Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEVEN GENERATIONS (FORMERLY EASTBROOK) OFFICE PARK - PDP - 4-06 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY
5 Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual p.20 LOS Standards for Development Review - Bicycle Figure 7. Bicycle LOS Worksheet level of service - connectivity m6dnnim Actual proposed base connectivity: C A A specific connections to priority sites: description of applicable destination area within 1,320' including address Poet COLLIV S destination area classification (see text) (AD 9TI TUTIO v pus i-IQ `3cAML- City of Port Collins Transportation Master Plan N Jew O Horsetooth c a� E i= ' SCALE: 1"=1000' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual P. 18 LOS Standards for Development Review - Pedestrian Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet project location classification Scat,vL"LK Av.A� QAU81r Cs(Z�t1�0i� (enter as many as apply) El I E IF IC description of applicable destination area within 1,320' including address P&Ir.*F eeieoo - o 1�iBIGN $oKp TO 'f'tV{' IVp(ZT tk COLLtuS t>Glat~ 7'o TIfC � St SQACW- JAjDUS-ruS-MiAL /Opp To Ti-E 5eurt+ destination area level of service (minimum based on project location classification) classification (see text) Nrwln.r aNnwq• lute ooena. nMrea a .maJW. ..may nLl9nllan a C— Q�O�,tlriAt_ actual T:-;;A E� proposed r— t3 A c- B �$ f Dbxltr � Coa M m2e.r�l L PusrtruTIOk /AJ'b,tGr1Zt A L 0PRIt:d I proposed I A 11 f3 11 A 1115 11 r3H � �■ � t+atit� � �� � itta•itta � ta_ta tr Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan N 2 0 1 Jg� 4 Horsetooth m c m E 1- ' SCALE: 1"=1000' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA 37 APPENDIX E 12: South Access & Eastbrook Short Total PM 1/31/2006 1 t 1 41 t Movement EBL EBR NBL NST SBT SBR Lane Configurations Y 4 to Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% ' Volume (veh/h) 15 15 5 60 15 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 18 6 71 18 6 ' Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) ' Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 103 21 24 ' vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 103 21 24 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 ' tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 892 1057 1591 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 35 76 24 ' Volume Left 18 6 0 Volume Right 18 0 6 cSH 967 1591 1700 ' Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.6 0.0 Lane LOS A A ' Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.6 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary ' Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utit¢ation 17.3% ICU Level of Service A ' Analysis Period (min) 15 ' Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 3s 12: South Access & Eastbrook Short Total AM 1/31/2006 g t 1 4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 14 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 5 10 20 30 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 6 12 24 35 24 Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (fl) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 94 47 59 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cord vol vCu, unblocked vol 94 47 59 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 899 1022 1545 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 35 59 Volume Left 6 12 0 Volume Right 6 0 24 cSH 956 1545 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.03 Queue Length 95th (fl) 1 1 0 Control Delay (s) 8.8 2.5 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.8 2.5 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay . 1.8 Intersection Capacity Uhl"¢ation 18.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report ' Page 1 4 9: Vermont & Eastbrook Short Total PM 1131r2006 ' 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WEIL MT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations 4� 41� 44 44 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% ' Volume (veh/h) 0 30 0 10 5 20 5 35 35 10 10 0 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 35 0 12 6 24 6 41 41 12 12 . 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 135 129 12 126 109 62 12 82 ' vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 135 129 12 126 109 62 12 82 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 ' tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 100 99 99 98 100 99 ' cM capacity(vehfi) 805 753 1069 810 772 1003 1607 1515 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 35 41 88 24 Volume Left 0 12 6 12 Volume Right 0 24 41 0 cSH 753 903 1607 1515 ' Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 4 0 1 Control Delay (s) 10.0 9.2 0.5 3.7 Lane LOS B A A A ' Approach Delay (s) 10.0 9.2 0.5 3.7 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary ' Average Delay 4.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.7% ICU Level of Service A tAnalysis Period (miry) 15 Matthew J_ Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 33 9: Vermont & Eastbrook Short Total AM 1/31/2006 -.-%* le- *-- k- t 0- It. 4 41 Movement EBL MT EBR WBL MT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 41� #1� 41� Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 5 0 25 30 5 10 5 10 15 25 0 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 6 0 29 35 6 12 6 12 18 29 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft1s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoonunblocked vC, conflicting volume 124 106 29 103 100 12 29 18 vC1; stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 cord vol vCu, unblocked vol 124 106 29 103 100 12 29 18 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 99 100 97 95 99 99 99 cM capacity (vefdh) 805 770 1045 860 776 1069 1584 1599 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 6 71 29 47 Volume Left 0 29 12 18 Volume Right O. 6 12 0 cSH 770 828 .1584 1599 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 7 1 1 Control Delay (s) 9.7 9.7 2.9 2.8 Lane LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s) 9.7 9.7 2.9 2.8 Approach LOS A A Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.3 Intersection Capacity utilization 19.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J_ Delic:h , P_ E_ Synchro 6 Light Report ' Page.1 3: Danfield & Timberline Short Total PM 1131 2006 ' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations #4 4 t$ t14 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% ' Volume (vehlh) 0 0 65 20 0 15 30 1550 35 15 1650 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 . 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 76 24 0 18 32 1632 37 16 1737 5 ' Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) ' Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) 740 pX, platoon unblocked 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 vC, conflicting volume 2668 3503 871 2690 3487 1134 1742 1668 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1771 1771 1713 1713 vC2, stage 2.conf vol 897 1732 976 1774 vCu, unblocked vol 2940 4116 410 2971 4094 834 1637 1668 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 ' tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 IF (s) 3.5 4.0 . 