Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutONE LIBRARY PARK (220 E. OLIVE ST.) - PDP - 34-07 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY' SCALE: 1 "=500' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA a� SCALE: 1 "=500' ' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA No Text ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Olive & Alley Short Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1 Lane Configurations 4 4+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% ' Volume (veh/h) 6 119 0 0 166 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 140 0 0 189 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 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 192 140 346 346 140 344 344 190 vC1, stage 1 conf vol ' vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 192 140 346 346 140 344 344 190 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 0/6 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ' cM capacity (veh/h) 1381 1443 605 574 908 607 575 851 Direction Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 147 192 0 4 ' Volume Left 7 0 0 2 Volume Right 0 3 0 1 cSH 1381 1443 1700 672 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ' Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.4. 0.0 0.0 10.4 Lane LOS A A B ' Approach Delay (s) 0.4 0.0 0.0 10.4 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary ' Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph ' Matthew J. Delich , P. E. ' �S HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Olive & Alley Short Total AM 4, t,.�,l,� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4, *T+ *T+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 1 56 2 1 82 0 0 0 0 4 0 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 66 2 1 96 0 0 0 0 5 0 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 96 68 173 168 67 168 169 96 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 96 68 173 168 67 168 169 96 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 99 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1497 1533 785 723 996 795 722 960 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 69 98 . 0 9 Volume Left 1 1 0 5 Volume Right 2 0 0 5 cSH 1497 1533 1700 869 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 9.2 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 9.2 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Mi ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Olive & Matthews Short Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 22 103 6 7 106 12 5 37 9 8 62 41 ' Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 . 121 7 8 118 13 6 44 11 9 73 48 Direction Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 ' Volume Total (vph) 154 139 60 131 Volume Left (vph) 26 8 6 9 Volume Right (vph) 7 13 11 48 Hadj (s) 0.04 -0.01 -0.05 -0.17 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.20 0.17 0.08 0.16 Capacity (veh/h) 743 750 708 744 ' Control Delay (s) 8.7 8.5 8.1 8.4 Approach Delay (s) 8.7 8.5 8.1 8.4 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 1 a) HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Olive & Matthews Short Total AM 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) 17 34 3 7 77 4 4 25 3 5 13 16 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) 20 40 4 8 91 5 5 29 4 6 15 19 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total (vph) 64 104 38 40 Volume Left (vph) 20 8 5 6 Volume Right (vph) 4 5 4 19 Hadj (s) 0.06 0.02 0.00 -0.22 Departure Headway (s) 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.05 Capacity (veh/h) 826 845 794 840 Control Delay (s) 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.3 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.6 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.4% . ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. �Nf HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Olive & Alley Short Bkgd PM --. z v IL- w t/ `► 1 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *T+ *T+ *T+ `T' Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 Volume (veh/h) 3 117 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.85 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 138 0 0 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 181 138 325 325 138 325 325 181 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 181 138 325 325 138 325 325 1 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7A 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 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 862 cM capacity (veh/h) 1395 1446 626 591 911 626 591 Direction Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 141 181 0 0 Volume Left 4 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1395 1446 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 • 0.0 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary - Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 11.