HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS RESIDENCES (4TH FILING) - PDP - 33-10 - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDYThat said, we have interpreted that as a maximum volume in the context of neighborhood streets —
recognizing the impacts of traffic volume on residents. Thus, we do try to limit the volume to 3,500
vehicles per day on minor collectors
7. The updated TIS background traffic counts are consistent with the data used in our December 2010 report to
calculate background vpd. Our calculations applied a scaling factor of 1/0.18 to the vehicles counted during the TIS
observation period (Institute of Traffic Engineers [ITE], Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Code 210 for Single Family
Home Dwelling Units). Using the traffic counts during the AM and PM observation periods, and applying the ITE
scaling factor, the resulting vpd calculated for Triangle was 3,428 vpd, and Avondale was 3,750 vpd.
We have actual 24 hour traffic volume counts on Avondale and on Triangle to use as the baseline for
existing conditions. With the addition of this development we expect both streets to still have volumes
below 3,500 vehicles per day. With your calculations, we are still right around that number. Either way, it
makes the most sense to me, as I mentioned before, for us to work with the neighborhood to try to come
up with a traffic mitigation plan to limit the impacts of the current and projected traffic.
We are concerned about existing traffic volumes on Avondale and Triangle, and these volumes will only be
worsened by any new development in our neighborhood. The TIS Operation Analysis section considered the Level
of Service (LOS) "grades" to be acceptable. The LOS assessment seems to only review intersection performance,
and does not appear to directly include vpd traffic volumes or an assessment of the county Standards.
You're correct that the LOS analysis looks primarily at intersection operations. Intersections tend to be
bottlenecks where capacity is most limited so it makes sense that if they work acceptably from a traffic
carrying perspective that the rest of the street will work. That's mainly what a traffic impact study is
assessing.
LOS does not measure the negative impact of traffic on the quality of life in a neighborhood. As I
mentioned, we do try to use the volume criteria in LCUASS as a way to quantify traffic impacts beyond
LOS. However, when a development proposal meets that general criteria City staff has limited options.
We can't arbitrarily restrict developments. As an alternative, we can offer traffic mitigation options that,
hopefully, can be based on a consensus opinion of affected neighbors and that will minimize the negative
effects of neighborhood traffic.
We sincerely appreciate the time you have taken to address our questions and concerns, and I apologize for
submitting additional questions at this point in the process. The purpose of this e-mail is to better understand the
acceptance criteria used by City staff for current and projected traffic volumes related to the proposed
development. I am available to discuss and would like to close the loop on this vpd topic as soon as possible before
the public hearing.
Likewise, i appreciate the thoughtful approach you and your group have taken related to this development
proposal. I hope this has helped clarify our approach to assessing traffic impacts. As I mentioned at the
beginning of my response I would be happy to meet with you in person to go over any of this in more
detail or to answer any other questions you might have.
Joe
built according to those standards no longer meet future standards. That does not mean that the function
of the street changes. Triangle Drive is shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street from College
to Avondale. It currently functions in that manner (i.e. collecting traffic in the neighborhood and
channeling it out to an arterial i.e. College Avenue). The different design features do not change how the
street functions to serve the neighborhood.
According to the Standards, Minor Collector and Connector Local streets may only contain vertical curb and gutter
designs. Is direct access to single family home's driveways allowed on a Minor Collector or Connector Local street?
(see notes on "Access" in the attached figures).
Yes, single family homes are allowed to access directly from a collector street or a local street.
3. Triangle's roadway width was measured to be 36 feet, which does not meet the criteria for a Minor Collector.
Although Triangle does meet the roadway width requirement for a Connector Local street, it may not contain the
required 10-foot turn lanes at Woodrow or bike lanes (see 4. below). As stated in the TIS, at the Triangle/Woodrow
intersection, all movements are combined into a single lane. This does not appear to meet the Standard for a
Minor Collector or Connector Local street (see attachment) for the left turn needed for eastbound Triangle traffic
to turn left onto northbound Woodrow.
The need for left turn lanes is determined using Section 8.2.5 along with Figure 8-1 in LCUASS. The
forecast volumes on Triangle do not warrant dedicated left turn lanes. This is pretty typical on
neighborhood collectors. It is not unusual for all movements to occur from one lane on these streets.
4. Since residents, especially children, ride bikes to Coyote Ridge Elementary School, the pool, and the
Shenandoah HOA park ("activity areas"), should Triangle have been designed to include 6-foot bike lanes which do
not appear to be present? (see attached Figure 7-8F footnotes).