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 22 p0 queue free % 100 100 82 45 100 94 89 96 ' cM capacity (veh/h) 37 36 419 43 31 311 278 381 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3' SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 76 41 32 1088 581 16 1158 584 Volume Left 0 24 32 0 0 16 0 0 ' Volume Right 76 18 0 0 37 0 0 5 cSH 419 68 278 1700 1700 381 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.61 0.11 0.64 0.34 0.04 0.68 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 65 9 0 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.5 119.5 19.6 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C F C B ' Approach Delay (s) 15.5 119.5 0.4 0.1 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary ' Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service B ' Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 2! 3: Darlfield & Timberline Short Total AM 1/31/2006 -•--v 4r- �*- k1 t t `►1 w, Movement EBL MT EBR WBL WBT WM NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►� } �, Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 1 0 35 40 0 45 75 1515 85 30 1490 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0:93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 41 47 0 53 81 1629 91 31 1552 26 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) 740 pX, platoon unblocked . 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75. vC, conflicting volume 2656 3509 789 2716 3477 . 860 1578 1720 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1628 1628 1836 1836 vC2, stage 2 cord vol 1029 1882 880 1641 vCu, unblocked vol 2880 4023 377 2960 3980 860 1434 1720 IC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 100 91 0 100 82 77 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 36 28 463 34 20 299 350 364' Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 42 100 81 1086 634 31 1035 543 Volume Left 1 47 81 0 0 31 0 0 Volume Right 41 53 0 0 91 0 0 26 cSH 349 63 350 1700 1700 364 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 1.58 023 0.64 0.37 0.09 0.61 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 221 22 0 0 7 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.7 430.8 18.3 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C F C C Approach Delay (s) 16.7 430.8 0.8 0.3 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 12.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J. Delich . P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report ' Page 1 ')o 6: Vermont & Timberline Short Total PM 1/31/2006 ' -♦� �� �� t P �► 4 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WU WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations t* T +T4 - ) +T4 Ideal Flow (vphpI) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fft Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 ' Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1624 1770 1615 1770 3518 1770 3536 Fit Permitted .0.72 1.00 0.70 1 A0 0.11 1.00 0.09 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1346 1624 1310 1615 196 3518 166 3536 ' Volume (vph) 85 10 60 25 5 40 40 1465 60 140 1585 10 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 100 12 71 29 6 47 42 1542 63 147 1668 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 62 0 0 41 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 ' Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 21 0 29 12 0 42 1603 0 147 1679 0 Turn Type Penn Perm pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 ' Pemritted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 63.2 60.8 72.2 65.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 63.2 60.8 72.2 65.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.69 0.66 0.78 0.71 ' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4'.0 Vehicle E)dension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 175 211 170 210 175 2320 259 2524 ' v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.46 c0.05 c0.47 v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.02 0.16 0.40 We Ratio 0.57 0.10 0.17 0.06 024 0.69 0.57 0.67, ' Uniform Delay, d1 37.7 35.3 35.7 35.1 6.4 9.8 10.8 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.5 02 0.5 0.1 0.7 1.7 2.8 1.4 Delay (s) 42.1 35.6 36.2 35.3 7.1 11.5 13.7 8.6 ' Level of Service D D D D A B B A Approach Delay (s) 39.1 35.6 11.4 9.0 Approach LOS D D B A, ' Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 ' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 922 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 ' c ` Critical Lane Group ' Matthew J_ Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 6: Vermont & Timberline Short Total AM 1/31/2006 1w 1 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi $b Vi T4 1 TA 0 Ideal Flow (vphM 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1639 1770 1609 1770 3518 1770 3517 Ftt Permitted 0.57 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd_Flow (perm) 1071 1639 1374 1609 226 3518 146 3517 Volume (vph) 20 5 20 125 10 100 60 1440 60 125 1400 60 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 6 24 147 12 118 65 1565 65 132 1474 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 0 0 82 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 10 0 147 48 0 65 1627 0 132 1534 0 Turn Type Perm Peru pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 ` 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 63.4 60.2 71.5 64.3 Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 63.4 60.2 71.5 64.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.67 0.64 0.76 0.68 Clearance Time Is) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Bdension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 169 259 217 254 2N.. 2243 236 2396 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.03 0.01 c0.46 c0.04 0.44 v/s Ratio Penn 0.02 c0.11 0.20 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.14 - 0.04 0.68 0.19 0.32 0.73 0.56 0.64 Uniform Delay, dl 34.2 33.7 37.5 34.5 7.1 11.5 12.6 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 8.1 0.4 0.9 2.1 2.9 1.3 Delay (s) 34.6 33.7 45.6 34.9 8.0 13.6 15.5 9.8 Level of Service C C D C A B B A. Approach Delay (s) 34.1 40.6 13.4 10.3 Approach LOS C D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.4 Sum of lost time Is) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Matthew J_ Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report ' Page 1 2B APPENDIX D 9: Vermont & Eastbrook Short Bkgrd PM 1/27/2006 t P `► 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Y 14 4 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 20 35 20 10 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 24 41 24 12 12 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 88 53 65 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked Vol 88 53 65 IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 IC, 2 stage Is) IF Is) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 98 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 906 1015 1537 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 29 65 24 Volume Left 6 0 12 Volume Right 24 24 0 cSH 991 1700 1537 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 1 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 3.