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph - Matthew J. Delich . P. E. ONC HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Olive & Alley ShortBkgd AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 52 2 1 81 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 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) 0 61 2 1 95 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 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 95 64 161 160 .62 160 161 95 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 95 64 161 160 62 160 161 95 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 too 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1499 1539 803 732 1002 805 731 961 Direction Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 64 96 0 2 Volume Left 0 1 0 1 Volume Right 2 0 0 1 cSH 1499 1539 1700 876 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) .0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.1 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.1 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. /9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Olive & Matthews Short Bkgd PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 41� 41� 4 *T# Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 20 102 4 7 104 12 3 37 9 8 62 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 120 5 8 116 13 4 44 11 9 73 46 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SIB 1 Volume Total (vph) 148 137 58 128 Volume Left (vph) 24 8 4 9 Volume Right (vph) 5 13 11 46 Hadi (s) 0.65 -0.01 -0.06 -0.17 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.19 0.17 0.07 0.16 Capacity (veh/h) 745 754 715 747 Control Delay (s) 8.6 8.4 8.0 8.3 Approach Delay (s) 8.6 8.4 8.0 8.3 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.4 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich . P. E. /F ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Olive & Matthews Short Bkgd AM * Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT . SBR ' Lane Configurations 44 4� 4* + Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 16 32 2 7 76 4 3 25 3 5 13 15 ' 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) 19 38 2 8 89 5 4 29 4 6 15 18 Direction Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 ' Volume Total (vph) 59 102 36 39 Volume Left (vph) 19 8 4 6 Volume Right (vph) 2 5 4 18 Hadi (s) 0.07 0.02 0.00 -0.21 Departure Headway (s) 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 825 847 798 842 Control Delay (s) 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.3 Approach LOS A A A A ' Intersection Summary Delay 7.6 HCM Level of Service A ' Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 17 APPENDIX C h6 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 mitigating measures required " considered normal in an urban environment �`j UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A <10 B > 10and<15 C > 15 and _< 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 ME, HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Olive & Alley Recent PM 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) 3 106 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 125 0 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 396 pX, platoon unblocked 167 vC, conflicting volume 167 125 299 299 125 299 299 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 167 vCu, unblocked vol 167 125 299 299 125 299 299 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 3.3 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1411 1462 652 612 926 652 612 877 Direction Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 128 167 0 0 Volume Left 4 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 cSH 1411 1462 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS . A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 11.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Olive & Alley Recent AM * Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4 4+ 4� Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 48 2 1 74 0 0 0 0 1 . 0 1 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) 0 56 2 1 87 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 396 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 87 59 148 147 58 147 148 87 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 87 59 148 147 58 147 148 87 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 too too 100 100 1o0 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1509 1545 818 744 1008 821 743 971 Direction, Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 59 88 0 2 Volume Left 0 1 0 1 Volume Right 2 0 0 1 cSH 1509 1545 1700 890 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.1 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.1 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min), . 