It depends on the design standards that were used at the time the street was built. If it was being built
new today we would require bike lanes. Since that isn't the case, we have talked about the possibility of
using traffic calming measures to help mitigate existing and expected traffic impacts to make the street as
user friendly as possible. Since traffic calming itself can be controversial we hope to work with the
neighborhood to establish consensus on how to proceed.
S. Triangle was considered a Residential Local street in our December 2010 report for the reasons stated above.
Can you provide us with a basis for considering Triangle a Collector street? I understand from last Friday's meeting,
that the original standards may be different than current standards.
See my previous answer above regarding the Master Street Plan.
6. In our December 2010 report to the City, Avondale was considered a Connector Local street. Should we have
considered Avondale a Minor Collector? If so, then the vpd limit would be 3,500 vpd.
Yes, as per the Master Street Plan R is a collector street.
In regards to traffic volumes, the LCUASS standards speak of traffic volume capacity for different classes
of streets. Technically, these capacities represent a minimum car carrying capacity rather than a
maximum allowed traffic volume. In other words, a capacity of 3,500 vehicles per day means that at a
minimum, a collector should be able to handle that many vehicles.
Hi Patrick,
I've read through your e-mail and have tried to provide answers to your questions. My answers are in
blue beneath each of your questions. I'm sorry you weren't able to make the meeting we held last Friday
If there's another time that works for you and you would like to schedule another meeting I'd be happy to
do that so we could discuss issues in person.
Joe
Joe Olson, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
City of Fort Collins
A general question we have is how do the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (Standards) fit into the
City's review of the proposed project?
The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) provide the design standards for any new
installation of public infrastructure including streets. For example, the new portion of Avondale that would
be built with the proposed development would need to be built to LCUASS standards.
1. According to the Standards, the criteria for a street to be designated a Minor Collector or Connector Local
includes specifications for bike lanes, turn lanes, parking, curb design, and access limitations, and notjust roadway
width. Does Staff review all these criteria when determining which Standards to compare against?
I think this might be where some confusion is arising. The LCUASS standards are not used to determine
the designation of a street. They only serve as design standards for improvements. The City's Master
Street Plan (see here) is where street functional classification (for arterials and collectors) is designated.
The Master Street Plan provides a framework to ensure an interconnected roadway network that will
accommodate existing and future traffic as development occurs.
Developers are required to construct collector streets adjacent to their developments that are shown on
the Master Street Plan. Using Avondale again as an example, this development would be required to
construct a new portion of Avondale adjacent to their property south of Triangle because it is shown on
the Master Street Plan. As additional development occurs south of Triangle those developers would be
required to eventually connect Avondale down to Carpenter providing another point of access to the
neighborhood.
To summarize, the Master Street Plan designates which streets are collectors. The LCUASS standards
define how new collectors are built.
2. Designation of Triangle as a Collector street in the Master Plan referenced in the TIS may not be
representative of the as -built use. Triangle's roadway width is 36 feet compared to the required 50 feet for a
Collector. Existing homes between the Woodrow/Triangle intersection and 287 have drive -over curbs, which are
only allowed for residential Local streets. Does the fact that Triangle contains drive -over curbs require the City to
consider Triangle as a Residential Local street?
The LCUASS standards represent the standards used today for construction of new facilities. However,
standards change over time. There may be a day when today's standards change and streets that are
-> designs. Is direct access to single family home's driveways allowed on
> a Minor Collector or Connector Local street? (see notes on "Access" in
> the attached figures).
> 3. Triangle's roadway width was measured to be 36 feet, which
> does not meet the criteria for.a Minor Collector. Although Triangle
> does meet the roadway width requirement for a Connector Local street,
> it may not contain the required 10-foot turn lanes at Woodrow or bike
> lanes (see 4. below). As stated in the TIS, at the Triangle/Woodrow
> intersection, all movements are combined into a single lane. This does
> not appear to meet the Standard for a Minor Collector or Connector
> Local street (see
> attachment) for the left turn needed for eastbound Triangle traffic to
> turn left onto northbound Woodrow.
> 4. Since residents, especially children, ride bikes to Coyote
> Ridge Elementary School, the pool, and the Shenandoah HOA park
> ("activity areas"), should Triangle have been designed to include
> 6-foot bike lanes which do not appear to be present? (see attached
> Figure 7-8F footnotes).
> 5. Triangle was considered a Residential Local street in our
> December 2010 report for the reasons stated above. Can you provide us
> with a basis for considering Triangle a Collector street? I understand
> from last Friday's meeting, that the original standards may be
> different than current standards.
