.2 14.2 F 3041 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 75 72 95.6% 53.2 9.6 D 70 Through 45 44 97.8% 44.9 11.7 D 36 Right Turn 10 6 64.0% 61.7 38.8 E 7 Subtotal 130 122 93.9% 50.5 8.9 D 113 Total 4,430 3,887 87.7% 115.6 17.3 F 8337 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 65 59 90.5% 11.0 2.7 B 12 Through 5 12 230.0% 13.9 6.1 B 3 Right Turn 80 72 89.6% 11.2 4.7 B 15 Subtotal 150 142 94.7% 11.4 3.4 B 30 Total 1,220 1,213 99.4% 6.5 1.0 A 144 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 40 34 85.3% 40.5 12.0 D 25 Through 200 176 88.1% 14.2 2.9 B 46 Right Turn 60 51 85.5% 5.5 1.5 A 5 Subtotal 300 262 87.2% 16.6 3.4 B 76 Total 1,230 1,145 93.1% 21.1 2.7 C 438 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 20 17 86.5% 35.5 25.5 D 11 Through 10 5 52.0% 15.8 25.7 B 2 Right Turn 10 5 51.0% 17.0 25.1 B 2 Subtotal 40 28 69.0% 40.2 17.2 D 14 Total 2,970 2,841 95.7% 25.2 2.6 C 1291 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 80 69 86.8% 7.4 2.5 A 9 Through 10 12 123.0% 9.7 4.7 A 2 Right Turn 80 71 88.8% 7.9 1.5 A 10 Subtotal 170 153 89.8% 7.8 1.7 A 22 Total 1,350 1,325 98.2% 7.8 1.5 A 189 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/29/2016 Left Turn 105 94 89.3% 81.8 13.8 F 141 Through 555 515 92.8% 19.5 1.5 B 184 Right Turn 90 76 84.0% 20.2 3.3 C 28 Subtotal 750 685 91.3% 28.1 3.5 C 353 Total 2,170 2,022 93.2% 57.9 7.4 E 2114 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/29/2016 Left Turn 75 71 94.9% 52.9 9.1 D 69 Through 45 45 99.1% 45.9 9.4 D 37 Right Turn 10 6 61.0% 50.6 41.2 D 6 Subtotal 130 122 93.8% 50.8 6.9 D 112 Total 4,430 3,916 88.4% 113.6 13.6 F 8216 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/29/2016 Left Turn 65 56 86.2% 10.7 3.0 B 11 Through 5 11 216.0% 13.1 4.6 B 3 Right Turn 80 74 92.1% 12.4 5.2 B 17 Subtotal 150 141 93.7% 11.6 3.8 B 30 Total 1,220 1,210 99.2% 6.2 1.0 A 136 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 40 34 84.5% 39.5 10.9 D 24 Through 200 183 91.6% 10.9 3.5 B 37 Right Turn 60 50 82.5% 6.4 3.8 A 6 Subtotal 300 267 88.8% 13.9 3.7 B 67 Total 1,230 1,156 94.0% 16.3 2.9 B 346 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 20 18 89.0% 38.7 26.1 D 13 Through 10 5 49.0% 15.8 25.6 B 1 Right Turn 10 5 48.0% 17.3 25.4 B 2 Subtotal 40 28 68.8% 41.4 18.6 D 16 Total 2,970 2,849 95.9% 25.5 2.2 C 1316 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 80 70 87.1% 32.4 6.1 D 41 Through 10 6 57.0% 24.2 27.9 C 3 Right Turn 80 73 90.8% 14.7 2.9 B 20 Subtotal 170 148 87.1% 23.2 3.9 C 64 Total 1,350 1,304 96.6% 3.6 0.5 A 84 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 105 89 84.5% 77.4 116.6 E 126 Through 555 513 92.3% 9.6 1.1 A 90 Right Turn 90 74 81.7% 9.7 1.9 A 13 Subtotal 750 675 90.0% 14.3 4.6 B 229 Total 2,170 2,033 93.7% 31.7 25.0 C 1269 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 75 73 96.8% 55.4 9.2 E 74 Through 45 43 95.8% 49.9 11.7 D 39 Right Turn 10 6 63.0% 23.8 26.3 C 3 Subtotal 130 122 93.8% 52.3 7.4 D 116 Total 4,430 3,900 88.0% 115.0 9.5 F 8381 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 65 58 89.2% 31.4 13.7 D 33 Through 5 11 222.0% 61.6 22.5 F 13 Right Turn 80 78 97.6% 22.5 17.0 C 32 Subtotal 150 147 98.1% 29.7 14.2 D 78 Total 1,220 1,217 99.8% 4.7 1.4 A 105 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 40 35 86.8% 13.4 4.0 B 9 Through 200 182 90.9% 5.2 1.0 A 17 Right Turn 60 50 83.0% 3.3 1.0 A 3 Subtotal 300 266 88.8% 6.0 1.4 A 29 Total 1,230 1,162 94.5% 8.1 1.2 A 175 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 20 17 83.5% 41.5 26.0 D 13 Through 10 5 52.0% 18.8 25.4 B 2 Right Turn 10 6 55.0% 5.5 9.1 A 1 Subtotal 40 27 68.5% 38.3 10.1 D 15 Total 2,970 2,884 97.1% 22.9 4.9 C 1,219 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 80 74 92.4% 29.3 6.4 D 40 Through 10 6 56.0% 28.1 13.6 D 3 Right Turn 80 72 90.0% 14.5 1.7 B 19 Subtotal 170 152 89.1% 22.8 3.8 C 62 Total 1,350 1,319 97.7% 3.6 0.7 A 83 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/29/2016 Left Turn 105 97 92.8% 38.3 13.5 D 68 Through 555 523 94.2% 10.0 0.9 B 96 Right Turn 90 74 82.4% 10.5 2.0 B 14 Subtotal 750 695 92.6% 14.4 3.1 B 179 Total 2,170 2,053 94.6% 23.3 7.7 C 838 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/29/2016 Left Turn 75 71 95.1% 53.2 8.7 D 70 Through 45 45 99.6% 46.6 9.7 D 38 Right Turn 10 6 58.0% 17.1 12.2 B 2 Subtotal 130 122 93.8% 49.3 7.3 D 110 Total 4,430 3,977 89.8% 102.5 10.6 F 7543 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 6/29/2016 Left Turn 65 62 95.1% 25.0 16.0 D 28 Through 5 5 100.0% 15.1 9.2 C 1 Right Turn 80 81 101.1% 19.7 12.7 C 29 Subtotal 150 148 98.5% 22.2 13.7 C 59 Total 1,220 1,204 98.7% 3.3 1.3 A 80 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 40 34 86.0% 16.1 4.0 B 10 Through 200 180 90.2% 5.9 1.3 A 19 Right Turn 60 52 86.7% 4.0 1.3 A 4 Subtotal 300 267 88.9% 6.8 1.2 A 33 Total 1,230 1,161 94.4% 8.3 0.6 A 179 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn 20 16 80.5% 37.2 25.9 D 11 Through 10 6 63.0% 22.2 30.5 C 3 Right Turn 10 5 50.0% 7.4 10.9 A 1 Subtotal 40 27 68.5% 37.3 16.7 D 14 Total 2,970 2,893 97.4% 21.7 2.8 C 1,138 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/28/2016 Left Turn Through 6 7 6 98.3% 7.2 4.3 0.2 Right Turn Subtotal 6 7 6 98.3% 7.2 4.3 0.2 Total 12 13 12 99.2% 15.3 8.7 0.8 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Transit Left Turn Through 12 455 12 99.2% 36.4 12.8 69.1 Right Turn Subtotal 12 455 12 99.2% 36.4 12.8 69.1 Total 17 526 17 99.4% 36.5 10.0 80.6 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 21 617 20 95.7% 44.2 9.0 65.7 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Transit WB Served Volume (pph) NB Served Volume (pph) EB WB Served Volume (pph) SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Left Turn 9 8 91.1% 7.6 15.7 1.1 Through Right Turn 3 3 100.0% 1.1 1.8 0.1 Subtotal 12 11 93.3% 7.4 15.6 1.2 Total 89 83 93.4% 2.0 2.6 2.3 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 10 11 113.0% 88.7 34.9 14.8 Through 88 90 101.9% 31.1 11.2 45.6 Right Turn 15 14 91.3% 41.4 26.2 10.4 Subtotal 113 115 101.5% 37.6 11.1 70.8 Total 174 177 101.6% 35.5 9.2 102.6 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 3 2 76.7% 13.4 25.6 0.7 Through 102 102 100.0% 42.3 5.1 71.9 Right Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.2 0.5 0.0 Subtotal 106 105 99.2% 42.0 4.3 72.5 Total 143 135 94.4% 40.0 7.0 86.3 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 69 63 91.3% 6.0 1.9 A 7 Through 5 11 220.0% 6.6 3.2 A 1 Right Turn 67 63 94.6% 7.1 2.1 A 8 Subtotal 141 137 97.4% 6.6 1.7 A 16 Total 1,170 1,171 100.1% 5.9 0.6 A 125 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 89 86 96.6% 110.2 18.4 F 174 Through 491 470 95.8% 45.8 16.9 D 395 Right Turn 77 71 91.9% 28.6 11.2 C 37 Subtotal 657 627 95.5% 53.3 16.7 D 606 Total 1,896 1,806 95.2% 47.4 7.1 D 1536 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 61 61 99.7% 49.2 10.6 D 55 Through 36 36 99.7% 43.1 5.9 D 28 Right Turn 6 6 95.0% 29.0 38.6 C 3 Subtotal 103 102 99.4% 47.5 7.2 D 86 Total 3,692 3,554 96.2% 48.1 4.7 D 3148 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn Through 6 7 6 100.0% 12.8 5.6 0.4 Right Turn Subtotal 6 7 6 100.0% 12.8 5.6 0.4 Total 12 13 12 100.0% 17.2 9.0 0.9 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 6 365 6 100.0% 47.3 18.4 72.0 NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 91 4 100.0% 41.8 6.0 4.7 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Transit WB Served Volume (pph) NB Served Volume (pph) EB WB Served Volume (pph) SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians EB WB Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Left Turn 9 8 88.9% 10.3 13.9 1.5 Through Right Turn 3 3 106.7% 1.1 2.1 0.1 Subtotal 12 11 93.3% 9.1 11.7 1.6 Total 89 82 92.0% 3.0 2.2 3.5 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) ehr & Peers 2/22/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 10 12 115.0% 67.1 19.4 11.2 Through 88 88 99.4% 10.6 4.0 15.5 Right Turn 15 15 96.7% 3.7 4.5 0.9 Subtotal 113 114 100.4% 15.5 4.1 27.6 Total 169 168 99.6% 20.2 5.0 50.9 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) ehr & Peers 2/22/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 3 2 80.0% 15.7 21.3 0.8 Through 102 103 100.8% 42.7 5.1 72.6 Right Turn 1 1 70.0% 0.5 1.5 0.0 Subtotal 106 106 99.9% 42.2 5.5 73.4 Total 143 136 94.8% 38.5 5.7 84.8 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) ehr & Peers 2/22/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 69 61 89.0% 6.2 1.6 A 7 Through 5 11 226.0% 11.1 3.7 B 2 Right Turn 67 63 93.6% 5.8 1.5 A 7 Subtotal 141 135 96.0% 6.4 1.0 A 16 Total 1,170 1,163 99.4% 5.6 0.9 A 119 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 89 85 95.7% 74.7 10.8 E 117 Through 491 463 94.3% 16.3 1.8 B 139 Right Turn 77 70 90.3% 16.3 3.8 B 21 Subtotal 657 618 94.0% 23.9 3.7 C 276 Total 1,896 1,808 95.3% 41.5 4.1 D 1377 