HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOLAR VILLAGE MAPLE - PDP - 23-07 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYlVW bimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual
LOS Sinndnrds for Development Review _ Dicycle
Figure 7. Bicycle LOS Worksheet
level of service • connectivity
mhd ; actual proposed
base connectivity:
specific connections to priority sites:
description of.applicable
destination area within 1,320'
including address
I�CAT 66"'CA/S C/6Q
destination area
classification
(see text)
�Q
P. 20
City of fort Collins Transportation Ivfaster Plan
specific connections to priority sites:
description of.applicable
destination area within 1,320'
including address
I�CAT 66"'CA/S C/6Q
destination area
classification
(see text)
�Q
P. 20
City of fort Collins Transportation Ivfaster Plan
I
N
Cherry Street
c
>
Maple Street o,
Sola Villag 0
Mapl
L pone Avenue O
Z Z (D
U) U cf) �f4
o O Gf
f�
cg 0 2
L
MounU in Avenue
SCALE: 1 "=500'
BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA
37
Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
Project Location Classification: Pedestrian district
s on of �$
+• rRT.+y
"AppIICdVI@Destination"
€AreadlNtlnn�t320'� ,.1
Destination" F
Af6a y3s
q,'„ �Y{
l'i18SSItiCation r.
LeY@I Ot S6MCe (mrrnmum
based on?proiectbcc atrondess�catwn)
t S > _
,.` "`i"' T
�=tt, �
�,�y sF
(r�n,.1.�eAYtt.
�„ ,n,[�, f
C -iY
;�Crossirgst�
Ysualr;
ntQ.,vV�a4JG�V.i
���f+
� ,�� �r
Fort Collins CBD to the
south and east
Commercial
Minimum
A
A
B
A
A
1
Actual
A
B
A
B
A
Proposed
A
A.
A
B
A
Neighborhood to the
st
Residential
Minimum
A
A
B
A
A
2
Actual
A
B
A
B
A
Proposed
A
A
A
B
A
Minimum
3
Actual
Proposed
Minimum
4
Actual
Proposed
Minimum
5
Actual
Proposed
Minimum
6
Actual
Proposed
Minimum
7
Actual
Proposed
Minimum
8
Actual
Proposed
Minimum
9
Actual
Proposed
Minimum
10
Actual
Proposed
36
N
Cherry Street
c
d
Maple Street
Solar Villag J�^So
MaPI O 'sf,�ef
LE porte Avenue
a� d
ED
co co co 0)
o S m o Gf
0 2 U) fie
v o `0 �Df
� s �
MountE in Avenue
SCALE: 1 "=500'
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA
35
APPENDIX E
3+
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Maple Street & Alley
Short Total PM
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
4�
+
+
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
2
64
0
0
100
9
0
0
3
8
0
6
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
2
75
0
0
118
11
0
0
4
9
0
7
Pedestrians
'
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
'
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
t Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
128
75
210
208
75
206
203
123
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
'
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
128
75
210
208
75
206
203
123
IC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
' IC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
15
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
99
cM capacity (veh/h)
1458
1524
741
688
986
748
692
928
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
78
128
4
16
Volume Left
2
0
0
9
'
Volume Right
0
11
4
7
cSH
1458
1524
986
816
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)
t
0
0
0
2
Control Delay (s)
0.2
0.0
8.7
9.5
Lane LOS
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.2
0.0
8.7
9.5
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
'
Average Delay
0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
20.0%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
33
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Maple Street & Alley
Short Total AM
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
+
4+
+
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
12
94
0
7
50
7 0
0
2
10
0
5
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
14
111
0
8
59
8 0
0
2
12
0
6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
67
111
224
222
111
221
218
63
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
67
111
224
222
111
221
218
63
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
99
99
100
100
100
98
100
99
cM capacity (veh/h)
1534
1479
719
666
943
725
670
1002
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
'NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
125
75
2
18
Volume Left
14
8
0
12
Volume Right
0
8
2
6
cSH
1534
1479
943
799
Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
0
2
Control Delay (s)
0.9
0.9
8.8
9.6
Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.9
0.9
8.8
9.6
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
_
Average Delay
1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
21.7%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
30�
■ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Maple Street & Meldrum Street
Short Total PM
s
-.
z
t
•�
t
,►
lip.
j
41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
+
4
4�
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
' Volume (veh/h)
1
38
5
17
81
10
5
56
22
4
17
4
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
45
6
20
95
12
6
66
26
5
20
5
Pedestrians
'
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
'
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
' Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
107
51
206
197
48
250
194
101
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
'
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
107
51
206
197
48
250
194
101
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
' tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
99
99
90
97
99
97
100
' cM capacity(veh/h)
1484
1556
724
689
1021
629
692
954
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
52
127
98
29
' Volume Left
1
20
6
5
Volume Right
6
12
26
5
cSH
1484
1556
756
712
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.04
'
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
1
11
3
Control Delay (s)
0.2
1.2
10.5
10.3
Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
'
Approach Delay (s)
0.2
1.2
10.5
10.3
Approach LOS
B
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
4.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
24.2%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
�31
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Maple Street & Meldrum Street
Short Total AM
t1P. 1 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
4
44
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
1
76
2
13
38
1 5
23
25
2
12
2
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
89
2
15
45
1 6
27
29
2
14
2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (fl)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
46
92
178
169
91
212
170
45
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
46
92
178
169
91
212
170
45
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
IC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
99
99
96
97
100
98
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
1562
1503
764
716
967
696
715
1024
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
93
61
62
19
Volume Left
1
15
6
2
Volume Right
2
1
29
2
cSH
1562
1503
821
740
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
'1
6
2
Control Delay (s)
0.1
1.9
9.1
10.6
Lane LOS
A .
