Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutINNOVATION ISLAND - ODP - 40-05 - REPORTS - TRAFFIC STUDYMultimodal Transportation Level of Sefvice Manual - LOS Standards for Develupment Review - Bicycle P. 20 Figure 7. Bicycle LOS Worksheet level ofservice -connectivity nfl*=n IF actual proposed base connectivity: /) specific connections to priority sites: 1� description of applicable destination area within 1,320' including address TTGA-T f7Arxvr✓o- �Xavrox S'To)Ff destination area classification (see text) COIN,W ER a to L City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan 9 Horsetooth Road o: O CR38E ~ Innovation Islan Development SCALE: 1"OW BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA 3?i Nruitilmo dmarTrmanspmortagmon Level of Service M LOS SMndm* for DevelopmentReview - PC&SUim ice Manual Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet p. to CRY of For( Collins Transportation Master Plan Multimodal. Tran6portation Level of Service Manual. LOS St&War&. for Development Review - Padesurlan Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet City of Fart Collins Transportation Master Plan J II 1 1 v.,.,M.. 1 - I V W PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA 1 z-R APPENDIX F IJ 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Harmony Road & Acoess B Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ffJs) Perot Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 Queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) "'r 1 r< 4— -4� f EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Free Free Stop 0% 0% 0% 394 4 10 457 13 11 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 464 5 12 538 15 13 0 TWLTL 0 468 758 234 466 292 468 758 234 4.1 6.8 6.9 5.8 2.2 3.5 3.3 99 95 98 1090 336 768 am Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 309 159 12 269 269 28 ' Volume Left 0 0 12 0 0 15 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 0 13 cSH 1700' 1700 1090 1700 1700 453 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.09 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 0 5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 13.5 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 13.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ' Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 1 ;17 9/232005 Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Harmon Road & Access B --.wN 40P4-4N r EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Tp I TT T Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 523 4 8 294 6 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 615 5 9 346 7 7 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) 898 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 620 809 310 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 618 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 192 vCu, unblocked vol 620 809 310 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 98 99 loll capacity (veh1h) 956 306 686 Direction Lane # EB 1 ES 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 410 210 9 173 173 14 Volume Left 0 0 9 0 -0 7 Volume Right 0 5 0 0 0 7 cSH 1700 1700 956 1700 1700 423 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.12 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 13.8 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Z(P 9/8/2005 Page 2 ' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Hannon Road & Access A recent�bkg of Movement EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR ' Lane Configurations I Sign Control Free Free Stop ' Grade Volume (vehlh) 0% 403 19 6 0% 0% 464 11 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 474 22 7 546 13 6 Pedestrians ' Lane Wift (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ' Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 508 0 ' PX platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97 vC, conflicting volume 496 772 248 1 VC1, stage 1 oonf Vol vC2, stage 2 conf Vol 485 287 vCu, unblocked Vol 453 737 197 IC, single (s) IC, 2 stage (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 IF (s) 23.3 3.8 PO queue free % 99 96 9g I' CAA capacity (ve") 1073 338 788 Direction Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 316 180 7 273 273 19 Volume Lett 0 0 7 0 0 13 Volume Right 0 22 0 0 0 6 cSH Volume to Capacity 1700 1700 0.19 0.11 1073 0.01 1700 1700 0.16 0.16 411 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 14.2 ' Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 A 0.1 Approach LOS 14.2 B Intersection Summer, ' Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1 ' Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. ;23I2005 Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis -►N 4r'4-4N r Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations y Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 522 13 4 296, 9 5' Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 '0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 614 15 5 348 11 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL Median storage veh) 0 Upstream signal (ft) 549 pX, platoon unblocked 0.98 0.98 0.98 vC, conflicting volume 629 805 315 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 622 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 184 vCu, unblocked vol 600 780 279 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 IC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 953 311 703 Direction, lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 NB 1 Volume Total 409 220 5 174 174 16 Volume Left 0 0 5 0 0 11 Volume Right 0 15 0 0 0 6 cSH 1700 1700 953 1700 1700 388 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.04 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 3 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 14.