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 3.7 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) • 15 Matthew J_ Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report ' Page 1 7A 9: Vermont & Easthrook Short Bkgrd AM 1/27/2006 .� < t r �► 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ►y'r '(a 4 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 00/0 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 15 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 6 6 6 18 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 74 9 12 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 74 9 12 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 920 1073 1607 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 12 12 47 Volume Left 6 0 18 Volume Right 6 6 0 cSH 991 1700 1607 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 2.8 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 2.8 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 ?_S 3: Danfield & Timberline Short Bkgrd PM 1/27/2006 '- t r �► 1 d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 44 Vi +114 tT+ Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 0 50 20 0 15 25 1545 35 15 1635 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 59 24 0 18 26 1626 37 16 1721 5 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) 740 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 2639 3471 863 2648 3455 832 1726 1663 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1755 1755 1697 1697 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 883 1716 951 1758 vCu, unblocked vol 2861 3984 467 2874 3962 832 1631 1663 IC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 85 48 100 94 91. 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 39 38 402 45 35 313 292 383 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 59 41 26 1084 579 16 1147 579 Volume Left 0 24 26 0 0 16 0 0 Volume Right 59 18 0 0 37 0 0 5 cSH 402 72 292 1700 1700 383 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.58 0.09 0.64 0.34 0.04 0.67 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 62 7 0 0 3 0 0 Control Delay (s) 15.5 108.6 18.5 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C F C B Approach Delay (s) 15.5 108.6 0.3 0.1 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 -7Q 3: Danfield & Timberline Short Bkgrd AM 1/27/2006 ' -� �- 1 1 P �► l 1 ' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SOT SBR Lane Configurations 4T+ 4$0 R 0 � +114 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 00/0 0% ' Volume (veh/h) 1 0 30 40 0 45 55 1500 85 30 1485 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 35 47 0 53 59 1613 91 31 1547 26 ' Pedestrians Lane Width (fl) Walking Speed (ltts) Percent Blockage Right turn flan: (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 0 ' Upstream signal (ft) 740 pX, platoon unblocked 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 vC, conflicting volume 2600 3445 786 2648 3412 852 1573 1704 ' vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1622 1622 1777 1777 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 978 1823 871 1635 vCu, unblocked vol 2787 3896 408 2850 3853 852 1440 1704 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 ' tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 100 92 0 100 83 83 92 ' cM capacity (veh/h) 40 33 452 39 29 303 356 369 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 36 100 59 1075 629 31 1031 542 ' Volume Left 1 47 59 0 0 31 0 0 Volume Right 35 53 0 0 91 0 0 26 cSH 338 73 356 1700 1700 369 1700 1700 ' Volume to Capacity 0.11 1.37 0.17 0.63 0.37 0.08 0.61 0.32 Queue Length 95th (fl) 9 201 15 0 0 7 0 0 Control Delay (s) 16.9 332.4 17.1 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C F C C ' Approach Delay (s) 16.9 332.4 0.6 0.3 Approach LOS C F ' Intersection Summary Average Delay 10.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service C ' Analysis Period (min) 15 ' Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 -72 6.- Vermont & Timberline Short Bkgrd PM 1/27/2006 Movement . EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL . NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ 1( t14 I ♦14 Ideal Flow (vphpt) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1612 1770 1615 1770 3518 1770 3538 FK Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.10 1.00 Satd: Flow (perm) 1346 1612 1338 . 1615 214 3518 184 3538 Volume (vph) 55 5 45 25 5 40 35 1465 60 140 1585 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 6 53 29 6 47 37 1542 63 147 1668 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 48 0 0 43 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (yph) 65 11 0 29 10 0 37 1603 0 147 1673 0 Turn Type Penn Penn pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated .Green; G (s) 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 66.2 63.7 75.1 68.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 66.2 63.7 75.1 68.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.72 0.69 0.82 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0. 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 128 153 127 153 197 2441 278 26" v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.46 c0.04 c0.47 v/s Ratio Perm C0.05 0.02 0.13 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.07 0.23 0.07 0.19 0.66 0.53 0.63 Uniform Delay. d1 39.5 37.9 38.4 37.9 4.8 7.9 8.5 5.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 0.2 0.9 02 0.5 1.4 1.8 1.2 Delay (s) 42.7 38.1 39.4 38.0 5.2 9.3 10.3 6.7 Level of Service D D D D A A B A Approach Delay (s) 40.5 38.5 9.2 7.0 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 9.8 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 91.8 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 ZZ 6: Vermont & Timberline ' Short Bkgrd AM 1/27/2006 ' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T T+ +T+ +T+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19W 19W 1900 19W 1900 19W 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Fit 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fft Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 ' Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1653 1770 1597 1770 3518 1770 3530 Fit Permitted 0.59 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.13 1.00 0.08 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1099 1653 1381 1597 249 3518 147 3530 ' Volume (vph) 15 5 15 . 