HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNITED WAY HOUSING SERVICES DAY CENTER - PDP - 30-06 - REPORTS - TRAFFIC STUDY• 3: Conifer & N. College
Recent AM 2/2/2005
< t t r ti 1
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
r
t1b
tt
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Fd
1.00
0.85
0.98
1.00
1.00
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Said. Flow (Prot)
3433
1583
3458
1770
3539
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.34
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1583
3458
627
3539
Volume (vph)
135
42
522
94
36
897
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
0.92
0.92
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
159
49
567
102
42
1055
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
41
15
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
159
8
654
0
42
1055
Turn Type
Perm
pm+pt
Protected Phases
8
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.3
8.3
33.8
40.8
40.8
Effective Green, g (s)
9.3
9.3
34.8
41.8
41.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.16
0.59
0.71
0.71
Clearance Time Is)
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension Is)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
540
249
2036
501
2503
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.05
0.19
0.00
c0.30
v/s Ratio Perm
0.00
0.05
v/c Ratio
0.29
0.03
0.32
0.08
0.42
Uniform Delay, d1
22.0
21.1
6.2
2.9
3.6
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.5
Delay Is)
22.3
21.1
6.6
3.0
4.1
Level of Service
C
C
A
A
A
Approach Delay Is)
22.0
6.6
4.1
Approach LOS
C
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
6.8 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
59.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
35.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
' • 3: Conifer & N. College
Recent PM
'e- k t Is. 1
2/2/2005
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Lane Configurations
1�
r
tT*
tt
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
Fri
1.00
0.85
0.98
1.00
1.00
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1583
3485
1770
3539
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.13
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
3433
1583
3485
240
3539
Volume (vph)
154
76
1040
119
34
825
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.99
0.99
Adj. Flow (vph)
179
88
1209
138
34
833
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
74
10
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
179
14
1337
0
34
833
Turn Type
Perm
pm+pt
Protected Phases
8
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
8
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.5
8.5
36.6
42.4
42.4
Effective Green, g (s)
9.5
9.5
37.6
43.4
43.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.16
0.16
0.62
0.71
0.71
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
536
247
2152
216
2522
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.05
c0.38
0.00
c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
0.01
0.11
v/c Ratio
0.33
0.06
0.62
0.16
0.33
Uniform Delay, d1
22.9
21.9
7.2
4.6
3.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.1
1.4
0.3
0.4
Delay (s)
23.3
22.0
8.6
5.0
3.6
Level of Service
C
C
A
A
A
Approach Delay (s)
22.8
8.6
3.7
Approach LOS
C
A
A
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
8.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
60.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
43.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
APPENDIX A
rA
00A I 42/76
/-135/154
t r Conifer
o am
v
O r
a�
N
LO
o- AM/PM
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3
TABLE I
Trip Generation
'
AM Peak titer
PM Peak lour
Cone
'= Uses;oZ.S¢e
'i
�ATE
�Jq
720
Medical/Dental Office
19.2 KSF
36.13
700
1.96 38 0.52
10
126
24
2.46
47
TABLE I
Recent Peak Hour Operation
me
AM!
Ml,
N. College/Conifer
(signal)
WB LT
C
C
WB RT
C
C
WB APPROACH
C
C
NB T/RT
A
A
SB LT
A
A
SB T
A
A
SB APPROACH
A
A
OVERALL
A
A
LOT
a.S954WEEEEI
bZ
LOT 3
£,£n50,YEFEET
BUILDING
FOOTPRINT
,1,®SGY"Ei£ES
A&
N
SCALE: 1 "=40'
_ I
bII
`W
a
Q.
C,
W
°v
a
w
J
m
I eI
CONIFER STREET
SITE PLAN Figure 2
N
Q
m m
GD
F1
U
Hickory
Conifer
United Way
Day Center
Vine
SCALE: 1'=1000'
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
Sidewalks exist along Conifer Street and Blue Spruce Drive in front
of developed parcels of land. There are sporadic sidewalks along N.
College Avenue. Sidewalks will be built along the site frontage as
indicated in Figure 2. The sidewalks will connect to the existing sidewalk
to the north on Blue Spruce Drive. As other properties in the area
develop, sidewalks will be constructed which will fill in the gaps that
currently exist in the pedestrian system. This particular land use cannot
practically complete the sidewalk system in the area.
This area is served by Transfort Route 8. Route 8 serves this area
of Fort Collins with 30 mi n„ta heAtJways c^nnecti.^.g to the ,, wrft wn Trans_
✓v Wta l,v waf 11 QL1J1t
Center.
It is concluded that the key intersections will operate acceptably.
There are adequate bike lanes and transit service in the area. Sidewalks
will be built adjacent to the United Way Day Center. The pedestrian system
will be completed as other properties in the area develop.
MEMORANDUM
OD
! a
o
TO: Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West
CO
o
City of Fort Collins
LO
o
FROM: Matt Delich
CD
o
o
DATE: February 3, 2005
U
•
X
SUBJECT: United Way Day Center Transportation Impact Study
(File: 0510ME01)
Z
J
W
0
This memorandum is the transportation impact study for the
United Way Day Center proposed to be located in the northwest
W
C)
quadrant of the Conifer/Blue Spruce intersection in Fort Collins.
