HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY TECHNOLOGY PARK, 4TH FILING - PDP/FDP - 07-08/A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYN
0
Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual
LOS slandards fur Mych Ipme 11( Review - Bicycle p, 20
-- --------- --
FigureT Bicycle LOS Worksheet
EEE
nlhdnnsn I 11cluill proposed
base connectivity:
C
AIIA
specific co1'n(?cl10"LsL0_priority sites.
description of applicable
deslimidulijil-eii %yiIjill, 1,320,
Including address
destination area
C148.41ficatioll
(see text)
City Of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
Muitimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual p. 18
LOS Standards for Development Review • Pedestrian
Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
9
Does �Jvr
C-*( Sr
o ES (�oT
C—�cc S C
City of Port Collins Transportation Master Plan
N
L
m
m
N
O
Harmony
Ox
c
0
0
v
J
Rock Creek
SCALE: 1"=1000'
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA
113
APPENDIX E
o?
16: Harmony & HP West Access
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Short Total PM
3/5/2008
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
r
Vi
TT
if
t
if
4
r
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Fit
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
1770
1863
1583
1775
1583
Fit Permitted
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.51
1.00
1.00
0.73
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
114
3539
1583
116
3539
1583
948
1863
1583
1357
1583
Volume (vph)
16
2001
38
13
2142
6
168
1
55
79
1
67
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
18
2248
43
14
2303
6
198
1
65
93
1
79
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
12
0
0
2
0
0
51
0
0
70
Lane Group Flow (vph)
18
2248
31
14
2303
4
198
1
14
0
94
9
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
Perm
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
2
6
6
8
8
4
4
Actuated Green, G Is)
64.5
62.5
62.5
62.1
61.3
61.3
19.7
19.7
19.7
11.7
11.7
Effective Green, g Is)
67.5
62.5
65.5
65.1
61.3
61.3
21.7
21.7
21.7
13.7
11.7
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.68
0.62
0.66
0.65
0.61
0.61
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.14
0.12
Clearance Time Is)
4.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
110
2212
1037
89
2169
970
239
404
344
186
185
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.00
0.64
0.00
c0.65
c0.03
0.00
v/s Ratio Perm
0.11
0.02
0.10
0.00
00.15
0.01
0.07
0.01
v/c Ratio
0.16
1.02
0.03
0.16
1.06
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.04
0.51
0.05
Uniform Delay, d1
25.0
18.8
6.1
25.0
19.4
7.5
37.8
30.7
30.9
40.0
39.2
Progression Factor
0.65
0.98
0.45
0.34
0.73
0.23
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.6
21.6
0.0
0.6
35.6
0.0
20.5
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.1
Delay (s)
16.7
40.0
2.8
9.2
49.7
1.7
58.3
30.7
31.0
42.2
39.3
Level of Service
B
D
A
A
D
A
E
C
C
D
D
Approach Delay Is)
39.1
49.3
51.5
40.9
Approach LOS
D
D
D
D
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
44.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0 Sum of lost time Is) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
86.8% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
1 Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
' 16: Harmony & HP West Access
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Short Total AM
3/5/2008
1
-►
'-
'y
t
41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
Tt
r
Tf
r
T
r
+1
r
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
'
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
6.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.96
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
1770
1863
1583
1791
1583
'
Fit Permitted
0.06
1.00
1.00
0.12
1.00
1.00
0.55
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
108
3539
1583
227
3539
1583
1021
1863
1583
1863
1583
Volume (vph)
145
1447
182
60
1647
17
30
1
10
3
1
7
'
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
161
1608
202
66
1810
19
35
1
12
4
1
8
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
57
0
0
6
0
0
11
0
0
8
' Lane Group Flow (vph)
161
1608
145
66
1810
13
35
1
1
0
5
0
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
Perm
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
Perm
Protected Phases
5
2
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
2
6
6
8
8
4
4
'
Actuated Green, G (s)
77.8
68.6
68.6
67.0
61.8
61.8
9.2
9.2
9.2
1.3
1.3
Effective Green, g (s)
80.8
68.6
71.6
70.0
61.8
61.8
11.2
11.2
11.2
3.3
1.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.81
0.69
0.72
0.70
0.62
0.62
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.03
0.01
'
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
287
2428
1133
239
2187
978
144
209
177
61
21
' v/s Ratio Prot
c0.07
0.45
0.01
c0.51
c0.01
0.00
v/s Ratio Perm
0.39
0.09
0.18
0.01
c0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.56
0.66
0.13
0.28
0.83
0.01
0.24
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.00
Uniform Delay, d1
24.0
9.0
4.4
6.0
14.9
7.4
40.3
39.4
39.5
46.9
48.7
'
Progression Factor
1.85
0.72
0.19
2.68
0.48
0.17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.9
1.1
0.2
0.3
1.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
Delay (s)
46.2
7.5
1.0
16.3
9.0
1.3
41.2
39.5
39.5
47.5
48.8
'