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 61 61 100.5% 49.4 8.2 D 56 Through 36 36 99.7% 45.4 5.8 D 30 Right Turn 6 6 96.7% 32.7 33.6 C 3 Subtotal 103 103 100.0% 47.3 4.6 D 89 Total 3,692 3,554 96.3% 41.6 6.8 D 2669 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn Through 6 7 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn Subtotal 6 7 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 12 13 6 50.0% 13.5 4.2 0.6 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 6 365 6 100.0% 74.5 10.6 113.3 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 91 4 100.0% 52.3 24.9 5.9 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit WB Served Volume (pph) NB Served Volume (pph) EB WB Served Volume (pph) SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians EB WB Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Left Turn 9 6 61.1% 6.3 7.5 0.9 Through Right Turn 3 3 106.7% 6.4 4.7 0.3 Subtotal 12 9 72.5% 7.9 5.4 1.3 Total 89 82 92.4% 1.3 1.7 1.4 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 10 12 115.0% 37.8 9.1 6.3 Through 88 88 100.5% 9.8 3.9 14.4 Right Turn 15 15 96.7% 6.0 6.6 1.5 Subtotal 113 114 101.2% 12.0 3.8 22.2 Total 174 175 100.4% 13.5 2.8 35.5 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 3 2 60.0% 17.7 23.8 0.9 Through 102 104 101.8% 48.7 5.6 82.9 Right Turn 1 1 80.0% 0.1 0.4 0.0 Subtotal 106 106 100.4% 48.3 5.4 83.8 Total 143 136 95.0% 43.5 4.1 96.8 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 69 63 91.0% 28.6 10.5 D 33 Through 5 5 96.0% 10.9 15.8 B 1 Right Turn 67 67 100.1% 17.7 2.8 C 22 Subtotal 141 135 95.5% 23.1 6.0 C 56 Total 1,170 1,163 99.4% 3.6 1.0 A 72 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 89 84 94.3% 24.7 6.7 C 38 Through 491 458 93.4% 8.8 0.9 A 74 Right Turn 77 71 91.7% 10.0 1.8 A 13 Subtotal 657 613 93.3% 10.9 1.4 B 125 Total 1,896 1,829 96.5% 16.9 2.4 B 549 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 61 61 99.8% 49.7 5.6 D 56 Through 36 36 100.0% 54.7 7.4 D 36 Right Turn 6 6 98.3% 19.4 14.6 B 2 Subtotal 103 103 99.8% 49.4 5.2 D 94 Total 3,692 3,531 95.7% 45.6 12.6 D 2874 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 2 55 2 95.0% 63.2 8.5 14.5 Through Right Turn 2 7 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 4 62 4 97.5% 63.2 8.5 14.5 Total 8 127 8 98.8% 26.3 3.5 15.1 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through 2 90 2 100.0% 14.9 6.3 5.6 Right Turn Subtotal 2 90 2 100.0% 14.9 6.3 5.6 Total 11 526 11 100.0% 50.1 7.5 131.9 NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 9 243 9 100.0% 41.0 9.9 20.0 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit WB Served Volume (pph) NB Served Volume (pph) EB WB Served Volume (pph) SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians EB WB Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians Left Turn 9 6 63.3% 4.9 5.0 0.7 Through Right Turn 3 3 103.3% 2.9 4.0 0.1 Subtotal 12 9 73.3% 5.4 3.1 0.9 Total 89 83 92.8% 1.2 0.9 1.4 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 10 12 121.0% 27.5 10.3 4.6 Through 88 85 96.7% 10.7 4.6 15.7 Right Turn 15 15 100.0% 4.4 3.4 1.1 Subtotal 113 112 99.3% 11.5 4.0 21.3 Total 174 171 98.3% 13.7 2.8 36.4 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 3 2 76.7% 11.6 25.7 0.6 Through 102 102 99.7% 43.6 8.6 74.2 Right Turn 1 1 110.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Subtotal 106 105 99.2% 42.9 8.7 74.7 Total 143 135 94.1% 38.7 6.0 86.9 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 69 67 96.4% 29.6 7.2 D 36 Through 5 6 122.0% 14.8 14.1 B 2 Right Turn 67 64 96.1% 10.3 3.5 B 12 Subtotal 141 137 97.2% 20.5 5.7 C 50 Total 1,170 1,177 100.6% 3.3 0.9 A 67 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 89 89 99.9% 28.7 8.5 C 47 Through 491 463 94.2% 9.2 1.2 A 78 Right Turn 77 69 89.2% 9.4 2.2 A 12 Subtotal 657 620 94.4% 11.8 1.6 B 136 Total 1,896 1,851 97.6% 16.6 2.3 B 553 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 61 61 99.3% 49.8 9.8 D 55 Through 36 36 100.8% 46.0 7.3 D 31 Right Turn 6 6 91.7% 9.3 11.1 A 1 Subtotal 103 102 99.4% 46.8 7.0 D 87 Total 3,692 3,547 96.1% 46.4 15.0 D 3096 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn Through 6 16 6 100.0% 12.3 7.0 0.8 Right Turn Subtotal 6 16 6 100.0% 12.3 7.0 0.8 Total 12 23 12 100.0% 9.5 3.7 1.0 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Transit Left Turn Through 12 16 12 98.3% 21.7 6.2 1.4 Right Turn Subtotal 12 16 12 98.3% 21.7 6.2 1.4 Total 17 371 17 98.8% 22.0 4.0 34.5 NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 21 341 21 101.4% 24.0 9.0 77.6 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Transit Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person EB WB Served Volume (pph) SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB Served Volume (pph) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Left Turn 1 1 60.0% 0.1 0.2 0.0 Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 4 136.7% 1.1 1.7 0.1 Subtotal 5 5 94.0% 1.1 1.7 0.1 Total 25 24 96.0% 0.8 1.0 0.2 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/17/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn Through 3 2 80.0% 4.9 10.0 0.2 Right Turn 3 3 83.3% 3.4 6.7 0.2 Subtotal 6 5 81.7% 6.1 10.1 0.4 Total 138 136 98.6% 17.8 2.7 35.7 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/17/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 3 3 86.7% 15.2 29.6 0.8 Through 6 4 71.7% 23.7 31.3 2.4 Right Turn 5 5 94.0% 4.9 8.5 0.4 Subtotal 14 12 82.9% 22.0 17.4 3.5 Total 159 157 98.6% 46.6 7.1 124.0 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/17/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 51 50 98.4% 8.0 1.3 A 7 Through 4 10 252.5% 9.7 5.9 A 2 Right Turn 65 65 99.8% 7.9 1.5 A 9 Subtotal 120 125 104.3% 8.1 1.1 A 19 Total 976 997 102.1% 4.6 0.4 A 83 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 30 29 97.3% 35.2 6.5 D 19 Through 160 157 98.4% 10.3 3.2 B 30 Right Turn 45 47 103.6% 6.0 1.8 A 5 Subtotal 235 233 99.2% 13.3 3.2 B 54 Total 971 954 98.2% 18.8 3.4 B 322 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 15 15 98.7% 31.6 23.0 C 9 Through 5 4 84.0% 29.9 32.0 C 2 Right Turn 5 4 82.0% 3.5 6.4 A 0 Subtotal 25 23 92.4% 34.1 18.3 C 11 Total 2,466 2,455 99.6% 22.3 2.2 C 997 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn Through 6 7 6 100.0% 14.2 11.4 0.4 Right Turn Subtotal 6 7 6 100.0% 14.2 11.4 0.4 Total 12 33 12 100.0% 11.0 5.8 1.3 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 6 154 6 100.0% 25.6 6.4 16.5 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 120 4 100.0% 34.9 18.4 22.0 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Served Volume (pph) NB Served Volume (pph) EB WB Served Volume (pph) SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians EB WB Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB EB WB Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians Left Turn 1 1 60.0% 0.1 0.4 0.0 Through 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 5 163.3% 1.8 2.6 0.1 Subtotal 5 6 110.0% 1.8 2.6 0.1 Total 25 23 91.6% 1.3 1.0 0.4 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn Through 3 2 66.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Turn 3 3 86.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 6 5 76.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 138 139 100.5% 16.5 8.2 29.7 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 3 3 86.7% 11.5 27.7 0.6 Through 6 5 76.7% 30.8 30.9 3.1 Right Turn 5 4 88.0% 4.5 8.6 0.4 Subtotal 14 12 82.9% 25.0 17.3 4.0 Total 159 157 98.9% 46.9 9.0 124.7 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 51 50 98.0% 8.1 2.5 A 7 Through 4 10 240.0% 10.6 4.3 B 2 Right Turn 65 65 99.5% 7.0 2.0 A 8 Subtotal 120 124 103.6% 7.7 1.9 A 18 Total 976 999 102.3% 4.3 0.5 A 79 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 30 28 93.0% 35.2 4.3 D 18 Through 160 158 98.4% 10.9 3.3 B 32 Right Turn 45 45 100.4% 7.0 5.3 A 6 Subtotal 235 231 98.1% 13.1 3.3 B 55 Total 971 965 99.4% 16.6 3.1 B 297 NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 15 14 95.3% 36.7 25.8 D 10 Through 5 4 86.0% 27.8 31.3 C 2 Right Turn 5 5 96.0% 3.1 6.5 A 0 Subtotal 25 23 93.6% 36.8 20.9 D 12 Total 2,466 2,443 99.1% 21.6 1.2 C 962 EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn Through 6 7 6 100.0% 71.6 36.3 2.1 Right Turn Subtotal 6 7 6 100.0% 71.6 36.3 2.1 Total 12 33 12 100.0% 52.7 17.1 4.8 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 6 154 6 100.0% 30.4 10.8 19.5 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 4 120 4 100.0% 28.3 13.8 17.8 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Demand Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Transit 16.2 Intersection 11 Taft Hill Rd/W Elizabeth St Demand Total Delay (sec/person) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB Served Volume (pph) EB WB Served Volume (pph) SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB Total Person Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB Served Volume (pph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (pph) NB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Pedestrians Subtotal 1 1 80.0% 0.8 1.8 0.0 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 2 160.0% 7.0 6.7 0.1 Right Turn 3 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 5 2 32.0% 7.0 6.7 0.1 Total 25 21 82.4% 1.6 1.7 0.2 Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Bicyclists Subtotal 97 94 96.4% 12.7 3.2 19.7 Left Turn Through 3 2 63.3% 2.9 7.4 0.1 Right Turn 3 3 93.