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 14.7 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.8% ACU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 ` Joseph 9/8/2005 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1 ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: CR38E & Taft Hill Road rcen s c bk g d � am m -► 1 t ti l r ' Movement Lane Configurations EBL ►( EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL 'SBT SBR Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) 1900 4.0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 191w 11 1900 1900 1900 19W Lane Util. Factor 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 4.0 4.0 Frt Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,85 SM. Flow (prot) 1770 1.00 1796 0.95 1770 1.00 1863 1.00 1583 0.95 1770 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 F 0.37 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.40 1834 1.00 3433 1863 1583FitPermitted Satd. Flow 682 1796 1265 1863 1583 . 748 MU 0.22 789 1.00 1863 1.00 1583 ' Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF 121 0.91 84 26 0.91 40 165 270 66 457 52 286 410 140 NO. Flow (vph) 133 0.91 92 29 0.85 47 0.85 194 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 318 78 538 61 333 477 163 ' Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 108 0 47 0 194 259 59 0 78 4 595 0 0 0 79 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm pm+pt 0 333 477 84 Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 pm+pt Perm Permitted Phases 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 ' Actuated Green, G (s) Effective Green, (s) 26.5 27.5 20.2 17.8 15.5 15.5 2 44.2 41.0 6 51.8 44.8 6 44.8 9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 21.2 0.24 18.8 0.21 16.5 16.5 45.2 42.0 52.8 45.8 45.8 ' Clearance Time (a) 4.0 5.0 4.0 0.19 5.0 0.19 5.0 0.51 4.0 0.47 0.60 0.52 .52 0.52 .52 Vehicle Extensions 3.0 35.0 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 298 430 282 347 295 419 3.0 870 3.0 680 3.0 964 3.0 ' v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.06 0.00 c0.10 0.01 c0.32 c0.04 0.26 819 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.45 0.25 0.03 0.17 0.56 0.04 0.20 0.09 0.19 0.68 0.25 0.05 ' Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 27.2 28.2 32.7 30.4 11 A 18.1 0.49 11.8 0.49 13.8 0.10 Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 1.00 1.1 1.00 0.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10.9 1.00 ' Delay (s) Level of Service 24.3 C 27.5 C 0.3 28.5 2.0 34.7 0.3 30.8 0.2 11.7 4.3 22.4 0.6 12.3 1.8 15.7 0.3 11.1 Approach. Delay (s) 25.8 C C 31.9 C B C B B B Approach LOS C C 21.2 13.8 Intersection Summary C B HCM Average Control Delay 21.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 ' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.5 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ,' Matthew J. Delich , P. E. I z17 9/8/2005 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis recent 3: CR38E & Taft Hill Road WBL WBT WBR NBL NOT NOR Lane Configurations I T+ I ♦ F 11 Ti 1171 T r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 19W 19W 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (a) 4.0 4.0 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 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prof) 1770 1796 1770 1863 1583 1770 1843 3433 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.55 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (pern) 1034 1796 996 1863 1583 759 1843 903 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 220 205 65 31 48 226 20 435 33 271 408 46 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 259 241 76 36 56 266 24 512 39 319 480 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 226 0 3 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 304 0 36 56 40 24 548 0 319 480 28 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 21.7 14.7 12.4 12.4 42.1 40.6 50.6 45.1 45.1 Effective Green, g (s) 29.0 22.7 15.7 13.4 13.4 43.1 41.6 51.6 46.1 46.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.49 0.47 0.58 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Erdension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 435 460 197 282 239 386 865 697 969 824 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.17 0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.30 c0.03 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.66 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.06 0.63 0.46 0.50 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 23.6 29.5 30.6 32.9 32.7 12.1 17.7 11.5 13.7 10.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 3.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.5 0.5 1.8 0.1 Delay (s) 25.8 33.1 31.1 33.2 33.1 12.2 21.3 12.0 15.5 10.5 Level of Service C C C C C B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 29.8 32.9 20.9 13.9 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22A HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) . 