Level of Service
D
A
A
B
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
Approach Delay (s)
10.0
9.2
40.7
48.3
Approach LOS
B
A
D
D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
10.1
HCM Level of Service
B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.71
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
100.0
Sum
of lost time
(s)
15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
74.4%
ICU Level of Service
D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
APPENDIX D
V
FIGURE 4C-4. WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR (70% FACTOR)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR
ABOVE 70 KM/H (40 MPH) ON MAJOR STREET)
MUTCD, 2003 EDITION, PAGE 4C-7
C�
z
O
X
N
M
M
D
O NB LT PM 168 VPH
= NB LT AM 30 VPH
JVV
400
2 OR
MORE I
ANES &2
OR MOF
E LANES
300
OR MORE
LANESr
1 LANE
200
1 LANE
& 1 LA14E
100
man
01100
*75
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACH -
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street
approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane.
AM 3498 VPH PM 4216 VPH
SHORT RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR WARRANT AT HARMONY/TECHNOLOGY-HP WEST ACCESS
No Text
Table 4-3
Fort Collins (City Limits)
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections)
Land Use (from structure plan)
Other corridors within:
Mixed use
Low density
mixed use
All other
Intersection type
YP
Commercial
corridors
districts
residential
areas
Signalized intersections
D
E'
D
D
(overall)
Any Leg
E
E
D
E
Any Movement
E
E
D
E
Stop sign control
N/A
P.
P.
E
(arterial/collector or local —
any approach leg
Stop sign control
N/A
C
C
C
(collector/local—any
approach leg)
mitigating measures required
" mnsidered normal in an urban environment
11
�A
UNSfGNAUZED INTERSFC't'I.ONS
10
LS
> 10 and 15
C,
> l5alld
and < 35
> 35 and < 50
A
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Le'vel-of-service
Mcrage ',I'oi;tj I)elly
stilvell
A
< 10
13
> 10and <. 20
C.:
> 20.and --- 35
D
> 35 and < 55
> 55 and < 80
80
WE
' 16: Harmony & HP West Access
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Recent PM
3/4/2008
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
tt
tt
if
Vi
if
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
14
1777
1895
6
6
67
Peak Hour Factor
0.89
0.89
0.93
0.93
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
16
1997
2038
6
7
79
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
'
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Raised
Median storage veh)
1
' Upstream signal (ft)
1291
pX, platoon unblocked
0.58
vC, conflicting volume
2044
3067
1019
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
2038
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1030
vCu, unblocked vol
2044
3833
1019
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
'
IC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
94
89
66
' cM capacity (veh/h)
272
65
235
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
EB 3
WB 1
WB 2
WB 3
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
16
998
998
1019
1019
6
7
79
Volume Left
16
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
79
cSH
272
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
65
235
Volume to Capacity
0.06
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.00
0.11
0.34
'
Queue Length 95th (ft)
5
0
0
0
0
0
9
35
Control Delay (s)
19.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.2
27.9
Lane LOS
C
F
D
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
0.0
31.1
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
67.4%
ICU Level
of Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
1 q
' 16: Harmony & HP West Access
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Recent AM
3/4/2008
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
I Lane Configurations
Vi
++
tt
r
►j
r
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
84
1331
1461
17
0
7
Peak Hour Factor
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.91
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
93
1479
1605
19
0
8
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Raised
Median storage veh)
1
Upstream signal (ft)
1291
pX, platoon unblocked
0.73
vC, conflicting volume
1624
2532
803
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1605
'
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
926
vCu, unblocked vol
1624
2729
803
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
'
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
76
100
97
' cM capacity (veh/h)
397
96
327
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
EB 3
WB 1
WB 2
WB 3
SB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
93
739
739
803
803
19
0
8
Volume Left
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
8
cSH
397
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
327
Volume to Capacity
0.24
0.43
0.43
0.47
0.47
0.01
0.00
0.03
Queue Length 95th (fl)
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Control Delay (s)
16.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.3
Lane LOS
C
A
C
'
Approach Delay (s)
1.0
0.0
16.3
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
'
Average Delay
0.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
54.6%
ICU Level of Service
A
' Analysis Period (min)
15
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
r.