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 1?1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Olive & Matthews Recent PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR- NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 18 93 4 6 95 11 3 34 8 7 57 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 109 5 7 106 12 4 40 9 8 67 42 Direction Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 135 124 53 118 Volume Left (vph) 21 7 4 8 Volume Right (vph) 5 12 9 42 Hadi (s) 0.04 -0.01 -0.06 -0.17 Departure Headway (s) 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.4 Degree' Utilization, x 0.17 0.15 0.07 0.14 Capacity (veh/h) 768 766 731 763 Control Delay (s) 8.4 8.2 7.9 8.1 Approach Delay (s) 8.4 8.2 7.9 8.1 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 8.2 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ' Joseph Matthew J_ Delich , P. E. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Olive & Matthews Recent AM 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) 15 29 2 6 70 4 3 23 3 5 12. 14 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) 18 34 2 7 82 5 4 27 4 6 14 16 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 54 94 34 36 Volume Left (vph) 18 7 4 6 Volume Right (vph) 2 5 4 16 Hadj (s) 0.07 0.02 -0.01 -0.20 Departure Headway (s) 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 831 852 807 851 Control Delay (s) 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 Approach Delay (s) 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.5 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.6% Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. ICU Level of Service A no No Text Z m 0 m C)v J 13, Li W L cy vyzW LLJ > fA Q 0� W 9 0 e`S LL 0 = in A O 3 ' 0 Z Os W J a .2 co O T Md C O � o � t E CD _ L 'E? N II II II d O _ s.i a F N. N N N rf. M N O O O F- g N N.4t N N C"IX a � t x Fy^ O O O O O O y C 7 Ny tD O C) co cn N N J O O O O O O �� t• ��. N � A. � 0 O O O O O N p 0 to A N CD to !O W J O O O O O O O O O O N C lz O} O ti0 O O FN= a vi �w00000 C m Co O O O O O O a'S 7 N O O O 0 0 '- �t yy'; M9r r xt VIAX, k )� 0000(DO C 7 O ja C) o 0 0 0 0 k O Z O � O O O O C WIX M O p O i- m A A A A ao eD oD 1f� <D 1!f QO 1l1 f+n ik r .10 Ln � OD w U2 00 U2 M x Y. N- Mr Y9 (afi O>r �M N ski O O O O O Opp (CN � M V 1 —M M O O O O O O O O O C) lc N co , COD, > N N O O O O O O O O O r "n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o c O O O O O O O CD OO O O O U2 (q V O M N ' oImo, U d V ' LJJ LL J �n W{i�W op V tD > oo Id Li. C) O LU J p n. O N � O it c N 3 J r 0 a .fA, -M t10 ;" tQ N 4= et in d' G 14 t0 M M C>' M F� N N M N N M N �N a0` a0 _N r r, p IX N O N V C 7 CO f,- O N � IA LA N O J ' M O cn `r kXl Ai w Si � S ff Sl 1 f .� it i 0: O O O O O N C 7 q c0 QO V' [O CD co N W Ln In w 7 O YX i O i-- cn m 'r .� C 7 m fn w co N N 1— r 7 O 4J J O N r r N r M jr T 2ii N O r O r C 7 O to N cn c0 co � Ln O Z --L O CD•'- C) O N q po LLO{� X t0 <D N ;� N 40 co tq C>t CO; z. c.a r I N N N �M r � "�=eWA I F r 4 "�V. t� I N cn Cn cn O N N N N N N cn r t ^1 N��pp N) Ni jtOn 1. � r• N: op Ln t0 0" Cf N M M-e M M , a th vUF >t ly 1z3 Q' jt ,. O t0 OD ciV eq > I� O c0 co I.- lI') O COco co N O cn O O J �t �ti3 A 00 r' rr �r ?;,: r cn O r V' O c0 -,t co O o r O Opp tryO a 0 Dund u wn HMO[ ABJig SMBHTV-Vi O O .:r (4) ED] 0 OC t VL= 7�5T2gci Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Pale In Pate out ZZb c`oNTfAC 14T). 94 0.10 I . 0.41 C0 0.40 (O o•Zz 3 �cc �14=1d 3.3Z 4 ( P o.42 0•0& I4 S(5,t)AU- se-Rvie(yS 13CO'S. K )(14=4.Z 038 Z 030 ! f.11 5 ?ILI +614 lrt-rav5 � t� 238 20 ¢ 2 y Co 5 l !O zzo LdILA, ivI ZQ� ti ?200 8 c� I 3 Chapter 4 — Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name 2 2 O C. ©c IV C. Project Location N ,q,v 6 r VG 0 1 d T w TLS Assumptions Type of Study Full: A) C) Int tectiate: Study Area Boundaries North: _ ©Lr (;:-- South:.L, QG rliG East: West: ALc.S Study Years Short Range: 0 l p Long Future Traffic Growth Rate Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5. 3., 4 7• 8. Time Period for Study 00 : 7:-9:0 M: 4:00-6:00 nC2 ( TE(Ati- - Sat Noon: AJo r A-r'rAeN Gib Trip Generation Rates Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: ' f l A Captive J A Market: Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Nliq Committed Roadway Improvements A)a T A W A 2 Cti p F A A),? Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study N Ark {/S (S Date: A o aU5 T 3 , Z467 Traffic Engineer: Local Entity Engi Larimar County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins Page 4-35 12 APPENDIX A ' IV. CONCLUSIONS ' This study assessed the impacts of the 220 East Olive Street redevelopment 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 220 East Olive Street redevelopment is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the 220 East Olive ' Street redevelopment will generate approximately 298 daily trip ends, 16 morning peak hour trip ,ends, and 24 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 the Olive/Mathews intersection. t- In the short range (2010) background traffic future, the key intersections will operate acceptably. ' - In the short range (2010) future, given the 220 East Olive Street redevelopment 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 17 16 ' Geometry The short range (2012) geometry is shown in Figure 8. This is ' the existing geometry. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix E shows a map of the area that is ,within 1320 feet of the 220 East Olive Street site. The 220 East Olive Street 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 four destination areas ' within 1320 feet of the proposed 220 East Olive. Street redevelopment: I) to the north of the site is the Fort Collins CBD which contains commercial and office land uses, 2) the residential neighborhoods and ' commercial to the south, 3) the commercial to the, west, and 4) the residential neighborhoods and library to the east. Appendix E contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Bicycle Level of Service ' Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of 220 East Olive Street site. 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 Remington Street.. The 220 East Olive Street redevelopment is connected to the ' bike lanes on Remington Street via Olive 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. This, area is. ' served (within 1320 feet) by transit routes 1, 5, 14, 15, and 18. The 220 East Olive Street redevelopment is 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 Plan, The future level of service will be in the'B category. 15 TABLE 3 Short Range (2010) Background Peak Hour Operation ,.m', oved Level of Service Olive/Mathews (stop sign) EB LTT/RT A A WB LT/TIRT A A NB LTTURT A A SB LTIT/RT A A Olive/Alley (stop sign) EB LTfT/RT A A WB LTfT/RT A A NB LTfT/RT A A SB LTfr/RT A A TABLE 4 Short Range (2010) Total Peak Hour Operation Olive/Mathews (stop sign) EB LTT/RT A A WB LTfT/RT A A NB LTfT/RT A A SB LTIT/RT A A Olive/Mathews (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT A A WB LT/T/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LTfr/RT A B c - - cn 3 m Q � �— N o N 0/3. CD R 00 `C� 4/12 v jo v �- 82/166 'n -m77/106 1 —1 /0 Olive Street 7n ' 1 /6 17/22 56/119 - 341103 - - ' 2/0o 0 0 3/6 IT c i 12 N �— AM/PM a� a� U) 3 cv Q � 0 0 0 �0/0 o �— 81/159 0/3 ) f r 52/117 i 2/0 0 0 0 Nco4/12 Lo -�— 717 6/104 Olive Street 7n 16/20 f 32/102 c) n rn 2/4 ------ En ch N SHORT RANGE (2010) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION N ResidentiaUCommercial Hi Figure 4 ' Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for ' the 220 East Olive Street redevelopment. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution used for the short range (2010) analysisfuture. The trip distribution was discussed in the scoping meeting. ' 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, a local/local street intersection would not meet the signal 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, thekey intersections operate in the short range (2010) 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. 9 0 0 - of oo 5 le uV OLIVE STREET SCALE 1 "=30' N SITE PLAN 8 Figure 3 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The 220 East Olive Street redevelopment is proposed as 14 residential dwellings, units, with the potential of each .being a live/work unit. It is located in the northwest quadrant of the Olive/Mathews intersection in Fort Collins. Figure 3 shows a site plan of the 220 East Olive Street redevelopment. The short range. analysis (Year 2010) includes the 220 East Olive Street redevelopment 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 (garage) via the alley. The commercial aspect 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, 7U' Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at this site. The types of uses in the "work component of each could be a home/office (planning/engineering consultant, insurance, massage therapist, etc.). A conservative approach was taken in calculating the trip generation for this aspect. It was 'assumed that 300 square feet of each unit would be devoted to this, or a total of 4200 square feet. It was further assumed that there could. be 14 outside employees. The trip generation from both of these was summed and the work trip of a resident was subtracted resulting in the trip generation related to the "work" component. This is reflected in Table 2. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. TABLE 2 Trip Generation r tLjk J ` F AWDTE , x AM Peak iiogr s:(V' f F..T 1+ �w2na^v . .4c .. �:Z. ••� .�.;y -S•{..W 4}V x. EY i[, u y 4 l4 W Residential Component 220 I.Apariment 14 D.U. 6.72 1 94 1 0.10 1 1 0.41 6 0.40 6 0.22 3 Work Component 710 Office 14 Employ 3.32 46 0.42 6 0.06 1 0.08 1 0.38 5 814 Personal Services 4.2 KSF 44.32 186 0.38 2 0.30 1 1.19 5 1.52 6 Less residenfial work trip ends -28 -1 0 -1 -1 Work Component Subtotal 204 7 2 5 10 Total 298 8 8 11 13 7 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation ✓y_ .r .-+.->T arn�r. ,_. "�`LYvE .,.,a.: 4`°'.. a,r• .;_.._s, <, 4'i�i.. Level ofsServic:e .... ��AIA �a n..i:;: t �,'u.s �"v Olive/Mathews (stop sign) EB LTT/RT A A WB LTIT/RT A A NB LTfT/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A Olive/Alley (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT A A WB LTIT/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A 6 ' 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 220 East Olive Street site is in an area termed \'..1....