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph 9/82005 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1 � Z No Text HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis recent total 3: CR38E & Taft Hill Road am Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1795 1770 1863 1583 1770 1836 3433 1663 1583 Fk Permitted 0.37 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (Penn) 681 1795, 1266 1863 1583 751 1836 807 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 121 83 26 36 163 252 66 457 48 268 410 140 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 133 91 29 42 192 296 78 538 56 312 477 163 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 242 0 4 0 0 0 78 Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 107 0 42 192 54 78 590 0 312 477 85 Tun Type pm+pt pm+Pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt Penn Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.2 19.9 17.5 15.2 15.2 44.2 41.0 51.8 44.8 44.8 Effective Green, g (s) 27.2 20.9 18.5 16.2 16.2 45.2 42.0 52.8 45.8 45.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.51 0.48 0.60 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 425 279 342 291 422 $74 692 967 822 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.06 0.00 00.10 0.01 c0.32 c0.04 0.26 v/s Ratio Penn 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.23 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.25 0.15 0.56 0.19 0.18 0.67 0.45 0.49 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 27.3 28.2 32.8 30.4 11.3 17.8 11.4 13.7 10.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.3 0.3 2.1 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.5 1.8 0.3 Delay (s) 24.4 27.6 28.5 34.9 30.7 11.5 22.0 11.9 15.5 11.0 Level of Service C C C C C B C B B B Approach Delay (s) 25.9 32.1 20.8 13.5 Approach LOS C C C B HCM Average Control Delay 20.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.2 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph 917r2005 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis recent o total 3: CR38E & Taft Hill Road -CaMbCa pm .0.4 -*.N r♦- t� t t* ti l 4., ' - - Lane Configurations �W.� t, V_Qr� rvaL ►) vvrsi VNHK NHL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 f 1900 F 1900 I 1900 A 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) Lane Util. Factor 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4:0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1796 1770 1863 • 1.00 1583 0,95 1770 1.00 1845 0.95 1.00 1.00 Fit Permitted 0.56 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 3433 0,25. 1863 1.00 1583 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1034 1796 1001 1863 1583 759 1845 914 1863 1583 ' Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF 220 0.85 204 0.85 65 0.85 28 0.85 47 0.85 215 20 435 30 258 408 46 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 259 240 76 33 55 253 24 512 35 304 480 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 215 0 3 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 303 0 33 55 38 24 544 0 304 480 28 Turn Type Protected Phases pm+pt 7 pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm p erm Permitted Phases 4 4 3 8 8 8 5 2 2 1 6 ' Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 21.7 14.7 12.4 12.4 42.1 40.6 6 50.6 45.1 6 45.1 Ef Octive Green, g (s) 29.0 22.7 15.7 13.4 13.4 43.1 41.6 51.6 46.1 46.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.49 0.47 0.58 0.52 0.52 ' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 435 460 197 282 239 386 866 703 969 824 ' v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.17 0.00 0.03 0.00 c0.30 c0.03 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.22 0.02 We Ratio Uniform May, d1 0.60 23.6 0.66 29.5 0.17 30.6 0.20 32.9 0.16 0.06 0.63 0.43 0.50 0.03 ' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 32.7 1.00 12.1 1.00 17.7 1.00 11.4 13.7 10.4 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 3.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay (s) 25.8 32.9 31.0 33.2 33.0 12.2 21.1 0.4 11.8 1.8 15.5 0.1 10.5 ' Level of Service C C C C C a C B B Approach Delay (s) 29.7 32.9 20.8 13.9 B Approach LOS C C C ' Intersection Summary B HCM Average Control Delay 22.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 1 1 ' Joseph 9/8i2005 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. p Page 1 APPENDIX D Table 43 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) UNSIGNALIZED :INTERSECTIONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Uvd-or-Service A <10 l3 > 10 and < 20 >20and_<35 [) > 35 and < 55 G -- > 55 atul < 80 �, > 80 M I I 1 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: CR38E & Taft Hill Road necen hort bkgd ai Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time (s) 1900 4.0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19000 19W 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 1.00 4.0 4.0 4.0 Frt Fit Protected 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Said. Flow (Prot) 0.95 1770 1.00 1795 0.95 1770 1.00 1863 1.00 1583 0.95 1770 1.00 1845 0.95 1.00 1,00 Fit Permitted 0.56 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1770 0.22 1863 1.00 1583 1.00 Satd• Flow (perm) 1046 1795 853 1863 1583 923 1845 418 1863 1583 Volume (vph) Peak -hour factor, PHF 214 0.85 198 0.85 63 0.85 27 .46 209 19 422 29 250 396 45 Adj. Flow (vph) 252 233 74 0.85 32 0.85 54 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 246 22 496 34 294 466 53 Lane Group Flow NO) 252 294 0 32 54 207 39 0 22 2 528 0 0 0 294 0 466 25 Tian Type Protected Phases pm+pt pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt 28 Perm Permitted Phases 7 4 4 3 8 8 5 2 16 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.1 19.9 15.2 13.0 8 13.0 2 37.3 35.8 6 51.5 46.0 6 46.