APPENDIX B
W
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: 970 669.2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 11.1.07 Observer: Carl
Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
R = tight tum Intersection: HarmonylHP West Access
S = straight
1=IcHhim
Time
Begins
Northbound:
Southbound: HP West
Total
north/south
Eastbound: Harmony
Westbound: Harmony
Total
envwest
Total
All
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
7:15
0
0
3
3
3
9
300
309
306
5
311
620
623
7:30
6
0
1
1 ' :
1
14
328
342
328
4
332
674
675
7:45
0
0
3
3
3
24
344
368
367
2
369
737
740
8:00
0
0
0
0
0
37
275
312
322
6
328
640
640
8:15
0
0
0
0
0
42
235
277
268
8
276
553
553
8:30
0
0
2
2
2
29
234
263 1
1293
6
299
562
564
7:15.8:15 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1,0 1 0 7 1 7 1 7 1 84 112471 0 1 1331 1 0 113n 117 1 1340 1 2671 2678
PHF I n1a 1 0.58 1 0.9 j 1 0.91
4:15
0
1
12
-13 .'
13
5
302
1
307
1 283
1
1 284
591
604
4:30
0 .
5
8
13 `. ,
13
6
332
338
278
2
280
618
631
4:45
0 ' .
0
11
11 -
11
3
353
_ 356
347
2
349
705
716
5:00
0
2
17
19
19
4
335
339
313
3
316
655
674
5:15
0
2
26
28
28
4
411
-415
331
1
332
747
775
5:30
0
2
13
1 15
15
3
1357
1
360
366
0
366
726
741
14:44:451
0
1 0
0 1
0
1 6 -1
0
167
1 73
1 73
114
11456
: 0
1 1470
0
1357
6
1 1363
1 2833
2906
PHF
I I
n1a
1
1 0.65
1
1 0.89
1 0.93
STub y L• im, T
&F-I�eAJ7 C2.007�
M AVM
/�uPhCT
o. 7 3. (9
1444/l462
t4-alTOf
1! 7U
6
s�
i � o•3i
I�AK�NP
-�---�.
�
j � ►Yts
783
4Lz 3
_
77l 14
C <107 �T he�uo•�Y/�r6cco�e aN�� AR,uov�,�by ►�
. o - De &)o -r j4ti A LYOC
7�%P l>&o&zxylo-o
6�,v&eAkc
CTG; vov
1:>AtL (e
82Co- 6330
OuT
O• I
t `{-
oOT
! Z¢
93
`rfelp 4�is-rR�guT�o•v
75�
-ac--T
Z5%
AAi2u6K)Y
(S�Tc•�
Teclo —
(�K41 �{
?96TL(M.lAUAlz SS(CXJ IAGzV T,
It
70
d► I UAemw
4- 4lZ 3
O KJ
r N
Qi<w _
11
ti
Horsetooth
l,\
1.1
1�
�i
1
�I
if
�
II
m
li
N
Harmony s
-
t�.
n
o
MIAVD Office
�
r`
Building
J
!I
Rods Creek
I'
25
H
i
Kechter
'
�
I
m
a
E
I
it
F-
'
i
!I
SCALE: 1'=2000'
SITE LOCATION 3
4 - Attachments
Attachment A
Transportation Impact Study
Base Assumptions
Project Information
Project Name M AV To OAPttCt~r Utz 61A)cc
_
Project Location SovToF �iekWf A ST OP Pvr G /C-Cmwedcy
TIS Assumptions
Type of Study
Full: A, 0
Intermediate: yCs
Study Area Boundaries
North- 14A M0,J AD
South: ek"'Vy 64
East:
West:
Study Years
Short Range: 0-O (3
Long Range:
Future Traffic Growth Rate
84
4dP- ou Y
Study Intersections
1. All access drives
5.
