Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-043-06/05/2012-APPROVING THE JEFFERSON STREET ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY, AUTHORIZING REVISIONS TO THE JEFFERSON SRESOLUTION 2012-043 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE JEFFERSON STREET ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY, AUTHORIZING REVISIONS TO THE JEFFERSON STREET/SH14 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN AND EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, DIRECTING STAFF TO UPDATE THE CITY’S TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PURSUE A NEW INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study (the “Study”) is a joint effort of the City, the Downtown Development Authority, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”), which Study sets out a plan for the development and evaluation of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue as well as the intersection of Jefferson Street and Linden Street; and WHEREAS, the Study includes the development and evaluation of various options such as a traditional roadway and intersection design, roundabouts, and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state and national best practices; and WHEREAS, in response to concerns raised by community stakeholders and partnering agencies, City staff has revised its recommendation for the proposed intersection improvements at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Street to recommend improvements to the existing signalized intersection rather than the establishment of a roundabout as previously recommended; and WHEREAS, City staff continues to recommend reconfiguring Jefferson Street from the existing four-lane street to a three-lane street with landscaped medians, on-street parking, pedestrian streetscape and urban design features, extending from North College Avenue to Mountain Avenue; and WHEREAS, the three-lane corridor alternative is acceptable to City staff and to CDOT, the Downtown Development Authority, and Larimer County, and has strong support from the community, and is also supported by the Transportation Board, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the Economic Advisory Commission and, accordingly, is determined by the City Council to be in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby approved. Section 2. That the revisions to the Jefferson Street/SH14 Access Management Plan and existing intergovernmental agreement with CDOT to reflect the three-lane corridor alternative with raised, landscaped medians and on-street parking for Jefferson Street/SH14 attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby approved. Section 3. That City staff is directed to update the City’s Transportation Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan to include the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements as shown on Exhibit “B”. Section 4. That City staff is authorized to pursue the negotiation and execution of a new intergovernmental agreement with CDOT in order to implement the recommended three-lane corridor improvements as shown on Exhibit “B”, which intergovernmental agreement should include specific performance measures for monitoring the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor before and after physical improvements are constructed and should identify interagency responsibilities for addressing any concerns and/or potential changes that may be needed. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk JEFFERSON STREET ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT Prepared For: In Cooperation with: Prepared By: FINAL REPORT – JUNE 5, 2012 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page ii June 2012 PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS AND AGENCY PARTNERS Project Managers Kathleen Bracke, City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Aaron Iverson, City of Fort Collins Transportation Planning Executive Oversight Committee Karen Cumbo, City of Fort Collins, Planning, Development, and Transportation Service (PDT) Susan Grabler, David Evans and Associates (Representing the Union Pacific Railroad) Carl Maxey, Colorado Motor Carriers Association Matt Robenalt, Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Ina Zisman, Colorado Department of Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Mark Connelly, Colorado Department of Transportation Carl Glaser, Jefferson Street Business Owner Susan Grabler, David Evans and Associates (Representing the Union Pacific Railroad) Dean Klingner, City of Fort Collins Engineering Joe Olson, City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Matt Robenalt, Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Tim Tuttle, Colorado Department of Transportation Martina Wilkinson, Larimer County City Council Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Kelly Ohlson, Mayor Pro Tem, District 5 Ben Manvel, Councilmember, District 1 Lisa Poppaw, Councilmember, District 2 Aislinn Kottwitz, Councilmember, District 3 Wade Troxell, Councilmember, District 4 Gerry Horak, Councilmember, District 6 Transportation Board Garry Steen, Chair Ed Robert, Vice Chair Mary Atchison Olga Duval Pat Jordan Sid Simonson Keven O'Toole Shane Miller Clint Skutchan Sara Frazier Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page iii Downtown Development Authority Wynne Odell, Chair Jerry Kennell, Vice Chair George Brelig Ellen Zibell Cheryl Zimlich Janet Bramhall Kelly Ohlson Steve Johnson McCabe Callahan Patty Spencer Consultant Team Jeff Kullman, ATKINS Carrie Wallis, ATKINS Dan Liddle, ATKINS Kelly Leadbetter, ATKINS Ourston Roundabout Engineering David Evans and Associates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page iv June 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................3 Previous planning documents ......................................................................................................................... 4 COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ..................................................5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ...................................................................................... 5 SWOT Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Committee Structure and Project Organization.............................................................................................. 8 Executive Oversight Committee.................................................................................................................... 9 Technical Advisory Committee.................................................................................................................... 11 Project Management Team......................................................................................................................... 11 Stakeholder and Public Involvement............................................................................................................. 11 Stakeholder Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 11 Business and Property Owner Meetings..................................................................................................... 11 Public Meetings........................................................................................................................................... 11 City Council and Board Meetings ................................................................................................................ 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................ 13 Characteristics of the Corridor ...................................................................................................................... 13 Parking......................................................................................................................................................... 15 Railroad ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Traffic Characteristics .................................................................................................................................... 18 Existing Operating Conditions..................................................................................................................... 18 Safety........................................................................................................................................................... 20 Future (2035) Traffic Conditions.................................................................................................................... 21 2035 No Action Operations......................................................................................................................... 23 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED.................................................................................................................... 25 Purpose Statement, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................................... 25 Alternative Development .............................................................................................................................. 25 Initial Screening ............................................................................................................................................. 26 Traffic Operations........................................................................................................................................ 29 On‐Street Parking........................................................................................................................................ 29 Bicycle Facilities........................................................................................................................................... 29 Median ........................................................................................................................................................ 30 Safety........................................................................................................................................................... 30 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................... 30 Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page v Urban Design (Landscaping and Aesthetics)............................................................................................... 30 Pedestrians.................................................................................................................................................. 30 Transit.......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Trucks .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Implementability ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Comparative Screening.................................................................................................................................. 31 Corridor Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 32 3‐Lane Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 32 4‐Lane Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 32 Combination 3 and 4‐Lane Alternatives...................................................................................................... 32 No Action Alternative.................................................................................................................................. 32 Corridor Air Quality Benefits....................................................................................................................... 33 Off‐street Parking Opportunities................................................................................................................... 35 Intersection Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 36 Linden Street ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Mountain/Lincoln Avenue........................................................................................................................... 36 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................ 45 Cost of Recommended Alternative: .............................................................................................................. 47 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS ....................................................................................................... 48 June 2012....................................................................................................................................................... 48 Mid 2012 – 2014............................................................................................................................................ 48 2015+ ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 50 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Area........................................................................................................................................ 3 Exhibit 2: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats......................................................................... 5 Exhibit 3: Committee Structure and Project Organization ................................................................................ 8 Exhibit 4: EOC Meetings and Decisions............................................................................................................10 Exhibit 5: Existing Typical Section ....................................................................................................................14 Exhibit 6: Jefferson Street Area Parking...........................................................................................................16 Exhibit 7: Fort Collins Railroads........................................................................................................................17 Exhibit 8: Existing Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service ....................................................................19 Exhibit 9: Existing Jefferson Street Mainline Level of Service..........................................................................20 Exhibit 10: Summary of Accident Data.............................................................................................................21 Exhibit 11: Traffic Forecast Comparison ..........................................................................................................22 Exhibit 12: 2035 No Action Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service......................................................23 Exhibit 13: 2035 Existing and 2035 Jefferson Street Volumes and Intersection Level of Service ...................24 Exhibit 14: Two‐Lane Alternatives....................................................................................................................27 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page vi June 2012 Exhibit 15: Three‐Lane Alternatives.................................................................................................................28 Exhibit 16: Four‐Lane Alternatives...................................................................................................................29 Exhibit 17: Annual Emissions Reduction Comparison Including Bike, Pedestrian and Transit........................33 Exhibit 18: Corridor Alternative Comparison Matrix .......................................................................................34 Exhibit 19: Off‐street Parking Opportunities ...................................................................................................35 Exhibit 20: Intersection Alternative Comparison Matrix .................................................................................36 Exhibit 21: Signalized Intersection Alternative ................................................................................................37 Exhibit 22: Roundabout Alternative (allows for northbound left turns for emergency vehicles at Peterson/Mountain)......................................................................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 23: Signalized Bike and Pedestrian Movements ..................................................................................40 Exhibit 24: Roundabout Bike and Pedestrian Movements ..............................................................................40 Exhibit 25: Signalized Truck Movements .........................................................................................................41 Exhibit 26: Roundabout Truck Movements .....................................................................................................42 Exhibit 27: Simulation of Signalized Intersection at Jefferson Street/Mountain/Lincoln Avenue ..................46 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Previous Planning Documents Appendix B Street Characteristics and Utility Information Appendix C Alternatives Evaluated Appendix D Plans for Recommended Alternative and Cost Estimates Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins (City), Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor. The corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections. The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The Jefferson Street/SH14 study process includes the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts and other innovative, context‐sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and national best‐practices. The Study recommendations are based on extensive technical analysis of a wide range of corridor and intersection alternatives, as well as input received through community engagement activities, and direction from City Boards, Commissions, and City Council as well as partnering agencies such as the DDA, CDOT, Larimer County and Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA). The study recommendations include a modified corridor configuration for Jefferson Street to a “3‐lane” cross‐section, including three travel lanes, on‐street parking, streetscape improvements, and raised landscaped medians. For the intersection recommendations, the study recommends maintaining the existing left turn lanes at the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets as well as enhancing the existing signalized intersection at Jefferson and Mountain/Lincoln avenues. More detail is provided throughout this report regarding the process behind these recommendations. Design of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid 2012 based upon approval of the preferred alternative by City Council, DDA, and CDOT. Details of the corridor and intersection engineering design will be further refined as the Jefferson Street project moves forward in accordance with City and CDOT requirements and design standards. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and design/phasing plan as well as the available funding. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 2 June 2012 BACKGROUND In accordance with the vision and goals of the Downtown River District Streetscape Improvement Project that were adopted by the City and DDA in 2008, City and DDA staff set out to find resources to begin implementation of the proposed improvements identified for the Downtown River District. City staff secured Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding from CDOT and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) to conduct the planning phase for Jefferson Street. The CMAQ funding, in partnership with the City’s local matching funds and the DDA funds, provide for the analysis of corridor and intersection improvements along Jefferson Street between College Avenue, the intersection of Jefferson/Mountain Avenue, and the Mountain/Lincoln and Linden intersections. This newly emerging Downtown River District is coming about through successful public and private partnerships and economic development opportunities, celebrating the Downtown River District’s unique past, present, and future. It is important for the local infrastructure with the District to be designed and implemented in a high‐quality fashion to support existing land uses as well as the new infill and redevelopment that will take place over time in accordance with City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. The project budget is comprised of a combination of funding from the City ($250,000), DDA ($500,000), and federal CMAQ funding ($1 Million). The study used approximately $455,000 of the project budget. The remaining funding will be used to fund the next steps to implement the improvements as determined by the study recommendation(s). Design of the Jefferson Street improvements can continue to move forward beginning in mid 2012 based upon approval of the corridor plan by City Council, DDA, and CDOT. Details of the corridor and intersection engineering design will be further refined as the Jefferson Street project moves forward in accordance with City and CDOT requirements and design standards. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and design/phasing plan as well as the available budget. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 3 INTRODUCTION The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City, DDA, and CDOT. The Jefferson Street corridor begins at North College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street/State Highway (SH) 14, including the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets, as seen below in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1: Project Area The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis study began in May 2010 and builds upon prior Downtown River District studies to provide a more in‐depth, technical analysis and design to address City, DDA, and CDOT requirements. The study balances interests from different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA), Larimer County, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), local business/property owners, and the general public. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 4 June 2012 The purpose of the Jefferson Street study is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit as well as maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The study recognizes that there may be a variety of methods to address future transportation demand and corridor capacity and therefore, the alternatives evaluated examine various modes of travel and combinations of changes that would accommodate projected infill and redevelopment as envisioned in City Plan. The study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design alternatives for the Jefferson Street Corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets to address multimodal transportation improvements. The project process included the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts, and other innovative, context‐sensitive solutions based upon local, regional, and national best‐practices. Previous planning documents Adopted planning documents were used to document established visions, missions, and goals in and around the project corridor. They also provide data and other insights that relate to social and physical existing conditions including land use, safety, and parking. All plans that had goals and/or objectives and included Jefferson Street in their study areas were incorporated into the development of this project. In general, the following statements represent the overarching and most common themes articulated in the identified plans:  Revitalization of land uses within the project area is important to the community to support economic health  The sense of place and the quality and safety of non‐motorized travel within the study area is important to the community  The safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services including local and regional auto and truck traffic is important to the community and CDOT  Environmental stewardship is an important value to the community and CDOT Appendix A fully documents the reports reviewed in the development of this study. Some of these reports include:  City Plan – May 4, 2004 (Update February 2011)  Transportation Master Plan – 2004 (Update February 2011)  Downtown River District Streetscape Improvement Project – August 1, 2008  US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report – April 4, 2000 Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 5 COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Jefferson Street is a diverse and constrained corridor with many competing interests from various stakeholders. This led to the development of a collaborative decision making process to manage expectations, coordinate efforts, define processes, and help to achieve agreement on a preferred alternative for the corridor. This decision making process included representatives from partner agencies that were involved through a group structure, described later in this chapter, which aided in the selection of a preferred alternative. This agency outreach structure, combined with various public involvement techniques, provided a framework for involvement by all interested parties. This type of collaborative decision process was intended to ensure clear direction and minimize potential conflict among project partners. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats One of the first steps in the Jefferson Street study was to identify perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of all of the stakeholders. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) is an analysis tool commonly used to identify factors that are supportive as well as unfavorable to achieving a specific objective. The SWOT analysis was utilized by Jefferson Street project team‐members to: (1) define parameters for problem‐solving strategies that fit within an organization’s concerns and (2) identify areas of convergent and divergent opinions between the participating organizations. The SWOT process is straight‐forward and lends itself to short in‐person workshops. Workshop participants were asked to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as defined in Exhibit 2 and in the context of the agreed upon objective statement. Factors surrounding the achievement of the objective statement are discussed, and placed into one of the four SWOT categories based on if they are external factors, being outside an agency’s control, or internal factors, meaning within an agency’s control, and whether or not the factors are positive or negative towards achieving the specified objective. Strengths (positive internal factors) Weaknesses (negative internal factors) Factors and views held by the organization that further or support the project Factors and views held by the organization that hinder the project Opportunities (positive external factors) Threats (negative external factors) Factors outside of the organization’s control that further the project Factors outside of the organization’s control that hinder the project Exhibit 2: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats The SWOT process used for the Jefferson Street project engaged each core organization, including the City, DDA, and CDOT. The process was conducted individually amongst these agencies to ensure that agency viewpoints were fully represented and could be expressed in confidence. Results from the individual SWOT workshops were documented and compared to find convergent and divergent themes and ideas. Commonalities amongst the agencies identified through the SWOT process were then used as a springboard for defining the project’s purpose and need, building Jefferson Street goals and objectives, and guide the Jefferson Street project in a direction that is mutually agreeable, and built on consensus. The divergent viewpoints documented during the SWOT analysis were utilized in the alternatives evaluation process to help establish constraints, performance measures, and screening criteria. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 6 June 2012 Results were documented by the project consultant facilitator and returned to individual agencies for their review. These reviewed documents were used to generate a draft purpose and need statement for review and input, and to document convergent and divergent opinions for further discussion. SWOT Findings The following summary synthesizes the combined result of the individual City, CDOT and DDA SWOT workshop meetings. Topic categories were used to group similar themes and ideas shared by the City, CDOT and DDA to illustrate convergent and divergent opinions amongst the agencies. Based on the topics discussed within each category, major findings could be determined. Major findings are observed convergent and divergent opinions that result. Major findings are only reported when there are comparable agency statements. For example, if all three agencies discussed parking, it is likely that convergent and diverged opinions can be observed and reported; however, if only one agency discussed parking, no agency comparisons can be made and no major finding can be reported. Major findings were only intended to be statements identifying convergent and divergent opinions and the degree to which agencies agree or disagree. Major findings did not establish baseline conditions, project vision, mission, goals, or objectives. However, the findings assisted in the development of project vision, mission, goals, and objectives by focusing language on areas of agreement, and allowing for flexibility in areas of disagreement. Generally, major findings showed that there is common appreciation for issues facing the corridor and for the perspectives held by other agencies. Furthermore, most threats (such as actions that would force trucks onto alternative routes) were understood by CDOT, DDA, and the City alike. Also, opportunities were recognized by all of the participating agencies to improve the corridor for non‐vehicular uses, while also maintaining its important function as a local and regional route. Differences existed in how and what improvements should be made. Not only is this illustrated in direct comments about project strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats, but an across‐the‐board concern with the alternatives analysis planning process and desire to use a comprehensive approach that values all viewpoints. Although participating agency opinions generally agree within the topic categories identified below, divergent opinions exist for on‐street parking and commerce. The major SWOT analysis finding include:  Overall Corridor Safety. All agencies were concerned about data and its use to (dis)prove safety issues. Discussions touched on a need for mutually agreeable safety evaluation criterion for the alternatives analysis phase of the project.  Street Edge Safety. There was universal recognition that there are safety conflicts between moving vehicles and parked cars. There was also recognition that there are unquantified perceptions of safety problems by pedestrians.  Vehicle/Truck Mobility. All agencies agreed that the corridor supports a high volume of vehicle and truck traffic.  Sidewalks. There was recognition that pedestrians could benefit from the project through sidewalk improvements such as increasing widths in some areas, adding bulb‐outs, etc.  Trucks. All agencies recognized that trucks must remain on Jefferson Street, and decisions that would cause trucks to seek alternative routes must be avoided. It was also accepted that trucks typically use only one lane when traveling the corridor. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 7  Air Quality Improvements. Agencies universally recognized that the project must result in quantifiable air quality improvements and that failure to do so jeopardizes CMAQ funding.  Funding Opportunities. Each agency was optimistic about funding opportunities and the willingness of local agencies to contribute funds.  Physical Constraints / ROW. All agencies recognized a weakness in that the corridor is constrained by right‐of‐way and established land uses. It is believed that this constraint hinders the fulfillment of each agency’s wants and needs from the project.  On‐Street Parking Capacity. There were divergent opinions on parking. CDOT explained that parking on Jefferson Street is a safety threat to the project due to the street’s current and future traffic volumes. While the City and DDA do not dispute these safety concerns, they explained that on‐street parking is essential to the economic viability of Jefferson Street and the benefits to urban design and sense of pedestrian safety that on‐street parking offers.  Historic Buildings. Historic buildings were viewed differently by CDOT, DDA, and the City. DDA and the City referred to historic buildings as strengths in that they bolster the street setting, whereas CDOT is concerned about the environmental constraints that historic buildings could bring to a potential project.  Cycling. The City and CDOT held different, but not necessarily divergent, views on cycling. CDOT explained that bike access and connectivity is adequate within the vicinity, whereas the City focused on poor bike mobility within the corridor.  Urban Design. The City and DDA were in agreement on matters of Jefferson Street urban design. CDOT did not offer urban design related comments during the SWOT process. The City and DDA agreed that the corridor is a gateway, a transitional area linking the downtown and river districts, near locations of interest, and lacks a consistently desirable sense of setting and pedestrian amenities.  Public Opinion. All agencies believed that inaccurate public perceptions could hurt the progress of this alternatives analysis project. DDA and the City were particularly concerned that neighborhoods will be upset if there is any indication that the project might influence trucks to find alternative routes.  Commerce. There were divergent opinions on the role of Jefferson Street and development. CDOT points out that a Jefferson Street project will not guarantee development. DDA and the City, however, pointed to a successful Jefferson Street project as supporting existing businesses and bringing economic development to the corridor.  Process. SWOT results showed universal concern regarding the process being followed by the alternatives analysis project. The most common concern was not being comprehensive enough to arrive at the best possible outcome. Both CDOT and DDA expressed concern about predetermining outcomes or specific solutions. There were also cross‐agency concerns that disagreements could stall the project or lead to poor decision making.  Access/Connectivity. There was complete agreement that Jefferson Street is an important local and regional route. CDOT, DDA, and the City all agree that the project offers many opportunities to benefit access and connectivity, including access to local businesses. DDA and the City saw opportunities to use the Jefferson Street project to strengthen connectivity between the downtown and river districts. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 8 June 2012  Partnership. All participating agencies saw opportunities for partnership in the Jefferson Street project, although partnership topics vary between the agencies. For example, CDOT saw opportunities to partner into other related nearby projects (e.g. Cherry Street), whereas the City saw opportunities to join with other departments and seek diverse funding sources and the DDA saw partnership as a means to achieve big ideas.  Transit. Of the transit related comments made during the SWOT workshops, CDOT and the City both agreed that there are few transit stops (and few opportunities for stops). Both DDA and the City believed the project holds opportunities to increase multimodal transportation in the area. Committee Structure and Project Organization For the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project, a collaborative decision process (Exhibit 3) was used to assist in gaining support from our partner agencies and key stakeholders. The Executive Oversight Committee (EOC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Project Management Team (PMT) are described in more detail following the exhibit. As the figure reflects, issues were discussed at the PMT level and input was received from the TAC. Recommendations for key decisions were then presented to the EOC for concurrence. Exhibit 3: Committee Structure and Project Organization Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 9 Executive Oversight Committee The project used an executive level stakeholder group, referred to as the EOC, as a means to achieve consensus. In this case, consensus was defined as an agreement built by identifying and exploring the interests of all parties and assembling a composite agreement that demonstrates these varied interests have been satisfied to the greatest extent possible. A consensus is reached when all parties agree that their major interests have been taken into consideration and addressed in a satisfactory manner. Consensus does not necessarily mean full or 100 percent agreement. Some parties may strongly endorse a particular recommendation while others may accept it as a workable agreement. Members can participate in the consensus without embracing each element of the agreement with the same fervor as other members or having each interest fully satisfied. In a consensus agreement, the parties recognize that given the combination of gains and trade‐offs in the recommendation package, potential impacts and options, the resulting agreement is the best one the parties can make at the time. The EOC is established to collaboratively identify a preferred alternative for the Jefferson Street Alternative Analysis Project. The preferred alternative is intended to be consistent with numerous parameters including: fulfilling the project’s established vision and goals, meeting design and safety standards, and satisfying regulatory requirements. Other parameters of the collaborative process were outlined through EOC discussions. The EOC was comprised of vital and invested stakeholders. Each organization appointed one representative to speak for their agency or organization to serve on the “solutions‐oriented and problem‐solving focused” EOC. These representatives made decisions on behalf of their agencies and served as a liaison to their respective agency with regards to this project. EOC members included:  City of Fort Collins – Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation  CDOT – Ina Zisman, CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer  DDA – Matt Robenalt, Executive Director  UPRR – Sue Grabler representing Kelly Abray, Manager Industrial & Public Projects  Colorado Motor Carriers Association (CMCA) – Carl Maxey, Past Chairman Participating members of the EOC were asked to meet the following requirements for participation:  Able to represent the breadth of views of their constituency, rather than just representing their personal views.  Empowered as a decision maker within their organizations or constituencies or otherwise able to commit and bind their constituencies to any agreements of the EOC.  Familiarity with Jefferson Street/SH14 project area and the range of issues.  Able to be a statesman or a diplomat – all members should be proactive about seeking areas of agreement and should look for mutually beneficial solutions.  Able to commit the time necessary to attend all EOC meetings during the project, and to prepare in advance for each meeting by examining supporting information and materials. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 10 June 2012 Members had the opportunity to bring staff from their organizations, agencies, or constituency groups to support the problem solving process. EOC members could include those individuals in discussions when their expertise is required or when requested by the committee as a whole. Exhibit 4 lists the dates of EOC Meetings throughout the project and the decisions or major topics discussed at each meeting. EOC Meetings Discussion Topics Agreed Upon Commitments or Decisions September 22, 2010 Committee Role and Expectations Summary of SWOT Analysis Draft Purpose Statement Approved items in working agreement Committed to evaluate and consider all alternatives October 27, 2010 Project Purpose Statement Alternative Screening Process and Fatal flaws Future Traffic Conditions Approved project purpose statement Agreed on goals and objectives with minor changes December 8, 2010 Future Traffic Conditions Alternative Screening Process and Evaluation Criteria Agreed to use a 1.4 percent growth factor and methods for analyzing future (2035) traffic conditions Approved fatal flaw evaluation criteria (except for parking related) January 25, 2011 Full Range of Alternatives Alternative Screening Process and Evaluation Criteria Informational meeting March 22, 2011 Review of On‐Street Parking Memo and Decision Level one screening, Alternative development, and Level two screening Approval of level one screening Concurrence that all two‐lane alternatives will be eliminated Concurrence that alternatives with angled parking would be eliminated May 4, 2011 Corridor alternative layouts and preliminary analysis Intersection alternatives Public Outreach update Informational meeting June 3, 2011 Review operating protocols Review feedback from public outreach completed Review previous agreements Alternative discussion Agree that the solution is within the alternatives being considered Agreed on 3‐lane corridor alternative July 11, 2011 Remaining Decisions Mountain/Lincoln and Cherry/Willow Intersection Off‐Street Parking Near‐Term and Long‐Term Actions Informational meeting October 25, 2011 Remaining Decisions Mountain/Lincoln Intersection Implementation and Funding Plan Informational meeting February 17, 2012 Remaining Decisions Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 11 Technical Advisory Committee The TAC supported the collaborative process by ensuring that information and alternatives being elevated at the EOC level were technically sound and adhered to federal, state, or local directives, regulations, or procedures. The TAC encompassed a wide range of technical expertise and represents a variety of disciplines and agencies. Agencies and organizations represented in the TAC include those of the EOC, as well as North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, Larimer County, UPRR, CMCA, and a non‐agency affiliated citizen representative to represent local business interests along Jefferson Street. The TAC met throughout the project at key decision points. Project Management Team The PMT supported the collaborative process by overseeing the day‐to‐day progress of the project and ensuring that EOC and TAC decisions were incorporated. The PMT consisted of members from the City, CDOT, DDA, and the project consultant. PMT meetings were used as work sessions to raise questions, make decisions, and ensure that progress was in‐line with project goals and objectives. Specific discipline representatives and consultant team members were invited to PMT meetings, as needed. As the project progressed, PMT and TAC meetings were combined. Stakeholder and Public Involvement The goal of conducting a comprehensive public involvement program is to engage key stakeholders, policy makers, and the public in the planning process. The project team sought comments and input on the key tasks throughout the life of the project. This involvement effort was intended to establish and maintain a two‐way exchange of information among the project team members with the public regarding corridor issues and priorities. Another goal was to build consensus for the selection of a preferred alternative and the development of the recommended phasing plan for implementation. Stakeholder Coordination This process included on‐going coordination among multiple City departments, City Boards and Commissions, City Council, CDOT, DDA, Larimer County, and various interested community and corridor stakeholders, including but not limited to area property/business owners, residents, bicycle/pedestrian advocacy groups, trucking industry representatives, UPRR, and Public Utilities Commission representatives. Business and Property Owner Meetings One‐on‐one coordination was needed with affected business/property owners to determine the impacts and mitigation measures needed at each property. During the development and screening of alternatives, the consultant project manager and the City project managers provided outreach to business/property owners along the corridor to update them on the status of the project and seek their input. After the final screening of alternatives, when a preferred alternative has been recommended, directly impacted business/property owners were contacted to follow up on questions and concerns related to the project and work through remaining details for particular sites along the corridor. Public Meetings Public meetings were held on June 2, 2011, October 17, 2011, and February 16, 2012 to actively engage the corridor property owners, businesses, residents, and general public in the process. The meetings were Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 12 June 2012 conducted as part of the public review process for the alternatives screening process and to help determine the preferred corridor recommendation. City Council and Board Meetings Presentations were made on behalf of the project to the City Council at their work sessions on August 9, 2011 and February 28, 2012. Updates were also provided to Boards and Commissions, including the Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning & Zoning Board, Economic Advisory Commission, and DDA Board meetings. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS Jefferson Street looking Southeast, toward Lincoln/Mountain Intersection Existing conditions describe the current state of various social and physical attributes along Jefferson Street and the surrounding area. Conditions were documented using best available data or collected data, in some instances. Existing conditions were the result of objective synthesis and were considered the baseline for alternatives analysis. Existing conditions were also used during alternatives development to identify constraints and as a “reality check” to ensure alternatives being developed were reasonable and would perform to their potential through the evaluation process. Characteristics of the Corridor Jefferson Street is a four‐lane, urban arterial with a posted speed of 30 miles per hour including on‐street parking allowed in some locations. The existing right‐of‐way (ROW) as measured from the back of the curb is 58 feet wide. These characteristics are shown as cross‐sections in Exhibit 5. The two center travel lanes are 11 feet wide and the two outside travel lanes, including parking, are approximately 15.5 feet wide throughout the corridor. Left‐turn lanes are present at the intersections of Jefferson Street and Lincoln Street, Jefferson Street and Linden Street, and Jefferson Street and College Avenue. On‐street parking is not available where turn lanes are present. Left Turn at Jefferson Street and Linden Street There are multiple access points to and from businesses along the corridor and multiple locations along Jefferson Street that allow on‐street parking parallel to the curb. The corridor is lined by commercial properties, restaurants, private residences, a park, church, social services, and off‐street surface parking. Generally, development along the south or “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street is historic in character, is uniformly developed (few vacant “gaps” in building facades), and buildings front the sidewalk. The character along the north or “River District” side of Jefferson Street varies, with a park at Jefferson Street and Linden Street and a mix of single‐story commercial structures with off‐street parking lots. This corridor serves a range of travel including automobiles, trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicycles. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 14 June 2012 Exhibit 5: Existing Typical Section Sidewalks are present on both sides of Jefferson Street. Generally, sidewalks are attached to the street; however, sidewalks are detached from the curb and landscaped in a few instances. Sidewalk and landscape areas vary in width along the corridor from 6 to 19 feet. Between Mountain/Lincoln Avenue and Linden Street, the attached sidewalk is 6.5 feet wide. In some locations walkable sidewalk width, or “clear width,” is 3.5 feet with the remaining width occupied by street light poles, signs, fire hydrants, and other hardware. Sidewalks also have 1‐foot building setbacks in some locations, which also limit walkable sidewalk area. In locations where a parking lane is not provided, pedestrians on the sidewalks are directly adjacent to the travel lanes. Generally, minimal landscaping is provided and other aesthetic features are not present along the corridor. Ramps at intersections are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant as they are newly constructed and contain components that are consistent with ADA compliant ramps such as truncated domes to serve as tactile markings and warnings for intersections. Jefferson Street does not have bicycle lanes; however, bicycle on‐street facilities exist on North College Avenue, Linden Street, Willow Street, Walnut Street, and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. Bicycle parking racks are available on Jefferson Street. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 15 Additional features located along Jefferson Street include bus stops and access to parking areas, driveways, and alleys. Two bus stops are located at the intersection of Linden Street and Jefferson Street. Bus operations were currently available from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with one‐hour headways. Numerous access points for parking lots, driveways, and alleys are located along Jefferson Street, including:  Eleven access points on northbound Jefferson Street  Nine access points to the southbound Jefferson Street  Five local street intersections (North College Avenue/Maple Street, Pine Street, Linden Street, Chestnut Street, and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue,)  Three alley intersections Appendix B includes drawings for street characteristics for the Jefferson Street Corridor and utility information. Parking There are approximately 450 public parking spaces within a one‐block radius of Jefferson Street. Of these public parking spaces, 51 are along Jefferson Street, 306 public parking spaces are within the southwest block and 51 spaces in the northeast block. Exhibit 6 shows the general location of these parking spaces on Jefferson Street. According to the Downtown Strategic Plan (2006), current parking supply slightly exceeds demand in the general project area. The plan also indicates that a reasonable walking distance to and from parking is up to 800 feet. By this measure, parking on Jefferson Street could serve land uses within a two‐ block radius which includes portions of Old Town and the River District. The City is currently updating the Parking Plan for the Downtown and surrounding areas, including the River District. Railroad The UPRR operates two trains per day from LaSalle to Fort Collins. Each trip crosses Lincoln Avenue and Linden Street within the general project area. In addition to these routine trips, UPRR and Great Western Railway of Colorado perform rail car interchanges as rail cars make their way to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe’s (BNSF) North Yard in northeast Fort Collins along Vine Drive, as indicated in Exhibit 7. There are numerous train movements across Lincoln Avenue and Linden Street during these interchange moves. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 16 June 2012 Exhibit 6: Jefferson Street Area Parking Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 17 Exhibit 7: Fort Collins Railroads Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 18 June 2012 Traffic Characteristics Traffic volume data was provided by CDOT and the City for the project area, on the surrounding local street system, and for North College Avenue/US 287. The traffic data included daily traffic volume counts and peak hour turning movement volumes at key intersections. Heavy vehicle (truck) percentages on Jefferson Street east of North College Avenue average 7.4 percent of the total daily traffic. As seen in Exhibit 11 on page 22, the existing daily traffic volume along Jefferson Street is approximately 12,000 to 13,000 vehicles per day. Traffic volumes along the corridor increase to the southeast, and just outside of the project limits where the traffic is approximately 16,400 vehicles per day. Peak hour turning movement counts (TMCs) for the morning and evening periods were collected in 2009 by City staff and provided to the project team in the existing conditions traffic model. The following intersections were included in the model:  Cherry/Willow Street and North College Avenue  Vine Street and North College Avenue  Laporte Avenue/Walnut Street and North College Avenue  Walnut Street and Linden Street (unsignalized)  Mountain Avenue and North College Avenue  Walnut Street/Mathews Street and Mountain Avenue  Lincoln Avenue and Lemay Avenue  Mulberry Street and Riverside Avenue/Jefferson Street Existing Operating Conditions An existing conditions operational analysis was conducted to determine the baseline performance within the study area. This analysis methodology and data were agreed upon by the EOC (including the City, CDOT, and DDA). Existing signal timing parameters and turning movement count information was included in the calibrated SYNCHRO model provided by the City. The unsignalized intersection at Pine Street was added to the models and the intersection geometry to the model was verified based on a site visit. Traffic operations for each of the signalized and unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, Transportation Research Board, 2000) and were reported from the SYNCHRO model output. According to the HCM, the overall performance of an intersection is determined based on the level of delay experienced by motorists at the intersection. Depending on the level of delay that is experienced, each intersection can be scored on scale that measures level of service (LOS) and given a letter grade from ‘A’ to ‘F’, with ‘A’ being the best possible grade for the intersection or the least amount of delay. For signalized intersections, the delay for each individual turning movement is evaluated, then entire approaches are graded, and finally the intersection as a whole can be given a single LOS. For two‐way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections, each minor approach is given a separate LOS and the worst LOS is reported as a single rating for the intersection. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 19 LOS for the signalized and unsignalized intersections along Jefferson Street was determined for both the morning and evening peak periods. Exhibit 8 shows the results of the existing condition LOS analysis. The LOS calculations were performed for intersections with public roadways with no analysis performed at driveways along the corridor. The signalized intersections along Jefferson Street within the Project Area operate at an overall LOS B or better during both the morning and evening peak periods. At the signalized movements, all approach legs operated at LOS C or better during the morning peak period. During the evening peak, two movements operated at less than a LOS C, which are the northwest bound left turn at North College Avenue (operates at a LOS D), and the northbound right turn at Mountain Avenue (operates at LOS E). Intersection with Jefferson Street Peak Period Delay (Seconds per vehicle/Level of Service) Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Overall North College Avenue AM Peak 9.5/A 7.0/A 27.6/C 10.4/B 8.9/A PM Peak 9.3/A 5.6/A 27.2/C 19.3/B 10.4/B Pine Street AM Peak 13.4/B ‐ 0.0/A 0.6/A 0.5/A PM Peak 11.5/B ‐ 0.0/A 0.9/A 1.2/A Linden Street AM Peak 29.9/C 29.2/C 1.8/A 2.3/A 6.5/A PM Peak 30.7/C 29.8/C 2.8/A 2.4/A 10.0/A Mountain Avenue/ Lincoln Avenue AM Peak 22.0/C 27.8/C 3.1/A 3.9/A 10.5/B PM Peak 42.0/D 26.1/C 4.7/A 5.3/A 18.3/B Exhibit 8: Existing Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service Arterial LOS is another measure used to determine corridor traffic conditions and is based on the average travel speed experienced along a segment of the corridor. Travel speeds were determined using the traffic simulation software SimTraffic by modeling a 10‐minute seed time, and running the model for 60 minutes. For each condition modeled, three runs were performed and an average time was used to determine the travel times. The existing mainline LOS and average speed (mph) on the mainline during the peak periods is shown in Exhibit 9. This information was obtained from SimTraffic. Within the project limits, the southeast bound direction of Jefferson Street operates at a LOS B/C during the morning/evening peak hour, and the northwest bound direction operates at a LOS C/D during the morning/evening peak. All links operate as nearly free‐flow speeds with the exception of the northwest bound segment between North College Avenue and Pine Street, which experiences significant delay at the signal. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 20 June 2012 Direction: Roadway Link Average Speed (mph) Level of Service Southeast bound: North College Avenue to Mountain/Lincoln Avenue AM Peak 27.1 B PM Peak 23.3 C Northwest bound: Mountain/Lincoln Avenue to North College Ave AM Peak 19.1 C PM Peak 15.9 D Exhibit 9: Existing Jefferson Street Mainline Level of Service Safety Accident data for a seven‐year period (January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2005) was provided by CDOT for the project area. Accident types are typically classified as one of the following categories:  Rear End. This accident occurs when one vehicle strikes the rear of the vehicle in front of it because that vehicle is stopped or slowing down.  Fixed Object. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle travels off the roadway and strikes an object along the roadside.  Broadside. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle traveling through an intersection in the opposite direction strikes a left turning vehicle at a 90‐degree angle.  Overtaking Turn. This type of accident occurs when two adjacent approach vehicles, whose paths are unintended to come in conflict, collide as a result of one or both vehicles over‐ or under‐turning. This type would also include a vehicle initially going straight, but leaving its proper lane of travel and colliding with a stopped or moving vehicle on an adjacent approach road or driveway.  Sideswipe. This type of accident typically involves the side of one vehicle making contact with the side of another vehicle that is traveling in the same or opposite direction.  Approach Turn. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle traveling through an intersection in the opposite direction strikes a left turning vehicle.  Pedestrian. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle and pedestrian collide in which the collision between the two is the first event and also took place within the roadway.  Bicycle. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle and bicycle collide in which the collision between the two is the first event and also took place within the roadway.  Parked Motor Vehicle. This type of accident occurs when a vehicle strikes a parked motor vehicle that is within the roadway. Exhibit 10 summarizes the total number and percentage of intersection and non‐intersection related accidents for each type of accident that occurred along the corridor between 1999 and 2005. Within the study area there were a total of 153 accidents during the six‐year analysis period. The intersection‐related accidents were most commonly rear‐ends, broadsides, and approach turns. The most common non‐ intersection related accident was with a parked motor vehicle. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 21 Category Total Number of Accidents Percentage of Total Location At Intersection/Intersection Related 110 72 Non‐Intersection Related 34 22 Driveway Access 9 6 Total 153 100 Type Rear End 46 30 Fixed Object 5 3 Broadside 26 17 Overtaking Turn 3 2 Sideswipe 20 13 Approach Turn 29 19 Pedestrian/Bicycle 6 4 Parked Motor Vehicle 18 12 Total 153 100 Exhibit 10: Summary of Accident Data In addition to the accident data, a weighted hazard index was computed by CDOT for the study corridor. The weighted hazard index determines if the frequency and severity of accidents on the study corridor is higher than the statewide average for similar highways. The analysis of Jefferson Street corridor indicated that the frequency and severity of accidents on the study corridor is lower than the statewide average for similar highways. Future (2035) Traffic Conditions Many different methods were evaluated to determine future traffic conditions for the corridor. Many meetings with technical staff from the City, CDOT, and NFRMPO were held to come up with an agreed upon methodology for developing 2035 traffic forecasts to use for analysis of a no action scenario as well as build alternatives. After reviewing several travel demand models and historic traffic volumes, the project team decided to use a CDOT growth rate of 1.4 percent. All evaluated volumes are shown on Exhibit 11. Several of the City’s travel demand models were reviewed including the 2035 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) constrained model. This model only assumes built and/or funded roadway improvements included in the roadway network. This model also closely matches the NFRMPO fiscally constrained travel demand model. Another methodology for developing future traffic volume forecasts evaluated was to grow all traffic volumes an agreed upon growth factor. Historic average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along Jefferson Street indicate that the average traffic volume growth rate along the corridor between 1990 and 2009 is 0.85 percent. Historic ADT volumes from surrounding streets provided by the City indicate similarly flat growth in traffic. CDOT also uses a standard annual growth rate of 1.4 percent. Overall City traffic growth over the past 20 years indicates an average 1.5 percent annual growth rate. These various methods were presented to the EOC in December 2010, and CDOT’s standard growth rate of 1.4 percent was agreed upon as the method to determine future traffic volumes. This method was selected because it was thought to be the most conservative approach, using the highest growth factor. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 22 June 2012 Exhibit 11: Traffic Forecast Comparison Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 23 2035 No Action Operations To create the 2035 No Action model, the existing conditions model was used and turning movement volumes were grown by a factor of 1.42. This growth factor is the result of using the agreed upon 1.4 percent annual growth rate and calculating the total growth over a 25 year timeframe (2010 – 2035). Review of the individual intersection phase splits and time‐space diagrams indicated acceptable timing and progression, so no traffic signal timing changes were made to the 2035 No Action model. The intersection performance results for the 2035 No Action operational analysis are as shown in Exhibit 12. Comparing the results of the existing conditions model and the 2035 No Action model, the results are generally as expected with all the intersections having longer overall delays in 2035 than existing conditions. There are a few approaches that are performing marginally better in 2035 than in existing conditions such as:  Eastbound at Jefferson/College  Southbound at Jefferson/Linden  Westbound at Jefferson/Chestnut The signalized intersections are showing slight improvement in 2035 because the higher volumes are actually forcing the traffic signal (all of which are modeled as actuated‐coordinated signals) to use all of their green time and raising the capacity for that approach. Intersection with Jefferson Street Peak Period Delay (Seconds per vehicle/Level of Service) Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Overall North College Avenue 23.6/C 27.2/C 13.8/B 10.5/B 14.8/B Pine Street 1.0/A 0.0/A 13.9/B ‐ 13.9/B Linden Street 3.3/A 3.7/A 33.2/C 28.2/C 10.6/B Chestnut Street 0.3/A 0.0/A 28.1/D ‐ 28.1/D Mountain Avenue/ Lincoln Avenue 8.2/A 7.6/A 26.1/C 23.3/C 15.4/B Exhibit 12: 2035 No Action Jefferson Street Intersection Level of Service The 2035 No Action operations analysis also included an evaluation of the Cherry/Willow and College intersection to verify the impact this location had on the Jefferson Street corridor. The overall intersection delay at this location was similar for all future corridor scenarios that were considered (including No Action). A comparison of existing and 2035 peak hour volumes, average daily traffic, and intersection level of service are shown on Exhibit 13. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 24 June 2012 Exhibit 13: 2035 Existing and 2035 Jefferson Street Volumes and Intersection Level of Service Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 25 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The alternative development and screening process was used to allow decision makers of all levels and the community to trace the successful and unsuccessful aspects of a proposed alternative and compare the trade‐offs between alternatives. The project purpose, goals, and objectives as well as the SWOT analysis were all used to identify the full range of alternatives and to develop screening criteria to evaluate alternatives. Purpose Statement, Goals, and Objectives The project purpose was prepared by the project team using the results of the SWOT process and approved by the EOC. The final approved project purpose statement is: The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The Corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Avenue, and Linden Street intersections. Project goals and objectives are intended to define the project purpose through measureable criteria. Goals define high‐level aspirations expressed in the project purpose statement. Objectives break‐out the different topics that define a goal. This multi‐level approach allows decision makers to trace the successful and unsuccessful aspects of a proposed alternative and compare the trade‐offs between alternatives. The following goals and objectives were developed: Goal 1 ‐ Maintain or improve safe and efficient travel along Jefferson Street. This will be achieved by:  Objective 1A: Maintaining or improving safe travel  Objective 1B: Maintain or improve the mobility Goal 2 ‐ Enhance the urban character and vitality of Jefferson Street to make it an inviting place for pedestrians and revitalization. This goal is accomplished through:  Objective 2A: Creating a welcoming and desirable thoroughfare for pedestrian travel  Objective 2B: Creating a welcoming and desirable place for revitalization Goal 3 ‐ Improve Jefferson Street in a manner that is consistent with environmental and social values by:  Objective 3A: Improving sustainability in the study area  Objective 3B: Ensuring that Jefferson Street embodies responsibility to the general public in its planning and implementation Alternative Development The project purpose, goals, objectives, and the SWOT analysis were all used to identify the full range of alternatives. These included the alternatives from the previous Downtown River District Plan along with additional alternatives identified by the TAC at workshop meetings. The corridor alternatives evaluated can be categorized into two‐lane, three‐lane, and four‐lane alternatives. In addition, intersection alternatives were evaluated for Jefferson/Linden and Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 26 June 2012  Two‐lane alternatives reduce both the northwest bound and southeast bound through travel lanes from two to one. Depending on the option, these alternatives may include parking, center turn lanes, center raised or painted median, bike lanes, or center angled parking.  Three‐lane alternatives reduce either the northwest bound or southeast bound through travel lanes from two to one. Depending on the option (similar to two‐lane options), these alternatives may include parking, center turn lanes, center raised or painted median, or bike lanes.  Four‐lane alternatives maintain the existing two lanes northwest bound and two lanes southeast bound. Depending on the option, these alternatives may include parking, or center raised/painted median. Initial Screening The initial screening process filtered out alternatives that obviously do not meet project goals and objectives. Alternatives are eliminated if they contain a “fatal flaw” that would make them implausible. The level one fatal flaw evaluation criteria included: Goal 1 ‐ Maintain or improve safe and efficient travel along Jefferson Street. Fatal Flaw: LOS drops more than one level compared to a No Action condition Fatal Flaw: Alternative would impede railroad operations Fatal Flaw: Lane width would be reduced to less than 11 feet Goal 2 ‐ Enhance the urban character and vitality of Jefferson Street to make it an inviting place for pedestrians and revitalization. Fatal Flaw: Complete elimination of on‐street parking Fatal Flaw: Angled parking Goal 3 ‐ Improve Jefferson Street in a manner that is consistent with environmental and social values Fatal Flaw: Buildings would be part of ROW acquisition Fatal Flaw: Alternative would require environmental clearance (Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment) The full range of roadway typical section alternatives is shown in Exhibits 14, 15, and 16 and are shown along with a status of the alternative after initial screening. Appendix C includes a summary of the roadway feature priorities identified in the project goal. A description of the roadway features evaluated for each typical section is listed following the typical section figures. Alternatives carried forward were further refined in developing the corridor alternatives. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 27 Exhibit 14: Two‐Lane Alternatives Looking northwest along Jefferson Street Note: All two‐lane alternatives were eliminated because the capacity of the roadway is reduced by half (from four‐lane to two‐lane) which is a CDOT concern. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 28 June 2012 Exhibit 15: Three‐Lane Alternatives Looking northwest along Jefferson Street Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 29 Exhibit 16: Four‐Lane Alternatives Looking northwest along Jefferson Street Traffic Operations The project purpose included maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. A key consideration was lane continuity and how the number of lanes would be reduced if going from four to a fewer number of total lanes. On‐Street Parking The project goals included enhancing the vitality of Jefferson Street to make it an inviting place for existing businesses as well as new infill redevelopment. To enhance the vitality of the downtown, alternatives that increase or enhance the current on‐street parking are preferred. The presence of on‐street parking on the southwest or “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street is more critical to maintain or enhance because the majority of the businesses along the northeast side already have off‐street parking lots. On‐street parking on the southwest or Old Town side of Jefferson Street between Linden Street and Pine Street was the most desirable location given the physical constraints along Jefferson and the inability of widening the roadway due to the existing buildings. Bicycle Facilities The project purpose included improving livability while enhancing the experience for bikes. The City supports ‘complete streets’ solutions for all corridors. The inclusion of dedicated bike lanes specifically on Jefferson was not a project requirement and consideration of enhanced cycling opportunities is desired. There are adjacent ‘close proximity’ alternate bike routes to Jefferson Street that were taken into account to serve cyclists including Walnut, Willow, improved alleyways, and Mountain/Lincoln. Bicyclists also have options to share the lane and ride on Jefferson. Opportunities for off‐street bike facilities were also explored and are recommended in conjunction with future infill/redevelopment projects along the corridor. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 30 June 2012 Median The project purpose was to improve air quality, livability, and urban character while enhancing the experience for pedestrians. Medians, when of sufficient width, provide pedestrian refuge area at crossings and can be landscaped to enhance the urban character and access management. The maintenance aspect of a landscaped median in the street was considered. Safety Maintaining mobility of autos and trucks is also a component of the project purpose. Safety conflicts can occur between two or more users of the same roadway and can include autos, trucks, bikes, and pedestrians. An increase in conflict points between each of these modes, and within each mode, can cause increased safety concerns. Conflict points can be reduced by restricting access and other street‐design techniques. Access management helps to improve safety because there are fewer unexpected events caused by vehicles entering and leaving the traffic stream, resulting in less interference with through traffic as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. Conflicts can also be reduced by providing a buffer area between travel lanes and parking areas. Concerns existed if this buffer area will be used as a bike lane, since conflicts may occur between parking maneuvers and bikes. Air Quality The project is partially funded by federal CMAQ funds. One of the points in the project purpose is to improve the air quality of the Jefferson Street Corridor. Projects receiving CMAQ funds are expected to show an air quality benefit. Air quality benefits are typically determined through estimated reductions in vehicle miles traveled, traffic congestion, vehicle idling, and vehicle replacements as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit enhancements. If a project solution is selected that does not improve air quality, an alternative funding source would be required for construction of the improvements. If lanes are reduced, other mitigating measures to improve air quality need to be included. A consideration is if additional/enhanced parking opportunities are provided then there will be an improvement to vehicle trolling to find an open space resulting in improved air quality. Another consideration for air quality is maintaining the high LOS as well as improvements for active modes of transportation, including bicycling, walking, and transit. Urban Design (Landscaping and Aesthetics) The purpose of the project included improving the livability and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit. In addition, a key principle of Plan Fort Collins (City Plan and Transportation Master Plan) is community appearance and design which discusses: designing the city’s streetscapes with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties; integrating public spaces throughout the community and designing them to be functional, accessible, attractive, safe, and comfortable; recognizing gateways as important locations to draw attention to and convey the character of the surrounding district; and requiring quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices throughout the community. Pedestrians The purpose of the Pedestrian Plan, developed by the City of Fort Collins, is to promote a pedestrian‐ friendly environment that will encourage the choice to walk for visitors, students, and residents. It also states that this pedestrian friendly environment where public spaces, including streets and off‐street paths, Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 31 should offer a high level of comfort, convenience, efficiency, quality of experience, and safety within the city. Sidewalks that are not properly planned, designed, constructed, or maintained are less likely to encourage pedestrian activity. The landscape through which pedestrians travel can affect their decision to walk, including physical obstacles such as transportation features (highways or arterials without signalized intersections, railroads). Design features that can help limit physical obstacles to walking include pedestrian scale lighting, pedestrian oriented design, street trees, and sidewalk enhancements (benches, wayfinding, café seating). Transit The project purpose included improving livability while enhancing the experience for transit. At the time of the existing conditions assessment, there are two bus stops located at the intersection of Linden Street and Jefferson Street. One is located on southeast bound Jefferson Street. The second bus stop is located on the northwest bound side of Jefferson Street, just north of the Linden Street intersection. With the 2 lane and 3 lane corridor options, the transit stops can be enhanced to improve the passenger waiting areas. Trucks Maintaining mobility of autos and trucks is a component of the project purpose. The existing truck route through the City of Fort Collins extends along SH 14 (Mulberry Street) from I‐25 to Riverside Avenue/Jefferson Street, then north along College Avenue. The percent of heavy vehicles that travel along a roadway affect corridor traffic operations. Heavy vehicles typically travel at slower speeds than passenger vehicles and require longer acceleration and deceleration distances. Heavy vehicle percentages on Jefferson Street east of North College Avenue average 7.4 percent of the total daily traffic. For trucks, impediments to operations could include the introduction of conflict points such as a decrease in the number of lanes or single travel lane next to parking, or potential for increase stop and start operation. Implementability One of the goals of the project is to improve Jefferson Street in a manner that is consistent with environmental and social values. To address this goal, the project identified any significant hurdles that could arise during implementation that would impact the desired outcomes of the project. For example, any improvements made to the highway that would narrow it compared to existing conditions may be revocable in the future depending on traffic capacity levels and/or safety issues. Implementation features that were evaluated include permanent or temporary improvements (painted striping versus constructed modifications), amount of additional Right of Way (ROW) needed, and higher cost elements that may be costly or difficult to change. Comparative Screening For comparative screening, the TAC agreed that two‐lane alternatives be eliminated from consideration because the capacity of the roadway is reduced by half (from four‐lane to two‐lane) which is a CDOT concern. Since this is a collaborative decision process, the EOC agreed to this decision. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 32 June 2012 Corridor Alternatives Following the screening process, the project team developed a set of conceptual corridor alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives. Corridor alternatives are included in Appendix D. 3‐Lane Alternatives The corridor alternatives evaluated include several “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North College Avenue and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. Options within the 3‐lane corridor alternative include raised, landscaped medians along the full length of the corridor, with openings at the Jefferson/Linden intersection or partial medians along the corridor with more openings at streets such as at Pine and Chestnut streets as well as at major driveways. An additional option for the 3‐lane corridor alternative includes designated on‐street bicycle lanes instead of the medians (both the medians and bike lanes do not fit within the available corridor width). All of the “3 lane” options include two travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction. The determination for which direction has the two lanes versus the one lane was made based on traffic analysis as well as the need to maximize on‐street parking opportunities along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for more functional on‐street parking because there is enough width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The 3 lane options also allow for opportunities to improve the transit stops along Jefferson. The project team recommends that future consideration be given to the installation of off‐street bicycle facilities as opportunities are created through adjacent infill/redevelopment projects and other potential projects. 4‐Lane Alternatives The project team developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction on Jefferson Street between North College and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes, there is limited space remaining for other project elements such as on‐street parking/buffer areas, medians, and/or streetscape improvements. Combination 3 and 4‐Lane Alternatives The team has also provided a combination “3 & 4 lane” option that includes 3 lanes between North College Avenue and Linden Street and then shows the “4 lane” option between Linden Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. No Action Alternative The No Action alternative features four travel lanes. This alternative does not include a median and left turns are maintained at Linden Street. This alternative maintains the existing two lanes northbound and two lanes southbound from Mountain/Lincoln Avenue to Linden Street. Narrow parking lanes are provided on the southwest or Old Town side as well as the northeast side. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 33 The matrix below describes some of the differences among the alternatives considered for Jefferson Street. All of the alternatives were evaluated using triple bottom line in evaluating the alternatives including: social, economic, and environmental factors. Corridor Air Quality Benefits Air quality benefits derived from improvements to Jefferson Street take into account the emissions reduced as a result of increased pedestrians, bike use, and transit ridership. Short term analysis is based on existing conditions (2011) and the long term is based on 2035 projections. These air quality benefits are most likely to occur with 3‐lane alternatives which provide greater opportunities for urban design and creating an environment where the use of active modes increases and shifts from automobiles. The team utilized the methodology based on the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for calculating Carbon Monoxide (CO) savings based on reduction in vehicle miles. Conservative assumptions of a shift of 6% to bicycle/pedestrian trips (this methodology combines bicycle and pedestrian trips) and 1.2% shift to transit. These bicycle/pedestrian trip assumptions are less than half of the current mode split for Fort Collins based on the North Front Range MPO Household Survey (2010). Based on this conservative methodology, an estimated 9,200 kilograms (or 10 tons) of CO will be saved in the near term per year and over 12,000 kilograms (or 13 tons) in the long term per year from the recommended Jefferson Street improvements. Exhibit 17 below shows the assumptions. Near Term Long Term Projected Local Average Daily Traffic* 18,600 24,455 Percent Bicycle/Pedestrian Shifted 6% 6% Estimated Bicycle/Pedestrian Trips / Day 1,116 1,467 Percent Transit Trips Shifted 1.2% 1.2% Estimated Transit Trips / Day 223 293 Bicycle/Pedestrian Vehicle Miles Saved / Year** 379,663 499,175 Transit Vehicle Miles Saved / Year*** 282,469 371,387 Total Vehicle Miles Saved / Year 662,133 870,562 CO Kilograms Saved / Year 9,210 12,109 CO Tons Saved / Year 10.15 13.35 *This includes daily traffic volumes from Jefferson Street, Linden and Lincoln Avenue ** Assumes 90% are new trips, 252 travel days and an average trip length of 1.5 miles *** Assumes 90% are new trips, 252 travel days and an average trip length of 5.58 miles Exhibit 17: Annual Emissions Reduction Comparison Including Bike, Pedestrian and Transit Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 34 June 2012 Exhibit 18: Corridor Alternative Comparison Matrix Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 35 Off‐street Parking Opportunities The width on Jefferson Street available for improvements is limited, only 58 feet. Many different roadway components are competing for this space including standard lane widths, medians, bikes and parking. In order to maximize the available parking in the area, two off‐street locations are being looked at for expansion opportunities. The first includes the City‐owned parking lot at Jefferson Street and North College Avenue as seen below in Exhibit 18. In addition, the City will continue to explore ideas for additional parking expansion with the UPRR for the lot located northeast of the Jefferson/Linden Street intersection. Exhibit 19: Off‐street Parking Opportunities Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 36 June 2012 Intersection Alternatives The project team developed two alternatives for both the Jefferson Street/Linden Street intersection and for the Jefferson Street/Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection. Linden Street Jefferson/Linden intersection options include keeping the existing designated left turn lanes for vehicles to turn left off of Jefferson Street to Linden Street as well as an option that would remove the left turn lanes to create more opportunities for on‐street parking and provide raised medians to serve as pedestrian refuge islands at the intersection. Mountain/Lincoln Avenue Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include improvements to the existing signalized intersection as well as a new roundabout intersection alternative. Exhibit 20 below highlights the differences between these two intersection alternatives. Signalized Intersection Roundabout Construction Cost Estimate $2.7 million $4.3‐5.3 million Operating Cost Estimate $3,600 per year for signal Depends on additional railroad equipment PUC Application May require application if signals are moved Will require application Overall LOS LOS B (16‐17 seconds of delay) LOS B (13‐23 seconds of delay) Air quality savings n/a (same as existing conditions) 495 kg per year short term reduction and 809 kg per year long term reduction Right‐of‐way May require approximately 2,000 sqft May require approximately 6,000 sqft Exhibit 20: Intersection Alternative Comparison Matrix An evaluation of the two potential intersection treatments has been conducted including cost, safety, level of service, air quality, property impacts, bicycle and pedestrian operations, truck operations, rail road operations and public input. Exhibits 21 and 22 show the Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 37 Exhibit 21: Signalized Intersection Alternative Exhibit 22: Roundabout Alternative (allows for northbound left turns for emergency vehicles at Peterson/Mountain) Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 38 June 2012 Cost Cost range for roundabout alternative depends upon amount of right‐of‐way required for improvements and the higher cost is if the project would need to buy the entire property on the NiceCar site.  Signalized Alternative: $2.7 million  Roundabout Alternative: $4.3 million ‐ $5.3 million Safety Over the past four years there have been eight reported crashes at the Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection, one of which was an injury crash, resulting in an average of two crashes per year and 0.25 injury crashes per year. This is a very low existing crash rate for an urban intersection. The City Traffic Operations department conducted an analysis of the expected crash frequency with a roundabout. The analysis took into account the intersection volumes and crash history and applies a crash modification factor (CMF) for the conversion from a signal to a roundabout. The CMF is based on national data. The results show that we could expect 1.96 crashes per year and 0.25 injury crashes per year with a roundabout installed. This analysis shows there would be no net change in crash frequency or crash severity at that intersection with the installation of a roundabout. This is primarily due to the fact that the intersection already has a very good safety record. Roundabouts include features that are used in some cases to improve intersection safety at locations that have safety issues (which is not the case at this intersection). National data has shown that roundabouts reduce crash severity due to the accident type and speeds involved, which because of the function and design of roundabouts are lower speed, side swipe type accidents. Also, roundabouts have fewer conflict points (points where cars, pedestrians or bicyclists paths cross). Although roundabouts have features that can improve the safety of an intersection, the intersection at Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue has a very low current accident rate and is expected to be continue to be safe whether it is configured as a signalized intersection or a roundabout. Level of Service Traffic analysis conducted for the Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection, for both a signalized and a roundabout configuration resulted in a projected level of service (LOS) of B for both intersection options. The roundabout configuration does show an overall lower delay, ranging from 13 to 23 seconds versus 16 to 17 seconds. This lower delay is realized on the east/west legs of the intersection (on Mountain and Lincoln). The northbound and southbound delays are higher with the roundabout configuration. Air Quality As noted above the roundabout configuration is expected to have lower overall delay. This savings in delay results in an air quality improvement due to less idling traffic and less delay. Air quality calculations that take into account this reduction in delay show that a roundabout would achieve both short term and long term air quality benefits in the reduction of carbon emissions, as follows:  Short term air quality benefits = 496 Kilograms/year  Long term air quality benefits = 809 Kilograms/year Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 39 The air quality benefits increase over the long term as traffic volumes increase. Property Impacts The current estimates for property impacts assume the need for additional right of way for each intersection option. The current designs also assume that all of the businesses will be able to continue to operate after construction, even with the needed right‐of‐way. The estimated right‐of way needs for each option include:  Signalized = Approximately 1,900 square feet (0.04 acres)  Roundabout = Approximately 7,600 square feet (0.175 acres) For the signalized configuration, the right‐of‐way needs are due to the planned landscape medians and landscaping areas at the corners and sidewalks. The additional right‐of‐way for the roundabout is needed to accommodate the larger footprint of the roundabout layout. The roundabout would require more property from each of the four intersection corners than the signalized intersection alternative. The impact on businesses is most significant for the Nice Car repair shop. The current design allows the gas station to remain and operate much like it currently operates. The Nice Car repair shop will see the most significant impact to its operations, in terms of site circulation, parking, and access to the site from Lincoln and/or Riverside. The level of impact to the Nice Car repair shop will be fully determined with the refinement of the roundabout design and more detailed engineering, and if the impact is significant enough may require the need to purchase the entire Nice Car property. The Diamond Vogel Paint Store currently has a driveway access from both Jefferson Street and Lincoln Avenue. It is important that with either the roundabout or signalized intersection alternatives, the driveways on Jefferson and Lincoln are needed for large truck deliveries, which allows for them to pull through their parking lot and not have to back from or out onto Jefferson Street. Bicycle and Pedestrian Operations Bicyclist and pedestrians are an important consideration in the design treatment of this intersection with the growth in bicycle and pedestrian traffic moving east/west along Mountain and Lincoln in recent years. The signalized configuration would allow for typical bicycle and pedestrian movements. Bicyclists would cross the signalized intersection either with traffic in the far right part of the travel lane (going from bike lane to bike lane) or, if they desire, travel to the sidewalk and cross at the crosswalk. Pedestrians would utilize the crosswalks and cross when the pedestrian signals indicate with the signalized option as seen in Exhibit 23. Bicycle operations under the roundabout option would allow the bicyclist to either travel through the roundabout with traffic; yielding and moving through and merging as a vehicle or to travel to the crosswalk and cross as a pedestrian. With the roundabout option, pedestrians cross at designated crosswalks, crossing one travel direction at a time utilizing the medians as a pedestrian refuge. Pedestrians must wait for a gap in traffic or for traffic to stop to allow them to cross as seen in Exhibit 24. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 40 June 2012 Exhibit 23: Signalized Bike and Pedestrian Movements Exhibit 24: Roundabout Bike and Pedestrian Movements Truck Operations Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 41 Both intersection options are designed to accommodate the expected truck traffic and maximum truck size expected along this corridor, as well as trucks turning on and off Lincoln. Jefferson Street is also State Highway 14, which is a designated truck route connecting through Fort Collins north to Wyoming and beyond. The legal dimensions and maximum weight limit is defined by CDOT as follows: “COLORADO’S LEGAL HEIGHT IS 13’ EXCEPT WHERE DESIGNATED 14'6" BY CDOT; MAXIMUM WIDTH IS 8’6” AND 80,000 POUNDS COMBINED GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT ON INTERSTATE AND 85,000 POUNDS ON NON‐INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. THERE IS NO OVERALL LENGTH REQUIREMENT FOR TRUCK TRACTOR SEMITRAILER COMBINATIONS AS LONG AS THE TRAILER DOES NOT EXCEED 57’4”. A COMBINATION OF VEHICLES COUPLED TOGETHER CANNOT EXCEED FOUR UNITS AND IS LIMITED TO 70 FEET IN LENGTH.” Additionally, oversized loads are allowed on this corridor (with an escort) but cannot exceed 17 feet in width. The local trucking interest has expressed concern with the roundabout option at this location. Their primary concern is safety, with truck overtracking through the roundabout. The roundabout is designed to accommodate large trucks with the understanding that in a multi‐lane roundabout (which this is designed as) trucks will overtrack and use both lanes. This is the national and state standard design for trucks in a multi‐lane roundabout. Signs warning car drivers to not pass trucks in the roundabout are installed at the approaches. Truck turning movements are shown on Exhibits 25 and 26. Exhibit 25: Signalized Truck Movements Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 42 June 2012 Exhibit 26: Roundabout Truck Movements Railroad Operations The Jefferson Street and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection is adjacent to a UPRR crossing. The UP rail line parallels the Jefferson Street corridor and crosses the Lincoln Avenue leg of the intersection approximately 110 feet from Jefferson Street. Improvements to the signalized intersection are not expected to change the current operations of the railroad crossing. The crossing currently functions with two railroad crossing arms that blocks east/west traffic along Mountain/Lincoln Avenue when a train is present and is coordinated with the signal operations at the intersection. Widening Lincoln Avenue to accommodate raised landscape median will result in the need to coordinate with UP and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The roundabout configuration will require some changes to the railroad crossing and approval by the UP and PUC. The roundabout is likely to be closer to the crossing, which may necessitate the need for more crossing arms. The main concern with the roundabout option is the ability to clear traffic off the tracks going westbound on Lincoln Avenue when a train is approaching. One proposed solution would be an additional railroad crossing arm that would activate when a train is approaching to temporarily stop northbound movements and allow the west bound traffic to clear (the typical number of cars waiting at that location is estimated to be one or two cars). Once the queue of traffic clears, the gate arm would raise and the westbound/southbound movement would resume. This gate arm would not be operated by the UP railroad but would be operated and maintained by the City. This would be a new type of traffic control device for the City, and the cost and level of effort to maintain and operate are unknown at this time. Other potential solutions can also be pursued if needed through coordination with the City, UP and the PUC based Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 43 on national examples. The PUC will make the final determination of the railroad related improvements that must be made to accommodate the roundabout and all costs will be borne by the project. Public Involvement Development of the intersection alternatives has included an extensive public involvement process. This included information on the City’s website, project “e‐newsletter”, public open house events, meetings with individual property and business owners, meetings with the local trucking interest, presentations to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), the Transportation Board, the Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, the Economic Advisory Commission and the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce. Opinions on the intersection options have been varied. Some business owners and residents along Jefferson Street have been supportive of the roundabout option. They typically like the traffic calming, urban design, and gateway features offered by the roundabout option. Those opposed to the roundabout and in favor of the traditional signalized intersection are concerned with the operations, in particular there has been consistent concern raised over how the roundabout would operate for trucks, trains, bicyclists and pedestrians.  Diamond Vogel Paint, which is located on the northeast corner of the intersection, is concerned with the potential loss of its driveway access to Lincoln, which it needs for deliveries to the store. If this driveway is closed, Diamond Vogel Paint does not support the roundabout alternative.  Robert Lyle, owner of the Nice Car shop, stated that he felt the roundabout will have a significant negative impact to his business, particularly if he one or both of his driveway accesses are moved or closed. Additionally, he is concerned with the loss of property that he currently uses to circulate and park cars. He has also stated that he would be willing to discuss relocating his business with the City and/or Downtown Development Authority.  The local trucking interest has consistently been concerned with the roundabout option. Their two main concerns are safety (overtracking through the roundabout) and the amount of truck traffic on the State Highway.  The DDA Board voted to support the roundabout intersection alternative after concluding that it provides a marginally stronger benefit to the overall corridor than the traditional intersection for the following reasons: • Greater ease of accessibility to more businesses and properties along the corridor. Less overall circulation required by vehicles when accessing drive entrances along the corridor that are restricted by the proposed center median. • Infill redevelopment sites on Lincoln Avenue (northeast of study area) potentially impacted less by future right‐of‐way dedication when tying‐in with intersection improvements at Jefferson/Mountain/Riverside. • Level of Service performance slightly higher • Air quality benefits are higher • Safety improvement: crash severity lessened • Urban design enhancement on corridor greater from more prominent impact as gateway feature Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 44 June 2012 • Anticipated to function at acceptable level of service longer than traditional intersection if traffic volumes increase in the future  The Transportation Board while supportive of roundabouts in general was not supportive of a roundabout at this location and approved a motion supporting the signalized alternative.  The Bicycle Advisory Committee had a number of questions on the corridor alternatives and operations of the proposed roundabout in particular for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Committee did not take a formal position supporting one alternative; however, the discussion was favorable for the roundabout alternative and the 3‐lane corridor option.  The Planning and Zoning Board voted to support the signalized intersection alternative.  The Economic Advisory Commission, after discussing return of investment, gateway considerations, traffic flow, and traffic calming, supported the roundabout as first choice for the intersection at Mountain/Lincoln and Jefferson and the 3‐lane corridor option. Additional EAC electronic discussion included the request to consider a 2‐lane corridor option so that both the on‐street bikelanes and raised landscaped median could be included along the corridor.  CDOT is neutral on the roundabout intersection option and the “3 lane” corridor alternative. CDOT has requested an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City because Jefferson Street is State Highway 14, and is part of a CDOT designated regional Truck Route. CDOT is supportive of the 3 lane alternative. This is supported by a formal approval by a Chief Engineer dated July 25, 2011. CDOT identified a number of risks associated with the roundabout. CDOT continues to be neutral on this alternative to the intersection with a condition that the City assumes all the risks associated with it as outline in the draft Intergovernmental (IGA) submitted to the City.  The Larimer County Commissioners are supportive of the 3 lane corridor alternative given the City’s commitment to monitor its performance and work collaboratively with the City, CDOT, and Larimer County to address any future issues that may arise over time. Larimer County Commissioners are not supportive of the roundabout option due to concerns it would divert state highway truck traffic to other regional roadways. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 45 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Based on the technical analysis, as well as community outreach efforts, the project team is recommending the “3 lane” corridor option with a raised, landscaped median, pedestrian streetscape enhancements, and on‐street parking along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street which will offer the most benefits, related to the project’s diverse goals. Even though this option does not include designated on‐street bicycle lanes, cyclists can still ride the corridor by taking the lane or traveling through the area on one of the existing, less busy parallel streets such as Walnut or Willow streets which do have designated bikeways, or the recently renovated alleys. As this area changes and corridor improvements are made, recommendations for future off‐street bicycle facilities that could be installed as part of infill/redevelopment activities within the River District should be evaluated and implemented as appropriate. As previously described, the “3 lane” options include two auto travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction from College Avenue to Chestnut Street. From Chestnut Street through the Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln intersection, the corridor expands slightly to include the turn lanes at the intersection, allowing two southbound auto travel lanes in the southeast bound direction. The recommended corridor alternative includes streetscape, urban design, and gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for more functional on‐street parking along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson because there is width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The recommended corridor alternative also allows for opportunities to improve the transit stops along Jefferson. This corridor alternative is agreeable to the City, CDOT, DDA, CMCA, and Larimer County as well as strong support from the community. Regarding the Jefferson/Linden intersection alternatives, the team’s preference is to keep the designated left turn lanes open for drivers to turn off of Jefferson on to Linden Street. These turning movements are important to support the local businesses along Linden Street and assist with downtown circulation patterns. Additional efforts to enhance the quality of the pedestrian crossings and the adjacent transit stops are recommended for this intersection area. For the Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln intersection alternatives, both options offer advantages and disadvantages to achieving the project goals. This intersection provides an opportunity for multimodal transportation improvements as well as urban design and gateway features to welcome people traveling by all of modes of transportation into the Downtown, River District, and Lincoln Avenue areas. Community and partner agency feedback on these two alternatives is very important, particularly given the general interests and concerns about roundabouts as well as the specific challenges for this location given the proximity to the UPRR and the role that Jefferson Street serves as a state highway and designated truck route. To be responsive to this public input, City staff recommends improvements to the existing signalized intersection which will include amenities to address pedestrian‐scale improvements, urban design, and Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 46 June 2012 entry way features in support of the quality Downtown experience we are seeking to achieve with this project in accordance with the community’s expectations. The final design/engineering phase will include developing detailed design plans for the corridor and signalized intersections in accordance with City and CDOT design standards to address the safety needs for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles as well as the urban design and downtown gateway features necessary to achieve the project goals. Of particular concern are the recommended raised, landscaped medians. The intent of the project is to provide medians of sufficient width along the length of the corridor which will offer opportunities for high quality landscaping, including street trees, as well as wider pedestrian refuge areas at signalized crossings. The medians will also facilitate “U‐turns” at the signalized intersections. It is important for the detailed median design to be refined during the engineering phase of the project to address safety for all modes of transportation, including addressing the off‐set left turn movements at the intersection of Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln. The final design/engineering phase of the Jefferson Street project will include developing detailed plans for the corridor and intersection improvements to address the safety needs for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists as well as the streetscape, urban design, and gateway features to achieve the project goals. These detailed engineering plans will be developed, reviewed, and approved by the City and CDOT as part of the next phase of the project. Exhibit 27: Simulation of Signalized Intersection at Jefferson Street/Mountain/Lincoln Avenue Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 47 Transforming this corridor from the existing four lane highway configuration to a more urban, pedestrian‐ oriented, context sensitive design solution will be a major enhancement for our Downtown environment and supports the City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Downtown River District Plan goals for the heart of our community. In addition, in response to City Council suggestions, staff has researched potential opportunities to address noise concerns along the corridor. One consideration is to explore the use of rubberized asphalt for the roadway paving along the corridor. This technique is used by other agencies to help reduce roadway noise. The specifics regarding this type of paving material will need further exploration during the final design/engineering phase of the Jefferson Street project. Other project elements to aid in noise reduction could include features to promote traffic calming, reduce speeding, and minimize vehicles accelerating and decelerating at the intersections and throughout the corridor. Study recommendations also include enhancements for all of the pedestrian crossings along Jefferson Street such as at Linden Street and at the planned informal pedestrian crossing at Pine Street. In addition, enhancements are recommended for both of the existing transit stops located near Jefferson and Linden streets to improve the passenger waiting experience, bus operations, and visibility of the transit stops. Consideration will also be provided for future Downtown circulator bus service as recommended by the City’s Transfort Strategic Operating Plan as well as by input from the UniverCity Connections Transit & Mobility committee. In addition, the project recommends pursuing the off‐street parking expansion opportunities for the City‐ owned Jefferson Street parking lot as well as potential expansion of the off‐street parking area at Jefferson and Linden Street. The configuration of these additional spaces needs to be determined in the next phase of the project and implemented as future funding is available. Cost of Recommended Alternative: The following is a summary of the overall project costs for the Jefferson Street improvements, including the costs for the “3 lane” corridor alternative and improvements to the existing signalized intersections: Corridor Improvements: Jefferson Street, from College to Linden: $2.2 million Jefferson Street, from Linden to Mountain/Lincoln: $2.3 million Total cost of corridor improvements: $4.5 million Intersection Improvements: $2.7 million Total cost for project: $7.2 million Remaining project funding available: $1.3 million Total unfunded portion: $5.9 million Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 48 June 2012 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS June 2012 Design of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward based upon City Council approval of the preferred corridor and intersection alternatives as outlined in this Study. The City Council approval of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study is also recommended to include approval of the necessary updates to the City’s Transportation Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan and the US287/SH14 Access Management Plan which is managed jointly by the City, CDOT, and Larimer County to reflect the 3‐lane corridor and signalized intersection recommendations of the Study. In addition, CDOT has requested that the City enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with their agency to ensure that the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements are monitored over time and any traffic operations and/or safety issues will be addressed by the local, regional, and state agencies as needed. Mid 2012 – 2014 The next step in mid‐2012 is to move forward into the preliminary engineering, final design and right‐of‐ way acquisition phase of the project. This work will include both the transportation and utility improvements planned for this corridor. The goal is for this phase of the project to be completed by the end of 2014, keeping in mind schedule impacts associated with working with the UP Railroad and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Funding for this phase of the project will include the remaining local and federal transportation project funding in the existing Jefferson Street project budget as well as funding from the City’s Utilities Department for the underground water and stormwater elements. 2015+ The specific schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and agreed upon implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding. City staff will continue to explore potential funding opportunities to advance the construction of the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements. Potential local opportunities include capital project funding from sources such as the next‐generation of “Building on Basics” types of ballot measures (post 2015), existing or future Downtown General Improvement District (GID) funds, and/or additional funding from the Downtown Development Authority or other sources. Staff will continue to seek State and Federal grant funding opportunities as well to leverage local dollars. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project June 2012 Page 49 The project team has identified several options for phasing the implementation Jefferson Street Study recommended corridor and intersection improvements:  “Block‐by‐block” phasing which would include separating the corridor improvements into smaller 1‐2 block(s) project segments working southeast from North College to Mountain Avenue. For example, these smaller block projects could include the segment from North College to Linden and then a subsequent project for the blocks from Linden to Mountain.  Completing all of the corridor improvements in one combined project from North College to Mountain Avenue  Completing the Jefferson and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection improvements separately from the corridor improvements  Construction of all of the corridor and intersection improvements in one comprehensive package of improvements. One of the critical elements of evaluating the various phasing options for implementing the Jefferson Street improvements is ensuring that the transportation related improvements (corridor and intersection) can be engineered and built in collaboration with several major underground water and stormwater utility projects planned by the City’s Utilities department. While the concept of breaking the project implementation into smaller, less expensive, pieces was attractive on the surface, the Jefferson Street Study project team recommends that the full corridor and intersection improvements be complete at one time along the entire length of the project area (from North College through the Mountain/Lincoln Avenue intersection) based on the importance of cooperatively engineering and constructing the transportation and major underground utility improvements planned for this corridor. In addition, given the magnitude of scope and scale of impact for a major construction project of this nature – the combined transportation and utility improvements – it will be less impactful to the travelling public and the local business/property owners to endure one larger project rather than multiple smaller projects. Staff will continue to work together across City departments and with our local, regional, and state agency partners to refine and optimize the phasing and implementation strategies as the project moves forward over time. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 50 June 2012 SUMMARY In summary, the Jefferson Street Study has outlined recommendations for future corridor and intersection improvement projects developed through a comprehensive technical planning process conducted in conjunction with an extensive community engagement process. The Jefferson Street improvements are envisioned as a long‐term community investment and it may be 5‐ 10 years before all of the elements are completed based upon the funding needed for implementation and the coordination efforts between the transportation and utilities infrastructure projects. The ultimate goal is to transform Jefferson Street into high quality, welcoming corridor and integrated within the overall Downtown context in support of the community’s land use, transportation, economic, and environmental vision. The City is committed to continuing to monitor the performance of the planned Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements over time to ensure top quality, multimodal transportation service to local and regional travelers using the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor. Should any concerns arise over time based on changing travel and land use patterns, the City agrees to work collaboratively with our local community, DDA, Larimer County, North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization, and CDOT to address any future needs for this important corridor. Additionally the final design for the corridor and at the intersection will be developed and reviewed by the City and CDOT for concurrence. The public engagement process is envisioned to continue throughout the timeline needed to complete the Jefferson Street improvements as well as to monitor the performance over time. The Jefferson Street project team is appreciative of the involvement from all of our local, regional, and state partners and for the invaluable input we received from the Fort Collins community throughout the Alternatives Analysis process. The combined impact of the multi‐agency and community engagement efforts has led to an exciting vision for Jefferson Street to serve people and all modes of travel for today, tomorrow, and future generations to come. For more information on the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study and recommendations, please visit: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 1 APPENDIX A Previous Planning Documents Planning Document Organization Considered for Goals, objs, etc? Justification for Goals/Objectives Consideration Plan data used in Existing Conditions? Justification for Existing Condition Consideration All FC Urban Renew Authority plans FC No Not in study area No Not in study area CDOT agency vision, mission, value statements CDOT Yes Goals represent stakeholder values No Not applicable 2008 Bicycle Plan FC Yes New goal Yes Shows existing condition for bike issues 2008 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis – June 24, 2009 FC No Reconfirms City Plan goals. No additional goals. Yes Documents progress/gaps in achieving some City Plan goals Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report – 2001 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area City Plan – May 4, 2004 (Update February 2011) FC Yes The vision, goals, etc are fundamental to all planning efforts Yes Documents existing conditions (as of 2004) City Plan Monitoring Project 1997-2007 Indicator Report – February 2009 FC No No goals Yes Information is relevant to establishing baseline facts/trends Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishment – 1995 FC No Goal/plan addresses a structures response to roads, not the reverse No Guidelines for future projects, not an existing conditions doc Development Design Standards for the I-25 Corridor – May 2001 FC No Outside of project area No Outside of project area Downtown and CSU Project Inventory – April 27, 2007 FC No No goals No 2007 snapshot, out-of-date Downtown Development Plan – 1981 DDA Yes Objectives and purposes for downtown area No 1981 condition facts and findings are out-of-date Downtown Plan – June 1989 FC Yes Vision