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.1 20.9 16.2 14.0 14.0 38.3 36.8 52.5 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio Clearance Time (s) 0.31 4.0 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.44 0.42 0.60 0.54 0.54 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3W 428 181 298 3,0 253 3.0 418 3.0 775 3.0 3.0 3.0 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.16 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.29 431 00.09 1000 0.25 849 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.02 c0.32 0.02 v/c Ratio Uniform Delay, d1 0.63 24.8 0.69 30.4 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.05 0.68 0.68 0.47 0.03 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 29.7 1.00 31.8 1.00 31.7 1.00 14.0 1.00 20.6 1.00 12.3 12.5 9.6 Incremental Delay, d2 3.2 4.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 4.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 Delay (s) 28.1 34.9 30.1 32.1 32.0 14.1 25.4 4.4 16.7 1.6 14.1 0.1 9.7 Level of Service C C C C C B C Approach Delay (s) 31.8 31.8 25.0 B B A Approach LOS C C 14.8 C g HCM Average Control Delay HCM volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) c Critical Lane Group HCM Level of Service 0.66 87.6 Sum of lost time (s) 68.7% ICU Level of Service 15 8.0 C t Joseph 9/7/2005 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Paige 1 I' t5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis <j@n short bkgd total 3: CR38E & Taft Hill Road ®Pm -A -•--v 4,-- 4- k� t r NO. 4 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations I A 1 4 F I i► I 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1:00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1798 1770 1863 1583 1770 1836 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.44 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 822 1798 1271 1863 1583 924 18W 418 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 117 81 25 35 158 245 64 444 47 260 398 136 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 129 89 27 41 186 288 75 522 55 302 463 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 0 238 0 4 0 0 0 69 Lane Group Flow (vph) 129 104 0 41 186 50 75 573 0 302 463 89 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm pm+pt pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 14.6 16.0 13.8 13.8 41.1 38.1 53.8 46.8 46.8 Effective Green, g (s) 18.6 15.6 17.0 14.8 14.8 42.1 39.1 54.8 47.8 47.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.50 0.46 0.65 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214 332 268 326 277 490 849 458 1053 894 v/s Redo Prot c0.02 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.31 o0.09 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.03 0.03 0.07 c0.34 0.06 v/c Ratio' 0.60 . 0.31 0.15 0.57 0.18 0.15 0.68 0.66 0.44 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 29.9 29.9 27.6 32.0 29.7 11.1 17.8 10.6 10.6 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.5 0.3 2.4 0.3 0.1 4.3 3.4 1.3 0.2 Delay (s) 34.6 30.4 27.9 34.4 30.1 11.3 22.1 14.0 12.0 8.7 Level of Service C C C C C B C B B A Approach Delay (s) 32.6 31.5 20.8 12.1 Approach LOS C C C B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 21.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 84.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 917rzo05 Page 1 14- APPENDIX C )'5 N MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: 70 602061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 111312005 Observer: Fort Collins Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins R = rightturn F7ntnmection: Harmony 1 Taft Hill S = straight 7:30-8:30 111M 470 pill= sst 1 1161 MIMI= 475 pill= 20 PHI: 1 1 0.78 1 1 a." 1 1 0.75 1 1 0.6 4:30.5:30 offl= S55 PIE= 794 I 1349 MIN= 223 IMEW 438 661 PHF 1 1 0.77 1 1 0.86 1 0 m I I 0.82 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 APPENDIX B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No Text 1 1 1 1 1 4 — Attachawnfs Attachment B Transportation Impact Study Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet DESTINATION Rec. Rcs.m Inst. Ofe/Bus. Com. Ind. Other S iF Recreation 3 Residential r,Z,3, 1 ,tr =� Institution (school, church, civic) gOfficeMusiness x Commercial 1� 1 a ,S Industrial Other (specify) INSTRUCTIONS: Identify the pedestrian destinations within 1321Y (1.5 miles for sct,00ls) of the project boundary in the spaces above_ The pedestrian Level of Service for the ladiily/ewridor Rnldng these destinations to the project site will be based on the directness, continuity, types of street crossings, walkway surface corrdidon, visual Interestfamenity, and security of the selected route(s)_ c! 12 Dwelling units or more l , �65raE�c) iIAG >l C'o,�1MEect�tc, To 'VOET14W6S "r Z . • RE S ('D6A) i 1 AL TO A.)6p rtf 3. QES IDENTtA1_ To EAs-r 4• 129SlbGourtAi_ To SOUTH S: L9ESt0E'iurtAL TO LEST page 4-M tarkner County Urban Area Street Standards- Repealed and Reenacted October 1.2002 Adopted by Latmer County. City at Loveland. City of Fort Collins E Gravity Model Data 2010 NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST Zone D.U. Zone D.U. Zone D.U. Zone D.U. 51 5/18 501/2 201 53 1398 501/2 201 521/2 859 542/3 397 541/3 199 521/2 858 59 2163 751/2 292 74 1743 294 404 60 2208 76 314 394 75112 292 661/2 287 116 802 761/4 132 67 1756 120114 213 78 .1505 68 1162 295 102 79 1 73 2295 297 1/2 1 80 0 77 2054 3171/2 167 82 0 81 804 318 730 83 0 99 604 323114 198 115 535 134 954 119 1350 135 89 120112 425 136 147 122 1418 138 527 1231/4 404 139 995 129 31 130 2625 131 774 140 1295 Total Emp. 17,408 Total Emp. 3,497 Total Emp. 14,127 Total Emp. 1,463 Distribution 47.70% Distribution 9.58% Distribution 38.71 % Distribution 4.01 % ` 0 /070 g 4090 ,S`IG Gravitv Modal Data 2n1 n 4 S9� io9v y 9`S�o �10 95 .190, (wmIv- 1 BB 101 102- 141Nq"�1421C126 IQ 1�\ .. - •1 99 103 \ . ... 