125 5 100 45 1440 60 125 1400 25 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 6 18 147 6 118 49 1565 65 132 1474 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 82 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 ' Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 9 0 147 42 0 49 1627 0 132 1499 0 Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 ' Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 63.0 60.7 72.0 65.7 Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 63.0 60.7 72.0 65.7 ' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.66 0.64 0.76 0.69 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 260 217 251 202 2250 236 24" ' v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.03 0.01 c0.46 c0.04 0.42 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.11 0.15 0.38 We Ratio 0.10 0.03 0.68 0.17 024 0.72 0.56 0.61 ' Uniform Delay, d1 34.3 33.9 37.7 34.6 6.7 11.5 12.6 7.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 8.1 0.3 0.6 2.1 2.9 1.2 ' Delay (s) 34.5 34.0 45.8 35.0 7.3 13.5 15.4 9.0 Level of Service C C D C A B B A Approach Delay (s) 34.2 40.9 13.3 9.5 Approach LOS C D B A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length Is) 94.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' Matthew J. Delich , P. E_ Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 7_ / APPENDIX C o Table 4- Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Mixed use Low density mixed use All other Intersection type Commercial corridors districts residential areas Signalized intersections D E' D D (overall) Any Leg E E D E Any Movement E E D E Stop sign control N/A F" F" E (arterial/collector or local — any approach lep) Stop sign control N/A C C C (collector/local—any approach leg) ` mitigating measures required " considered normal in an urban environment UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ' Levelof--Service Average Total Delay see/veh A <10 B >10and<<15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A <10 B > 10 and _< 20 C > 20 and _< 35 D > 35 and _< 55 E > 55 and _< 80 F >.80 01 9: Vermont & Eastbrook Recent PM 1/27/2M ' r t r �► 1 ' Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ►jjr .'4 4 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% ' Volume (veh/h) 5 17 36 20 8 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0:85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 20 42 24 9 11 ' Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f fs) ' Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) ' Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 84 54 66 ' vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vel vCu, unblocked vol 84 54 66 IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 98 99 ' cM capacity (veh/h) 913 1013 1536 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB.1 Volume Total 26 66 20 Volume Left 6 0 9 Volume Right 20 24 0 cSH 988 1700 1536 ' Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.04 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 3.5 Lane LOS A A ' Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 3.5 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary ' Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.6% ICU Level of Service A ' Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 I -7 9: Vermont & Eastbrook Recent AM 1/27/2006 k t P '► l Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations , Y T+ 4 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 2 1 4 12 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 2 1 5 14 31 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (fl/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 62 4 6 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 62 4 6 IC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 936 1080 1615 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 8 6 45 Volume Left 6 0 14 Volume Right 2 5 0 cSH 973 1700 1615 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 Control Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 2.3 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 8.7 0.0 2.3 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J_ Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 / to 3: Danfield & Timberline Recent PM 1/27/2006 ' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations 4-1� 4 +T tt* Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 00/0 0°� 0% 00/0 ' Volume (veh/h) 0 0 48 19 0 14 24 995 32 12 1266 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 56 22 0 16 25 1047 34 13 1333 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ' Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) 740 pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 0.85 0.85 0-95 0.85 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 1949 2490 667 1863 2474 541 1334 1081 ' vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1358 1358 1115 1115 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 591 1132 748 1359 vCu, unblocked vol 1940 2576 433 1839 2557 541 1217 1081 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 8.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 ' tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 IF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 88 77 100 97 95 98 ' cM capacity (veh/h) 84 83 486 99 79 486 484 641 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 56 39 25 698 383 13 888 445 ' Volume Left 0 22 25 0 0 13 0 0 Volume Right 56 16 0 0 34 0 0 1 cSH 486 150 484 1700 1700 641 1700 1700 ' Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.26 - 0.05 0.41 0.23 0.02 0.52 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 24 4 0 0 2 0 0 Control Delay (s) 13.4 37.2 12.8 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B E B B ' Approach Delay (s) 13.4 37.2 0.3 0.1 Approach LOS B E Intersection Summary ' Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A ' Analysis Period (min) 15 ' Synchro 6 Light Report Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1 I5� 3: Danfield & Timberline Recent AM 1127/2006 `►1 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 44 4 +$ ti� Sign Control Stop. Stop Free Free Grade 00,6 0% 0% 0°.6 Volume (veh/h) 1 0 30 40 0 45 52 1177 84 30 906 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 0 35 47 0 53 56 1266 90 31 944 23 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 0 Upstream signal (ft) 740 pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 vC, conflicting volume 1815 2485 483 1992 2452 678 967 1356 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1018 1018 1423 1423 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 798 1468 570 1029 vCu, unblocked vol 1797 2534 332 1991 2497 678 864 1356 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) . 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 94 37 100 87 92 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 96 72 603 74 78 395 704 503 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 36 100 56 844 512 31 629 338 Volume Left 1 47 56 0 0 31 0 0 Volume Right 35 53 0 0 90 0 0 23 cSH 515 130 704 1700 1700 503 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.77 0:08 0.50 0.30 0.06 0.37 0.20 . Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 113 6 0 0 5 0 0 Control Delay (s) 12.5 91.3 10.6 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B F B B Approach Delay (s) 12.5 91.3 0.4 0.4 Approach LOS B F Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service . B Analysis Period (min) 15 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report ' Page 1 14 6: Vermont & Timberline Recent PM 1/27/2006 t r �► 1 r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ t4 Vi +t+ +14 Ideal Flow (vphpD 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time Is) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1615 1770 1615 1770 3507 1770 3537 Fit Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.22 1.00_ Satd. Flow (perm) 1346 1615 1336 1615 371 3507 416 3537 Volume (vph) 52 6 46 24 5 40 36 940 60 141 1209 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 7 54 28 6 47 38 989 63 148 1273 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 49 0 0 43 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Floor (vph) 61 12 0 28 10 0 38 1049 0 148 1278 0 Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 66.6 64.1 75.1 68.6 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 66.6 64.1 75.1 68.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.73 0.70 0.82 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 125 150 124 150 308 2454 445 2649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.30 c0.03 c0.36 v/s Ratio Penn c0.05 0.02 0.09 0.25 We Ratio 0.49 0.08 0.23 0.07 0.12 0.43 0.33 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 30.5 38.0 38.5 37.9 3.7 5.9 2.8 4.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.2 0.9 02 0.2 6.5 0.4 0.6 Delay.(s) 42.5 38.2 39.4 38.1 3.8 6.4 3.2 5.2 Level of Service D D D D A A A A Approach Delay Is) 40.3 38.6 6.3 5.0 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length Is) 91.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group tMatthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 i3 6: Vermont & Timberline Recent AM 1/27/2006 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi to Vi 14 Vi +T+ Vi tT4 Ideal Flow (vphpq 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1672 1770 1599 1770 3514 1770 3525 Fit Permitted 0.59 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.15 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1102 1672 1384 1599 583 3514 273 3525 Volume (vph) 13 6 13 124 6 100 43 1123 57 124 821 23 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 7 15 146 7 118 47 1221 62 131 864 24 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 99 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 9 0 146 26 0 47 1280 0 131 886 0 Turn Type Perm Perm pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 61.4 59.1 70.2 63.9 Effective Green, g (s) 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 61.4 59.1 70.2 63.9 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.66 0.64 0.76 0.69 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 263 218 252 415 2238 321 2427 v/s Ratio Prot . 0.01 0.02 0.00 c0.36 c0.03 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.11 0.07 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.04 0.67 0.10 0.11 0.57 0.41 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 33.4 33.1 36.8 33.5 5.5 9.6 6.2 6.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 7.6 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.8 0.4 Delay (s) 33.6 33.2 44.4 33.7 5.6 10.7 7.1 6.4 Level of Service C C D C A B A A Approach Delay (s) 33.4 39.5 10.5 6.5 Approach LOS C D B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 /Z 1 APPENDIX B i 1 R = right tum S = straight MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO $0538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 1.24-06 Observer: Carl Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins I intersection: Timberline/Danfield -Lambkin 0 U111 Time Northbound: Timberline Southbound: Timberline Total Eastbound: Danfield Westbound: Lambkin Total Total I. S R Total L S R Total I. S R Total L S R Total Begins north/south easttwest All 7:00 0 0 miw� 7:15 9 183 74 i,',, LNT, 28 178 6 N' 478 1 0 4 11 0 '28 44 ffill-42,240,50 3 596 0 0 7 18 0 -23 4 `4 ft 7:30 9 311 26 12 235 7:45 23 1272 13 lklk I 2 239 8 557 1 0 9 _,0T 919J.. x g 3 4 17 8:00 13 1274 19 LT-,,- 9 217 4 536 0 1 4 1,p - 8 0 6 19 8:15 7 1320 26 7... 7 582 0 0 10 1 11 .01 12 33 tV 8-30— 13 1242 2 2 .215 189 2 0" 01 450 0 0 6 a M 1 0 4 %K Q 8 1267 1 1 jr% 3 197 3 8"M 479 0 0 1 2 jffi%�=, 2 . 0 2 6 7:30-8:30 1313 P"M 9 58 2271 1 32 1`4i".4 "o 1116 85 117 PHF 0.93 1 0.96 1 0.8 j 0.52 4:00 Olt mom 0 M 110 -S 0 4:15 4 1268 2 0 287 1 562 1 0 El oi 0 0 1 10 4:30 7 1255 10 296 1 . . . . . . 560 o o 9 alo R o o K 9 4:45 6 1229 2 10%2 0,� 0 319 0 556 1 0 14 • 0 0 0 5 5:00 9 247 2 0 18 0 tMERN, 576 0 0 17 2 0 20 5:15 5 271 1 Wr 1 334 0 15,16- 0 612 0 0 16 0 0 1 17 5:30 6 6 256 :6: 4 '4 3 310 1 I 580 0 0 10 P, 2 0 2 14 1 5:45 4 22 25 8 304 0 1 562 0 0 5 15 0 1 0 30 02w JK�11� jq. 1051 1279 2330 33 1 81 110,4410 5:00-00 PHIF 0.95 0.95 1 0.71 0.33 P] R = right tum S = straight I =1afttlim MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061' TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 1.25-06 Observer: Cad Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins I intersection: Vermont/Eastbrook Time Begins Northbound: Eastbrook -L -sT-R Southbound: Eastbrook Total north/south Eastbound: Westbound: Vermont Total easttwest Total All F Total L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total 7:00 0 0 game 7:15 0 1 4 6 1 WA R 3 1 4 7:30 1 1 5 9 16 0 7:45 0 2 7 10 O 0 0 0 8:00 0 0 2 4 6 2 8:15 0 2 1 4 7 2 0 2 8:30 5 0 2 8 3 0 3 8:45 3 2 1 2 1 8 X, 2 3" " " . -11- 1" 3 7:15-8:15 FRMN1,j' 5 38 0,0' !IM z' 7 7 1 43 0 PHF 0.63 0.68 I n1a 0.44 4:00 W 411 ---2zw 0 1 0 gkptm#mv% CA �6N 4:15 2 4 3 1 10 0 2 m�f5 6r2�-'�; 2 4:30 5 5 0. 3 1 % 14 0 1 mms 1 "15M 4:45 5 2 2 4 13 -.0� 2 6 5:00 3 4 3 1 2 �11�.'Ii,�','?,13I. } r 5:15 1 1 9 1 5 0 2 6 0 1 1 5:30 19 9 3 2 33 0, 2 5:45 1 2 1 0 4 A 0 1 1 2 2: 2 4:45-5:45 jg0 ,�JF 1 20 ,s, 10,,tflfl,! �fl 56 1 j'P V� I M I jilgi, 17 1 73 0 [A'6 '211, 22 22 PHF 0.5 1 0.71 nia 0.5 R = right tum S = straight MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 60538 Phone: 970 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 1.17.06 Observer: Carl Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins Intersection: TimberiineNermont Time Begins Northbound: Timberline Southbound: Timberline Total northisouth Eastbound: Vermont Westbound: Vermont Total easttwest Total All L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total 7:00 aTT jjyyy1k'_ 0 wm 0 Rj 7:15 5 192 15212; - 52 180 0 444 0 1 0 rivltt; 32 1 18 1r 51isF 521496 7:30 10 304 20 ,334 44 179 32Z6q° 560 8 2 2 „<;a312s 69 2 45ai16h 128 7:45 11 254 12 14 223 7 ;';''244'. , , 521 2 1 4 7x " i'' `': 22 4 1 23 , ;',`49,.'"{;'` ` 56 8:00 11 258 11 ,e , 2811 ,'+f'r 17 217 8 ;'2A2 _ ': 522 1 1 4 6 :, 9 0 18 27w ;:'," 33 ; ;r555r; 8:15 11 307 14 &: ;332` 49 202 5 u 256, x; 588 2 2 3 24 0 14 45 8:30 5 231 10 t>nr�,.246t�Y„; 14 174 5 <� ;193. , a�' 439 2 0 3 ;,,�, , 5, 16 1 15 32 �; ,�:.; .; 37 r. 8:45 7 252 10 269`' S,";: 11 187 6 - 204, , '! 473 4 2 4 -' 10 .';`' 12 1 8 31 7:30.8:30 µ4 1223 968 2191 ;13K '6;>> ;u134 32 2301 262 iZ453r'a PHF 0.92 0.95 1 0.67 0.5 p €, y ii I" a ai , iyK'Y �t `r,,!m,4�; 0 '�iJchA°n u',j r4'; ri tt 4P ,�f . 