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 6 5 78.3% 2.9 7.4 0.1 Total 138 134 97.3% 11.4 1.6 24.8 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Bicyclists Subtotal 122 121 98.8% 43.6 14.2 87.0 Left Turn 3 4 116.7% 29.5 29.9 1.5 Through 6 4 68.3% 36.2 27.7 3.6 Right Turn 5 4 82.0% 0.2 0.3 0.0 Subtotal 14 12 83.6% 30.4 16.5 5.1 Total 159 161 101.4% 36.5 12.8 93.9 Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 51 51 99.4% 18.1 7.4 C 17 Through 4 10 245.0% 44.2 19.0 E 8 Right Turn 65 66 100.9% 14.7 6.9 B 18 Subtotal 120 126 105.1% 17.7 5.9 C 42 Total 976 983 100.7% 3.7 1.1 A 57 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 30 31 103.3% 10.7 5.7 B 6 Through 160 161 100.4% 5.0 2.2 A 15 Right Turn 45 43 96.4% 3.7 1.4 A 3 Subtotal 235 235 100.0% 5.4 2.0 A 24 Total 971 948 97.7% 7.6 1.4 A 134 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 15 14 90.0% 46.5 14.8 D 12 Through 5 5 108.0% 38.4 29.6 D 4 Right Turn 5 5 96.0% 10.6 8.4 B 1 Subtotal 25 24 94.8% 38.3 10.6 D 16 Total 2,466 2,425 98.3% 16.7 1.5 B 758 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 2/10/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 2 65 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through Right Turn 2 16 2 100.0% 66.0 31.6 4.4 Subtotal 4 81 4 100.0% 66.0 31.6 4.4 Total 8 114 8 100.0% 29.3 12.8 4.6 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through 2 16 2 100.0% 13.3 10.1 0.9 Right Turn Subtotal 2 16 2 100.0% 13.3 10.1 0.9 Total 11 371 11 100.0% 23.5 8.9 37.2 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 9 341 9 100.0% 31.6 11.6 60.3 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Demand Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Transit Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Pedestrians Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 1 140.0% 3.9 5.1 0.1 Right Turn 3 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 5 1 28.0% 3.9 5.1 0.1 Total 25 20 80.8% 0.8 1.0 0.1 Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn Through 3 2 80.0% 4.0 7.8 0.2 Right Turn 3 2 63.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 6 4 71.7% 4.0 7.8 0.2 Total 138 136 98.6% 11.0 1.5 24.1 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 3 3 113.3% 43.2 36.3 2.2 Through 6 5 78.3% 39.0 29.0 3.9 Right Turn 5 4 76.0% 0.6 1.1 0.0 Subtotal 14 12 85.0% 35.5 18.3 6.1 Total 159 161 101.5% 35.5 10.2 92.2 Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/18/2016 Bicyclists Left Turn 51 52 102.7% 21.6 6.3 C 21 Through 4 4 105.0% 10.4 10.1 B 1 Right Turn 65 69 106.5% 12.9 6.6 B 16 Subtotal 120 126 104.8% 16.5 5.9 C 38 Total 976 990 101.5% 3.4 1.0 A 50 Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 30 30 101.3% 11.5 5.9 B 6 Through 160 161 100.7% 5.1 1.7 A 15 Right Turn 45 43 94.9% 3.6 1.0 A 3 Subtotal 235 234 99.7% 5.6 1.5 A 24 Total 971 969 99.8% 7.9 1.1 A 141 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles Left Turn 15 13 88.7% 50.4 31.5 D 12 Through 5 5 108.0% 21.4 25.8 C 2 Right Turn 5 4 84.0% 10.1 21.5 B 1 Subtotal 25 23 91.6% 40.7 22.2 D 15 Total 2,466 2,445 99.1% 17.4 2.0 B 762 Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 2/9/2016 Vehicles EB – 30 WB – 14 31 EB – 45 WB – 19 West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue 24 EB – 20 WB – 13 50 EB – 30 WB – 15 30 75 26 47 22 37 West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street 32 EB – 47 41 EB – 59 28 52 35 42 24 EB – 67 44 EB – 96 Shields Street/Plum Street 44 EB – 69 WB – 57 61 EB – 107 WB – 81 57 EB – 80 WB – 58 73 EB – 90 WB – 90 43 EB – 63 WB – 50 60 EB – 95 WB – 65 49 EB – 64 WB – 61 63 EB – 89 WB – 73 Shields Street/Laurel Street 35 66 35 59 35 66 34 68 Shields Street/Lake Street 4 11 3 11 4 14 4 12 Shields Street/Prospect Road 33 13 36 11 30 14 29 11 reconfigure EB lanes to 2L, 1T/R, 1R and WB lanes to 1L, 1T, 1R Shields Street/Plum Street -- 1. Add TSP 1. Add TSP 1. Add TSP Shields Street/Laurel Street -- -- -- -- Shields Street/Lake Street -- -- -- -- Shields Street/Prospect Road -- -- -- -- CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR LTS applies the same methodology that is used in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. The score from 1-5 represents the level of bicyclist comfort based on traffic volume, speed, number of lanes, and presence and quality of the bikeway. MAX TRAFFIC CALMING TSM EXISTING Bicycle LTS 5 4 3 2 1 CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR The pedestrian score is based on sidewalk width, buffer width and distance to the nearest crossing. MAX TRAFFIC CALMING TSM EXISTING Pedestrian LOS 2 - 5 (Low) 6 - 7 8 - 10 (Medium) 11 - 12 13 - 15 (High) CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR The transit score is based on transit reliability (roadway LOS) and built environment factors including proximate walkways and bikeways and bus stop amenities. MAX TRAFFIC CALMING TSM EXISTING Transit LOS 4 - 6 (Low) 7 - 9 10 - 12 (Medium) 13 - 15 16 - 18 (High) AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Main CSU Campus CSU Campus Foothills C ITY PARK AVE GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN Village University Complex T IMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD UNIVERSITY AVE CYPRESS DR S BRYAN AVE AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL W PLUM ST CONSTITUTION AVE PONDEROSA DR MAX TRAFFIC CALMING TSM EXISTING Approach LOS LOS A, B, or C LOS D LOS E LOS F ¨ ¨ AM AM PM PM AM PM PM AM AM PM Performance for automobiles is based which on approach accounts level for of vehicle service travel (LOS)speed, , and which intersection accounts for level vehicle of service delay (LOS)at intersections. , Approach 2015 traffic and volumes intersection and HCM LOS 2010 are based methodologies. on Intersection LOS ! LOS A, B, or C ! LOS D ! LOS E ! LOS F People driving: Access control at key locations: between Shields Street & City Park Avenue, between Taft Hill Road and Hillcrest Drive, roundabouts at West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Drive, dual eastbound left- turn lanes at West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street, medians where feasible People riding transit: Implement BRT-style service with articulated buses and stations, transit signal priority, transit station at CSU Equine Center; transit service to focus along West Elizabeth route with bus only lanes Design Approaches People walking: do nothing Tweak & Tune Design Approach Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Design Approach Traffic Calming Design Approach MAX on West Elizabeth Design Approach People riding transit: Adjust transit service routes, schedules and frequencies (same as Tweak & Tune), basic bus stop treatments (shelters, benches, etc.), transit signal priority, transit station at CSU Equine Center People riding transit: Adjust transit service routes, schedules and frequencies People biking: do nothing People driving: do nothing People biking: One-way cycle tracks on West Elizabeth Street, green bike lanes through intersections, two-stage turn queue boxes where appropriate, pilot protected intersection at West Elizabeth Street/City Park Avenue People driving: Access control at key locations: between Shields Street & City Park Avenue, between Taft Hill Road and Hillcrest Drive, roundabouts at West Elizabeth Street/Overland Trail and West Elizabeth Street/Ponderosa Drive, dual eastbound left- turn lanes at West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street, medians where feasible 9/16/2014 7:47:00 AM 10/22/2014 10:14:00 PM 10/23/2014 7:30:00 AM 12/12/2014 4:23:00 PM 12/25/2014 3:22:00 PM 2/26/2014 7:00:00 PM 3/7/2014 9:37:00 PM 1/9/2014 7:46:00 AM 3/23/2014 10:52:00 AM 6/11/2014 10:48:00 AM 6/13/2014 4:25:00 PM 6/27/2014 12:35:00 PM 7/6/2014 10:08:00 AM (0) crashes could not be placed in this schematic Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Pedestrian Bicycle Injury Fatality Nighttime DUI Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/12/2016 Crash Magic Online Crash Magic Online General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal 3rd vehicle Extra data Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 Crash Magic Online Pd' Programming, Inc. 7/1/2015 Crash Magic Online Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Total Delay (sec/person) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) ehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) Served Volume (pph) ehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 9 7 74.4% 6.4 2.4 1.0 Through Right Turn 3 3 83.3% 3.3 3.6 0.2 Subtotal 12 9 76.7% 6.6 2.3 1.1 Total 89 85 96.0% 1.3 0.7 1.7 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 10 11 110.0% 16.5 12.6 2.8 Through 88 86 97.4% 11.7 4.9 17.2 Right Turn 15 14 92.7% 5.1 6.4 1.3 Subtotal 113 111 97.9% 11.7 4.9 21.2 Total 174 176 100.9% 12.8 2.8 33.4 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 3 3 96.7% 19.3 26.4 1.0 Through 102 101 98.9% 44.8 5.5 76.1 Right Turn 1 1 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 106 105 98.9% 43.9 5.2 77.1 Total 143 135 94.5% 40.1 5.4 88.9 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 1 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through 1 1 120.0% 3.9 9.7 0.1 Right Turn 3 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subtotal 5 1 24.0% 3.9 9.7 0.1 Total 25 22 88.4% 0.8 1.7 0.1 Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn Through 3 3 106.7% 4.0 7.0 0.2 Second Right Subtotal 6 5 88.3% 3.4 5.7 0.2 Total 138 174 126.4% 10.3 2.6 20.6 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 3 2 66.7% 26.1 31.1 1.3 Through 6 6 95.0% 37.4 28.2 3.7 Right Turn 5 4 82.0% 0.7 1.1 0.1 Subtotal 14 12 84.3% 28.1 18.7 5.1 Total 159 188 117.9% 38.3 10.2 95.9 Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 2 55 2 95.0% 12.1 25.4 2.8 Through Right Turn 2 7 2 100.0% 57.1 4.9 1.7 Subtotal 4 62 4 97.5% 57.8 4.5 4.4 Total 8 127 8 98.8% 29.7 4.8 4.7 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn Through 2 90 2 100.0% 15.2 5.0 5.7 Right Turn Subtotal 2 90 2 100.0% 15.2 5.0 5.7 Total 11 526 11 100.0% 49.0 6.9 130.3 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 9 243 9 100.0% 40.8 16.3 18.0 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand EB WB Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 2 65 2 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Through Right Turn 2 16 2 100.0% 64.8 26.8 4.3 Subtotal 4 81 4 100.0% 64.8 26.8 4.3 Total 8 114 8 100.0% 31.0 10.8 4.7 Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Demand WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Demand Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn Through 2 16 2 100.0% 15.3 9.2 1.0 Right Turn Subtotal 2 16 2 100.0% 15.3 9.2 1.0 Total 11 371 11 100.0% 23.6 6.8 35.7 WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB Demand Demand NB SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn Through Right Turn Subtotal Total 9 341 9 100.0% 29.7 13.1 57.3 Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Demand Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Demand Demand EB WB Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Fehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 69 67 97.1% 26.8 7.0 D 33 Through 5 6 124.0% 8.0 7.2 A 1 Right Turn 67 64 96.1% 10.3 2.5 B 12 Subtotal 141 138 97.6% 18.1 3.9 C 46 Total 1,170 1,167 99.7% 3.1 0.6 A 63 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB hr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 89 84 94.8% 28.2 5.3 C 44 Through 491 463 94.3% 9.5 1.0 A 80 Right Turn 77 73 94.7% 9.9 1.7 A 13 Subtotal 657 620 94.4% 12.0 1.2 B 137 Total 1,896 1,857 98.0% 14.5 2.4 B 477 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) hr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 61 63 103.3% 41.0 10.4 D 47 Through 36 35 96.9% 46.5 8.9 D 30 Right Turn 6 4 73.3% 13.0 14.7 B 1 Subtotal 103 102 99.3% 43.0 6.9 D 78 Total 3,692 3,578 96.9% 41.7 8.6 D 2801 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB EB WB hr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 51 56 109.0% 23.0 8.6 C 23 Through 4 4 95.0% 6.1 6.0 A 0 Right Turn 65 64 98.5% 15.2 6.1 C 18 Subtotal 120 123 102.8% 19.0 7.6 C 42 Total 976 985 101.0% 3.2 1.0 A 57 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB ehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 30 30 99.7% 13.0 4.4 B 7 Through 160 159 99.1% 4.5 2.0 A 13 Right Turn 45 42 93.6% 2.5 1.8 A 2 Subtotal 235 231 98.1% 5.2 1.8 A 22 Total 971 982 101.1% 7.6 1.0 A 131 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB EB ehr & Peers 7/15/2015 Left Turn 15 14 92.7% 41.6 29.7 D 11 Through 5 5 92.0% 17.8 25.0 B 1 Right Turn 5 5 94.0% 8.4 15.5 A 1 Subtotal 25 23 92.8% 37.8 23.9 D 13 Total 2,466 2,452 99.4% 18.3 1.3 B 819 Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) Total Person Delay (min) EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB SB NB SB EB WB Served Volume (vph) NB Served Volume (vph) SB EB WB ehr & Peers 7/15/2015 5 Transit LOS 4 (Low) 5 6 (Medium) 7 8 - 9 (High) Approach LOS LOS A, B, or C LOS D LOS E LOS F AM PM AM PM AM PM PM AM AM PM Intersection LOS LOS A, B, or C LOS D LOS E LOS F Figure 45 *Additional study intersections can be viewed on the Vehicle Level of Service map GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL PONDEROSA DR CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD CYPRESS DR AZURO DR HILLCREST DR CRAGMORE DR GLENMOOR DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR MEADOWBROOK DR PEAR CT W ELIZABETH ST S TAFT HILL RD S OVERLAND TRL PONDEROSA DR Performance for autom travel speed, and inters Approach and intersect BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN TRANSIT VEHICLE peak hour. SUMMARY Future steps of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan development process will build upon the findings of this Corridor Understanding Report. Neighborhood Listening Session: April 29 intersection, accounting for average vehicle occupancy in Fort Collins and transit ridership. Analysis of American Community Survey Means of Transportation to Work data revealed that average vehicle occupancy in Fort Collins is approximately 1.1 Analysis of American Community Survey Means of Transportation to Work data revealed that average vehicle occupancy in Fort Collins is approximately 1.1 persons per vehicle. West Elizabeth Street/ Ponderosa Drive Bicycle-related High volume of bikes West Elizabeth Street/ Overland Trail Right-angle Failure to yield at stop sign after stopping Segments West Elizabeth Street: Shields to City Park Right-angle Failure to yield at driveway West Elizabeth Street: City Park to Constitution Bicycle-related, right-angle Wrong way riding, failure to yield West Elizabeth Street: Taft Hill to Ponderosa Right angle, bicycle-related Failure to yield, queue blocking visibility of bicyclists West Elizabeth Street/ City Park Avenue This is a signalized intersection with a predominant crash type of bicycle-related crashes (six approach turns, five right hooks and four right-angle bike crashes). The high volume of cyclists is a likely contributor (over 2,000 bikes per day counted on West Elizabeth Street). Five out of six approach turn crashes were at night with unlit bikes. Traffic signal violations are another contributing factor to bike approach turn crashes. DETAILED EVALUATION OF HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS West Elizabeth Street/ Skyline Drive This is a two-way stop controlled intersection northbound/ southbound. The predominant crash type is bicycle-related crashes (two right-angle and one sideswipe-opposite directions). The large bike volume is a likely contributor. One bike crash involved a wrong-way sidewalk rider and one occurred after midnight. West Elizabeth Street/ Ponderosa Drive This is a two-way stop controlled intersection northbound/ southbound. The predominant crash type is bicycle-related crashes (one right-angle, one approach turn, one right hook and one unknown). The large bike volume is a likely contributor. West Elizabeth Street/ Overland Trail This is a two-way stop controlled intersection eastbound/ westbound. The predominant crash type is right-angle crashes involving westbound motorists. All the right-angle crashes resulted from a failure to yield after stopping at the stop sign. Four of the nine right-angle crashes noted a non-contact vehicle (three of which were Transfort buses) Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane Neighborhood Greenway Protected Bike Lane Priority Shared Lane; Shared Roadway, Recommended Route; Bike Route; Signed Route CSU Bike Paths West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Figure 37 Source: Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan, 2014 BICYCLE NETWORK FULL BUILD PLAN Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane Neighborhood Greenway Protected Bike Lane Priority Shared Lane; Shared Roadway, Recommended Route; Bike Route; Signed Route CSU Bike Paths West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Source: Fort Collins Bicycle Master Plan, 2014 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center ( ! T OX MEADOWS ATURAL AREA S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE CONSTITUTION AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST Existing Bike Facilities Figure 36 9(3) acf 1 (1) 1 (9) 1 (3) acf 0 (1) 6 (102) 3 (9) acf 0 (1) 112 (12) 2 (3) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (18) 10 (4) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (2) 5 (1) acf 0 (3) 6 (9) 21 (4) acf 6 (5) 2 (8) 0 (1) acf 3 (15) 3 (88) 0 (10) acf 2 (1) 93 (29) 2 (1) 0 (1) 0 (5) 0 (5) 3 (1) 0 (1) 1 (4) 0 (3) 1 (0) acf 1 (0) 1(2) 5 (2) acf 1 (3) 1 (12) 0 (11) acf 0 (4) 3 (69) 0 (0) acf 2 (1) 62 (38) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) !