2-g A� i a1 y
6.
3.
7.
4.
8.
Time Period for Study
AM: 7.00-9.00
F PM: 4:00-6:0
Sat Noon: A j 0
Trip Generation Rates
Gg t
Trip Adjustment Factors
Passby:
14
Captive
Market: //q
Overall Trip Distribution
SEE ATTACHED SKETCH
Mode Split Assumptions
v1A
Committed Roadway Improvements
Other Traffic Studies
rhRoNT A-Nr6r (t,c.ACta
I- s t
QL L. O T0,0
Areas Requiring Special Study
Fc5PUAP- `l 8 2oo8
Date: 3
Traffic Engineer.
Local Entity Engi
Latimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Page 4-35
Adopted by Latimer County, City of Loveland. City of Fort Conins
pKwY
2
APPENDIX A
' IV. CONCLUSIONS
' This study assessed the impacts of the MAVD Office Building
development on the short range street system in the vicinity of the
proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is
concluded:
- The development of the MAVD Office Building is feasible from a
traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the MAVD
' Office Building will generate approximately 830 daily trip ends,
116 morning peak hour trip ends, and 112 afternoon peak hour trip
ends.
' - Current operation at the Harmony/HP West Access intersection is
acceptable.
- In the short range (2013) future, given development of the MAVD
Office Building and an increase in background traffic, the
Harmony/Technology-HP West Access intersection will operate
acceptably with the recommended geometry and warranted signal.
Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle,
' and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal
transportation guidelines.
16
Pedestrian Level of Service
Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of
the MAVD Office Building. The MAVD Office Building site is located
within an area termed as a "other," which sets the level of service
threshold at LOS C for all measured factors. There are two
destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed MAVD Office
Building: 1) Intel and 2) Hewlett-Packard. In most cases, sidewalks
do not exist within the pedestrian influence area. It is assumed that
sidewalks will be completed as properties develop. Appendix E
contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet.
Bicycle Level of Service
' Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are no
destination areas within 1320 feet of the MAVD Office Building. The
bicycle level of service is acceptable.
Transit Level of Service
Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes
16 and 17. Routes 16 and 17 run along Harmony Road and Ziegler Road,
0.25 miles to the west of the MAVD Office Building site. These routes
are considered to be within walking distance of the proposed MAVD
Office Building.
15
Harmony
. w - Denotes Lane
N
SHORT RANGE (2013) GEOMETRY Figure 8
14
TABLE 3
Short Range (2013) Total Peak Hour Operation
r, 2 �. T }
Intersection
? V
Movement
��
LI l77
1 of Sernce
AM
PM
a
Access monylTechnology-HP West
A
(signal)
EB LT
D
B
EB T
A
D
EB RT
A
A
EB APPROACH
B
D
WB LT
B
A
WBT
A
D
WB RT
A
A
WB APPROACH
A
D
NB LT
D
E
NB T
D
C
NB RT
D
C
NB APPROACH
D
-
D-SB LT/T
D
D
SB RT
D
D
SB APPROACH
D
D
OVERALL
B
EE D
13
Q
w
co o
17/6
IZ
�
+ 1647/2142
— 60/13
1
145/16
1
1447/2001
182/38
I i
co to
`.-° O a
z �-
m
0
6
c
i3
m
F-
-au— AM/PM
SHORT RANGE (2013) TOTAL
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Harmony
Figure 7
12
SITE GENERATED
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
-aAM/PM
cony
A&
N
Figure 6
11
700 employees. Half of the Intel generated traffic was assigned to the
Harmony/Technology intersection. Traffic volumes on the HP West Access
reflect signal control at the Harmony/Technology-HP West Access
intersection. For analysis purposes, 30 percent of the southbound
through and left -turning traffic at the Harmony/Lady Moon intersection
was reassigned to the Harmony/Technology-HP West intersection. In
addition to this, 30 percent of the eastbound left turns at the
Harmony/Lady Moon -HP East intersection were reassigned to the
Harmony/Technology-HP West intersection.
