HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, ELDERLY HOUSING - PDP - 14-01 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYFUTURE TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Travel Time Worksheet
Destination
Approximate
Distance
Auto Travel
Time
Bus Travel
Time
Travel Time
Factor
CSU Campus Transit Center
3.8
15
37
2.5
Foothills Fashion Mall
1.7
10
22
2.2
Fort Collins High School
3.5
14
29
2.1
Downtown Fort Collins
4.7
18
41
2.3
Total Travel Time
57
1 129
2.3
Service Level Standards Worksheet
Mtzed Use
Remainder of
Standard
s and
the Service
Meets Standard
Fails Standard
C�atmm
Area
Corridors '
Hours of Weekday Service
18 hours
16 hours
X
Weekday Frequency of Service
15 minutes
20 minutes
X
Travel Time Factor
2.0 x
2.0 x
X
Peak Load Factor
<_ 1.2
<_ 1.2
X
2of4=LOSD
Nlultimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual p. 20
LOS Suuxlanls for Development Review - Bicycle
Figure 7. Bicycle LOS Worksheet
level of service - connectivity
muunnun actual proposed
base connectivity: C C
specific connections to priority sites:
description of applicable
destination area within 1,320'
including address
destination area
classification
(see text)
/'�rj� City of fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual p. Ig
LOS Standards for Development Review - Pedestrian
0
Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
project location classification:
E
ID
io
ID
description of applicable
destination area within 1,320'
including address
004memOV-10F F1GC
Aytcros To &xc;r
destination area
classification
(see text)
CvW,Ovt&,r8er,A L,
OFFrCc
0
(enter as many as apply)
level of service (minimum based on project location classification)
destination area
classification
(see text)
CvW,Ovt&,r8er,A L,
OFFrCc
0
(enter as many as apply)
level of service (minimum based on project location classification)
Nrn1neu
:pninul7•
aeN
twJng.
caul
INernl k
unvlty
nnauYrs
nwdrnlun
��
eS
�
+�
Q
actual
proposed
miimmnn
actual
proposed
memn in
actual
proposed
miienunn
actual
proposed
�r /� City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual p. 18
LOS Standards for Development Review - Pedestrian
Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
project location classification: T
01,
ol°
description of applicable
destination area within 1,320'
including address
c �SIDNNr,AL 4P-&A
To f c)t S r 1S0WiVkRS
KE5iDE.urrAL 4 96 A
Tr., A b /zr 1-f
Q65fb60JrfAL 4&A
o &AST
eKuF-c-(+ TG
EAST
Mfti►iuUm LUS
destination area
classification
(see text)
1861 Dt9'UT, d
�tiS t, rur,
Oro C-- JF--
(enter as many as apply)
level of service (minimum based on project location classification)
Nre:meu
:owinoly
eVeN
vaYnge
met
INerear d
eanvlry•
unuYtlu
nwdnaal4
actual
q
D
A
C
C
proposed
memnisn
actiwl
proposed
��1�1�1
'=.
®aMJ
r
1LM1"1��
5l+awAJ is F'oP. -%,e.4-usiT- 0gielb0r
City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
Seneca
Horsetooth
Seneca
U
SCALE: 1"=1000'
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA
APPENDIX F
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
'Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
Analysis Time Period:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Analysis Year:
Project ID: 0117
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Michael
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
3/1/01
am�B>
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access
F C 11'
shor total w/70 DU
Horsetooth
Seneca/Access
Intersection Orientation:
EW
Study
period
(hrs): 0.25
'
Vehicle
Volumes and
Adjustments
Major Street: Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3 1
4
5
6
L
T
R I
L
T
R
Volume
5
555
5
25
840
40
-Hour Factor,
PHF
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.87
0.87
0.87
'Peak
Hourly Flow Rate,
HFR
5
590
5-
28
965
45
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
2
Median Type
Undivided
RT Channelized?
No
'Lanes
1
1
0
1
1
1
Configuration
L
TR
L
T
R
Upstream Signal?
No
No
'Minor Street: Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9 I
10
11
12
L
T
R I
L
T
R
'Volume
5
1
10
20
1
5
Peak Hour Factor,
PHF
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.79
0.79
0.79
Hourly Flow Rate,
HFR
5
1
11
25
1
6
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
2
2
2
2
2
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
Median Storage
Flared Approach:
Exists?