( !( !( !( 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (1) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) acf 0 (0) 14 (44) 0 (4) acf 0 (0) 5 (29) 0 (0) acf 3 (3) 1 (0) 1 (9) acf 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) !( !( LEGEND Study Intersection Crossing X (Y) AM (PM) Bicycle Crossings in Crosswalk X (Y) 1 2 3 X (Y) AM (PM) Bicycle Turning Movements in Roadway X (Y) with only a small number using the marked crosswalks. Counts were provided by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations. 5-7 8-9 (Medium) 10-12 13-15 (High) The pedestrian score is based on sidewalk width, buffer width and distance to the nearest crossing. ORCHARD PL W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S TAFT HILL RD Pedestrian LOS 2 - 4 (Low) 5 - 7 8 - 9 (Medium) 10 - 12 13 - 15 (High) The pedestrian score is based on sidewalk width, buffer width and distance to the nearest crossing. 1(15) 0(5) 4(3) !( !( !( !( !( !( Constitution Avenue and Plum Street between City Park Avenue and Shields Street. Pedestrian LOS is the lowest (least comfortable) on the north side of West Elizabeth Street between Hillcrest Drive and Andrews Peak Drive due to the missing sidewalk. Average pedestrian delay at each signalized intersection was also calculated using Vissim. Table 10 shows the average pedestrian delay and level of service at each signalized study intersection. LEGEND Study Intersection Crossing Mid-Block Crossing X (Y) d X (Y) AM (PM) Pedestrian Crossings in Crosswalk X (Y) AM (PM) Pedestrian Crossings in Crosswalk X(Y) AM (PM) Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing 0 (7) 0 (5) 3 (9) 0 (7) 1 (7) 6 (8) 3 (4) 4 (3) 0 (1) 0 (2) 0 (1) 1 (3) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (2) 1 (2) !( !( Missing Sidewalk City Boundary Sidewalk data source: City of Fort Collins and June 2014 aerial imagery VIRGINIA DALE DR W PLUM ST SPRINGFIELD DR ORCHARD PL W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S TAFT HILL RD Attached Sidewalk Detached Sidewalk Missing Sidewalk City Boundary Sidewalk data source: City of Fort Collins and June 2014 aerial imagery Note: Gaps in sidewalk infrastructure indicate street or driveway access and is not indicative of missing sidewalk infrastructure. Gaps indicating access points may not be comprehensive. narrow as three feet. In particular, some of the sections of narrow sidewalk over bridges and on ditches are in poor condition. the operating environment surrounding West Elizabeth Street and CSU is unique, the idea of corridor roles and priorities should still be discussed. Opportunity to Simplify Study Corridor The West Elizabeth Street Corridor is a productive segment of the Transfort network. However, study area transit is quite complex and confusing for customers to easily use as a network. For example, on the West Elizabeth Street there are four routes that serve this corridor, each with a different frequency, alignment, and schedule. Although these routes provide a combined total of 14 one-way trips between 8 to 9 AM, service effectiveness is diminished because customers must learn how each of these routes operate. This layer of complexity creates a barrier to transit route and network use that needs to be reevaluated in the development of the proposed mobility plan. BIRCH ST S SHIELDS ST LEGEND TRANSIT LOS 4 (Low) 5 6 (Medium) 7 8 - 9 (High) The transit score is based on transit reliability (roadway LOS) and built environment factors including proximate walkways and bikeways and bus stop amenities. 4 (Low) 5 6 (Medium) 7 8 - 9 (High) The transit score is based on transit reliability (roadway LOS) and built environment factors including proximate walkways and bikeways and bus stop amenities. A transit level of service assessment was performed which accounts for key transit route quality factors, as well as built environment attributes that affect a passenger’s experience. Specifically the methodology accounts for reliability (whether second to last and last time point of a trip. Scheduled Actual 2 13.8 12.5 1.2 6 17.6 16.6 1.0 10 4.9 4.2 0.7 19 12.9 11.2 1.6 31 18.8 13.8 5.1 32 10.7 10.1 0.6 33 9.3 9.3 0.1 HORN 21.0 16.3 4.7 MAX 78.3 63.0 15.3 Total 187.3 157.0 30.4 13 Any running time number (in-service time) divided by a large frequency number (e.g., 60 minutes) is more likely to leave a larger remainder (the recovery time). Frequent services (i.e., 15 minutes or less) can be scheduled efficiently regardless of route design (smaller denominator, less residual). While the normal “efficient” transit target is 10-15 percent recovery to ensure that the next trip leaves on-time, it is often impossible to achieve at the scheduling phase if an infrequent route has not been designed from the start to use resources efficiently. 14 16 ROUTE 31 32 2 HORN MAX 33 19 10 6 PASSENGERS PER REVENUE MILE 60 80 100 120 ROUTE 31 32 2 33 HORN MAX 19 10 6 PRODUCTIVITY 11 The HORN has the frequency to capture spontaneous use riders, but not the alignment (peripheral) or fast travel (it is circuitous) necessary to achieve productivity goals. 12 Productivity metrics based on boardings per revenue hour can be misleading for Rapid/BRT service given their longer average passenger trip lengths. A better comparison is Passenger Miles per Revenue Hour or Mile as it levels the productivity “playing field” between high turnover routes (e.g., Route 31) and lower turnover routes (e.g., MAX). Residential Route (boardings/ revenue hour) Exceeds >50 >60 >40 Satisfactory 41 - 50 30 - 60 20 - 40 Marginal 20 - 40 20 - 30 15 - 20 Unsatisfactory <20 <20 <15 Route Span (CSU in Session) Change when (CSU out of Session) 2 6:22 AM - 10:00 PM No change 6 6:06 AM - 10:18 PM No change 10 6:45 AM - 7:08 PM No change 19 6:52 AM - 7:43 PM No change 31 6:58 AM - 6:20 PM Does not run 32 6:50 AM - 6:40 PM Does not run 33 6:52 AM - 5:49 PM Does not run HORN 6:42 AM - 6:38 PM No change MAX 5:10 AM - 12:16 AM No change 6 60 60 No change 10 60 60 No change 19 30 60 60 minutes all day 31 10 10 Does not run 32 30 30 Does not run 33 30 30 Does not run HORN 10 10 30 minutes all day MAX 10 10 No change 5 The top two attributes in attracting new customers are frequency and fast travel times in that order. Thus, fast, less frequent transit attracts fewer riders than a very frequent service with reasonable travel times. One that does both, like MAX, is highly attractive to consumers. Note that these attributes influence initial trial use of transit; delivering reliable, on-time service in sufficient capacity every day is the key to retaining customers. ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! VU MAX VU GREEN VU GOLD VU HORN CSU Main Campus CITY PARK AVE Sheldon Lake University Village Complex CSU Transit Center ( ! T S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE W LAUREL ST S HOWES ST S MASON ST W LAKE ST W PLUM ST S LOOMIS AVE W PLUM ST SOUTH DR MERIDIAN AVE S BRYAN AVE UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR BIRCH ST Existing Transit Routes and Stops Figure 18 Route 10 is an hourly, one-way loop that runs north of the CSU Transit Center to downtown Fort Collins. Routes 6 and 19 offer a north- south connection between CSU and the South Transit Center via corridors such as Taft Hill Road and Shields Street. MAX is the very frequent BRT spine that connects downtown Fort Collins and the South Transit Center along a linear corridor on the east end of the University’s main campus. Transfort launched MAX and a redesigned service network in 2014 to fully leverage this new investment. LEGEND Transit Stops MAX Stations West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary Transit Lines Route 2 Route 6 Route 7 Route 10 Route 19 Route 31 Route 32 Route 33 Route 34 MAX HORN Green Route Gold Route 6 During the next service change, the HORN will be extended further south to serve the CSU Veterinary School and will replace Route 34. ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! City Park CSU Foothills Campus GLENMOOR DR TIERRA LN CUERTO LN W PROSPECT RD W MULBERRY ST S TAFT HILL RD W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL CONSTITUTION AVE CLEARVIEW AVE PONDEROSA DR TIMBER LN SKYLINE DR ROCKY RD RAMPART RD ORCHARD PL CYPRESS DR HILLCREST DR KIMBALL RD CASTLEROCK DR W LAKE ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL !( ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS Route Descriptions The nine Transfort routes in the study area each have a different role in providing regional, community, and neighborhood mobility. Routes 2, 32, and 33 are the primary services on the West Elizabeth Street Corridor. Route 2 is a year-round service while Routes 32 and 33 provide additional overlay service when CSU is in session. This section begins with an overview of the design decisions for the routes in the study area. Decisions on factors such as alignment, span, frequency, and infrastructure have significant impacts on a service’s potential role and performance. LAUREL UNIVERSITY SPRING CREEK PROSPECT DRAKE HORSETOOTH SWALLOW HARMONY TROUTMAN Transfort System Map Figure 17 N LEGEND MAX Stations 16 Bus Route MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) local network. The findings from this analysis provide a framework for shaping both short-term and longer-term recommendations on the corridor. More specifically, this section identifies opportunities to improve service quality, maximize the use of Transfort resources, continue ridership growth, and address unmet mobility needs both today and as the corridor continues to develop. This section begins with an overview of the Transfort network of services and the local operating environment. This provides context for understanding Transfort’s current role. This section then assesses the key routes that serve the study area. It describes the design decisions that shape these services, and the impact that these decisions have on performance across different metrics. This section concludes with a summary of key findings that will help form a framework for achieving the corridor vision. 4 Extended service to Boulder is expected to begin January 2016. ace 70 (70) 545 (575) 85 (110) ae 25 (60) 40 (115) 45 (85) ace 60 (90) 200 (555) 40 (105) 4. City Park Ave./West Elizabeth St. ace 170 (320) 1,005 (1,220) 70 (70) abf 315 (380) 35 (55) 360 (445) accf 170 (510) 775 (1,300) 30 (15) ace 10 (10) 10 (45) 20 (75) 5. Shields St./West Elizabeth St. ace 20 (85) 1,265 (1,455) 45 (70) d 65 (75) 30 (30) 45 (75) ace 25 (75) 905 (1,680) 20 (25) bf 25 (30) 25 (30) 25 (70) 6. Shields St./Plum St. ce 860 (1,040) 495 (520) acc 795 (1,175) 155 (120) aaf 75 (190) 155 (605) 7. Shields St./Laurel St. ce 1,395 (1,535) 185 (65) acc 910 (1,650) 150 (115) af 45 (190) 75 (145) 8. Shields St./Lake St. N West Elizabeth St. Overland Trail West Elizabeth St. Taft Hill Rd. West Elizabeth St. Constitution Ave. West Elizabeth St. City Park Ave. West Elizabeth St. Shields St. Plum St. Shields St. Shields St. Shields St. STOP STOP accf 70 (195) 1,120 (1,100) 165 (170) aaccf 285 (195) 845 (480) 180 (195) accf 65 (220) 745 (1,310) 175 (265) aace 175 (310) 275 (775) 85 (240) 9. Shields St./Prospect Rd. Prospect Rd. Shields St. Legend AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume movements on West Elizabeth Street and Shields Street. At the West Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection the West Elizabeth Street growth rates were applied to the east-west through movements on West Elizabeth Street; the Shields Street growth rates were applied to the north-south through movements on Shields Street and an average of the two growth rates was applied to turning movements. These 2040 forecasts for the study area generally assume a 0.53 percent annual growth in population and 0.33 percent annual growth in employment with no major changes to existing transit service or walk/ bike mode share. Improvements that serve to significantly improve transit service or conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists may justify modified forecasts. This will be explored further as part of the alternatives analysis. Figure 16 shows the 2040 peak hour turning movement forecasts. 2040 traffic operations analysis will be included in the alternatives analysis. SCOTT AVE LAKEWOOD DR LEESDALE CT CLEARVIEW CT ASTER ST VIRGINIA DALE DR W PLUM ST SPRINGFIELD DR W PLUM ST ORCHARD PL BIRCH ST W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Approach LOS LOS A, B, or C LOS D LOS E LOS F Intersection LOS LOS A, B, or C LOS D LOS E LOS F AM PM Performance for automobiles is based on approach level of service (LOS), which accounts for vehicle travel speed, and intersection level of service (LOS), which accounts for vehicle delay at intersections. Approach and intersection LOS are based on 2035 traffic volumes and HCM 2000 methodologies. Figure 15 West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor High conflict area due to driveway accesses AM PM AM PM PM AM AM PM Speed and Travel Time Speed data was collected on West Elizabeth Street mid-block between City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue. The 85th percentile eastbound and westbound speeds at this location were 37 mph and 33 mph respectively. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. There are a large number of access points on West Elizabeth Street, resulting in frequent driveway conflicts, especially between Shields Street and Constitution Avenue. Table 2 shows a comparison of the VISSIM model travel times on West Elizabeth and the actual travel times based on Bluetooth data. ace 53 (61) 441 (508) 66 (96) ae 18 (51) 32 (101) 34 (73) ace 45 (77) 160 (491) 30 (89) 4. City Park Ave./West Elizabeth St. ace 140 (273) 851 (1,001) 54 (57) abf 258 (324) 27 (48) 296 (379) accf 138 (430) 653 (1,067) 24 (10) ace 5 (6) 5 (36) 15 (61) 5. Shields St./West Elizabeth St. ace 13 (70) 1,064 (1,205) 37 (56) d 51 (59) 25 (23) 34 (61) ace 18 (60) 764 (1,390) 13 (18) bf 17 (22) 18 (24) 17 (56) 6. Shields St./Plum St. ce 719 (858) 413 (428) acc 667 (971) 130 (99) aaf 61 (154) 501 (497) 7. Shields St./Laurel St. ce 1,178 (1,268) 154 (52) acc 768 (1,360) 123 (92) af 37 (157) 61 (117) 8. Shields St./Lake St. N West Elizabeth St. Overland Trail West Elizabeth St. Taft Hill Rd. West Elizabeth St. Constitution Ave. West Elizabeth St. City Park Ave. West Elizabeth St. Shields St. Plum St. Shields St. Shields St. Shields St. STOP STOP accf 56 (160) 946 (908) 136 (137) aaccf 241 (158) 713 (396) 152 (159) accf 54 (179) 630 (1,080) 145 (218) aace 145 (254) 233 (637) 71 (196) 9. Shields St./Prospect Rd. Prospect Rd. Shields St. Legend AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume --- Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ---9,020 ---4,400 ---13,200 ---19,480 ---24,360 ---15,280 ---1,200 2,720--- 5,210--- 32,530--- 33,480--- ---37,320 ---4,630 ---18,370 15,490--- ---3,250 ---20,370 ---4,960 3,380--- West Elizabeth Street a. b. c. CITY PARK AVE SHIELDS ST 74’ 90’ 80’ 83’ 90’ 80’ 80’ 82’ 94’ 83’ 91’ 90’ 100’ 75’ N nd parcel data. Existing Right-of-way Width (in feet) Source: City of Fort Collins document survey and parcel data. ROW Width The cross section along the West Elizabeth Street corridor varies between Shields Street and Overland Trail. Similar to right- of-way, there are three primary variations of cross sections. The three locations that exemplify each of the cross sections are shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 also shows the location of the cross sections at Plum Street, City Park Avenue and Constitution Avenue. The cross sections along West Elizabeth Street are shown in Figure 12. The eastern-most cross section on West Elizabeth 90’ 75’ 100’ 60’ 82’ 91’ 70’ 60’ 7 7 4’ 75’ 67’ Legend Existing Right-of-Way Width (in feet) Source: City of Fort Collins document survey an ROW Width West Elizabeth Corridor: An action item of WCAP was the development of the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. WCAP also contains an analysis of Shields corridor from Laurel Street to Prospect Road. The analysis of Shields is continuing within the West Elizabeth Street ETC plan. Some additional action items in WCAP that are relevant to the West Elizabeth study area include: » Shared-use parking opportunities for transit users » Additional transit service » Bus stop improvements » Intersection improvements at Shields Street/West Elizabeth Street and City Park Avenue/West Elizabeth Street » Roadway improvements on West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue. WCAP includes a detailed analysis of the Prospect Corridor between Shields Street and College Avenue. The design in this section of the plan recommends a widened sidewalk, tree lawn, bike lane and sections of shared use path This cross section will inform the discussion within the West Elizabeth study area. TRAFFIC SAFETY SUMMARY (APRIL 2015) This report summarizes the traffic crash history from 2010 to 2014 that have occurred on public streets throughout Fort plan identifies the low-stress corridors that parallel West Elizabeth Street, as well as specific facility types for various streets in the study area; these include: » West Elizabeth