Trip Assignment
Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are
expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are
' the resultant of the trip distribution process. The site generated
trip assignment for the MAVD Office Building is shown in Figure 6.
The site generated traffic was combined with the background traffic to
' determine the total forecasted traffic for the study area. Figure 7
shows the short range (2013) total peak hour traffic at the key
intersections.
Signal Warrants
As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any
location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The Harmony/Technology-HP West
intersection meets the "Standard" for applying Warrant 3, Peak Hour as
defined in the MUTCD. The Harmony/Technology-HP West Access
intersection will meet peak hour volume warrants during the afternoon
peak hour using the short range (2013) total traffic. A peak hour
signal warrant worksheet are provided in Appendix C.
Operation Analysis
Operation analyses were performed at the key intersections. The
operation analyses were conducted for the short range analysis,
reflecting a year 2013 condition.
' Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the key intersections
operate in the short range (2013) total condition as indicated in Table
3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D.
The Harmony/Technology-HP West intersection operates acceptably during
the peak hours.
Geometry
The short range (2013) geometry is shown in Figure 8.
10
N
N
Q
N
N
a.
ti
Z cf)
—�— 1647/2142
35/8
145/16
1447/2001 —+►
105/24
I I I
00 N
m
z
CD
O
0
—* — AM/PM
SHORT RANGE (2013) BACKGROUND
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Harmony
A&
N
Figure 5
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
to
Q
cony
N
Figure 4
0
I
0
0
z
m
w
SCALE: V=100'
HARMONY ROAD
r PHASE ONE OFFICE
BUILDING
75,000 S.F.
�A
Ut ItN 11UN
Figure 3
7
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The MAVD Office Building is proposed to be 75,000 square feet.
Figure 3 shows a site plan of the MAVD Office Building. The site plan
shows an access to/from Technology Parkway that will line up with an
access to/from Intel. The short range analysis (Year 2013) includes
development of the MAVD Office Building and an appropriate increase in
background traffic, due to normal growth and other potential
developments in the area.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a
development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A
compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip Generation,
7t" Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by
the proposed/expected use at this site. Table 2 shows the expected trip
generation on a daily and peak hour basis.
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
y
AWpTE
AM:Peak
Hour '
PiN Peak
Fk)Ur
Code`:
r
r
710
General Office
75.0 KSF
11.01
830
1.36
102
0.19
14
To-7
19
1.24
93
Trip Distribution
Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for
the MAVD Office Building. Future year data was obtained from the NFRRTP
and other traffic studies. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution used
for the MAVD Office Building.
Background Traffic Projections
Figure 5 shows the short range (2013) background traffic
projections. Background traffic projections for the short range
future horizon were obtained by reviewing the NFRRTP, reviewing
traffic studies for other developments, and reviewing historic count
data for this area of Fort Collins. Technology Parkway is shown on
Figure 5 and is assumed to have traffic from the existing Intel
development. The background traffic on the south leg of Technology
Parkway was estimated based upon the layout of the parking lots within
the Intel site and trip generation for an industrial park land use at
6
in commercial corridors is defined as level of service D or better,
overall. Any leg or movement can operate at level of service E. At
' unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation is shown as not
applicable for arterial/local or arterial/collector intersections.
TABLE 1
Current Peak Hour Operation
<
intersection r
Movement
Laurel of Service a
1. �< AM
—act PAA
_
Harmony/HP West Access
(stop sign)
SB LT
A
F
SB RT
C
D
SB APPROACH
C
D
EB LT
C
C
' Pedestrian Facilities
There are pedestrian facilities adjacent to developed properties.
' As roads are built to arterial/collector standards, sidewalks will be
included in the street cross sections. Sidewalks will be incorporated
within and adjacent to this development.
Bicycle Facilities
' Bicycle lanes exist on Harmony Road, Ziegler Road, Rock Creek
Drive, and Lady Moon Drive. Bike lanes are not required on local or
connector streets.
Transit Facilities
Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Routes
16 and 17. Routes 16 and 17 run along Harmony Road and Ziegler Road,
' 0.25 miles to the west of the MAVD Office Building site.