> 6. In our December 2010 report to the City, Avondale was
> considered a Connector Local street. Should we have considered
> Avondale a Minor Collector? If so, then the vpd limit would be 3,500 vpd.
> 7. The updated TIS background traffic counts are consistent with
> the data used in our December 2010 report to calculate background vpd.
> Our calculations applied a scaling factor of 1/0.18 to the vehicles
> counted during the TIS observation period (Institute of Traffic
> Engineers [ITE], Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Code 210 for Single
> Family Home Dwelling Units). Using the traffic counts during the AM
> and PM observation periods, and applying the ITE scaling factor, the
> resulting vpd calculated for Triangle was 3,428 vpd, and Avondale was
> 3,750 vpd.
> 8. Triangle does not appear to meet the design requirements for a
> Minor Collector so we don't believe it should compared against the
> 3,500 vpd limit. It may meet the criteria for a Connector Local.
> Regardless, the background vpd on Triangle far exceeds the upper limit
> of 2,500 vpd for a Connector Local, as well as the 1,000 vpd limit for
> a Residential Local street.
> 9. Avondale background vpd exceeds the Minor Collector, as well
> as the Connector Local, vpd limits.
> We are concerned about existing traffic volumes on Avondale and
> Triangle, and these volumes will only be worsened by any new
> development in our neighborhood. The TIS Operation Analysis section
> considered the Level of Service (LOS) "grades" to be acceptable. The
> LOS assessment seems to only review intersection performance, and does
> not appear to directly include vpd traffic volumes or an assessment of
> the county Standards.
> We sincerely appreciate the time you have taken to address our
> questions and concerns, and I apologize for submitting additional
> questions at this point in the process. The purpose of this e-mail is
> to better understand the acceptance criteria used by City staff for
> current and projected traffic volumes related to the proposed
> development. I am available to discuss and would like to close the
> loop on this vpd topic as soon as possible before the public hearing.
> Thank you.
> Patrick McKean
> 219-6601 (cell)
2
Steve Olt
From: Patrick McKean [prmckean@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 11:16 PM
To: Joe Olson
Cc: Steve Olt; Ward Stanford; Steve Gilchrist; Carrie Johnson; Chad Moore; Chris Bruno; Joy
Short; Lynette Dunn; Matt Thompson
Subject: Re: Ridgewood Hills traffic vpd questions/comments
Joe, thank you again for the quick response to our questions on the topic of traffic
volumes on Avondale and Triangle. You have addressed our questions thoroughly and provided
the basis of the City's consideration of the LCUASS. We may have more questions as we head
toward the public hearing and look forward to working with the City on reasonable traffic
calming mitigation on our neighborhood streets.
Patrick
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Joe Olson <JOlson@fcgov.com> wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> I'm writing this from home and I don't have good e-mail formatting ability. So, I tried
to answer your questions in the attached Word document. Let me know if I can be of any
further help.
>
> Joe
> Joe Olson, P.E.
> Traffic Engineer
> City of Fort Collins
> From: Patrick McKean [prmckean@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 9:39 AM
> To: Steve Olt; Ward Stanford; Steve Gilchrist; Joe Olson
> Cc: Carrie Johnson; Chad Moore; Chris Bruno; Joy Short; Lynette Dunn;
> Matt Thompson
> Subject: Ridgewood Hills traffic vpd questions/comments
> Steve and Staff, I visited your office and reviewed the updated
> traffic impact study (TIS) yesterday, thank you for making the
> document available. A general question we have is how do the Larimer
> County Urban Area Street Standards (Standards) fit into the City's
> review of the proposed project? I did not see a reference to these
> standards in the TIS, but I understand from your meeting with Joy
> Short last Friday that the volume standard on Triangle and Avondale
> you are comparing against is 3,500 vehicles per day (vpd). We reviewed
> the Standards in more detail and provide the following
> questions/comments.
> 1. According to the Standards, the criteria for a street to be
> designated a Minor Collector or Connector Local includes
> specifications for bike lanes, turn lanes, parking, curb design, and
> access limitations, and not just roadway width. Does Staff review all
> these criteria when determining which Standards to compare against?
> 2. Designation of Triangle as a Collector street in the Master
> Plan referenced in the TIS may not be representative of the as -built use.
> Triangle's roadway width is 36 feet compared to the required 50 feet
> for a Collector. Existing homes between the Woodrow/Triangle
> intersection and 287 have drive -over curbs, which are only allowed for
> Residential Local streets. Does the fact that Triangle contains
> drive -over curbs require the City to consider Triangle as a
> Residential Local street? According to the Standards, Minor Collector
> and Connector Local streets may only contain vertical curb and gutter