Street from Shields Street to Overland Trail is designated as a protected bike lane » Shields Street within the study area is also designated as a protected bike lane » Plum Street from Shields Street to West Elizabeth Street (including Constitution Avenue) is identified as a buffered bike lane » City Park Avenue within the study area is designated as a neighborhood greenway. » The Bicycle section of this report builds off the analysis and methodology applied in the Bicycle Master Plan. ments based on land use » Alternative compliance based on parking demand mitigation strategies » On-street paid parking » Public-private partnerships for parking structures » Monitor effects of MAX on parking in the long-term West Elizabeth Corridor: In the project study area, West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue are part of the TOD overlay zone. development) Overlay Zone by incorporating those requirements into the general standards of the Land Use Code. STUDENT HOUSING ACTION PLAN (February 2013) The Student Housing Action Plan’s (SHAP) mission was to “strive to develop community- driven strategies that encourage and provide quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility.” The purpose of this effort was to work with stakeholders including Colorado State University (CSU), Front Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, students, property owners, and developers to “identify strategies to address the increasing need for multi- family student housing; identify the 2012 update was to ensure that the CIP is accurate, up-to- date, and more user-friendly than previous versions by refining project rankings, better identifying a fiscally constrained list and assisting with the project selection process for funding and projects under construction, funded projects, pedestrian and green space, access, transit, and housing redevelopment. The plan separated the campus into three sections—(1) Foothills, (2) Main Campus, and (3) South Campus—to depict current and future conditions and a framework diagram. West Elizabeth Corridor: The framework diagram that is a part of the master plan shows West Elizabeth Street as a corridor for transit, bikes, and vehicles. values.” The evaluation process included three main steps: Level 1 - Initial screening to identify intersections with the greatest safety and operational needs. Based on those results, and input from staff and others stakeholders, various alternatives or improvement options were developed for further consideration and evaluation. Level 2 - Detailed evaluation of the alternatives. This evaluation was based on community values and designed to test options to find alternatives that meet these values and address the safety and operational issues identified in the initial screening. Level 3 - Conceptual designs were developed for the final set of intersections. West Elizabeth Corridor: Thirty-two intersections throughout the City were carried forward from Level 1 to the Level 2 analysis, including one within the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan study area: the Elizabeth Street/Shields Street intersection. This intersection was not carried forward for Level 3 analysis. An update to this study is currently in progress. Plan as a longer-term action, marked for 2013 and beyond. EXISTING PLANS provide the specific needs and connections. The ETCs are defined as special focus areas that emphasize enhanced infill and redevelopment along the corridor, increase overall corridor capacity while better utilizing alternative modes and defining space for each of the travel modes. West Elizabeth Corridor: The TMP identified West Elizabeth Street from CSU to Overland as one of two new Enhanced Travel Corridors. This corridor is identified due to its strong connections to CSU Foothills, Campus West, and MAX. This project is an opportunity to expand on bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements to key destinations. guideway, one connecting to the Fort Collins understands the need for accessibility, mobility, and capacity associated with all modes: vehicles, transit, pedestrians and bicyclists. Urban Estate (UE) GENERAL West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Additional Corridor Study Segments: Plum St., Constitution Ave., City Park Ave. Street intersection and the West Elizabeth Street/Taft Hill Road intersection. Destinations here include restaurants, retail and shopping centers/markets. Two elementary schools and one combined middle/high school exist within the study area Polaris ELS is K-12 (combined Elem/MS/ HS) as well as a few immediately outside of the area. CSU’s two campuses, Main Campus and Foothills Campus, are also key destinations. Figure 6 shows services and destinations in the study area. Demographics The study area is one of the most densely populated areas in the City of Fort Collins, due to the high number of multi- family and/or student-oriented facilities. Within the area, there are between 16,500 and 24,000 residents based on US Census data. This is approximately 10 percent of the total population of the City of Fort Collins within four percent of the land area in City Limits. The total population by census tract is shown in Figure 7. Appendix A shows the distribution of employees and students within the study area. The West Elizabeth study area houses over 5,000 CSU students and 835 CSU employees. It is important to note that the number of students in the corridor is likely underrepresented as the data is based on students voluntarily providing local addresses (which approximately 50% have done). 2 http://www.ir.colostate.edu/pdf/fbk/1415/Students/index.htm across the west central part of Fort Collins, including the Campus West area. West Elizabeth is the third ETC to begin the corridor planning process (after Harmony Road and College Avenue/Mason Corridor) See the description of the Transportation Master Plan in Section 3 (Existing Plans) for more details. ORCHARD PL MAX Stations MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor Study Area City Boundary This Corridor Understanding Report is a part of the larger master plan for the corridor, the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan. This ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! City Park CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus CSU Transit Center ( ! T CONSTITUTION AVE W ELIZABETH ST W PLUM ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD OVERLAND TRL CITY PARK AVE ! CSU Main Campus CSU Foothills Campus CONSTITUTION AVE W ELIZABETH ST W PLUM ST S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD OVERLAND TRL CITY PARK AVE Average Daily Traffic (ADT) < 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 15,000 15,001 - 20,000 > 20,000 and there are many locations where no sidewalk exists or sidewalk width is too narrow for people using mobility devices. In addition to marked crossings at signalized intersections, there are two midblock crossings on the corridor: one west of Shields Street and another west of Skyline Drive. Pedestrian delay at signalized intersections is relatively high at most study intersections during peak hours. Significant lengths of West Elizabeth Street have a low pedestrian level of service, This Corridor Understanding Report documents the West Elizabeth Corridor’s history and context, previous planning that has influenced the corridor, and existing conditions of the corridor’s infrastructure and performance for different modes of transportation. Avenue/West Elizabeth Street and Plum Street/Shields Street intersections. Furthermore, the Plum Street/Shields Street intersection has the largest number of transit passengers, bicyclists and pedestrians in the study area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5» VEHICLE OPERATIONS Analysis shows that most study intersections operate at an acceptable vehicle level of service (LOS), a measure of average vehicle delay, during peak hours. However, key approaches to certain intersections experience notable congestion: the northbound left-turn, eastbound left-turn, and eastbound right- turn at the West Elizabeth Street/ Shields Street intersection and the eastbound and westbound movements at the Plum Street/ Shields Street intersection. N/A Recommended Design Online Survey Background The Recommended Design for the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor including proposed phasing was presented to the public at an open house on June 16, 2016. In an effort to share the design with a greater audience an online survey featuring highlights from Design Plots Taft Hill and Orchard Concern about left out at properties north of King Soopers - needs to be maintained Recommended Design Plots W Elizabeth and Taft Hill Bushes at corner of Ponderosa and W Elizabeth need to be cut to improve sightline Recommended Design Plots W Elizabeth