HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS - ODP - 4-04B - CORRESPONDENCE - TRAFFIC STUDYReview ofAVA Solar Traffic Impact Study in Fort Collins
6. The site plan shows a substantial number of truck delivery bays (approximately 30).
It is not clear whether truck traffic was factored into the level -of -service analysis.
Also, the length of the storage lanes for right and left turning traffic should take into
account the higher percentage of truck traffic that will likely use these intersections.
Refer to Section 4.8(2)(f) of the State Highway Access Code.
7. With the proposed improvements (EB RT at Prospect/SB 1-25 and N/S Right turn
lanes at Prospect/WFR) the report concludes that the three signalized intersections
along Prospect Road will operate at acceptable levels -of -service for the Short Range
Total Traffic scenario. While this is true, it should be noted that several movements
are projected to operate at or over capacity during the peak periods. These
movements include:
a. ProspectM/FR: Westbound Thru v/c = 1.06 during AM peak
b. ProspectMlFR: Eastbound Thru v/c =1.09 during PM peak
c. Prospect/SB 1-25: Westbound Thru v/c = 1.03 during PM peak
d. Prospect/NB 1-25: Eastbound Thru v/c =1.00 during AM peak
e. Prospect/NB 1-25: Eastbound Thru v/c = 1.08 during PM peak
f. Prospect/NB 1-25: Northbound Left v/c = 1.05 during PM peak
Given the close spacing of these intersections and limited turn storage capacity it is
likely that these over -capacity movements will result in traffic queues extending
beyond existing turn lanes and possibly causing grid lock between intersections. We
recommend that a queuing analysis be conducted for the turn lanes at each
intersection and also for the east/west through traffic along Prospect Road.
Thank you for the opportunity to conduct this review. If you have any questions regarding
the above, please contact me at 3030-688-0676 or at kbuchholz(cilnaviovinc.com.
i YAVJ;,--'sY
.. . . Page 2 of 2 November 30, 2007
NAVA?-Y
MEMORANDUM
To: Gloria Hice-Idler — CDOT Region 4 Traffic
Todd Frisbie — Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig
From: Karl Buchholz — Navjoy Consulting Services, Inc.
Subject: Review of AVA Solar Traffic Impact Study in Fort Collins
(CDOT R4 NIPS Contract No. CMS ID 06-151 — Task Order #5)
Date: November 30, 2007
We have completed our review of the above referenced traffic impact study. The proposed
development is located near the southwest quadrant of 1-25/Prospect Road in Fort Collins.
Our comments are listed below.
Comments
1. The trip generation methodology determined trips based on the proposed employee
shift schedule for the Light Industrial component of the site. As a result, the only
Light Industrial trips that are estimated to occur in either peak period (AM or PM) are
9 exiting trips during the AM peak period. While we don't necessarily disagree with
the logic that was used to arrive at this estimate, we question whether the analysis
should be based on an assumed shift schedule that could potentially change in the
future. For example, if the shift -change moved from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM the number
of entering and exiting trips would increase from 9 to 116 trips (ITE Rate of 0.44
tripstemployee x 132 employees x 2 shifts). This could also occur if the facility went
from a 2-shift schedule to a 3-shift schedule. Since the worker shift schedule is
beyond the control of CDOT or the local municipality, we believe it would be more
appropriate to assume the shift change overlaps with the peak period(s), or to base
the trip generation on the building square footage rather than the number of
employees.
2. How was the existing traffic determined for the West Frontage Road (WFR)/
Resource Recovery Road intersection?
3. The study concludes that right -turn lanes are needed at the north and south
approaches to the WFR/Prospect Road intersections and also at the eastbound
approach to the Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramp intersection. While we agree with these
conclusions, the study does not indicate if these improvements will be constructed as
part of the development.
4. Several of the peak hour factors cited in the existing traffic counts do not coincide
with the values used in the analysis sheets shown in the Appendices. In general,
higher peak hour factors were used in the analysis than what was measured in the
field. This results in a less conservative analysis.
5. Several of the intersection analyses utilize right -turn -on -red (RTOR) reductions and
in some cases the values appear to be quite high (e.g. 80 RTOR out of 95 total rights
for SBR at ProspecVWFR during the Short Background PM scenario even though
this is a shared left/thru/right lane). How were the RTOR volumes determined?
1385 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 622 — Denver, CO 80222 — 303-688-0676
No Text
5. We allow the software to default on this. Since there are so few
through movements on the WFR, it is not likely that the right turns
would be delayed.
6. The truck activity will be negligible during the peak hours
according to our client. Therefore, we used the default level in the
software. It is our experience that during the peak hours the number
of passenger car size vehicles increases while the truck population
decreases. Therefore, the truck percentage during the peak hours is
less than that which might occur during other hours of the day.
7. A queuing analysis/discussion was not specifically requested in
the scoping meeting. If requested by the City/CDOT and approved by
the client this can be provided.
If there are questions or further clarification is required, do
not hesitate to contact us.
DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineering �� L
2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland. Colorado 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 �71
MEMORANDUM
TO: Armand Trimm, The Neenan Company
Cara Morgan/Roger Sherman, BHA Design
Gloria Hice-Idler, CDOT Region 4 Access Manager
Ward Stanford, Fort Collins Traffic Operations
Sheri Langenberger, Fort Collins Engineering
Ted Shepard, Fort Collins Planning
FROM: Joe/Matt Delich _'?P
DATE: December 17, 2007
SUBJECT: CSURF ODP/AVA Solar response to `CIS"
(File: 0791ME02)
This memorandum is a response to the November 30, 2007 comments
by Navjoy Consulting Services, Inc. pertaining to the "CSURF ODP/AVA
Solar Traffic Impact Study," dated November 2007. Response to the
comments was requested by Ward Stanford, Fort Collins Traffic
Operations and Gloria Hice-Idler, CDOT Region 4 Access Manager. A
copy of the comment memorandum is provided in Appendix A.
1. Our direction was that the shift change for AVA Solar would be as
studied in this TIS. Note that the remainder (long range) of the
development used rates from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, ITE. The TIS
was prepared as it was scoped. To do otherwise, is not appropriate.
2. The existing traffic at the Prospect/WFR intersection was counted
(Appendix A in the TIS). There is very little development to the
south of Prospect Road. There is a connection to the rest area. The
traffic from the rest area and Resource Recovery Road were estimated
based upon a causal short observation. This was determined to be
appropriate since the proposed development would cause a greater
increase in traffic.
3. The conclusion regarding the right -turn lanes on the north and
south approaches of the WFR are not in the TIS dated 11/07. Whether
or not a given improvement mentioned in the TIS will be constructed is
not the responsibility of the traffic consultant.
4. Section 4.4.1.B in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards" states that we can use the calculated PHF or 0.85 (short
range) which ever is higher. That is the way we did the analyses.
The default PHF in the software is 0.92, so our results are both
proper and conservative.