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
1.9
9.7
10.0
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
3.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.9%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
3a
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Cherry Street & Meldrum Street
Short Total PM
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
4�
4+
1411�
4
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
1
184
5
20
335
3
9
4
58
2 1 0
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
216
6
23
385
3
11
5
68
2 1 0
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
224
411
84
4
Volume Left (vph)
1
23
11
2
Volume Right (vph)
6
3
68
0
Hadj (s)
0.02
0.04
-0.43
0.17
Departure Headway (s)
4.6
4.4
4.9
5.6
Degree Utilization, x
0.28
0.50
0.11
0.01
Capacity (veh/h)
758
793
653
551
Control Delay (s)
9.4
11.8
8.5
8.7
Approach Delay (s)
9.4
11.8
8.5
8.7
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
Intersection Summary
Delay
10.7
HCM Level of Service
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.9%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
ay
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Cherry Street & Meldrum Street
Short Total AM
} -► Z r< .- t `\ t /' �►
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
44,
4>
44
44
'
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
0
283
2
18
148
0 4
0
21
3
0
4
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.88
0.88
0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
333
2
21
174
0 5
0
25
3
0
'
5
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
335
195
29
8
'
Volume Left (vph)
0
.21
5
3
Volume Right (vph)
2
0'-
25
5
Hadj Is)
0.03
0.06
-0.44
-0.222
Departure Headway (s)
4.
4.4
4.6
4.9
'
Degree Utilization, x
0.39
0.24
0.04
0.01
Capacity (veh/h)
839
796
693
652
Control Delay (s)
9.9
8.7
7.8
7.9
,
Approach Delay (s)
9.9
8.7
7.8
7.9
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection Summary
,
Delay
9.4
HCM Level of Service
-A
Intersection Capacity Utilization
32.9%
ICU Level of Service
A
'
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
AF
APPENDIX D
a�
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Maple Street & Alley
Short Bkgd PM
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Ej+
+
4+
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
1
58
0
0
97
4
0
0
3
5
0
5
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85,
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
68
0
0
114
5
0
0
4
6
0
6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
119
68
193
189
68
191
187
116
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
119
68
193
189
68
191
187
116
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
99
cM capacity(veh/h)
1469.
1533
761
705
995
766
707
936
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
69
119
4
12
Volume Left
1
0
0
6
Volume Right
0
5
4
6
cSH
1469
1533
995
842
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
0
1
Control Delay (s)
0.1
0.0
8.6
9.3
Lane LOS
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
0.0
8.6
9.3
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
17.1%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
ac
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Maple Street & Alley
Short Bkgd AM
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
44
4,
+
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
_
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
6
93
0
7
46
5
0
0
2
4
0
3
'
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
7
109
0
8
54
6
0
0
2
5
0
4
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
' Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
'
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
60
109
201
200
109
199
197
57
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
'
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
60
109
201
200
109
199
197
57
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
' tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
.
3.5'
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
99
100
100
100
99
100
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
1544
1481
749
689
944
751
691
1069
'
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
116
68
2
8
Volume Left
7
8
0
5
'
Volume Right
0
6
2
4
cSH
1544
1481
944
844
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
'
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
0
1
Control Deiay (s)
0.5
0.9
8.8
9.3
Lane. LOS
A
A
A
A
' Approach Delay (s)
0.5
0.9
8.8
9.3
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.7%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
�5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Maple Street & Meldrum Street,
Short Bkgd PM
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
1
36
5
14
79
9
5
56
20
3
17
4
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
42
6
16
93
11
6
66
24
4
20
5
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
.
vC, conflicting volume
104
48
194
184
45
235
182
98
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
104
48
194
184
45
235
182
98
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
99
99
91
98
99
97
100
CM capacity (veh/h)
1488
1559
739
702
1024
647
704
958
Direction; Lane #
EB 1
WB 1.
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
49
120
95
28
Volume Left
1
16
6
4
Volume Right
6
11
24
5
cSH
1488
1559
764
.728
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.12
0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
1
11
3
Control Delay (s)
0.2
1.1
10.4
10.1
Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.2
1.1
10.4
10.1
Approach LOS
B
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
4.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
23.9%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
A4
' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Maple Street & Meldrum Street
Short Bkgd AM
'-
4N
t
low
�►
1
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
4*
*T#
41�
*T+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
1
74
2
12
36
1
5
23
24
1
12
2
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.65
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
87
2
14
42
1
6
27
28
1
14
2
Pedestrians
'
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
'
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
' Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
44
89
171
162
88
204.
163
43
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
'
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
44
89
171 '
162
88
204
163
43
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
'
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
99
99
96
97
100
98
100
' cM capacity (veh/h)
1565
1506
773
723
970
706
722
1027
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
91
58
61
18
' Volume Left
1
14
6
1
Volume Right
2
1
28
2
cSH
1565
1506
825
751
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.02
'
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
1
6
2
Control Delay (s)
0.1
1.9
9.7
9.9
Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
'
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
1.9
9.7
9.9
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
'
Average Delay
3.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
20.2%
ICU Level
of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Cherry Street & Meldrum Street
Short Bkgd PM
1
1*
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
4
4�
4+
4+
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
1
184
5
19
335
3
9
4
57
2 1 0
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85 0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
216
6
22
385
3
11
5
67
2 1 0
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
224
410
82
4
Volume Left (vph)
1
22
11
2
Volume Right (vph)
6
3
67
0
Hadj (s)
0.02
0.04
-0.43
0.17
Departure Headway (s) •
4.6
4.4
4.9
5.6
Degree Utilization, x
0.28
0.50
0.11
0.01
Capacity (veh/h)
759
794
653
552
Control Delay (s)
9.4
11.8
8.5
8.7
Approach Delay (s)
9.4
11.8
8.5
8.7
.