1 ---; 137 _l I 135 � -"� ~/ ► 138 t 7124 I 51.. 134 n_ _ `-81 t \ � � 1-• 110—'- — mI 1coliNngnAl93 I I 02--130� I I 73, — _122 I 11 1�78 -74 -119, 1 121 — ---'M\, Q \\ 1311 I �\ so ROOM 120 I \ 132 49* \ % � 116 - I 133 J 128 605 76 TAll Rd 6 16 \ 11 \327 —_ 323'— 295 318 � I 1 ' 326 -191 - 325 j CR38E 1 �1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION N Figure 4 TABLE 2 Generation 220 Townfromes 28 D.U. 5.86 170 0.07 1 2 10.37 10 10351 10 0,171 5 710 Office 5.0 KSF 11.01 60 1.36 7 0.19 1 0.25 1 1.24 6 912 Bank 4.0 KSF 168.58 675 5.10 20 3.85 15 7.44 30 7.60 30 912 Bank 3Windows 101.06 3% 6.20 19 4.68 14 9.05 27 9.25 28 Bank Average TOTAL 490 720 77n 20 15 26 29 40 29 40 Fl W R I to 12 0 bVYJ/Y,.,�ua ,IIU 11:u5 AA 1 writ/ tuybni ju,y Sep 08 05 lO:OBa Volich Rssoc rn� nu, Div LLI ut04 r. uul 970 CBS 503S P.2 A - Allein�ilr A d MA hopodakdy 7h �y�dAisrr !!d 11.ers Iou trmAJ ISL OJ aisoMia. S6c' A T jag HAtkalfr rt.1- vete*..�+�s be�ered�'s ?hra� �lnRniavY ,�SlT6' met TITV &toss IQWTAPT fEf � Y� 0"3mw &0017 r'A�e(tlts8le S/Fp /. L AXswa�si9�es s. A r Owl. f. A z L 'tfan�ioQlirB� Aft the l T4 Arr Sa,tl�Toa�r� T* ���s �+�oiCG1�CrB�GE' nor. �iG[ls18LE OMN BBA.e17AR�D 0M=ftaaro.a•a kWW'o OlaQ7lio YS - Setnv "rAPr sK.us Cw.spd�l�lt�c KILA. AswsRs�ilr� e�aeiYt81� paw 'tawiow..ta..wwc�u. ....rew«......�.rar.r�-...r+rr..�a..ns...t,wa n�o•sa9 r.....a...�+ 2 APPENDIX A 0 1 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of Innovation Island Development on the short range (2007) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of Innovation Island Development is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, Innovation Island Development will generate approximately 710 daily trip ' ends, 55 morning peak hour trip ends, and 79 afternoon peak hour trip ends. ' - Currently, the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection operates acceptably with current control and geometry. - In the short range (2007) background traffic future, the key intersections will operate acceptably. - In the short range (2007) future, given full development of Innovation Island Development and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will operate acceptably. The recommended short range (2007) geometry is shown in Figure B. ' - Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian and bicycle modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation ' guidelines. 1 19 11 ' Plan. When this is implemented, it is likely that there will be a raised center median on Taft Hill Road. City staff indicated that the access to Taft Hill Road could be re-evaluated as a right-in/right-out public access when the median treatment is implemented. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Innovation Island Development. Five potential pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet were identified: 1) commercial and residential uses to the northwest, 2) residential uses to the north, 3) residential uses to the east, 4) residential uses to the south, and ' S) residential uses to the west of the site. CR3BE and the west side of Taft Hill Road south of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection do not have sidewalks. It is not known when sidewalks will be built in ' this area. It is anticipated that sidewalks will be built on Taft Hill north of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection with the improvements to this section of Taft Hill Road. The Innovation Island Development is located within an area termed as "other" which sets the level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured categories. Appendix F contains a.Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Bicycle Level of Service ' Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Innovation Island Development. The only bicycle priority destination is the commercial area to the northwest. Based upon Fort Collins ' bicycle LOS criteria, the minimum level of service threshold for bicycles is LOS C. There are bicycle facilities along Harmony and Taft Hill Road south of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection. It is anticipated that bicycle facilities will be built on Taft Hill north of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection with the proposed improvements to this section of Taft Hill Road. CR38E does not have bicycle facilities. It is not known when bicycle facilities will be ' built on CR38E. The Innovation Island Development will be connected to the bike lanes on Taft Hill Road and Harmony Road, which exceeds the LOS C criteria. Transit Level of Service ' Currently, this area is not served by transit. The Innovation Island Development is located in an area defined as a "low density mixed use residential." In the future, transit service will be ' improved as depicted on the Fort Collins Transit System Plan, with 30 minute feeder service. However, this service will not occur within the short range future time period that is reflected in an 1 intermediate transportation impact study. 