expressed for downtown Yes Adopted vision for downtown. Past/future conditions expressed Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report – 2000 FC No Plan reaffirms 1997 City Plan; no additional goals expressed Yes Valuable condition information is documented Downtown River District Streetscape Improvement Project – August 1, 2008 FC Yes Goal specifically refers to the project study area Yes Shows an existing and desired future condition East Mulberry Corridor Plan – September 2002 FC No Outside of project area No Outside of project area East Side Neighborhood Plan – March 1, 1986 FC Yes Expresses goals for project adjoining neighborhood Yes Discusses past/future conditions in project adjoining neighborhood Fort Collins Design Manual – May 2000 FC No Reaffirms City Plan vision, mission, goals, etc. Yes Comments on current conditions and desired conditions Fort Collins Downtown Alleys Master Plan DDA Yes Goals specifically refer to the project study area Yes Data/analyses show existing conditions Fort Collins Downtown Strategic Plan – February 17, 2004, Amended 06 FC No No specific goals, was a precursor to City Plan update Yes Establishes baseline (2004/2006) and recommendations Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan – March 17, 1998 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Harmony Corridor Plan – February 7, 2006 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Harmony Corridor Standards and Guidelines – February 7, 2006 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area I-25 Subarea Plan – August 19, 2003 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area I-25/SH392 Interchange Improvement Plan – April 2, 2008 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Intergovernmental Agreements – 1980-2000 FC No Not applicable No Not applicable Master Street Plan FC No Illustrates City Plan goals, objectives, etc.. Yes Shows existing vision for street network Mountain Vista Subarea Plan – September 15, 2009 FC Yes Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 2 May 2012 Planning Document Organization Considered for Goals, objs, etc? Justification for Goals/Objectives Consideration Plan data used in Existing Conditions? Justification for Existing Condition Consideration Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan – May 2001 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Northern Colorado Separator Study – 1999 FC No Not scale appropriate No Not scale appropriate Northside Neighborhoods Plan – January 18, 2005 FC Yes Plan offers goals specific to a location that adjoins Jefferson St study area Yes Identifies existing issues and problems Northwest Subarea Plan – December 19, 2006 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Redevelopment Policies, Strategies and Future Directions – 2004 FC No Reaffirms City Plan vision Yes Documents market opportunities Refill Fort Collins – 2006 FC No Restates City Plan goals. No additional goals. Yes Identifies redevelopment opportunities in study area Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland (A Plan for the) – April 1995 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Regional Growth Opportunities: Select Industry Clusters in Fort Collins – 2006 FC No Not scale appropriate No Not scale appropriate Results of the Visual Preference Survey (City Plan) – October 26, 1995 FC No Not in study area Yes Documents community preferences South College Corridor Plan – March 2009 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines – January 2, 2001 FC No Is a guideline document, does not have goals Yes Establishes framework for identifying non-standard streets Transfort Strategic Operating Plan FC Yes New goals Yes Shows existing conditions (2009) Transportation Master Plan – 2004 (Update February 2011) FC Yes Changes/builds upon City Plan goals Yes Recent Trends section establishes existing conditions Trends 2006 – March 2006 FC No Is a data document, does not have goals Yes Contains relevant data US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report – April 4, 2000 FC/CDOT Yes Contains access objectives Yes Specific plans identified for SH 14 West Central Neighborhoods Plan – March 16, 1999 FC Yes Establishes unique goals and objectives for overlapping study area Yes Documents current condition for the neighborhoods West Side Neighborhood Plan – July 18, 1989 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area FC = City of Fort Collins DDA = Downtown Development Authority Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 1 APPENDIX B Street Characteristics and Utility Information Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 1 APPENDIX C: Alternatives Evaluated Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis TWO-LANE ALTERNATIVES Alternative OPTION A OPTION B OPTION B-2 OPTION B-3 OPTION C TYPICAL SECTION Downtown River District Streetscape Plan Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 NEW NEW NEW Screening Results Forward to next level Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination* Forward to next level Forward to next level Travel Lanes Number of travel lanes 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound On-Street Parking Availability of on-street parking Parallel – both sides None Angled – center Parallel – both sides Parallel – both sides Bicycle Facilities Availability of formal bike lanes None Shoulder or bike lane – both sides Shoulder or bike lane – both sides Shoulder or bike lane – both sides None Median (Raised or Striped) Type if median (if any) Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Raised (0-18’) Striped (parking) Raised (0-2’) Raised Minimize Conflicts Where might safety conflicts exist? Travel lane – parking conflict, center turn lane available for avoidance maneuvers Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Travel lane – bike lane conflict Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Travel lane – parking and bike lane conflict Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Travel lane – bike lane conflict Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Travel lane – parking conflict Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Air Quality Where might air quality improvements exist? Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Access control with median Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Access control with median Reduced lanes from existing Access control with median Landscaping/Aesthetics Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 2’ excess width Landscaped median Landscaped median Landscaped median Landscaped median, up to 8’ excess width Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA) Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 2 lanes, median refuge Pedestrians cross 2 lanes Pedestrians cross 2 lanes, median refuge Pedestrians cross 2 lanes, median refuge Transit How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face) Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 56’ min 40’ min 56’ min 58’ min 50’ min to 58’ max Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 2 May 2012 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis TWO-LANE ALTERNATIVES COUPLET Alternative OPTION D OPTION D-2 OPTION E OPTION F TYPICAL SECTION Bike lane for opposite direction is outside the Jefferson Street corridor Bike lane for opposite direction is outside the Jefferson Street corridor Downtown River District Streetscape Plan Alternative NEW NEW NEW NEW Screening Results Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination* Recommended for elimination* Travel Lanes Number of travel lanes 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound Conversion to one-way couplet; need an adjacent road for alternate direction On-Street Parking Availability of on-street parking 8’ Parallel – east side 18’ Angled – west side 18’ Angled – west side 18’ Angled – west side Bicycle Facilities Availability of formal bike lanes Shoulder or bike lane – west side (one direction only) Shoulder or bike lane – both sides Shoulder or bike lane – west side (one direction only) Median (Raised or Striped) Type if median (if any) None None None Minimize Conflicts Where might safety conflicts exist? Travel lane – parking conflict on east side Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west side Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Travel lane – bike lane conflict Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west side Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Air Quality Where might air quality improvements exist? Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Some traffic moved to adjacent road Landscaping/Aesthetics Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 6’ excess width Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA) Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 2 lanes Pedestrians cross 2 lanes Pedestrians cross 2 lanes Transit How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face) Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 58’ min 55’ min to 58’ max 52’ min Varies Trucks Impediments to truck operations Possible impediments – 1 lane with adjacent parking No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments Implementability Significant hurdles to implementation Matches existing width Similar to existing width 6’ narrowing Significant difficulties to implement Notes: 1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits. 2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes. Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 3 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis THREE-LANE ALTERNATIVE Alternative OPTION G OPTION G-2 OPTION H OPTION H-2 OPTION I TYPICAL SECTION Bike lane for opposite direction is outside the Jefferson Street corridor Downtown River District Streetscape Plan Alternative Alternative 3 NEW NEW NEW NEW Screening Results Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Travel Lanes Number of travel lanes 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 1 southbound On-Street Parking Availability of on-street parking Parallel – both sides None Parallel – west side None Parallel – west side Bicycle Facilities Availability of formal bike lanes None Shoulder or bike lane – both sides None Shoulder or bike lane – west side Shoulder or bike lane – west side (one direction only) Median (Raised or Striped) Type if median (if any) None None Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Raised (would require additional width) Minimize Conflicts Where might safety conflicts exist? Travel lane – parking conflict on west side Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west side Travel lane – parking conflict on west side, center turn lane available for avoidance maneuvers Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west side, center turn lane available for avoidance maneuvers Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west side Air Quality Where might air quality improvements exist? Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Access control with median Landscaping/Aesthetics Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 2’ excess width Up to 2’ excess width Landscaped median Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA) Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 3 lanes, median refuge Transit How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face) Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 56’ min to 61’ max 50’ min to 55’ max 58’ min 52’ min 58’ min Trucks Impediments to truck operations Possible impediments – 1 lane with adjacent parking No new significant impediments Possible impediments – 1 lane with adjacent parking (center turn lane refuge) No new significant impediments No new significant impediments Implementability Significant hurdles to implementation Similar to existing width Similar to existing width Matches existing width Similar to existing width Matches existing width/raised median Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 4 May 2012 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis THREE-LANE ALTERNATIVE Alternative OPTION I-2 OPTION J OPTION J-2 OPTION K OPTION L TYPICAL SECTION Downtown River District Streetscape Plan Alternative NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW Screening Results Forward to next level Forward to next level Recommended for elimination* Forward to next level Forward to next level Travel Lanes Number of travel lanes 2 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 2 southbound On-Street Parking Availability of on-street parking Parallel – west side Parallel – both sides (Similar to Option G) Parallel – west side Parallel – west side Parallel – west side Bicycle Facilities Availability of formal bike lanes None None Shoulder or bike lane – west side None None Median (Raised or Striped) Type if median (if any) Raised (would require additional width) None None Striped (Two-way left-turn lane) Raised Minimize Conflicts Where might safety conflicts exist? Travel lane – bike lane conflict on west side Travel lane – parking conflict on east side Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Travel lane – parking conflict on east side Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Creates NB traffic merge from 2 lanes to 1 lane Air Quality Where might air quality improvements exist? Reduced lanes from existing Access control with median Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Reduced lanes from existing Access control with median Landscaping/Aesthetics Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Landscaped median Up to 2’ excess width Up to 2’ excess width Landscaped median, up to 6’ excess width Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA) Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 3 lanes, median refuge Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 3 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 3 lanes, median refuge Transit How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face) Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 53’ min 56’ min to 61’ max 53’ min to 58’ max 58’ min 52’ min to 58’ max Trucks Impediments to truck operations No new significant impediments Possible impediments – 1 lane with adjacent parking Possible impediments – 1 lane with adjacent parking Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 5 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis FOUR-LANE ALTERNATIVE EXISTING/NO-ACTION Alternative OPTION M OPTION N OPTION O-1 OPTION O-2 OPTION O-3 OPTION P TYPICAL SECTION Downtown River District Streetscape Plan Alternative Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 NEW NEW Screening Results Recommended for elimination** Recommended for elimination** Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Forward to next level Travel Lanes Number of travel lanes 2 northbound, 2 southbound 2 northbound, 2 southbound 2 northbound, 2 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 1 northbound, 1 southbound 2 northbound, 2 southbound On-Street Parking Availability of on-street parking None None Parallel or angled – west side Parallel or angled – west side Parallel or angled – west side Parallel – both sides Bicycle Facilities Availability of formal bike lanes None None None Allowed in northbound and southbound transit lanes Allowed in northbound and southbound transit lanes None Median (Raised or Striped) Type if median (if any) None Raised None None None None Minimize Conflicts Where might safety conflicts exist? Air Quality Where might air quality improvements exist? Lanes same as existing Lanes same as existing Access control with median Lanes same as existing Lanes same as existing Lanes same as existing Lanes same as existing Landscaping/Aesthetics Where are aesthetic improvement opportunities? Up to 10’ excess width Up to 4’ excess width Pedestrians (Crossings, experience, safety, ADA) Crossing experience for pedestrians Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Pedestrians cross 4 lanes Transit How would transit situation change? To be determined To be determined To be determined Dedicated northbound and southbound lanes Dedicated northbound and southbound lanes To be determined Total Width (Curb Face to Curb Face) Corridor width (wider than 58’ indicated in red) 48’ min to 58’ max 54’ min 58’ min 58’ min 58’ min 58’ (existing widths are non standard) Trucks Impediments to truck operations No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No change Implementability Significant hurdles to implementation Potential narrowing Similar to existing width/raised median Matches existing width Matches existing width Matches existing width Matches existing width Notes: 1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits. 2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes. 3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane. 4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet * The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue. ** The option was eliminated because there is no parking. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 6 May 2012 Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 7 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 8 May 2012 Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 9 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 10 May 2012 Summary Report Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project May 2012 Page 11 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Summary Report Page 12 May 2012 Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final May 16, 2012 Page | 1 APPENDIX D COST ESTIMATES ASSUMPTION MEMO The purpose of this memo is to document the assumptions and present the cost estimates for the preferred alternatives. For purposes of the estimates the project has been broken down as follows: • Linden Street to College Avenue • 150 feet northwest of Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to Linden Street • Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – Option 1, Roundabout • Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – Option 2, Signalized • City Parking Lot north of Rodizio Grill The project costs have been estimated as separate stand alone projects. The cost estimates were prepared using the following bid summaries for information and unit costs: • Linden Street Streetscape • North College Vine to Conifer Improvements, Federal Aid Project No. AQC M455‐079 • College Avenue and Harmony Road Landscape and Urban Design Improvements • College Avenue and Harmony Road Intersection Improvements, STU M455‐077 The estimates do not include the City utilities work and the additional traffic control costs that are required for that work. The full details for traffic control have not been determined. Assumptions for the Jefferson Street reconstruction only include: • Full closure and detour of State Highway is not proposed. SH 14 is a Truck Route and detouring this traffic would require significant coordination but this can be considered further during the design phase. • Within the overall 59‐foot roadway width, there is sufficient width to reconstruct Jefferson Street one half at a time maintaining a minimum of one lane in each direction. This will likely require elimination of turn lanes and parking for portions of the work. • 4 message boards are assumed Linden Street to College Avenue 1. Concrete pavement extends approximately 250 feet from College Avenue (to the Alley). This pavement will not be reconstructed. 2. Between College Avenue and Pine Street on the Old Town side, the curb and sidewalk is in good (newer condition) and will not be reconstructed. This section will include urban design amenities including lighting, bike racks, benches, etc. There will be a new curb bulb out at the Pine Street intersection. Also, there is a lowpoint in this section with a good street profile that does not require adjustment. 3. Between College Avenue and City Parking Lot on River District side, the right‐of‐way (ROW) is at the back of sidewalk and the sidewalk was constructed as part of the North College Avenue intersection reconstruction. No work is included in this area. Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final May 16, 2012 Page | 2 5. The area in front of the Rodizio Grill presently has planters with large mature trees in this area (set back approximately 7 feet from the existing face of curb). An option was considered to provide inset parking however it was decided to not include any on‐street parking at this location for the following reasons: a. Input from the current business owner was that not impacting the existing planters, landscaping and entry area was desirable. The owner stated that it was preferred to remove the parking allowing for a larger more inviting entry area in front of the business. b. The TAC agreed to not include the parking because it eliminated a conflict point between through travel lanes, parking movements, and pedestrian usage. It was also felt that the existing parking at this location was underutilized at present. c. The pedestrian crossing of Jefferson Street at Pine Street is not prohibited but it will also not be formalized. Designated pedestrian crossings with cross‐walks, and pedestrian crossing signals with push buttons will be provided at the College Avenue and Linden Street intersections. The street median will be designed to allow visibility across Jefferson Street from Old Town at the Pine Street intersection. 6. Between Rodizio Grill and Linden Street on the River District side, reconstruction of the detached sidewalk or curb and gutter are not proposed. The existing grass detached area and trees would remain. The street lighting would be replaced with new to match the corridor. 7. Between Pine Street and Linden Street on the Old Town side, the curb and gutter and sidewalk area (to face of building) would be reconstructed. This area would include heavy urban design elements and aesthetics considerations. Focus would be to extend/continue the improvements for the Downtown Development Authority’s (DDA) alleyway improvements project. The use of green streets elements, in particular stormwater into planting areas (bioretention or rain gardens) is desired and is included in the estimates. 8. At the Linden Street intersection on the River District side, the curb ramps and sidewalk were recently reconstructed as part of the Linden Street Reconstruction and would remain. The estimate does not include any special urban design to the Linden Street/Jefferson Street intersection except the bulb‐outs on the Old Town side. No colored crosswalks, no monuments, no colored signal poles, etc. 9. At the Linden Street intersection on the Old Town side, the curb bulb out construction on the south west corner is included. A transit stop is proposed at this location. The curb ramps and corners would be improved to include urban design components. A bike box is proposed on Linden Street. 10. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street roadway and intersection improvements. 11. For the parking areas, a color contrast between the parking, buffer and travel lane is proposed. It is assumed to use colored asphalt (Asphacolor or other similar) for the buffer space. Within the parking area, options include concrete or possible permeable brick pavers for storm water treatment/Best Management Practices (BMP). The cost estimate includes brick pavers. 12. For the pavement reconstruction, a 10‐inch hot mix asphalt over 12‐inch aggregate base was assumed. Also, it is assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or correction. Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final May 16, 2012 Page | 3 13. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $2.06 million cost (2011). Assuming construction would be in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would be $2.2 million in year 2013. The cost of the pavement reconstruction (excluding curb and gutter, parking areas, buffer space, and medians) is $264,000 of this total. 