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 10.7
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Cherry Street & Meldrum Street
Short Bkgd AM
*
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL NBT
NBR
SBL SBT SBR
' Lane Configurations
+
4+
+
4+
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
0
283
2
17
148
0
4 0
21
3 0 4
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.88 0.88 0.88
'
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
333
2
20
174
0
5 0
25
3 0 5
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
' Volume Total (vph)
335
194
29
8
Volume Left (vph)
0
2Q
5
3
Volume Right (vph)
2
0
25
5
Hadj (s)
0.03
0.05
-0.44
-0.22
'
Departure Headway (s)
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.9
Degree Utilization, x
0.39
0.24
0.04
0.01
Capacity (veh/h)
839
796
694
653
' Control Delay (s)
9.9
8.7
7.8
7.9
Approach Delay (s)
9.9
8.7
7.8
7.9
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
' Intersection Summary
Delay
9.4
HCM Level of Service
A
-
' Intersection Capacity Utilization
32.0%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
APPENDIX C
ao
Table 4-3
Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits)
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections)
Land Use (from structure plan)
Other corridors within:
Low density
Intersection type
Commercial
Mixed use
mixed use
All other
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
F'*
F*'
E
(arterial/collector or local —
any approach leg)
Stop sign control
N/A
C
C
C
(arterial/arterial,
arterial/collector, or
collector/local—any
approach I
mitigating measures required
" considered normal in an urban environment
iy
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Average Total Delay
secJveh
_< 10
> 10 and < 20
n_t_
> 20 and _< 35
> 35 and < 55
> 55 and _< 80>
80
/F
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Maple Street & Alley
Recent PM
EBT
4,- 4-- k4N
IT WBR NBL NBT NBR
1 4/
SBR
Lane Configurations
44
+
+
44
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
00/0
Volume (veh/h)
1
53
0
0
88 4
0
0
3
5
0
5
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
62
0
0
104 5
0
0
4
6
0
6
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
108
62
176
173
62
174
171
106
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
108
62
176
173
62
174
171
106
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3:3
p0 queue free %
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
99
cM capacity (veh/h)
1482
1541
781
720
1002
785
722
948
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
64
108
4
12
Volume Left
1
0
0
6
Volume Right
0
5
4
6
cSH
1482
1541
1002
859
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
0
1
Control Delay (s)
0.1
0.0
8.6
9.2
Lane LOS
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
0.0
8.6
9.2
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.6%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J.. Delich , P. E.
/7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Maple Street 8 Alley
Recent AM
Movement
EBT
EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT N
IBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
41►
+
+
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
00/0
Volume (veh/h)
6
85
0
7
42
5 0
0
2
4
- 0
3
Peak Hour'Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0,85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
7
100
0
8
49
6 0
0
2
5
0
4
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
55
100
186
186
100
185
183
52
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
55
100
186
186
100
185
183
52
IC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
99
100
100
100
99
100
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
1550
1493
766
701
956
768
704
1015
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
107
64
2
8
Volume Left
7
8
0
5
Volume Right
0
6
2
4
cSH
1550
1493
956
857
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
0
0
1
Control Delay (s)
0.5
1.0
8.8
9.2
Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay. (s)
0.5
1.0
8.8
9.2
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1,2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
16.2%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Maple Street & Meldrum Street
Recent PM
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
' Lane Configurations
+
+
+
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
1
33
5
13
72
8 5
51
18
3
16
4
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
39
6
15
85
9 6
60
21
4
19
5
Pedestrians
' Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ff/s)
Percent Blockage
' Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
429
'
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
94
45
178
169
42
215
167
89
vC1, stage 1 conf Vol
vC2, stage 2 conf Vol
vCu, unblocked Vol
94
45
178
169
42
215
167
89
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
'
tF (s) .
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
100
99
99
92
98
99
97
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
1500
1563
758
716
1029
674
718
969
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
46
109
87
27
Volume Left
1
15
6
4
Volume Right
6
9
21
5.
cSH
1500
1563
777
745
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.1.1
0.04
' Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
1
9
3
Control Delay (s)
0.2
1.1
10.2
10.0
Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay is)
0.2
1.1
10.2
10.0
'
Approach LOS
B
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 4.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Maple Street & Meldrum Street
Recent AM
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4+
4
+
+
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
1
68
2
11
33
1
5
21
22
1
11
2
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
80
2
13
39
1
6
25
26
1
13
2
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None.
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
429
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
40
82
158
149
81
187
150
39
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
40
82
158
149
81
187
150
39
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3:3
p0 queue free %
100
99
99
97
97
100
98
100
cM capacity (veh/h)
1570
1515
790,
735
979
728
735
1032
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
84
53
56
16
Volume Left
1
13
6
1
Volume Right
2
1
26
2
cSH
1570
1515
837
766
Volume to Capacity
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
1
5
2
Control Delay (s)
0.1
1.9
9.6
9.8
Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.1
1.9
9.6
9.8
Approach LOS
A
A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay.