18 ' CR38E 1 --d*- AM/PM A& N SHORT RANGE (2007) GEOMETRY Figure 8 17 TABLE 4 Short Range (2007) Total Peak Hour Intemecbon Movement Taft HilVHarmony-CR38E (signal) EB LT EB T/RT EB APPROACH WB LT WB T WB RT WB APPROACH NB LT NB T/RT NB APPROACH SB LT SB T SB RT SB APPROACH OVERALL Harmony/Access A (stop sign) VVB LT NB LT/RT Harmony/Access B (stop sign) WB LT NB LT/RT M I 1 [1 1 TABLE 3 Short Range (2007) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement level of Service . AM .. PM .. Taft HiIVHarmony-CR38E (signal) EB LT C C EB T/RT C C EB APPROACH C C WB LT C C WB T C C WB RT C C WB APPROACH C C NB LT B B NB T/RT C C NS APPROACH C C SB LT B B SB T B B SB RT B B SB APPROACH B B OVERALL C C 15 ' 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. The accesses do not meet spacing requirements for signalized intersections and are not anticipated to meet any signal ' warrants. Operation Analysis and Geometry i Operation analyses were performed at the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E ' intersection and the site access intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting a year 2007 condition. Using the short range (2007) background traffic volumes shown in Figure 5, the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection operates as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection will operate acceptably. ' Using the short range (2007) total traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection operates as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are ' provided in Appendix E. The key intersection will operate acceptably. The short range (2007) geometry is shown in Figure 8, which ' reflects the existing geometry at the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection, except on the north leg which will have southbound dual left -turn lanes. The improvements to the north on Taft Hill Road are currently being designed as a City capital improvement project. It was ' agreed that the center median lane on Harmony Road, east of the existing raised median should be striped as a two-way left -turn lane.. ' Roundabout Analysis ' A resolution of the Fort Collins City Council requires a roundabout analysis at arterial/arterial and arterial/collector intersections. A roundabout analysis was not requested at the ' signalized Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection. Access to Taft Hill Road Access to Taft Hill Road was discussed with City staff in the design charette. It was decided that in the short range future (prior ' to significant improvement to the south leg of the Taft Hill/Harmony- CR38E intersection) the access to Taft Hill Road would be an emergency vehicle only access. In the longer range future Taft Hill Road is shown to have a 4-lane cross section on the Fort Collins Master Street 14 �t o� N It o ti It N 226/270 = 48/165 31 /40 220/121 205184 65/26 o `v M cn v Harmony Road Access A --w— AM/PM ' SHORT RANGE (2007) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1 13 6 A& N �_a Access B Figure 7 ' CR38E 1 1 1 v co 0 T co 11/18 1/2 3/4 Harmony Road 7 3i79 � �js Access A --o— AM/PM '10000000p� b`N$I Access B 6`l%1 A& N SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6 12 CR38E O co CD v * CO °D aD 215/252 v N 47/163 28/36 220/121 1 204/83 co rao 65/26 o v CC OD) M Crl + AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2007) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N ony Road Figure 5 11 a cc 0 x N 1� CR38E 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 10 Figure 4 7 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use size AWVDTE AM Peak Hour PIA Peak Hour Rama Trts Rama In Raps Out Rams In Rams Out 220 Townhomes 27 D.U. 5.86 160 0.07 2 0.37 10 0.35 9 0.17 5 710 Office 5.0 KSF 11.01 60 1.36 7 0.19 1 0.25 1 1.24 6 912 Bank 4.0 KSF 168.58 675 5.10 20 3.85 15 7.44 30 7.60 30 912 Bank 3 Windows 101.06 305 6.20 19 4.68 14 9.05 27 9.25 28 Bank Average 490 20 1 15 1 1 29 1 1 29 TOTAL 710 29 26 39 M4O Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Innovation Island Development was estimated using gravity model analysis, knowledge of the existing and planned street system, 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 and is contained in Appendix A. Background Traffic Projections Figure 5 shows the short range (2007) background peak hour traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future horizon were obtained by reviewing the NFRRTP and recent traffic studies in the area and factoring the traffic volumes by 1.5% per year compounded annually. 1 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 (2007) peak hour traffic at the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection. 9 r r r r II■r r r �r r �r r r r �r � r UI■� r r CD mEX. STWM MH L Vill E]Ev-S151.15 1 v N N* C-51 y,H INV W.Sl�e13 . . Tw %IC SIONLL wx Z— T CLfw51S0e VERGE RIGHT NUT ELEVg1e¢ N T EL 130.e FLU W 007 IPP WTTN CLECIPIG I I i I I '.-•;r e 0. SCALE 111=100' I„ SST R W,TH ELICM11 .L23 IT.. EEO ALET IPP IC I 1H ELECTR:CNL 40 illillN Wil-mow LINT MIE • MA NS T lMER I. NUUEw T [IAI3.1 1 1. �.� TEE TO MLST r: .. ..'