and Ponderosa Liability of snow clearance on West Elizabeth Recommended Design Plots Throughout corridor Garages will obstruct sidewalks Recommended Design Plots Throughout corridor Check on maintenance, streets: snow plowing, mowing and watering Recommended Design Plots Throughout corridor Noise mitigation concern Recommended Design Plots Throughout corridor Love the bike/bus combinations at bus islands Recommended Design Plots Throughout corridor Build a raised buffer between car and bike lane Cross Section W Elizabeth at Cragmore Add bike detection Photosimulation: Protected W Elizabeth and City Park (3) • Alternatives Open House • CSU Lagoon Concert Series • CSU Move-in Day • Transfort Tuesday • CSU Urban Design Class • CSU Built Environment Class • CSUBAC • ASCSU Senate Meeting • NFRMPO Technical Advisory Committee • P&Z (2) • Commission on Disability (COD) (2) • BAC • SAB • Transportation Board • Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) • Energy Board • Local Legislative Affairs Committee (LLAC) • CSU Institute for Built Environment • Direct mailing to all residents on West Elizabeth Street (7,614) • Online Visioning Survey • Textizen Surveys (5 surveys, 700 responses) • Question of the Week Online Surveys (4 surveys, 391 responses) • Project Email updates (4) Phase 3 and 4 Recommended Design, Draft Plan and Plan Adoption • Focus Group Meetings (4) • Stakeholder Committee Meeting • Recommended Design Open House • City Council Adoption Hearing – October 18, 2016 • CSU Earth Day Fair • CSU Built Environment Class • FC Bikes Bike Fair • Transfort Route Change Open House • CSU Housing Fair • CSU Conservation Leadership Through Learning Class • CSU Earth Day Fair • City Joint Planning Open House • Open Streets • City Council Work Session • ASCSU Senate Meeting • CSU Professional Learning Institute Sessions (2) • AQAB • CSU BAC • BAC • P&Z (2) • SAB • Transportation Board • COD • LLAC • PTAG • Direct mailing (7,833) • Textizen Update • Project Email Updates (6) • Online Draft Plan Comments Survey (96) • Articles in Newsletters (5) *Green font denotes CSU-focused outreach West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor City Boundary All Crash Types - 2010 - 2014 Figure 6 Source: City of Fort Collins, 2014 VIRGINIA DALE DR W PLUM ST SPRINGFIELD DR W PLUM ST ORCHARD PL BIRCH ST W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 2 (Low Stress) 3 5 (High Stress) LTS applies the same methodology that is used in the 2014 Bicycle Master Plan. The score from 1-5 represents the level of bicyclist comfort based on traffic volume, speed, number of lanes, and presence and quality of the bikeway. Figure  VIRGINIA DALE DR W PLUM ST SPRINGFIELD DR W PLUM ST ORCHARD PL BIRCH ST W ELIZABETH ST S OVERLAND TRL S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) Pedestrian LOS 2 - 4 (Low) 5 - 7 8 - 9 (Medium) 10 - 12 13 - 15 (High) The pedestrian score is based on sidewalk width, buffer width and distance to the nearest crossing. Figure  eft Behind by hind data cover el within the n-time trips . Based on t percent are la high of 98 p upper limit bility of servic and Future D nts a challen rd the arrivin ty. The hindr s and at the g the periods otherwise par ntial for overc evelop/redeve ft behind by a y Time Period rs January to A study area r as those trip this standard ate, and 1 pe ercent for the is an indica ce is importan emand ge with pass ng bus and m ance is conc e CSU Transi s of highest rt of the regu crowding and elop and mo all routes in th d pril 2015 range in thei ps that serve , 85 percent rcent of trips e HORN and ator of inade nt to maintai engers not b must wait for centrated alon it Center (CT demand, Tra lar schedule. d passengers re student-or he study area ir level of on a time-point t of trips in s are early. W Route 31 to equate reliab in existing rid being accomm r the next du ng Plum Stre TC) during th ansfort has su Without addi not accommo riented housi a between Jan n-time perfor t stop within the West El ithin the stud a low of 72 p bility of the ders and recru modated – m ue to high rid eet just west he afternoon upplemented itional transit odated will in ng is built. Fi nuary and Apr rmance. 0 to 5 izabeth dy area, percent routes uit new meaning dership of the . In an d Route vehicle ncrease, igure 3 ril 2015 SPRING CREEK PROSPECT DRAKE HORSETOOTH SWALLOW HARMONY TROUTMAN 7UDQVIRUW6\VWHP0DS )LJXUH Data shown is as of Spring 2015 UNIVERSITY AVE MOBY DR W LAKE ST BIRCH ST GLENMOOR DR CRAGMORE DR MEADOWBROOK DR ANDREWS PEAK DR ORCHARD PL West Elizabeth Street Study Area MAX Stations MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) West Elizabeth Street Study Corridor Study Area City Boundary Figure 1 a vibrant environment for corridor visitors. Appendix F describes how the West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan responds to the Project Need. In the evening it may operate at 15 or 30 minute frequencies. preferred detached sidewalk and landscaping between the adjacent travel lanes, sidewalks will be attached (directly adjacent to travel lanes). This condition occurs mostly west of Taft Hill Road. The complete sidewalk network will include accessible design elements throughout the corridor for people with disabilities, including ADA- compliant curb ramps. People walking, or using mobility devises, will have new and upgraded crossings of West Elizabeth Street. In Campus West, the existing midblock crosswalk will be upgraded to feature a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (previously known as a HAWK beacon). A new crossing will be Other likely infrastructure improvements may be needed at the College Avenue/Lake Street intersection to facilitate the turning movements for the east leg of Route 2. transportation and active transportation options  Support the interconnectivity of all modes  Be a beautiful and vibrant environment PLAN DEVELOPMENT Alternative Transportation Manager Parking & Transportation Services Fred Haberecht Assistant Director of Campus Planning Facilities Management David Hansen University Landscape Architect Facilities Management STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE Alison Anson Madi Book Aaron Buckley Rick Callan Laurel Grimm Jay Henke Edward Kendall Carol Kruse Gail McKee Bonnie Michael Justie Nicol Troy Ocheltree Peter Rhoades Jean Robbins Gene Schoonveld Jordan Sowell Dave Thompson Michael Werner Senior Transportation Planner FC Moves Emma Belmont Transit Planner Transfort Rachel Prelog Intern FC Moves & Transfort million ($1.7 million most probable cost) x Transit vehicles – five BRT vehicles necessary including one spare ( approximately $800,000 each) x BRT-like amenities – 12-14 stations at approximately, $100,000-250,000 per station x $7.63 million per year 1 These improvements were implemented in August 2016. ATTACHMENT 1 9.1 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Cost Estimate Summary (4881 : West Elizabeth ETC) e e k T r a i l Retaining Wall Lilac Park Lilac Park Proposed Water Quality Pond Centre Avenue EXHIBIT B 2 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Exhibit B (4900 : Water Quality Pond Easement to Colorado State ORD) O R C O L O R A D O L I C E N S E D 0' SCALE IN FEET 25' 50' 1 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Exhibit A (4900 : Water Quality Pond Easement to Colorado State ORD) E R L I N G P R O F E S S I O N A L L A N D S U R V E Y O R C O L O R A D O L I C E N S E D 1 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Exhibit A (4900 : Water Quality Pond Easement to Colorado State ORD) Standard(Reference) ͲͲ 400Ͳ450' ͲͲ 102' ͲͲ ͲͲ 8' ͲͲ ͲͲ min.15' 35 12' 8' min.200' 1075' 200' 245' 100' 0' 2' 4Ͳ7' 1.OriginalDualLeft Alternative ͲͲ 330'Ͳ430' 30Ͳ35% ~71' Yes No 10' Yes Yes ~19' 35 9Ͳ11' 0' 160' 510' 0' 160' 0Ͳ100' 0' 2Ͳ3' 4Ͳ5' 2.ModifiedDualLeft Alternative within2% 330'Ͳ430' 30Ͳ35% ~66' Yes No 5Ͳ6' No No ~26' 35 8Ͳ11' 0' 110' 510' 0' 160' 0Ͳ60' 0Ͳ80' 2Ͳ3' 3Ͳ5' 3.SingleLeftAlternative within2% 160'Ͳ240' 20Ͳ25% ~66' No No 6' No No ~26' 35 8Ͳ11' 0' 200' 510' 0' 200' 0Ͳ60' 0Ͳ80' 0Ͳ3' 4Ͳ6' * RangesreflectwhetherornottheeastboundleftturnontoRemingtonStreetremainsopenorclosed,whichcanbedoneforanydesignoption DesignOptions ProjectImpacts RoadwayGeometrics ATTACHMENT 5 7.5 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Design Alternative Comparison Matrix (4887 : Prospect and College Authorization Acquisition by Eminent Domain) *Process OE forms upon arrival. *Return employee forms with new Summary Plan Descriptions, IDs, catalogs, etc to employees. 1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO) $658.50 For All Year Dodge Vans Tune up PCV valve Cooling system flush PME Service 119k miles 3.5hr $94.00/hr $329.00 $199.10 $528.10 All Toyotas Tune up-includes spark plugs, PCV valve 1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Exhibit A (4886 : MPO Van Go IGA RESO)