-3.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
19.6%
ICU Level
of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
/ `f
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Cherry Street & Metdrum Street
Recent PM
--4
-•
r
�►
1 4/
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
' Lane Configurations
+
+
4+
+
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
1
168
5
17
307
3
8 4
52
2
1 0
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
'
Hourly flow rate (vph)
1
198
6
20
353
3
9 5
61
2
1 0
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
' Volume Total (vph)
205
376
75
4
Volume Left (vph)
1
20
9
2
Volume Right (vph)
6
3
61
0
Hadj (s)
0.02
0.04
-0.43
0.17
Departure Headway (s)
4.5
4.4
4.8
5.5
Degree Utilization, x
0.26
0.46
0.10
0.01
Capacity (veh/h)
772
802
674
575
Control Delay (s)
9.1
11.0
8.3
8.5
Approach Delay (s)
9.1
11.0
8.3
8.5
Approach LOS
A
B
A
A
' Intersection Summary
Delay
10.1
HCM Level of Service
B
' Intersection Capacity Utilization
38.7%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
/3.
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Cherry Street & Meldrurn Street
Recent AM
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
0
259
2
16
135
0
4
0
19
3
0 4
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.88
0.88 0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph)
0
305
2
19
159
0
5
0
22
3
0 5
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1-
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
307
178
27
8
Volume Left (vph)
0
19
5
3
volume Right (vph)
2
0
22
5
Hadj (s)
0.03
0.06
-0.43
-0.22
Departure Headway (s)
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.8
Degree Utilization, x
0.36
0.21
0.03
0.01
Capacity (veh/h)
844
803
712
672
Control Delay (s)
9.5
8.5
7.7
7.8
Approach Delay (s)
9.5
8.5
7.7
7.8
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 9.1
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
APPENDIX B
R = right tum
S = straight
I - W4 f. ..
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 81112007 Observer: Carl
Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
F— Intersection: MaplelAlley
Time
Begins
Northbound: Alley
Southbound: Parking
. Total
northisouth
Eastbound: Maple
Westbound: Maple
Total
easttwest
Total
All
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L-
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
7:15
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
AOWW�
0
6
0
S -
15
A
7:30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
20
0
1
4
1
27
7:45
0
-0
0
0
0
1
1
2
28
0
1
8
1
1M
40
8:00
0
0
2
2
0
1
5
2
20
0
4
13
2
Z gg* 0
41
i-` 02'1'
8:15
0
0
0
p op
2
0
1
3
3
1
1 17
0
1
1 17
1 1
37
8:30
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
[ 4
0
F!
0
1 10
1 1
0",
15
1 6'1�'
� , "I !11. 5 54 145
41,
773-0-8:30 2 7
9 I'll." 241F-11 T 91
PHF 0.25 0.58 1 0.76 1 0.71
4:15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
j
1
33
0 j@'-R%-
45
3
1
10
0
A
0
20
0
1"�"a
31
!,,2" 34
4:30
0
0
1
0
1
A
4:45
0
0
0
"1
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
24
1
40
5:00
0
0
1
yOG,
2
0
3
6
1
7
0
o
15
0
23
*K
2
0
18
0
0
29
2
49
5-15
0
0
0
QZ,�, �!J
0
1
0
0
2r
2,2
0
1
5
0
1 13
0
1'
1 0
20
1
34
4: 45-5 45
3
1
1 "��
10
13
,�
-j
1
1 54
1 92
146
PHF
0.38
0.5
1 0.75
0.74
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 8/112007 Observer: Carl
Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
R = right tum F—Intersection: Meldrun Maple
S = straight
I = [aft film
Time
Begins
Northbound: Meldrum
Southbound: Meldrum
Total
northisouth
Eastbound: Maple
Westbound: Maple
Total
east/west
Total
All
L
TS
TR
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
7:15
1
3
3
0
3
1
1
0
6
0
3
3
0
12
7:30
0
4
5
r=z9bz
1
0
0
2-,
1,g10
1
15
0
1
3
0
20
30
7:45
1
6
8
y15
0
4
0
19
0
22
1
0
8
1
N'R
32
03
0
5
3
0
2
1
11
0
19
1
4
10
0
94'�
34
4
6
6
0
5
1
22
0
12
0
12
6
12
0
r y 18
30
2,'
8.30
2
8
1
0
3
0
14
1
3
2
4
5
1
§R1016
J
7:30-830 48 1 4 1 62
45 116
PHIF 0.75 0.58 0.77 0.63
4:15
1
9
6TNJ
0
6
1
23
0
5
0
-,T';�
6
23
4
38
41
4:30
1
8
2
0
1
1
13
0
9
1
2
17
2
31
4:45
1
13
41ti
1
4
16
24
1
10
1
1
23
0
36
a
5:00
1
11
3a15N
2
8
0
25
0
3
2
x,5,
5
11
2
23
5:15
3
14
7
,�,�,'�4
0
3
2
29
0
11
4
21
5
42
5:30
0
13
1 4
n17oR7!:'
1 0
1 1
1 1
19
0
9
1
3
17
1
31
;a 50.E
4:455:45 jfi3O;? qz' 'I'll 1 132 74 ji 1'� 23 1 97 1' ,T1 9 39 93 2M4-,
PHF 0.77 0.58 0.81 0.78
=I
R = right tum
S = straight
I = laft film
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 81812007 . Observer: Carl
Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
F—Intersection: Meldrum/Cherry
Time
Northbound: Meldrum
Southbound: Meldrum
Total
Eastbound: Cherry
Westbound: Cherry
Total
Total
I
—L
T S7
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L I
S
I R
Total
L
S
R
Total
Begins
north/south
easttwest
All
7:15
1
0
6
1
0
0
8
0
49
0
1
20
0
70
N
7:30
2
0
2
1
0
0
5
0
47
0
rr
2
35
0
8 4
1
10
0
73
1
2
14
0
90
7:45
1
0
7
1
0
8:00
1
0
6
1
0
1
1 9
0
83
1
9
47
0
140
0
0
2
1`10' j
6
0
56
0
3
39
0
98
8:15
0
4
8:30
0'
0
3
o
o
o
Tz'
3
49
0
',.`�49 4%,
3
27
0
79
'4 7:30-8:30 !"14190 110 5., 23 261 412 41' C
7 30 A�
PHIF 0.72 1 1 0.88 1 1 0.78 0.67
4:15
2
0
18
0
0
1
21
o
39
1
'T2&
0
56
0
96
0
0
0
7
0
34
0
1
76
2
1
113
4:30
1
0
6
. .... 1A.