.... -..I... .. ".- t i ! 1V0. lN I.l 51 RIM STOaM W1 LU W 511G.41 Q IW IN, NUT FLCwSt0,e � MM MRMD TAPE -- W `11.13 17 INV Mn', I.0 /I KNT MEE q ( I i1r,I�- , J OD r � . . Im l Eucmlc I MVACY .t1wc.1 lucmc m Loans i SUITMY MN 1111161 OAS END ` ------ t INS 11 mu scum ro ot TJID a LOCATES T (D CA) III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ' The Innovation Island Development is a proposed residential and commercial development, located in the southeast quadrant of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection in Fort Collins. Figure 3 shows a site plan of the Innovation Island Development. The short range analysis (year 2007) includes development of the Innovation Island Development and an appropriate increase in background traffic. The site plan shows two accesses to the Innovation Island Development from Harmony Road in the short range (2007) future. There is also an emergency access from Taft Hill Road. In the long range future, it is anticipated that Taft Hill Road will have a raised center median. After the median is 1 constructed on Taft Hill Road, the emergency access can be reconfigured to be a right-in/right-out access. Initially, only the residential portion of Innovation Island would be built. This is an affordable residential community being developed by Habitat for Humanity. The commercial site in the east portion of the ' lot would be sold to a commercial user. That user is not known at this time. It is expected that the likely commercial land uses could be retail, office, or bank. It could be a combination of two of these land uses. The land uses were discussed in a design charette involving the ' development team and City staff. It was agreed that the bank/office land use combination would yield the highest trip generation and this was used in this TIS. With the drive -through bank facility, the ' bank/office uses would have less floor area than if the retail/office uses were used. ' Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 7th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the ' proposed/expected uses at this site. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. The Innovation Island Development proposes to have 27 townhome dwelling units and a bank/office commercial building. The peak hour trip generation rates for the bank were derived from actual observations at banks in Boulder and Loveland. These observations were conducted because of the obviously high peak hour trip generation rates that are provided in the ITE reference. The observed/ITE peak hour ratios were applied to the daily ITE rates. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of Island Development resulted in 710 daily trip ends, the Innovation 55 morning hour trip ends, and 79 afternoon peak hour trip ends. peak 1 7 I, 1 rPedestrian Facilities ' Sidewalks exist along Harmony Road and on the east side of Hill Road, Taft south of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection. CR38E and Taft Hill Road north of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E do not sidewalks. The have nearest pedestrian crosswalk is at the Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection. This Taft site is within 1320 feet existing residential of: and commercial areas. rBicycle Facilities There are bicycle facilities along Harmony Road and Taft Road Hill south of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection. Taft Hill north of the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection has a shoulder approximately 3 feet wide that functions as a bike lane. CR38E has minimal shoulders. ' Transit Facilities r This area is currently not served by transit. r r r r r r r r ' 6 I 1 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. Calculation ' forms are provided in Appendix C. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacitv Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Taft Hill/Harmony- CR38E intersection operates acceptably during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Innovation Island Development site is in an area termed low density mixed use residential area. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At unsignalized arterial/collector or arterial/local intersections, in low density mixed use residential ' areas, acceptable operation is level of service F. In such areas, it is expected that there would be delays to the minor street movements during the peak hours. This is considered to be normal in urban areas. i i 1 i 1 1 J i i TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation lMersection Movement " UW41 of Service ` AfYt' PM Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E (signal) EB LT C C EB T/RT C C ES APPROACH C C WB LT C C WB T C C C C WB RT WB APPROACH . C C NB LT B B NB T/RT C C NB APPROACH C C SB LT B B SB T SB RT SB APPROACHjjjjA OVERALL CR38E Goo 209/245 v " 04 �— 46/158 f + 27/35 214/117 --/ 1 98/81 I ,� 63/25 A N N st --a— AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4 Road Figure 2 1 i f Horsetooth Road l o: i CR38E ~ 7 a Harmon Road Innova o Ian Develop SITE LOCATION 1 3 Figure 1 ' II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ' The location of the Innovation Island Development 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 residential and commercial. There are residential uses to the north, south, east, and west of this site. There are commercial uses to the northwest of this