14. ROW (see email from Dean Klingner for assumptions) may require coordination with UPRR for work in Jefferson Park which is assumed to be minimal (replace lights) and possible temporary construction easement. These are assumed to be no cost items for the estimate. 150 feet northwest of Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to Linden Street 1. The proposed work ends approximately 150 feet northwest of the Mountain Avenue /Lincoln Avenue intersection. The proposed intersection construction cost estimates includes the work to the south. 2. Between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue on the River District Side, the curb and gutter will remain at its present location and the existing sidewalk width will be maintained. This allows for additional width in the median for landscaping which was deemed more important than a wider sidewalk along the River District side. The sidewalk width can be modified as the adjacent properties are redeveloped in the future. It is desired for the sidewalk area to include vertical elements such as seat wall or planter box to provide a barrier between traffic and pedestrians. 3. Between Linden Street and Mountain Avenue on the Old Town side, the curb and gutter, and sidewalk area (to face of building) would be reconstructed. This area would include heavy urban design elements and aesthetics considerations. Focus would be to extend/continue the improvements for the DDA’s alleyway improvements project. The use of green streets elements, in particular stormwater into planting areas (bioretention or rain gardens) is desirable and is included in the estimates. 4. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street roadway and intersection improvements. 5. For the parking areas, a color contrast between the parking, buffer and travel lane is proposed. It is assumed to use colored asphalt (Asphacolor or other similar) for the buffer space. Within the parking area, options include concrete or possible permeable brick pavers for storm water treatment/ BMP. The cost estimate includes brick pavers. 6. For the pavement reconstruction, a 10‐inch hot mix asphalt over 12‐inch aggregate base was assumed. It is further assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or correction. 7. The reconstruction of the Linden Street intersection is included in this phase of the work. Curb, gutter and sidewalk elements have been completed under previous phases. 8. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $2.11 million cost (2011). Assuming construction would be in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would be $2.3 million in year 2013. The cost of the pavement reconstruction (excluding curb and gutter, parking areas, buffer space, and medians) is $310,000 of this total. 9. ROW (see email from Dean Klingner for assumptions); it is assumed to require purchase of a 5.5‐foot strip on the River District side and possible temporary construction easement for vacant parcels and parking lots. Costs include parcel appraisals and acquisition costs above and beyond the actual land cost. Cost Estimates Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Memo of Assumptions ‐ Final May 16, 2012 Page | 4 Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – option 1, roundabout 1. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street roadway and intersection improvements. 2. The UPRR grade crossing will require complete replacement and the signalization equipment will require an upgrade. Low and high costs have been used for this work. 3. For the pavement reconstruction, a concrete section was assumed per Fort Collins standards for arterial intersections. It is further assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or correction. 4. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $4.1 to $4.97 million cost (2011). Assuming construction would be in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would be $4.35 to $5.3 million in year 2013. The cost range is for a low and high cost for railroad crossing modification requirements and right of way acquisition uncertainties. The higher cost includes the potential acquisition of the Nice Car repair dealership. The need and cost for this will be further defined during the design phase. The City’s Utilities Department storm sewer, waterline, and sanitary sewer must be completed prior to or as a part of the intersection reconstruction. The location of these facilities must be coordinated. Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue and Jefferson Street intersection – option 2, signalized 1. City of Fort Collins Utilities is proposing to build a new storm sewer (36 to 60 inch), replace the existing waterline (16 inch), and build a new sanitary sewer (8 inch). This work is part of the Downtown River District Utility Master Plan. These improvements will be closely coordinated with the Jefferson Street roadway and intersection improvements. 2. The UPRR grade crossing equipment will not be touched and does not require any upgrade. 3. For the pavement reconstruction, a concrete section was assumed per Fort Collins standards for arterial intersections. It is further assumed that the street profile does not require major adjustment or correction. 4. The total overall cost estimate anticipates a $2.54 million cost (2011). Assuming construction would be in 2013 and an annual inflation of 3 percent, the estimated possible construction cost would be $2.7 million in year 2013. The City’s Utilities Department storm sewer, waterline, and sanitary sewer must be completed prior to or as a part of the intersection reconstruction. The location of these facilities must be coordinated. City Parking Lot north of Rodizio Grill 1. The work includes curb and gutter and sidewalk along Jefferson Street. 2. The parking lot will not be reconstructed. It will be restriped only. 3. The total anticipated cost estimate is $100,000. Attachment 1 ROW Coordination 1 Liddle, Daniel Subject: FW: Jefferson Right of Way Attachments: jefferson_property.pdf From: Dean Klingner Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:36 PM To: Kathleen Bracke; Helen Migchelbrink; Rick Richter; Karen Cumbo; Tuttle, Tim; Zisman, Ina; 'Wallis, Carrie'; Aaron Iverson; Liddle, Daniel Cc: Wally Muscott Subject: Jefferson Right of Way Kathleen – I met today with Wally to look at the ROW information on Jefferson Street. We utilized all of the existing information we have from the various surveys for the Downtown River District Plan, the Linden Street Improvements, etc. Without doing a full survey for property corners and title work for all the properties, we obviously do not know the exact property lines, but this information should be good for planning-level cost estimating and identifying where property will likely have to be acquired. Jefferson from College to Linden River District Side: The Jefferson lot is City-owned, so property acquisition is not required. As was discussed, the Rodizio Grill property has recently dedicated property for the sidewalk, so property acquisition is not required The property line along Jefferson Park is the flow line of the curb and gutter. This means any changes or reconstruction behind the curb will require permission and/or ROW acquisition from the UP. This is anticipated since we are planning on lights and urban design features in this area. Old Town Side: The property line appears to be on the building face through this section, so no ROW is required. A Temporary Construction Easement will probably be needed from the vacant parcel. Linden to Lincoln River District Side: The ROW line through this section appears to be just behind the curb and gutter, so most of the sidewalk in this section is not in the ROW. To rebuild and enhance the sidewalk in this section will require the purchase of a strip of property about 5.5-feet wide for the entire length. This is an odd situation, but has been verified by property corners we found in the field for the Linden and River District surveys. Old Town Side: This is the section where we have the least amount of information, but it appears as though the property line is on the building face and we will not require ROW acquisition. We will need Temporary Construction Easements from the vacant parcels and parking lots. I am not adding any additional information for the intersection alternatives since I think we have accurate property line assumptions on those four corners. Dean _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by MessageLabs. Attachment 2 Urban Design Meeting Urban Design Meeting Notes: October 25, 2011 Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis 1 MEETING SUMMARY Meeting: Urban Design Coordination Date/Time: Thursday, June 30, 2011, 3:30 PM to 5:00 PM Location: 215 N. Mason Street, Conference Room 1B Attendees: Aaron Iverson, Fort Collins Carrie Wallis, Atkins Dan Liddle, Atkins Dean Klingner, Fort Collins Kathleen Bracke, Fort Collins Bruce Hendee, Fort Collins Matt Robenalt, DDA Perry Palmer, DEA Agenda: 1. Phasing and Implementation 2. Level of Urban Design a. High/Medium/Low 3. Ultimate a. Median b. Parking/Buffer Area c. Sidewalk d. Intersections 4. Interim a. Median b. Parking/Buffer Area c. Sidewalk d. Intersections 5. Next Steps 1. Phasing and Implementation • The ultimate urban design improvements will be determined and the costs associated • Once the ultimate design and costs are known potential phasing can be evaluated • Major considerations for phasing are the need to replace the storm sewer, waterline, and sanitary sewer 2. Level of Urban Design • Bruce Hendee provided a big picture overview of the urban design goals; 1) breakdown the barrier between Old Town and River District and 2)create a sense of integration • Bruce Hendee commented that pedestrian movements across Jefferson at Linden Street are a major emphasis • Bruce Hendee commented that that the aesthetics (highlight the historic buildings) is key to the urban design. SH 14 is an historic byway. • Level should be similar to Linden or the Mitchell block 3. Ultimate a. Median • The median will be raised (see sketch) • Median should be designed to discourage pedestrian from crossing except at Pine and Chestnut where a “soft crossing” will be provided. • The planted width will be 5’ +/‐ • Median could include pedestrian railing/fence with plantings, trees (columnar or American Elm type or similar), and possibly poles – need to check with CDOT on any concerns with crash safety issues if this element moves forward • Potentail for adding brick face or stamped patterns to the sides of the median • The utilities need to be considered where trees are located • As ROW allows, would like median refuge to be provided across Jefferson at Linden b. Parking/Buffer Area • It was decided to use brick pavers for the parking area, this will involve permeability for the City’s green streets • The buffer space will be a color contrast from the travel lanes, pavement markings or colored pavement. This area will be have brick pavers due to maintenance concerns c. Sidewalk Area • Consider the use of green streets elements, in particular stormwater into planting areas • Different areas along the corridor will have varying levels of urban design. Some areas are already good and will not be improved significantly such as the Jefferson Park area where there is a detached walk with trees • Between Lincoln and Linden on the River District side, the sidewalk is being widened by 2’. A vertical element such as seat wall or planter is desired to provide a barrier between traffic and pedestrians. • Bruce Hendee commented that trees need air and tree grates may not be well suited. Consider longer open strips where trees will be located. • The sidewalks along the Old Town side will not be widened. There are many trees that will be saved/incorporated into the urban design elements. • Include recycle bins as well as trash receptacles • Decorative street lights will be used throughout. These will cost approximately $10k each plus wiring. • The need for right of way was discussed. The only anticipated ROW required is at the Lincoln Mountain Intersection. • Contact Wally Muscott to verify that the sidewalk areas are within City ROW. • Investigate the area in front of Rodizio Grill for ROW ownership. Some ROW transfer was made when the planters were constructed. d. Intersections • Bruce Hendee and Matt Robenault stated that decorative cross‐walks and intersection treatments are not a good use of funding as pedestrian use this area the least. • Kathleen Bracke stated that the cross‐walks are for drivers visibility awareness – concrete planting pots, etc • Intersection corners are a good location to focus urban design elements • Adding urban design at the Jefferson Park (on UPRR ROW) corner of Linden Street will be considered. This is expected to be a major pedestrian crossing area due to work on Linden Street and destination area in the River District • Linden Street from Old Town to River District may be a good location for a bike box 4. Interim • Additional evaluation will be required to determine potential interim or initial projects • It is desirable to complete all the utility work at the same time, one traffic closure for all the work. • Matt Robenault comments were: o Do not underwhelm the public with the initial improvement Attachment 3 Cost Estimates by: DAL 01/11/2012 201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00 202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 4,300 $15,050.00 203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 750 $3,750.00 204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 600 $9,000.00 203 Earthwork CY $10.00 2,200 $22,000.00 203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 500 $7,500.00 208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00 208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00 208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00 208 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA $400.00 2 $800.00 208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 2 $2,000.00 208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00 210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $25,000.00 1 $25,000.00 214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 214 Tree EA $500.00 30 $15,000.00 214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 200 $5,000.00 304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 2,200 $33,000.00 306 Reconditioning SY $3.00 4,300 $12,900.00 403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading S) (100) 64-28 TON $85.00 1,750 $148,750.00 403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) (Colored Buffer Area) TON $100.00 250 $25,000.00 504 Facing (Special) (6" Vertical Curb with Facing) LF $40.00 1,000 $40,000.00 604 Drainage Inlet EA $3,000.00 2 $6,000.00 607 Fence (Special) LF $30.00 500 $15,000.00 Stormwater Runoff Facility (Rain Garden) EA $5,000.00 2 $10,000.00 608 Permeable Brick Pavers (Parking Lane) SF $25.00 3,100 $77,500.00 608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 350 $5,250.00 608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $50.00 65 $3,250.00 608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $75.00 80 $6,000.00 608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 8 $3,600.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 1,000 $18,000.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 800 $17,600.00 610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 2,500 $50,000.00 Irrigation (with new tap) LS $75,000.00 1 $75,000.00 620 Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00 622 Bicycle Rack EA $1,100.00 6 $6,600.00 622 Planter Box EA $900.00 25 $22,500.00 622 Bench EA $2,800.00 8 $22,400.00 622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 622 Conduits/Wiring LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000.00 622 Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 18 $180,000.00 626 Mobilization LS $80,000.00 1 $80,000.00 626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00 630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00 630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 30 $2,400.00 630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00 627 Pavement Marking & Signing (including bike box) LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 S:\ SUBTOTAL: $1,199,000.00 FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $119,900.00 UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $47,960.00 GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $239,800.00 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,606,660.00 DESIGN 15% $240,999.00 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $208,865.80 ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE by: DAL 01/11/2012 201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00 202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 5,300 $18,550.00 203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 1,250 $6,250.00 204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 500 $7,500.00 203 Earthwork CY $10.00 2,700 $27,000.00 203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 500 $7,500.00 208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00 208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00 208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00 208 Storm Drain Inlet Protection EA $400.00 4 $1,600.00 208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 2 $2,000.00 208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00 210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $25,000.00 1 $25,000.00 214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 214 Tree EA $500.00 30 $15,000.00 214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 200 $5,000.00 304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 2,800 $42,000.00 306 Reconditioning SY $3.00 5,300 $15,900.00 403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) TON $80.00 2,400 $192,000.00 403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) (Colored Buffer Area) TON $100.00 100 $10,000.00 504 Facing (Special) (6" Vertical Curb with Facing) LF $40.00 1,200 $48,000.00 601 Masonry Wall SF $10.00 1,200 $12,000.00 604 Drainage Inlet EA $3,000.00 2 $6,000.00 607 Fence (Special) LF $30.00 600 $18,000.00 Stormwater Runoff Facility (Rain Garden) EA $5,000.00 2 $10,000.00 608 Permeable Brick Pavers (Parking Lane) SF $25.00 1,350 $33,750.00 608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 830 $12,450.00 608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $50.00 200 $10,000.00 608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $75.00 30 $2,250.00 608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 3 $1,350.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 1,250 $22,500.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 1,000 $22,000.00 610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 2,500 $50,000.00 610 Median Cover Material (Patterned Concrete) SF $6.00 800 $4,800.00 Irrigation (with new tap) LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000.00 620 Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00 622 Bicycle Rack EA $1,100.00 6 $6,600.00 622 Planter Box EA $900.00 25 $22,500.00 622 Bench EA $2,800.00 8 $22,400.00 622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 622 Conduits/Wiring LS $40,000.00 1 $40,000.00 622 Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 16 $160,000.00 626 Mobilization LS $80,000.00 1 $80,000.00 626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00 630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00 630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 30 $2,400.00 630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00 627 Pavement Marking & Signing LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 S:\ SUB TOTAL: $1,191,000.00 Right of Way (4,300 SF of Sidewalk Area) LS $50,000 1 $50,000.00 SUB TOTAL: $1,241,000.00 FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $119,100.00 UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $47,640.00 GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $238,200.00 by: DAL 1/11/2011 201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00 202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 2,400 $8,400.00 203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 650 $3,250.00 204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 200 $3,000.00 203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 1,000 $15,000.00 203 Earthwork CY $10.00 1,200 $12,000.00 208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00 208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00 208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00 208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00 210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 214 Tree EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 50 $1,250.00 304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 1,500 $22,500.00 403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) TON $80.00 200 $16,000.00 412 Concrete Pavement SY $45.00 2,260 $101,700.00 504 Facing (Special) (6" Vertical Curb with Facing) LF $40.00 210 $8,400.00 607 Fencing (Special) LF $30.00 105 $3,150.00 608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $40.00 600 $24,000.00 608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $100.00 80 $8,000.00 608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 3,200 $48,000.00 608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 8 $3,600.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 1,200 $21,600.