4:45
2
1
13k.
0
0
0
� '�t'
16
0
50
1
51
4
69
1
125
141
5:00
1
1
18
,Q4,,kj,"
A
0
1
0
21
1
48
1
3
74
0
127
5:15
3
1
8
"d
1
0
0
13
0
33
1
�'Lgg'�
3
90
1
128
ri#0117.0
5:30
2
—:-'tl
1
3
1 1
0
0
17
1.0
1 37
1 2
1
7
74
1
121
1
4:45-5:45
IMINAT
?,�132,Xfl
64
Q0F5.j
3
67
174
327
501
PHF
0.8
1 0.75
0.85
0.87
No Text
MOLD
�DISTP laurto,'J
�a
Q
0
S t -rc
?12 C--4. (M,(,V A 2 Y V, rG' A s s;tGA;A 6x, T-
0/0
r►/I 0 2-
(� Zo
J '
1 Q
P&S(' &atlAL / &mAiERCrAc.
P GP— t= I A �- 1
As-umG (f0MMfrP—eiAL WI L.C. p4got
o.0 - sYQGGT.
' l3nLA2 �1ri I AOF t4,1Pt_I
Trip Generation
Code
Use
Size
AVVDTE
AAA Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Rase
Trips
Rate
In
Rate
Out
Rafe
In
Rate
Out
GS i-Oe,vYiAC.
230
�wau (Eo S
Z 3�,v.
�j•8(o
t 35
N f40
O, 07
Z
0.37
°!
v. 3
$
o.(7
4-
,,4 erAL
614
f GC--r(IL
4.095P
44.52
/?-7
4.3$
Z.
0.30
.f
1.17
5
/.SZ
(�
'110
OFpte(g-
4.oKSF
ll•o(
4.4
I.3G
S
0.(4
l
0.2S
1
t•Z¢
5
5 U-6 ro(L
2f
7
Z
Cn
OTAL
3(00
!(
(4
lS
S
"% �
...n.ww W.. w. r"r"+.+n..°w....�wwy..r..w.�....
� ��..uppn.M..`Y
wMwV�WywMi.LL�iu�i. �Iv.. M.. n+n~�Twy✓y.I.���wvauw
wuM.w.��.�.
HEMP
� M��4 YRW r.�LiF�wHi F.iw
HE
wW
iw
n'w"www..:r.rr
.e w � � gWY•ww.W...ewwuW+.a r..
w.IMu u.r.c.n
.�w/...vs Ygtl�.w..••wr.a.n.�.. Y«....v1...N a
M.iwlwMSPYW w.W1.
w.�r�i..�e.�•v.��.. eR«b.MNV.w...w Yt.....u°n"nw.+e+wn.
�s�i+am
. a•
7n5i M
go,
O
Lec,vn�
w�u,w1w•.ww.
r «caur
M.VLE IMJ.C.OIVIIF.
G(r1lT COLU16
PROP05m $YTE
i PLAN
6
A IPDP-0O�
Larimer County
Parcel Locator with
Spring
2005 Aerial Imagery
' .
Zoom In
1:4Y
=iQT, 1 .
W
by Data
deastire 11owDo1UseThis7Select
Legend
Lot Dimensions
Address Number
I
/.�;�
Major Roads
Road System
R ailroad
Township/Range Lines
Section Lines
0
Ouarlersection Lines
r
Parcel Lines
Major Subdivision
Boundary
.,.
CJ
Platted Lot Lines
��..-
;q
4W
LakesiPondsiReservoir
Rivera'Streams
Rocky Min. Nat. Park
W
(Larimer Portion)
Tax Exempt Lands
Nat i hea.'Oacn Space
Scrou'. Araacrir•
�arRiiec rea9un
Incorporated Areas
c05 1 8i.sid
Wastagton Perk
c05_2_8i.sid
c05 3 8i.sid
c05 4 8i.sid
-
c05 5 8i.sid
-
c05 B Bi.sid
site created by la rimer County G13 and Mapping Department
c05_7_8i.sid
c05 8 8i.sid
c05 9 8i.sid
c05 10 8i.sid
c05 11 8i.sid
c05 12 8i.sid
05 13 8i.sid
Zoom In
Chapter — Attachments
Attachment A
Transportation Impact Study
Base Assumptions
Project Information
Project Name ScLAg \f«t.QgG
Project Location ME (� T l�JAP>L- ALA P u
TIS Assumptions
Type of Study
Full: V0
Inter m-dime:
Study Area Boundaries
North:
East: A4.(- 6r
West: M6Gb 12 Q *A
Study Years
Short Range: Z D 10
1 Long Range: 202 I A
Future Traffic Growth Rate
3 d ?E7A2
Study Intersections
I. All access drives
5.