site. The center of ' Fort Collins lies to the northeast of the Innovation Island Development. Streets The primary streets near the Innovation Island Development site are Taft Hill Road and Harmony Road-CR38E. Taft Hill Road is adjacent ' to (west of) the Innovation Island Development site. It is a north - south street designated as a four -lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. cross section with a center turn Currently, it lane. The has a two-lane general Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection has. signal control. At the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection, Taft Hill Road has a northbound and southbound left -turn ' lane, one through lane in each direction, and a southbound right -turn lane. Northbound right turns are made from the through lane. The posted speed on this section of Taft Hill Road is 35 mph. Harmony Road-CR38E is adjacent to (north of) the Innovation Island Development site. East and west of Taft Hill Road, it is an east -west street designated as a four -lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a four -lane general cross section with a center turn lane east of Taft Hill Road and a two-lane general cross section west of Taft Hill Road. At the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection, Harmony Road-CR38E has an eastbound and westbound left -turn lane, one through lane in each direction, and a westbound right -turn lane. Eastbound right turns are made from the ' through lane. The posted speed on this section of Harmony Road is 40 mph. ' Existing Traffic ' Recent peak hour traffic volumes at the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection are shown in Figure 2. Traffic counts at the Taft Hill/Harmony-CR38E intersection were obtained in January 2005 by the City of Fort Collins. Raw count data is provided in Appendix B. 1 2 II� I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Innovation Island Development. The Innovation Island Development site is located ' east of Taft Hill Road and south of Harmony Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made ' with the project developer (Habitat for Humanity), the project engineer (Interwest Consulting Group), The project planner (Vignette Studios), the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering Staff, and the Fort Collins ' Transportation Planning Staff. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form is provided in Appendix A. This intermediate transportation impact study generally conforms to the format set forth ' in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines as contained in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS). 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. I 1] LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Location ........................................ 3 2. Recent Peak Hour Traffic ............................. 4 3. Site Plan ............................................ B 4. Trip Distribution .................................... 10 5. Short Range (2007) Background Peak Hour Traffic ...... 11 6. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ..................... 12 7. Short Range (2007) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........... 13 B. Short Range (2007) Geometry .......................... 17 APPENDIX A Base Assumptions Form B Recent Peak Hour Traffic C Existing Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards D Short Range Background Peak Hour Operation E Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation F Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit Level of Service Worksheets TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ......................................... 1 II. Existing Conditions .................................. 2 LandUse ............................................. 2 Streets 2 Existing Traffic ..................................... 2 Existing Operation ................................... Pedestrian Facilities 5 ................................. Bicycle Facilities 6 ................................... Transit Facilities 6 ................................... 6 III. Proposed Development ................................. 7 Trip Generation ...................................... Trip Distribution 7 .................................... 9 Background Traffic Projections ....................... 9 Trip Assignment ...................................... Signal Warrants 9 ...................................... 14 Operation Analysis and Geometry ...................... 14 Roundabout Analysis .................................. 14 Access to Taft Hill Road ............................. Pedestrian Level of Service 14 .......................... Bicycle Level of Service 18 ............................. Transit Level of Service 18 ............................. 18 IV. Conclusions .......................................... 19 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 5 2. Trip Generation ...................................... 9 3. Short Range (2007) Background Peak Hour Operation .... 15 4. Short Range (2007) Total Peak Hour Operation ......... 16 I 1 INNOVATION ISLAND DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO SEPTEMBER 2005 1 ;1 ' Prepared for. Interwest Consulting Group 1218 West Ash, Suite C Windsor, CO 80550 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive ' Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 1