�.i._w .lam _i_ 1 // u�w„��w�� U�UU ct. 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. There are pedestrian crosswalks and ramps at the. Olive/Mathews intersection. Bicycle Facilities There are .bicycle lanes along Remington Street .to the. west. Local streets are not.striped with bike lanes. Transit Facilities The study area has extensive transit service. This area is served (within 1320 feet) by transit routes 1, 5, 14, 15, and 18. 5 Olive Street 0/3 48/106 - - I I ' 2/0 0 0 0 t RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4 N AM/PM ►; cot— v a 4/11 Lo - 70/95 /--- 6/6 15118 29193 —► m Rt co 2/4 r> r> N Figure 2 4 N JOB O Sf�O Of Nf Mountain Avenue m c m m Oak Street m 0 U Olive Street m 2 E. OI ve m w L V/ St reet o 3 Magnolia Street a c 'E m Mulberry Street SITE LOCATION SCALE: 1 "=500' 3 Figure 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the 220 East Olive Street site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use Land uses 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 southeast of the site. There are existing commercial land uses to the north, south, and west of the site with intermittent residential also. The library is to the east of this site. The Fort Collins central business district (CBD) is northwest of this site. Streets The primary streets near the 220 East Olive Street site are Olive Street,. Mathews Street, and an alley north of Olive Street, between Mathews Street and Remington Street. Olive Street is adjacent to (south) the 220 East Olive Street site. 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 Olive Street in this area. At the Olive/Mathews intersection, Olive .Street has all movements. combined into a single lane. The Olive/Mathews intersection has all -way stop sign control. At the Olive/Alley intersection, Olive Street has all movements combined into a single lane. The Olive/Alley intersection. has stop sign control on the Alley. There is no posted speed limit in this area of Olive Street. Therefore the speed..limit is assumed to be 25 mph. Mathews Street is adjacent to (east) the proposed 220 East Olive ' Street 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 Mathews Street in this area. At the Olive/Mathews ' intersection, Mathews Street. has all movements combined into a single lane. There is no posted speed limit in this area of Mathews Street. Therefore the speed limit is assumed to be 25 mph. ' Existing Traffic - ' Recent peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. The counts at the Olive/Mathews and Olive/Alley intersections were obtained in October 2007. Raw traffic count data is provided in ' Appendix A. I. INTRODUCTION ' This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed 220 East Olive Street redevelopment. The 220 East Olive Street ' redevelopment is located in the northwest quadrant of the Olive/Mathews intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. ' During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made +L the � l anni l wi�11 �11 pro jeCt, plain, Trig Consultant (vF nipiey), the owner (Stoner Development), .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, due to 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. 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Location................I........................ 3 2. Recent Peak Hour Traffic ............................. 4 3. Site Pla:. ..... ..... ............................ 8 4. Trip Distribution .................................... 10 5. 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 Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ......................................... 1 II. Existing Conditions .................................. 2 LandUse ..............................:.............. 2 Street Existing Traffic.....................I................ 2 Existing Operation ................................... 5 Pedestrian Facilities..........................I...... 5 BicycleFacilities ................................... 5 Transit Facilities .... :................................. 5 III. Proposed Development .................................. 7 Trip Generation ...................................... 7 Trip Distribution ................................:..... 9. Background Traffic Projections ....................... 9 Trip Assignment ....................................... 9 Signal Warrants ....................................... 9 Operation Analysis ................................... 9 Geometry........................................ 15 Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 15 Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 15 Transit Level of Service..............................15 IV. Conclusions .......................................... 17 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 ......... 14 220 EAST OLIVE STREET TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NOVEMBER 2007 Prepared for: Stoner Development 605 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034