2.MA1)LE M.C-cpRtlAA
6-
pc6 c.eC
7.
4.00& Mcl ZUAA
8.
Time Period for Study
AM- 7:00-9 PM: 4:00-6:0 Sat Noon: N o
7T : 7-)
Trip Generation Rates
Trip Adjustment Factors
Passby: /^
Captive
Overall Trip Distribution
SEE ATTACHED SKETCH
Mode Split Assumptions
/J//q
Committed Roadway Improvements
/)Q..r AwAP—d or- AAJ �
Other Traffic Studies
Areas Requiring Special Study
/� t r, N gp F, V r Y ,
Date: / `t UGcU S Y 2do -7
Traffic Engineer:
Local Entity Engi
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repeated and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Page 4-35
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
0
APPENDIX A
IV. CONCLUSIONS
' This study assessed the impacts of Solar "Village Maple on the
short range (2010) street system in the vicinity of the proposed
development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded:.
' The Solar Village Maple -is feasible from a traffic engineering
standpoint. . At full development, Solar Village Maple will
generate approximately 380 daily trip ends, 21 morning peak hour
' trip ends, and 29 afternoon peak hour trip ends:
Currently, the key intersections 'operate acceptably with existing
control and geometry.
In the short range (2010)., future, a signal will not likely be
' warranted at any of the key stop sign controlled intersections.
In the short range (2010) background traffic future, the key
intersections will operate acceptably.
t - .
In the short range (2010)_Tuture, given expansion of the Solar
Village Maple and, an, increase in background traffic, the key
' intersections will operate acceptably. The short range (2010)
geometry is shown in Figure 8."
- Acceptable level of service will be .achieved for pedestrian and
' bicycle modes based upon .the measures in the multi -modal
transportation guidelines. Transit level of service is
' acceptable.
t
t
1
18
Pedestrian Level of Service
Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of
Solar Village Maple.The Solar Village Maple site is located within an
area termed. as "pedestrian district," which sets the level of service
threshold at LOS A for all measured categories, except for street
crossing at LOS B. There are 'two destination areas within 1320 feet
of the proposed Solar Village Maple: 1) tothe south and east of the
site is the Fort Collins CBD which contains commercial and office lane
uses and 2) the residential neighborhoods to the west. The Solar
Village Maple development will complete the sidewalk adjacent to their
site. Appendix E contains a Pedestrian LOS 'Worksheet. Since,
pedestrian facilities .in this area were built under earlier street
standards, Visual Interest &'Amenities could.not be met.
Bicycle Level of Service
Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of
Solar Village Maple. This area, the Fort Collins CBD,is considered to
be a community/neighborhood commercial center. Based upon Fort
Collins bicycle LOS criteria, the level of service threshold for
bicycles is LOS.B. There are bicycle facilities along Cherry Street,
Mason Street, and Howes Street. The Solar village Maple is connected
to the bike lanes on Cherry Street,. Howes Street, and Mason Street via
Maple Street and Meldrum Street, which satisfies the LOS B criteria.
The bicycle LOS worksheet.is provided in Appendix E.
Transit Level of Service
The study area has extensive transit service. The Downtown
Transit Center is located in the northeast quadrant of ,the
Laporte/Mason intersection, which is within 1320 feet of the site.
This area is served (within 1320 feet) by transit routes 1, 5, 8, 9, .
14, 15,, 18, 91, and 92. The Solar Village Maple Developmentis
located in an area defined as "mixed -use centers and -commercial
corridors" for the purpose of public transit level of service
evaluation. In the future, transit service will be improved as
depicted on the Fort Collins.Transit System Plana The future.level.of
service will be in the B category.
17
16
TABLE 4
Short Range (2010) Total Peak Hour'Operation
`Intersection , , ,
Movement �
Level of SerwCe '=
Cherry/Meldrum
(stop sign)
EB LTT/RT
A
A
WB LT/T/RT .
A
B
NB LT/T/RT
A
A
SB LT/T/RT
A
A
-Meldrum/Maple
(stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT
A
A
WB LT/T/RT
A
A
NB LT/f/RT
A
B
SB LT/T/RT
A
B
Maple/Alley-City Hall Parking
(stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT
A
A
WB LT/T/RT
A
A
NB LTIT/RT
A
A
SB LT/f/RT
A
A
15
TABLE 3
Short Range (2010) Background Peak Hour Operation
Inber:�edion
Level aF Service .'
PM
Cherry/Meldrum
(stop sign)_
EB LTT/RT
A
-
A
WB LT/T/RT
A
B
NB LT/T/RT
A
A
SB LT/T/RT
A
A _
Meldrum/Maple
(stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT
A
A
WB LT/T/RT
A
A
NB LT/T/RT
A
B
SB LT/T/RT
A
B
Maple/Alley-City Hall Parking
(stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT
A
A
WB LT/f/RT
A
A
NB LT/f/RT
A
A
SB LT/T/RT
A
A
■
14
� N
�— AM/PM
' o N 013 .
v o 00 --w--148/335
18/20
Cherry Street
0/1 1
' 283/184 —� rn g co
2/5 v o
N
N
N
' U)
E
2
- � -
N
Q
r
vc�v �1/10 boo. �7/9
Ia cm— 38/81 J� o — 50/100
J 13/17 Maple Street �/� .