5
N
17/6
�-- 1461 /1895
Harmony
84/14
1331 /1777 —a-
�-- AM/PM
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
4
ti
Horsetooth
a
a
m
N
Harmony m
o
o — o
MAVD Office
Building J
a
Rock Creek
25
Kechter
m
c
t
m
.fl
E
1—
SITE LOCATION
SCALE: 1"=2000'
Figure 1
3
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of the MAVD Office Building is shown in Figure 1. It
is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be
presented.
PLand Use
Land uses in the area are primarily commercial, industrial, or
residential. Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2S grade) from a
traffic operations perspective. The center of Fort Collins lies to the
northwest of the proposed MAVD Office Building.
Roads
The primary streets near the MAVD Office Building site are Harmony
' Road and the future Technology Parkway. Harmony Road is adjacent to
the north side of the MAVD Office Building site. It is an east -west
street designated as a six -lane arterial street on the Fort Collins
Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a four -lane cross section with
' appropriate auxiliary lanes. Some segments are being expanded to
three lanes in each direction in conjunction with the Front Range
Village development. The existing speed limit in this area is 50 mph.
Existing Traffic
Recent peak hour traffic counts at the Harmony/HP West Access
intersection are shown in Figure 2. Raw traffic data is provided in
Appendix A. The traffic data was collected in November 2007. The
through volumes on Harmony Road were adjusted/balanced based upon
recent counts performed at the Harmony/Ziegler and Harmony/Lady Moon
intersection for the `Harmony Tech Park ODP," December 2007.
Therefore, the through volumes do not match that shown in Appendix A.
Existing Operation
The Harmony/HP West Access intersection was evaluated using
' techniques provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the
recent peak hour traffic shown in Figure 2, the current peak hour
operation is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in
Appendix B. A description of level of service for signalized and
' unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a
table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards
(Intersections) are provided in Appendix B. The Harmony/HP West
Access intersection operates acceptably during both the morning and
afternoon peak hours. This site is in a commercial corridor.
Acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours
2
I. INTRODUCTION
' This intermediate transportation impact study addresses the
capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed
MAVD Office Building. The proposed MAVD Office Building site is located
south of Harmony Road and east of Ziegler Road in Fort Collins,
Colorado.
' During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made
with the project developer (MAV Development Co.), the project planning
consultant (BHA Design), the project engineering consultant (Stantec),
and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. This study generally
' conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation
impact study guidelines contained in the "Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards" (LCUASS). A Base Assumptions Form and related
' information are provided in Appendix A. The study involved the
following steps:
' _ Collect physical, traffic, and development data;
Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment;
- Determine peak hour traffic volumes;
- Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key
t intersections; -
Analyze signal warrants;
- Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and
' transit modes of transportation.
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Site
Location ........................................
3
2.
Recent
Peak Hour Traffic .............................
4
3.
Site
Plan ............................................
7
4.
Trip
Distribution ....................................
8
5.
Short
Range (2013) Background Peak Hour Traffic ......
9
6.
Site
Generated Peak Hour Traffic .....................
11
7.
Short
Range (2013) Total Peak Hour Traffic ...........
12
8.
Short
Range (2013) Geometry ..........................
14
APPENDIX
A Base Assumptions Form/Traffic Counts
B Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort
Collins LOS Standard
C Peak Hour Signal Warrants
D Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation
E Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit Level of Service Worksheets
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction ......................................... 1
II. Existing Conditions .................................. 2
LandUse ............................................. 2
Roads................................................ 2
Existing Traffic ..................................... 2
Existing Operation ................................... 2
Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 5
Bicycle Facilities ................................... 5
Transit Facilities ................................... 5
III. Proposed Development ................................. 6
Trip Generation ...................................... 6
Trip Distribution .................................... 6
Background Traffic Projections ....................... 6
Trip Assignment ...................................... 10
Signal Warrants ...................................... 10
Operation Analysis ................................... 10
Geometry............................................. 10
Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 15
Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 15
Transit Level of Service ............................. 15
IV. Conclusions .......................................... 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 5
2. Trip Generation ...................................... 6
3. Short Range (2013) Total Peak Hour Operation ......... 13
THE MAVD OFFICE BUILDING
INTERMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
MARCH 2O08
Prepared for:
MAV Development Co.
Market Place Building
303 Detroit Street, Suite 301
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Prepared by:
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034
p9� �0jC
a