0 4:00+���,n�a�u ;" :�.o���; �,,,t,o.�a�����, '^ 24 272 3 �.�a: 569 11 0 8 Svr! 8 0 12 f"roil., 39� yM 4:15 5 251 14 €� ;,2T�,�4 t.a?tJ9,.���k .,r7a�8S��,. ,,�,w2Q„,,�., 25 269 2 �>:296 !, 551 6 1 11 18 " 17 1 8 26 s ? 44 e$59'51in 4:30 5 235 15 � ,q 4 g,? ; 27 296 6 559 7 3 11 ti Usti t < 21 12 0 12 ; {2 ,1 4, 45 In 4:45 7 210 13 , 23C;,�1 , r .$29., , ,:; # , .,., ;„; ,C60,4; 230 15 y'}248,',; ` 23 301 2 +, 574 18 2 10 ' >, ` ;;:. ;, 7 1 12 20 50 5:00 3 „,, ,326 , , -:,' ,30 ,,.;.! 5:15 9 246 17 ;.272� 40 314 1 s3',55 627 8 1 13 22„ ;; 8 2 7 17;"�` 39 ; .-, 5:30 12 233 13 46 295 0 341 .. ,; s 599 14 2 15 31, :c';' :; 4 0 12 1ti ::.': ::' 47 646 . ; •' 5:45 12 231 15 `, 158;;',;1 32 299 2 333 `i 591 12 f 1 8 2t `;`; 5 2 9 1t;;' :' 37 1. V 5:00•6:003i# siid0 x60;f 10364.,1i�E12E19, ;5}d;; 52i„f6;a,„46� 10424s,: 5 40,E 69 t , �' 1355 2391 r PHF 1 1 0.95 0.95 0.84 0.86 4 — Attachments Attachment B Transportation Impact Study Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet DESTINATION Rec. Res.W Inst. Ofc/Bus. Com. Ind. Other (S eci Recreation Residential a c =° Institution M $ (school, church, civic) a Office/Business °o i Commercial Industrial Other (specify) INSTRUCTIONS_ Identify the pedestrian destinations within 1320' (1.5 miles for schools) of the project boundary in the spaces above. The pedestrian Level of Service for the facility/corridor linking these destinations to the Project site will be based on the directness, continuity, types of street crossings, walkway surface condition, visual interest/amenity, and security of the selected route(s). 012 Dwelling units or more. lam' ��SfDE�Ur/AL ��tIEST' OF �� l2AC�s ' i.&st'DEa1TtAL OojeTI4 OPsst'Deti-C1AL CM6 -AST OF tit6Ei2�t,u�" ' ® 4FFlcE�guSrueSS l�UpuSrRIAL �pUTEF ®r I St7G YE2C /S 41'177-4E/4)o �EDEST�Ii4ti �F ►QII� Page 4 W Lwimer County Wimm Area Street SMnftds — Repealed wW Remind Odobw 1, 2M Adopted by Lwima County. Cdy of Loveland. City of Fat Collins SITE LOCATION I,lPL-o &�ocG- A 2 t A Figure 1 I r,�R A-v Or- Y A�4bGL Sato u>� PeAK 4uQ-* Co () 4) TS &-N(g(tiC--e�i,(xic, 5'o O-T 44- — 5 f�-A-sr — 7 � V 5 bAILY 11.01 65-0 AM to 1. 3(� & 8 T35 OUT 10 SITE PLAN OUT 4 Figure 3 Eastbrook Office Park . r- .1. MA SITE LOCATION Danfield E H Jt.P 1-=1UUU Figure 1 3 Chapter 4 - Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name . EA -3 T* BROOK flFrl e c A R K Project Location VI&ST © F &4ST T IV i &R-SG�CTIOA) TIS Assumptions Type of Study FulL- N O Intermediate: S Study Area Boundaries North: V&P-140N-r South: j)ANFteL*t> East: Tr.umr,ieL r.0 = West C-.iSrl3(tecr-- Study Years Short Range: La9 RwW 2OWN /¢ Future Traffic Growth Rate Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5. 2. 1�t3Ft1.vEAmwir 6. AU r6 7. 4. 8. Time Period for Study 7: 9: P : 4: Sat Noon: AJ p Trip Generation Rates QEIz I%rC�, T-rAC C Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: /%� Captive /� Market: AJIA Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Al' 1 A Committed Roadway Improvements C r -r y (Zp v, D E, NOT &uARU c R AA1 Y Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study Date: Q��l%U A� 70 4" l0 Traffic Engineer: \.� GL-1 C 9 SO G t Local Entity Engineer. Urknor County uMM area sty sue- and wed 0dober 1, 2002 Faye 4 a5 AaopW by txk,8<c�. coy of lovaw,d, coy of FW cotes ' 1 2 APPENDIX A IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Eastbrook Office Park on the short range (2008) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: The development of the Eastbrook Office Park is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Eastbrook Office Park_ will generate approximately 550 daily trip ends, 78 morning peak hour trip ends, and 75 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable with existing controls and geometry. Using the short range (2008) total peak hour traffic, it was determined that peak hour signal warrants will not likely be met at the Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin intersection. In the short range (2008) future, given development of the Eastbrook Office Park and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections are shown to operate acceptably. Short range (2008) geometry is shown in Figure 8. Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines and future improvements to the street system in the area. The only exception is for the pedestrian directness measure for destination 1 due to the railroad tracks. 18 Y O O N N W North Access South Access m z m _E F- Vermont Danfield Lambkin I - Denotes Lane ' SHORT RANGE (2010) GEOMETRY ' 17 A& N Figure 8 Geometry Figure 8 shows a schematic of the short range (2008) geometry. This is the current geometry, except for the addition of the site access that lines up with Vermont Drive at Eastbrook Drive. Existing traffic volumes at the Timberline/Vermont and Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin intersections indicate that the warrant for a northbound right -turn lane is met. However, since Timberline Road is a "finished" street with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, it is not likely that the City of Fort Collins would require these northbound right -turn lanes. The Eastbrook Office Park does not contribute any traffic to these right -turn movements. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Eastbrook Office Park. This site is currently within areas termed "school walking area" and "transit corridor," which sets the level of service threshold at B for all measured categories, except for visual interest and amenities which is C. There will be four pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Eastbrook Office Park. These are: 1) the residential neighborhood to the west of the site, 2) the residential neighborhood to the north of the site, 3) the commercial area and Fort Collins High School to the east of the site, and 4) the adjacent office/light industrial uses. Sidewalks currently exist adjacent to the site. The directness measure to destination 1 will be at LOS F, due to the railroad tracks. There is no practicable way to improve this directness measure. Since future continuity to destination 1 must rely on the existing sidewalk built under previous street standards, level of service B cannot be achieved to this destination. Appendix E contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. All destinations meet the pedestrian LOS requirements with the exception noted. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Eastbrook Office Park. There is one bicycle priority destination: 1) the Fort Collins High School. There are bike lanes on Vermont Drive and Timberline Road, which will be directly connected to this site. However, there is no affinity between a general office and a high school, so it is doubtful that there will be any bicycle trips between them. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area is not served by Transfort. The Fort Collins Transit System Map shows that Timberline Road will be a high frequency transit corridor with 20 minute service. Horsetooth Road will be served by feeder route service at 30 minute headways. Transit level of service will be at B. The Timberline Commercial Center will be within 1320 feet of a high frequency or feeder transit route in the future. 16 TABLE 4 Short Range (2008) Total Peak Hour Operation .+�'VW:� jj55✓i � xx�i 2 K � i � .Y S �m may f 74`.�YLt 8 ter- ,�(jafC}'�` �} '�$ `ham Timberline/Vermont (signal) EB LT C D EB T/RT C D EB APPROACH C D WB LT D D WB T/RT C D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T/RT B B NB APPROACH B B SB LT B B SB T/RT A A SB APPROACH B A OVERALL B B Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin (stop sign) EB LT/f/RT C C WB LTIf/RT F F NB LT C C SB LT C B Vermont -North Access/Eastbrook (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT A B WS LTIT/RT A A NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A Easthrook/South Access (stop sign) EB LT/RT A A NB LT A A 15 TABLE 3 Short Range (2008) Background Peak Hour Operation UwAso' A; -7w UB -!j I i Z 'I s -'PUT - If IN Timberline/Vermont (signal) EB LT C D EB T/RT C D EB APPROACH C D WB LT D D WB T/RT C D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T/RT B A NB APPROACH B A SB LT B B SB T/RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL B A Timbedine/Danfield-Lambkin (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT C C WB LTrr/RT F F NB LT C C SB LT C B Verrnont/Easthrook (stop sign) WB LT/RT A A SB LT/T A A 14 0 ,LO z w Y o W 5/20 �— 30/5 25/10 LO co LO o (D v N `IC) '- J � � m C E i= 100/40 --a-- 10/5 � 125/25 � Vermont Access NOM 1 20/85 5/30 LO LO Ln Ulp 0 r 5/10 i 20/60 o to ClNOM o v o w co Ln LO 0 0 N m 1 South Access 5/15 5/15 o o 40 Cl 'n o N OLO LO v 0 `I" " J 45/15 �— NOM — 40/20 DanfieId NOM f r Lambkin NOM — 35/65 o o to LLO LO � 00 LO to -mn-- AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles SHORT RANGE (2008) TOTAL ' PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 13 Figure 7 -�— 29/5 20/4 5/31 i co M ' CD Y O N O H f0 1 W South 11 Access 3/17 —T ' 2/14 N N 00 SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC E M _ 3/1 5/31 1 2/14 Danfield 2/14 � N Q� N AM/PM Vermont Lambkin N Figure 6 12 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 of the Eastbrook Office Park site. Figure 7 shows the short range (2008) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic at the key intersections with the development of the Eastbrook Office Park. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). There are eight signal warrants in the ' MUTCD. The peak hour warrant is the one that is the easiest to predict in a transportation impact study, since these are analysis periods that are typically included in a transportation impact study. While a peak hour signal warrant would not be used to warrant a signal at this location, it would give a reasonable indication whether other signal warrants would be met. Using the short range (2008) total peak hour traffic, it was determined that peak hour signal warrants will not ' likely be met at the Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin intersection. The Timberline/Vermont and Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin intersections are approximately 700 feet apart. This does not meet the signal spacing criteria of the City. ' Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range analysis ' reflecting the year 2008. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 5, the key intersections ' operate in the short range (2008) background condition as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. All the key intersections will operate acceptably. IUsing the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the key intersections operate in the short range (2008) 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. Roundabout Analysis A resolution of the Fort Collins City Council requires a roundabout analysis at arterial/arterial and arterial/collector intersections. However, since Timberline Road is classified as a six - lane arterial street, a roundabout is not recommended at the .� Timberline/Vermont intersection. 11 O O Lf) Lr) a - 5/20 5/5 M N Ad O O .. (a N W m A& M N E OD LO O Co Ln v to N 100/40 `Iv -.0— 5/5 125/25 15/55 Vermont 5/5 -i ,O LO o 15/45 ,` � v to v v a— Y 45/15 -+— NOM /--- 40/20 Danfield NOM t r Lambkin NOM 30/50 ,O L Ul) Irr LO LO u' 0 CO 0 .n + AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles SHORT RANGE (2008) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 10 m 0 Z Site TRIP DISTRIBUTION m L font )kin N Figure 4 9 sw.,5 4low SITE PLAN 1 N SCALE: 1 "=60' I,- VERMONT STREET Figure 3 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Eastbrook Office Park is located on the southwest quadrant of the Vermont/Eastbrook intersection in Fort Collins. Figure 3 shows a site plan of the Eastbrook Office Park. The short range analysis ' (year 2008) includes development of the Eastbrook Office Park and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information contained in Trip ' Generation, 7ei 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 � Y MI �E..`y Y 11 Y �1. x i}'Ii }3�; R-,'F �jeipLW�q+-!{Z�MEiF j��i(��l�4'Ny' l= d-W' �SI.If '4�w "`Wi- 710 Gene al Office 50.0 KSF 11.011 550 11.361 68 0.19 1 10 10.251 13 1.24 62 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Eastbrook Office Park was estimated using a simple gravity model analysis, knowledge of the existing and planned street system, current traffic counts, development trends, and engineering judgment. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution used for the peak hour traffic assignment. The trip distribution analysis was discussed and agreed to in the scoping meeting. Background Traffic Projections Figure 5 shows the short range (2008) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by reviewing other transportation impact studies for developments in this area of Fort Collins. 7 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation MI. Timberline/Vermont (signal) EB LT C D EB T/RT C D EB APPROACH C D WB LT D D WB T/RT C D WB APPROACH D D NB LT A A NB T/RT B A NB APPROACH B A SB LT A A SB T/RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL B A Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin (stop sign) EB LT/TIRT B B WB LT/T/RT F E NB LT B B SB LT B B VermonttEasthrook (stop sign) WB LURT A A SB LT/T A A coo N N )� ni4'7 5/5 m A& z N E CD M N N 100/40 N ao `— f 6/5 124/24 13/52 Vermont 6/6 co 0 0 13/46 M CDti .4 N LO 45/14 0/0 .,— 40/19 Danfield 1/0 --)� ! t r Lambkin 1/0—..- 30/48 vU')N N rn Im u- ao RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 5 Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic counts at the key existing intersections are shown in Figure 2. The traffic data for the Timberline/Vermont, Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin, and Vermont/Eastbrook intersections was collected in January 2006. Raw traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Existing Operation The counted 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. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The key intersections operate acceptably overall during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The site is in an employment zone. To the east is MMN zoning. To the north is RL zoning. From the zoning in the area, it is concluded that this is a "mixed -use district." In "mixed -use districts," acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service E. At unsignalized arterial/collector or arterial/local intersections in "mixed -use districts," acceptable operation of any approach leg and any movement is level of service F. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix B. Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks exist adjacent to existing developments on all area streets. There are pedestrian crosswalks and ramps at the Timberline/Vermont intersection. This site is within 1320 feet of: existing residential areas, commercial/retail uses, and office uses. Bicycle Facilities There are bicycle facilities along Timberline Road and Vermont Drive, east of Timberline Road. Transit Facilities This area is not served by Transfort. 4 N Eastbrook Office Park y (0 L!J FORT COLLINS HIGH SCHOOL Danfield m c z a� E 1— Horsetooth LLLL.-LL LL I SCALE: 1 "=1000' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Eastbrook Office Park 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 commercial or residential. There are commercial uses to the south and east of the site. There are residential uses to the north of the site. There are also residential uses to the west, across the railroad tracks. Fort Collins High School exists east of the site, across Timberline Road. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northwest of the proposed Eastbrook Office Park. Roads The primary streets near the Eastbrook Office Park site are Timberline Road, Vermont Drive, and Danfield Court. The following descriptions are based upon a site visit and review of the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Timberline Road is to the east of the Eastbrook Office Park site. It is classified as a six -lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Timberline Road has a four -lane cross section near the Eastbrook Office Park site. At Vermont Drive and Danfield Court, Timberline Road has northbound and southbound left -turn lanes, two travel lanes in each direction, and bike facilities. The existing speed limit in this area is 40 mph. It is not certain when the six -lane cross section would be constructed between Horsetooth Road and Drake Road. Vermont Drive is north and east of the Eastbrook Office Park site. ' It is an east -west street designated as a collector street east of Timberline Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. West of Timberline Road, Vermont Drive is classified as a local street. At the ' Timberline/Vermont intersection, Vermont Drive has eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes and a combined through/right-turn lane in each direction. The Timberline/Vermont intersection has signal control. ' Danfield Court is south of the Eastbrook Office Park site. It is an east -west street designated as a local street west of Timberline Road on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. East of Timberline Road, ' Lambkin Way provides access to Fort Collins High School. At the Timberline/Danfield-Lambkin intersection, Danfield Court/Lambkin Way has all movements combined in a single lane. The Timberline/Danfield- Lambkin intersection has stop sign control on Danfield Court. PA I. INTRODUCTION ' This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Eastbrook Office Park. The proposed Eastbrook Office Park is located on ' the southwest quadrant of the Vermont/Eastbrook intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. ' During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project planner and the City of Fort Collins staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines as contained in the "Larimer t County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS). A Base Assumptions Form and related information are provided in Appendix A. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data; - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; ' - Determine peak hour traffic volumes; Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; ' - Analyze signal warrants; Roundabout analysis; Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Location ........................................ 3 2. Recent Peak Hour Traffic ............................. 5 3. Site Plan ............................................ 8 4. Trip Distribution .................................... 9 5. Short Range (2008) Background Peak Hour Traffic ...... 10 6. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ..................... 12 7. Short Range (2008) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........... 13 8. Short Range (2008) Geometry .......................... 17 APPENDIX A Base Assumptions Form/Peak Hour Traffic Counts B Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions C Short Range Background Traffic Operation D Short Range Total Traffic Operation E Pedestrian Level of Service Worksheets TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 ......................................... II. Existing Conditions .................................. 2 LandUse ............................................. 2 Roads................................................ 2 Existing Traffic ..................................... 4 Existing Operation ................................... 4 Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 4 Bicycle Facilities ................................... 4 Transit Facilities ................................... 4 III. Proposed Development ................................. 7 Trip Generation ...................................... 7 Trip Distribution .................................... 7 Background Traffic Projections ....................... 7 Trip Assignment ...................................... 11 Signal Warrants ...................................... 11 Operation Analysis ................................... 11 Roundabout Analysis .................................. 11 Geometry............................................. 16 Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 16 Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 16 Transit Level of Service ............................. 16 Iv. Conclusions .......................................... 18 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 6 2. Trip Generation ...................................... 7 3. Short Range (2008) Background Peak Hour Operation .... 14 4. Short Range (2008) Total Peak Hour Operation ......... 15 EASTBROOK OFFICE PARK TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO FEBRUARY 2006 Prepared for: Sitzman Investments LLLP P.O. Box 1208 Fort Collins, CO 80522-1208 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 PP�p RE('�SA s i� a�223