1/1 1M
,. 76/38 — Wn (D N 94/64 �- o. o c.,)
2/5 " � � 0/0 o o c�
N N
SHORT RANGE (2010) TOTAL
.PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7
13
A
SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6
12
N
AM/PM
o_ _N 0/3
148/335
17/19
Cherry Street
0/, -4 .
' 283/184 i a, v r
2/5 o �'
N
cn
n
E
ccN Q
G
r
�1/9 Loop �5/4
' N �— 36/79 )r� o vl �— 46/97
�1v,a Maple Street f i /�7/�
6/1
' 74/36 Lo to o 93/58 —� o 0 00
2/5 o N 0/0 0 o c�
N N -
SHORT RANGE (2010) BACKGROUND
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5
Background Traffic Projections
Figure 5 shows the, short range (2010) background traffic
projections. Background traffic volume forecasts for the short range
(2010) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for other
developments in this area and reviewing historic counts in the area.
The counted traffic was increased at the rate of 3 percent per year.
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. Figure 6 shows the site
generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figure-7 shows the total (site
plus background) short range (2010) 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. It is expected that peak hour signal warrants
will not be met at the any of the key stop sign control intersections.
In addition to this, the intersection spacing would not meet the signal
spacing criteria.
' Operation Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed at the key intersections. The
' operations analyses were conducted for .the. short range future,
reflecting a year 2010 condition.
' Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 5, ..the key
intersections operate in the short range (2010) background traffic
future as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses
' are provided in Appendix C. All the key intersections will operate
Acceptably.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the key
intersections operate in the short range (201,0) total traffic future
as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are
provided in Appendix ,D. All the key intersections will operate
acceptably.
Geometry
The short range (2012) geometry is shown in Figure 8. This is
the existing geometry.
10
No Text
I,F.
•� .� F
LA-U" �
'� ooaa00000ga
o
0
o MAPLE STREET
o
' SITE PLAN
r -imr -or -iir
IIom
----m
N
SCALE 1 "=50'
ME
Figure 3
8
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Solar Village Maple is a proposed 23 residentialdwelling
units and 8,500 square feet of retail/office development, located in the
northeast quadrant of the Meldrum/Maple intersection in .Fort Collins.
Figure 3 shows a site plan of Solar Village Maple. . The short range
analysis (Year 2010) includes the Solar Village Maple and an appropriate
increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential
developments in the area. Since this is an intermediate, level
transportation impact study, a long range analysis is not required. "The
residential dwelling units will have on site parking via the alley. The
retail/office will use on -street parking.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is important in considering the impact .of a
development such as this upon the existing and. proposed street system.,
Trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 7th Edition,
ITE. was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the
proposed/expected uses at this site. Table 2 shows the expected trip
generation on a daily and peak hour basis.
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
(ifn 3k s
i# lxsa�n.A SkquYs
%JS�
L
YZ.'Y 1'Fyy°2P^
.{�'
g v�b�s4r
A�
�'.,;11
"
R
�IY�fI F�VY{ tY'
yNYREV
j t
{Z6�B�
t gi.
K f
Y
230
Townhome
23 D.U.
5.86
140.
0.07
2
0.37
9
0.35
8
0.17
4
814
Retail
4.25 KSF
44.32
190
0.38
2
0.30
1
1.19
5
1.52
—
6 .
710
General Office
4.25 KSF
11.01
50
1.36
6
0.19
1
0.25
1
1.24
5
Total
380
10,
11
14
15
Trip Distribution
Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for
the Solar Village Maple. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution used for
the short range (2010) analysis future. The trip distribution was
discussed in the scoping meeting.
TABLE 1
Current Peak Hour Operation
Cherry/Meldrum
(stop sign)
EB LTT/RT
A
A
WB LT/T/RT
A
B
NB LT/T/RT
A
A
SB LTrr/RT
A
A
Meldrum/ , Maple
(stop sign)
EB LTrr/RT
A
A
WB LT/TIRT
A
A
NB LTrr/RT
A
B
SB LTIT/RT
A
B
Maple/Alley-City Hall Parking
(stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT
A
A
WB LT/T/RT
A
A
NB LT/T/RT
A
A
SB LT/T/RT
A
A
o_ _N 0/3
135/307
16/17
t /
0/1
f Cherry Street
' 259/168
ao a N
2/5 77%,
N
E
N
t
co
�1/8
' arc
` i
33/72 ,
11/13
x— Maple Street
68/33 —�
,n co
'
2/5�
'�'�
N N
' RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
5
N
Q
Ln o Ln 5/4
r' Io v .F- 42/88
6/1 f r
85/53
0/0 o o a
Existing Traffic
' Recent peak hour t raffic 'volumes are shown in Figure 2. The
counts at the Cherry/Meldrum, Meldrum/Maple, and Maple/Alley-City Hall
Parking intersections were obtained_ in August 2007.. Raw traffic count
data is provided in -Appendix A.
Existing Operation
The key intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the peak hour traffic shown
in, Figure 2, the peak. hour operation is shown in Table 1. A
description of level of service for unsignalized intersections from
the.2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins
Motor Vehicle LOS. Standards (Intersections) are also provided in
Appendix .B. The Solar Village Maple site is in an area termed
"downtown district." The "downtown district" is considered to be a
"mixed use district" for the purposes of motor vehicle level of
service standards. At unsignalized intersections, in mixed use district,
the minimum level of service is F, which is considered to be normal in
an urban environment.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in this area were built under earlier
street standards. Generally, sidewalks exist along all -streets in
this area. Sidewalks exist along this. site, except for a small
portion along Maple Street. There are pedestrian crosswalks and ramps
at all key intersections.