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 1,100 $24,200.00 610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 310 $6,200.00 Irrigation (with new tap) LS $35,000.00 1 $35,000.00 610 Median Cover Material (Patterned Concrete) SF $6.00 1,900 $11,400.00 Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00 622 Planter Box EA $900.00 8 $7,200.00 622 Bench EA $2,800.00 4 $11,200.00 622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 622 Conduits/Wiring LS $40,000.00 1 $40,000.00 622 Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 4 $40,000.00 626 Mobilization LS $65,000.00 1 $65,000.00 626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 630 Flagging (UPRR RAILROAD) HR $100.00 200 $20,000.00 630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00 630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00 630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 10 $800.00 630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00 627 Pavement Marking & Signing LS $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 SUB TOTAL: $754,750.00 Traffic Signalization LS $300,000.00 1 $300,000.00 Right of Way (2,500 SF of take) LS $50,000.00 1 $50,000.00 Temporary Construction Easements LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 SUB TOTAL: $1,124,800.00 URBAN DESIGN AND STREETSCAPE LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00 FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $105,475.00 UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $42,190.00 GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $210,950.00 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,983,415.00 DESIGN 15% $297,512.25 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $257,843.95 ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE by: DAL 1/11/2011 201 Clearing and Grubbing LS $5,000 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 202 Removal of Asphalt Mat SY $3.50 7,700 $26,950.00 $26,950.00 203 Removal of Curb and Gutter LF $5.00 750 $3,750.00 $3,750.00 204 Removal of Sidewalk SY $15.00 450 $6,750.00 $6,750.00 203 Muck Excavation CY $15.00 1,000 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 203 Earthwork CY $10.00 4,000 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 208 Erosion Log LF $9.00 200 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 208 Silt Fence LF $3.00 200 $600.00 $600.00 208 Concrete Washout Structure EA $800.00 1 $800.00 $800.00 208 Stabilized Construction Entrance EA $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 208 Erosion Control Supervisor HR $65.00 40 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 210 Reset/Adjust Structures LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 214 Landscape Maintenance (24 months) LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 214 Tree EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 214 Ornamentals/Shrubs EA $25.00 50 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 304 Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) TON $15.00 3,800 $57,000.00 $57,000.00 403 Hot Mix Asphalt (Grading SX) (100) TON $80.00 500 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 412 Concrete Pavement SY $45.00 5,800 $261,000.00 $261,000.00 412 Concrete Apron SY $50.00 300 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 608 Concrete Sidewalk SY $40.00 1,100 $44,000.00 $44,000.00 608 Concrete Curb Ramp SY $100.00 100 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 608 Interlocking Pavers (6" concrete bed) (Sidewalk Area) SF $15.00 3,200 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 608 Street Name Text (Special) (Sandblast and Stain) EA $450.00 10 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section I-B) LF $18.00 2,300 $41,400.00 $41,400.00 609 Curb and Gutter Type 2 (Section II-B) LF $22.00 2,300 $50,600.00 $50,600.00 610 Median Landscaping SF $20.00 310 $6,200.00 $6,200.00 Irrigation (with new tap) LS $35,000.00 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 610 Median Cover Material (Patterned Concrete) SF $6.00 6,900 $41,400.00 $41,400.00 Sanitary Facility LS $800.00 2 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 622 Planter Box EA $900.00 8 $7,200.00 $7,200.00 622 Bench EA $2,800.00 4 $11,200.00 $11,200.00 622 Bollard EA $500.00 10 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 622 Trash Receptacle EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 Recycle Bin EA $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 Conduits/Wiring LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Pedestrian/Street Lights (including foundation) EA $10,000.00 6 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 626 Mobilization LS $125,000.00 1 $150,000.00 $180,000.00 626 Public Information Services LS $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 630 Flagging (UPRR RAILROAD) HR $100.00 500 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 630 Flagging HR $20.00 1,000 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 630 Traffic Control Management DAY $500.00 180 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 630 Construction Traffic SignEA $80.00 10 $800.00 $800.00 630 Portable Message Sign Panel DAY $75.00 60 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 627 Pavement Marking & Signing LS $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 SUB TOTAL: $1,245,900.00 $1,275,900.00 Railroad Crossing Modification (LOW ESTIMATE) LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00 Railroad Crossing Modification (HIGH ESTIMATE) LS $750,000 1 $750,000.00 Traffic Signalization (of the roundabout) LS $300,000 1 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 Right-of-Way (LOW ESTIMATE) LS $100,000 1 $100,000.00 Right-of-Way (HIGH ESTIMATE) LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00 Temporary Construction Easements LS $25,000 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 SUB TOTAL: $2,170,900.00 $2,850,900.00 URBAN DESIGN AND STREETSCAPE LS $500,000 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 FORCE ACCOUNTS AND MINOR CONTRACT REVISIONS 10% $154,590.00 $157,590.00 UTILITY ADJUSTMENT CONTINGENCY 4% $61,836.00 $61,836.00 GENERAL CONTINGENCY AND UNACCOUNTED ITEMS 20% $309,180.00 $309,180.00 TOTAL ENGINEERS ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $3,196,506.00 $3,879,506.00 1 EXHIBIT B STATE HIGHWAY 14 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN State Highway 14 (Jefferson Street & Riverside Avenue), SH287 (North College Avenue) to State Highway 14(Mulberry Street) Larimer County, Colorado (1) I. PURPOSE The purpose of the Access Control Plan is to provide the City of Fort Collins (hereafter referred to as the “City”), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (hereafter referred to as the “Department”) with a comprehensive roadway Access Control Plan for SH 14 (Jefferson Street and Riverside Avenue) from the junction of State Highway SH287 (North College Avenue) to the junction of Mulberry Street (hereafter referred to as the “Segment”). The development of this Access Control Plan adheres to the requirements of the State Highway Access Code (2 C.C.R. 601-1) (the “Access Code”), Section 2.12, 1998. It is the agreement of all parties that all access decisions for this Segment of state highway shall be in conformance with this intergovernmental agreement. II. RESPONSIBILITIES Responsibility for construction costs for roads, closures, traffic control and/or any other features covered by this agreement and plan shall be based on a fair and equitable allocation of the costs as agreed upon by the involved parties. No party shall be required to expend its public funds for such undertaking without the express prior approval of its governing body or director. Private development-related access improvements will be the responsibility of the property owner in accordance with Code Section 43-2-147(6)(b)CRS. III. ACCESS LOCATIONS Accesses described in Section VII may be closed, relocated, or consolidated, or turning movements may be restricted when in the opinion of the City, with Department concurrence, or in the opinion of the Department, any of the following conditions occur: a) the access is detrimental to the public’s health, safety and welfare, b) the access has developed an accident history that is correctable by restricting access, or c) the restrictions are necessitated by a change in road or traffic conditions. IV. CHANGE OF LAND USE (1) Revisions to this Exhibit reflect the recommendations from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study conducted by the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (2012). Changes to Jefferson Street include the addition of a raised, landscaped median with street trees, along Jefferson Street. Final design details of the medians and other improvements will be determined and approved by the City and CDOT during the upcoming engineering phase of the project. 2 If access to the local road system is available, existing direct private property access(es) to SH 14 will be closed in conjunction with change of land use or future land development. If access to the local road system is not possible, a Right In/Right Out (RIRO) will be allowed. V. AUXILLARY LANES Right turn deceleration or acceleration lanes to not be required along this historic corridor for private driveway access points due to the limited Right-of-Way and building set backs as allowed by the design waiver procedure (Code Section 4.12). VI. AMENDMENTS Any proposed access change or addition not identified in this Exhibit will require that an amendment request be processed as described in Exhibit C. VII. ACCESS TYPES There are a number of existing access conditions on SH 14 which will be modified with similar improvements in the future. Instead of providing a full description for each access point, the following descriptions summarize this typical information and are referenced in the Individual Access Point Descriptions (See Section VII). Public Road Unsignalized Intersection (PRU) These types of highway accesses are full or limited movement, at-grade, stop-controlled intersections. Public roads along the corridor are city streets, alleys, or state highways. Right or left turn acceleration and deceleration lanes will be constructed that meet the design requirements and standards of the Access Code. These highway accesses will be modified according to the following scenarios: Scenario 1. Public Road Unsignalized Intersections with adequate intersection spacing (PRU1). If adequate spacing can be provided for the installation of an ingress (inbound) left turn lane, then ¾ movement access will be allowed. The length of the left turn lane shall meet current Access Code standards. ¾ movement access may be provided for one direction of travel without requiring the installation of a ¾ movement access in the opposing direction. Signalization of these accesses will not be allowed, and if signal warrants are met (as stated in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration) or if the intersection develops an accident history (defined as four reported accidents in a 12-month period) that is correctable by restricting access, then intersection will be reviewed for modification to a RIRO only access point. Scenario 2. Public Road Unsignalized Intersections with inadequate intersection spacing (PRU2). At those locations where intersection spacing does not meet the Access Code 3 standards for installation of an ingress left turn lane, access will be restricted to RIRO or Right-In only movements. Public Road Signalized Intersection (PRS) Public road signalized intersections are at-grade, full movement public road intersections with a traffic signal. Signalized public roads include state highways and city streets. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be constructed to meet the design requirements and standards of the Access Code. Driveway Access (DA) A driveway access can be a drop curb or other highway access that serves businesses or private residences. These accesses will be modified, consolidated or closed under the following circumstances: 1. Driveways will be closed if the land use changes or if there is a change that will increase the peak hour trip generation and if access to the local street network is available. 2. Driveways will be modified to RIRO only by installing a raised median or regulatory signing. 1. Driveways will be consolidated if the redeveloped land has multiple access points and/or reasonable access to the entire redevelopment cannot be provided from a City street. VIII. INDIVIDUAL ACCESS POINT DESCRIPTIONS The following is a description of all existing and future access points, including their current status and changes which are required. All locations are defined by the approximate milepoint (in hundredths of a mile) along SH 14 at the centerline of the access. Due to uniquely different access and land uses, the Access Control Plan for SH 14 is in two sections, one for Jefferson Street and one for Riverside Avenue. The access changes and corridor improvements are shown in Exhibit B. The improvements are shown in order from west to east. Jefferson Street SH 287 (North College Avenue) to Lincoln Avenue/Mountain Avenue North College Avenue MP134.72 This existing public road access currently functions as a full movement signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include 4 signalization and/or geometric improvements to the northwest-bound right turn movement from Jefferson Street onto North College Avenue. See PRS. [note: these improvements completed per 2002 North College corridor plan and capital construction project] MP134.74 (north side of the street) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP134.75 (north) Existing driveway access. See DA. MP134.75 (south side of the street) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP134.76 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP134.78 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU- Scenario 2 MP134.80 (north) Existing driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP134.81 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. Pine Street (south) MP134.82 This existing public road access currently functions as an unsignalized intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include converting to RIRO with installation of raised, landscaped median. MP134.83 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP134.87 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP134.88 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP134.89 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU- Scenario 2 Linden Street MP134.92 (north & south) This existing public road access currently functions as a full movement, signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include the development of exclusive left turn lanes for both directions of travel by eliminating parking on SH14 near the intersection [note: these improvements completed by City & CDOT] See PRS. MP134.94 (north & south) Existing commercial driveway accesses. See DA. MP134.95 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP134.96 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP134.99 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. 5 MP134.99 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. Chestnut Street MP135.01 (south) This existing public road access currently functions as an unsignalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include converting to RIRO with installation of raised, landscaped median. MP135.02 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP135.03 (north & south) Existing commercial driveway accesses to be closed or consolidated and become RIRO. See DA. MP135.04 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to be closed or consolidated and become RIRO. See DA. MP135.05 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP135.06 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU –Scenario 2. MP135.06 (south) Existing shared commercial/residential driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. MP135.08 (north) Existing commercial driveway access to become RIRO. See DA. Lincoln Street/Mountain Avenue MP135.11 This existing public road access currently functions as a full movement, signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include the extension of the northwest-bound turn lane and installing a left turn signal phase to increase the left turn capacity (on the south leg of the intersection). A median will also be constructed along the entire length of Riverside Avenue between Lincoln Street/Mountain Avenue and Mulberry Street. See PRS. 6 Riverside Avenue (2) Mountain Avenue/Lincoln Avenue to Sh14 (Mulberry Street) MP135.14 (north & south) Existing commercial driveway and alley access to be RIRO. See DA/PRU –Scenario 2. MP135.19 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU- Scenario 2. Whedbee Street (south) MP135.22 This existing public road access currently functions as a full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include restricting access to ingress (inbound) right turns only from eastbound SH14 on to Whedbee Street. See PRU – Scenario 2. Oak Street (south) MP135.27 This existing public road access currently functions as a full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include restricting access to ¾ movements (RIRO, LI). A northwest bound left turn deceleration lane will be provided as well as realigning the intersection to a 90 degree angle with Riverside Avenue. See PRU – Scenario 1. MP135.28 (south) Existing alley access to be RIRO. See PRU – Scenario 2. MP135.32 (south) Existing commercial/residential driveway access. See DA. Smith Street (south) MP135.35 This existing public road access currently functions as a full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include eliminating access to the highway by constructing a cul-de-sac at the northern terminus of the street. MP135.37 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. Olive Street (south) MP135.41 This existing public road access currently functions as a full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. This will remain with full vehicle movements; however, left turns from Olive Street onto Riverside Avenue will be provided an acceleration lane/refuge area in the proposed median. A left turn deceleration lane for movements from Riverside Avenue onto Olive Street will also be provided. MP135.44 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP135.45 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. (2) No changes are proposed to Riverside/SH14 access plan per the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study. 7 Stover Street (south) MP135.48 This existing public road access currently functions as a full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include restricting access to ingress right turns only. See PRU- Scenario 2. MP135.52 (southwest) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. Magnolia Street (south) MP135.56 This existing public road access currently functions as a full-movement, unsignalized intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include restricting access to ¾ movements (RIRO, LI). Left turn deceleration lanes will be provided in the median on SH14. See PRU – Scenario 1. MP135.57 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP135.58 (north) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP135.58 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. Cowan Street (south) MP135.60 This existing public road access currently functions as a full-movement, unsignalized public road intersection. Modifications to this intersection will include restricting access to RIRO only. See PRU – Scenario 2. MP135.64 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP135.65 (south) Existing commercial driveway access. See DA. MP135.67 (south) Existing commercial driveway access to be right-in only. See DA. Mulberry Street MP135.69 This existing public road access currently functions as a full movement, signalized intersection. Modification to this intersection will include the addition of a second left turn lane for southeast and northwest-bound movements from Riverside Avenue onto Mulberry Street. See PRS. 8 Exhibit _ SH 14 – JEFFERSON STREET PLAN ILLUSTRATION 9 June 5, 2012 Revised text for US 287/SH14 Access Management Plan (pages 64 – 66, Jefferson Street section): “Access improvements for Jefferson Street/SH14 shall be based upon the “Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study” (2012) recommendations as approved by City Council. These improvements are intended to improve safety and operations for the highway corridor for all modes of travel and support the existing and future businesses along the corridor. These improvements include the installation of raised, landscaped medians including street trees, on-street parking along the south or “Old Town” side of the street, as well as streetscape and pedestrian improvements along Jefferson Street between North College Avenue and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. The raised, landscaped median will improve access management along the corridor by creating right in/right out (RIRO) driveway accesses along the corridor as well as at the public intersections of Jefferson Street and Pine Street and Jefferson and Chestnut Street. Detailed design of the medians will be developed and approved by the City and CDOT during the engineering/final design phase of the Jefferson Street project. The goal of the project is to maximize the median width to provide opportunities for high quality landscaping, including street trees. The median design needs to address safety concerns for all modes of transportation, including addressing the off-set left turn lanes at the signalized intersections.” DESIGN 15% $479,475.90 $581,925.90 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $415,545.78 $504,335.78 ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $4,100,000.00 $4,970,000.00 CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013 (INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $4,350,000.00 $5,300,000.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE RANGE FINAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS MOUNTAIN/LINCOLN AVENUE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL 1/11/2012 CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $2,540,000.00 CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013 (INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $2,700,000.00 FINAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN ESTIMATE OF ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS MOUNTAIN/LINCOLN AVENUE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PROJECT ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL 1/11/2012 CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $1,645,940.00 DESIGN 15% $246,891.00 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13% $213,972.20 ROUNDED ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $2,107,000.00 CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013 (INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $2,300,000.00 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS JEFFERSON STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - LINDEN STREET TO LINCOLN AVENUE (830 L.F. RECONSTRUCTION AND TOTAL LENGTH) ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST 2011 $2,060,000.00 CONSTRUCTION COST FOR 2013 (INFLATION OF 3% PER YEAR) 106% $2,200,000.00 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS JEFFERSON STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - COLLEGE AVENUE TO LINDEN STREET (690 L.F. RECONSTRUCTION/1,000 L.F. TOTAL LENGTH) ITEM NO. ITEM Unit UNIT COST PLAN TOTAL FINAL No new significant impediments No new significant impediments Implementability Significant hurdles to implementation Similar to existing width/raised median Similar to existing width Similar to existing width Matches existing width Similar to existing width/raised median Notes: 1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits. 2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes. 3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane. 4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet * The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue. Notes: 1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits. 2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes. 3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane. 4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet * The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue. 3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane. 4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet * The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue. Trucks Impediments to truck operations Possible impediments – 1 lane with adjacent parking (center turn lane refuge) No new significant impediments No new significant impediments No new significant impediments Possible impediments – 1 lane with adjacent parking Implementability Significant hurdles to implementation Similar to existing width Significant narrowing/raised median Similar to existing width Similar to existing width Narrowing/raised median Notes: 1. Landscape/aesthetic improvements will also be considered outside of curb limits. 2. Transit improvements will be considered by eliminating and/or reducing parking, median width, and bike lanes. 3. Bike/shoulder area can be a striped shoulder, wide travel lane, or bike lane. 4. Existing sidewalk widths are between 6 and 19 feet * The option was eliminated because it induces a merge of northbound Jefferson traffic from 2-lanes to 1-lane. This will increase traffic conflicts thereby reducing roadway safety. The through northbound Jefferson movement will continue to have a high percentage of trucks which adds to the conflict issue. Transportation objectives extend beyond study area Yes Includes references to SH 14 as a safe, direct and predictable for trucks and no travel time benefits on realigned Vine. Travel time data is also included. North College Corridor Plan – March 14, 2007 FC Yes Plan offers goals specific to a location with overlaps Jefferson St study area Yes Identifies existing issues and problems North College Urban Renewal Plan – Adopted December 21, 2004 FC No Not in study area No Not in study area Mountain/Lincoln Intersection Recommendation of the group to Fort Collins Council Agreed that the EOC will not have a group recommendation to Fort Collins for the Mountain/Lincoln Intersection due to differences of opinion Exhibit 4: EOC Meetings and Decisions