'Q
m
The site location is shown in Figure 1. A scoping conversation was
CD
held with Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Traffic Engineer, on November 22,
LU
0
2004. Due to the low trip generation related to this use and the
a
location, a memorandum was requested. David Averill, Fort Collins
=
Transportation Planning Department, was also contacted.
J
w
Z
t7
o
The United Way Day Center will be a building of approximately
�
n_
19,200 square feet. The site plan is shown in Figure 2. This
cM
facility would provide case management, counseling, and some meals
N
for low income clients. There will be no overnight stays at this
facility. It is understood that most clients do not/will not have
motor vehicles. Client visits are primarily walk-ins or,
potentially, via transit. Staff will likely drive to the site. The
building is considered to be an office. However, due to the type of
activity, from a trip generation point of view, it is more akin to a
medical/dental office. Therefore, this use was used to forecast the
daily and peak hour trip generation shown in Table 1. Judgment would
indicate that, given the type of clients served, the daily traffic
shown in Table 1 is extremely high. However, daily traffic estimates
are not used in transportation study analyses and are primarily an
Winformational
item. It is expected that the daily vehicular traffic
would be less than half (350) of that shown in Table 1.
a
Z
Fr
Recent peak hour traffic counts (9/04) at the N. College/
Z
Conifer intersection are shown in Figure 3. This signalized
operates acceptably as shown in Table 2. Calculation
Vintersection
_
z
forms are provided in Appendix A. Conifer Street is classified as a
_J
W
collector street. While peak hour traffic was not obtained at the
W
o
Conifer/Blue Spruce intersection, casual observation indicates that
0
a
this stop sign controlled intersection operates acceptably. It was
cr
determined in the scoping meeting that traffic counts at this
0
intersection would not be necessary. It is likely that 60-70 percent
Z
of the vehicular traffic would be to/from the west (the North College
Q
Avenue corridor). Conifer Street would continue to have traffic
a¢
F-
volumes that are commensurate with that of a collector street.
W
03
o
Both Conifer Street and Blue .Spruce Drive have one travel lane
j-
LL
in each direction with bike lanes and on -street parking. There are
W
no bike lanes on N. College Avenue. The bikes on N. College Avenue
Q
~
were observed to be using the shoulders. Few bikes were observed in
the area. The bike facilities in the area are adequate.
APPENDIX A
TABLE I
Trip Generation for United Way Building
30
IMM
720
Medcal/Dental Office
1 10.0 KSF
1-36.13
W
1.96
1 20 10.52
1 5 11.26 1 13 12.46 F 2-5
TABLE 2
Trip Generation for Building on Second Lot
i3b W-T
04
J-9
710
Office
5.0 KSF
11.01
55
1.36
7
0.19
1
0.251
1
1.241
6
814
Specialty Retail
5.0 KSF
44.52
223
0.38
2
0.30
2
1.19
6
1.52
8
110
Light Industrial
5.0 KSF
6.97
35
0.81
4
0.11
1
0.12
1
0.86
4
Average
104
4
1
3
6
A&
N
SCALE: V=50'
- -- ------------
TTM-
1011 11 U I I I'l I
Samoan
—rfpE; cohd�
I I leHi i n H I I I I I I DETACHED ACCESS
3
Hm.
Uj
tF PAROM
cr
PATIO Z:
M,WSQ Fr Ui
HQUMG
SERE$
FUTURE ONE
DAY CMENTER
SfORI
BWLDtNG
th LLI
5.004) S.F.
04E & PAFTTI�
Two STOW
NIFER STREET
I COLLECTOR
(N ROW ANN.)
SITE PLAN Figure 1
DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering L
2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 �71 r
4I _4 6 ZVI Z!Dili M
TO: Steve Steinbicker, Architecture West
City of Fort Collins
FROM: Matt Delich P7 /� y YW 1 74AI n 4
DATE: October 17, 2006
SUBJECT: United Way Day Center Transportation Impact Study Addendum
(File: 0510ME02)
This memorandum provides an addendum to the "United Way Day
Center Transportation Impact Study," (TIS) February 3, 2005. That
memorandum is provided in Appendix A. That building was situated.on
two lots. The size of the building has been reduced significantly. A
new site plan is shown in Figure 1. The United Way portion of the
site has been reduced from 19,200 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
This building will have the same uses within it. This building will
be on one of the lots. A second building may be built on the other
lot. This building will be 5,000 square feet and may have office,
specialty retail, or assembly uses within it. The timing of the
second building is not known.
Table 1 shows the trip generation of the United Way building.
Given the same land use assumptions, the trip generation will be lower
than that shown in the previous proposal. Table 2 shows the trip
generation for the expected land uses in the building on the second
lot. Since actual users have not been identified, the trip generation
for this building is the average of the three land uses. The sum of
trip generation shown in Tables 1 and 2 is: 464 daily trip ends, 30
morning peak hour trip ends, and 47 afternoon peak hour trip ends.
This is significantly less than that shown in the cited TIS for the
previous proposal.
In light of this reduction in trip generation, it is respectfully
requested that the previous TIS be used.