Bicycle Facilities
There are bicycle lanes along Cherry Street, Howes Street, and
Mason Street.
Transit Facilities
The study area has extensive transit service. The Downtown
Transit Center is located.. in the northeast quadrant of_ the
Laporte/Mason intersection, which is within 1320 feet of the site.
This area is served (within 1320 feet) by transit routes° 1, 5, 8, 9,
14, 15, 18, 91, and 92.
9
N
Cherry Street
a�
c
>
Maple Street
Solar Village,
U
Mapl
porte Avenue
.o
-
3 m
O O
Mountdin Avenue
SCALE: V=500'
' SITE LOCATION Figure 1
3
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of Solar Village Maple is shown in Figure 1. _It is
important that.a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be
presented.
Land Use
Land uses, in the area are primarily residential and
commercial/office. This site is considered to be in an area termed
"downtown district." There are existing residential land uses to the
north and west of the site. There are existing commercial land uses
to the.south and east of the site. The Fort Collins central business
district (CBD) is southeast of this site.
Streets
The primary streets near, the Solar Village Maple site are Meldrum_
.Street, Maple Street, and Cherry Street. Meldrum Street is adjacent to
(west) the Solar Village Maple site. it is a north -south street
classified as a local street on the Fort Collins. Master Street Plan.
There is diagonal parking on both sides of the Meldrum Street in this
area. At .the Cherry/Meldrum intersection, Meldrum Street has all
movements combined into a single lane. The.Cherry/Meldrum intersection
has all -way stop sign control. At the Meldrum/Maple intersection,
Meldrum Street has all movements combined into a single lane. The
Meldrum/Maple intersection has stop sign control on Meldrum Street. The
posted speed limit in this area of Meldrum Street is 25 mph.
Maple Street is adjacent to (south) the proposed Solar Village
Maple. It is an east -west street classified as a local street on the
Fort Collins Master Street Plan. There is diagonal parking on both
sides of the Maple Street in this area. At the Meldrum/Maple
intersection, Maple Street has all movements combined into a single
lane. At the Maple/Alley-City Hall Parking intersection, Maple Street
has all movements combined into a single lane. The Maple/Alley-City
Hall Parking has stop sign control on the Alley -City Hall Parking.- The
posted speed limit in this area of Maple Street is 25 mph.
Cherry Street is north of the proposed Solar Village Maple. It is
an east -west street classified as a two-lane collector street on the
Fort Collins Master Street Plan. There is parallel parking on both
sides of the Cherry Street in this area. At the Cherry/Meldrum
intersection, Cherry Street has all movements combined into a single
lane. The posted speed limit in this area of Cherry Street is 25 mph.
E
I. INTRODUCTION
This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses. the
capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed
Solar Village Maple. The Solar Village Maple is located in the
northeast quadrant of the Meldrum/Maple intersection in I Fort Collins,
Colorado.
During the course of the analysis, numerous .contacts were made
with the project planning consultant (JCL .Architecture) and the Fort
Collins . Traffic. Engineer. The Transportation Impact Study Base
Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This
study generally conforms to the format set. forth in the Larimer County
Urban Area Street Standards. Based upon the trip generation, a TIS
memorandum is required. However, dueto neighborhood sensitivity, an
intermediate level transportation impact study was requested. 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
intersections;
- Analyze signal warrants;
Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit modes of transportation.
LIST OF FIGURES
■ Figure
page
1.
Site Location ........................................
3
2.
Recent Peak Hour Traffic .............................
5.
' 3.
Site Plan .............................................
8
9.
Trip Distribution ......................... .........
9
' S.
Short Range (2010) Background Peak Hour Traffic
11
' 6.
Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic .....................
12
7.
Short Range (2010) Total Peak Hour Traffic ...........
13
' 8.
Short Range (2010).Geometry ..............:..,..,,.,..
16
APPENDIX
' A
Base Assumptions Form/Recent Peak Hour Traffic
B
Existing Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort
Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards
C
Short Range Background Peak Hour Operation
D
Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation
E
1
Pedestrian/Bicycle Level.of Service Worksheets
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
Introduction .....:.......:...........................
1
II.
Existing Conditions .........
'Land Use ...
2
'
Streets .... ..
2. .
Existing Traffic ............. .... .....
4
...........
Existing Operation ..... ................._.......
4
.
Pedestrian Facilities
'
..................................
Bicycle Facilities
4
..... ................ .......
4
Transit Facilities
4
...................................
' III.
Proposed Development .................: .............
7
Trip Generation ......................................
7
Trip Distribution .... ......
7
....::. .... ...
Background Traffic Projections .....
10
TripAssignment ............. ...........................
10
SignalWarrants .......................... ............
.10
' -
Operation Analysis .
. ..........
10
Geometry ....
.....................
10
Pedestrian Level of Service. ..........................
17
Bicycle Level of Service .... ................ .....
17
Transit Level of Service ... .......... .... .....
17
' IV.
Conclusions ..... ..... ............. ...........
18
'
LIST OF TABLES
' Table
Page.
1:
Current Peak Hour Operation ...............:...........
6
2.
Trip Generation..... ...... .........
7
.......
3.
Short Range (2010) Background Peak Hour Operation .:..
14
'
4.
Short Range (2010) Total Peak Hour Operation ........
15
SOLAR VILLAGE MAPLE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
AUGUST 2007
Prepared for:
JCL Architecture
201 South College Avenue, Studio 205
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Prepared by:
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034