Yes
Yes
Storage
1
1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
.Configuration
LTR
LTR
Delay,
Queue Length,
and Level of
Service
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
oproach
vement
1
4 1
7
8 9
1 10
11 12
ane Config
L
L I
LTR
I
LTR
5
28
17
32
t(vph)
(m) (vph)
686
981
674
287
/c
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.11
95% queue length
0.02
0.09
0.08
0.37
ontrol Delay
10.3
8.8
10.5
19.1
OS
B
A
B
C
pproach Delay
10.5
19.1
Approach LOS
B
C
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
atthew J. Delich
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
'Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
Analysis Time Period
'Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Analysis Year:
Project ID: 0117
East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Michael
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
3/1/01
(at
pm
orsetooth/Seneca/Access
Fort C laps
093Gtal w/70 DU
Horsetooth
Seneca/Access
Intersection Orientation: EW
' Vehicle
Major Street: Approach
Movement 1
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound Westbound
2 3 I 4 5 6
IL
T
R
I L
T
R
Volume
10
840
5
5
245
10
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.94 0.94
0.94
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
11
965
5-
5
260
10
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
2
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized?
No
'Lanes
1
1 0
1 1 1
Configuration
L
TR
L T R
Upstream Signal?
No
No
'Minor Street: Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9 I
10
11
12
L
T
R I
L
T
R
,Volume
5
1
25
25 1
10
Peak Hour Factor,
PHF
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.60 0.60
0.60
Hourly Flow Rate,
HFR
5
1
29
41 1
16
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
2
2
2 2
2
Percent Grade (8)
0
0
Median Storage
Flared Approach:
Exists?
Yes
Yes
Storage
1
1
RT Channelized?
Lanes
0 1
0
0 1
0
.Configuration
LTR
LTR
Delay, Queue
Length,
and Level
of Service
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
fpproach
ovement
1
4
f 7
8
9 I 10
11 12
ne Config
L
L
I
LTR
I
LTR
v (vph)
11
5
35
58
(m) (vph)
1293
710
612
620
/c
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.09
95% queue length
0.03
0.02
0.18
0.31
ontrol Delay
7.8
10.1
11.2
11.4
OS
A
B
B
B
pproach Delay
11.2
11.4
Approach LOS
B
B
katthew
Matthew
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
J. Delich
J. Delich, P.E.
APPENDIX E
' HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
tAnalyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
Analysis Time Period:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Analysis Year:
Project ID: 0117
'East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Michael
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
3/1/01
am
pm
Hor etooth/Seneca/Access
F C '
hor total w/60 DU
Horsetooth
Seneca/Access
Intersection Orientation: EW
Vehicle
Major Street: Approach
Movement 1
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound Westbound
2 3 1 4 5 6
L
T
R
I L
T
R
Volume
5
555
5
20
840
40
Peak -Hour Factor,
Hourly Flow Rate,
PHF
HFR
0.94
5
0.94
590
0.94
5-
0.87
22
0.87
965
0.87
45
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
2
Median Type
Undivided
RT Channelized?
No
,Lanes
1
1
0
1
1 1
Configuration
L
TR
L
T R
Upstream Signal?
No
No
'Minor Street: Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8
9
1 10
11
12
L
T
R
I L
T
R
' Volume
5
1
10
20
1
5
Peak Hour Factor,
PHF
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.79
0.79
0.79
Hourly Flow Rate,
HFR
5
1
11
25
1
6
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
2
2
2
2
2
Percent Grade
0
0
Median Storage
Approach:
Exists?
Yes
Yes
flared
Storage
1
1
T Channelized?
Lanes
0
1
0
0
1 0
fonfiguration
LTR
LTR
Delay, Queue Length,
and Level
of Service
Approach
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
'Movement
1
4 1
7
8
9 1 10
11
12
Lane Config
L
L I
LTR
I
LTR
v (vph)
5
22
17
32
'C (m) (vph)
686
981
678
489
v/c
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.07
95% queue length
0.02
0.07
0.08
0.21
ontrol Delay
10.3
8.8
10.4
12.9
OS
B
A
B
B
pproach Delay
10.4
12.9
Approach LOS
B
B
katthew
Matthew
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
J. Delich
J. Delich, P.E.
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
'
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
Analysis Time Period
'Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Analysis Year:
Project ID: 0117
'East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Michael
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
3/1/01
(Opm
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access
F C
hort total w/60 DU
Horsetooth
Seneca/Access
Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6
L T R I L T R
volume
lu
840 5
5
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.87
0.87 0.87
0.94
'Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
11
965 5-
5
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
2
Median Type
Undivided
RT Channelized?
anes
�
1
1 0
1
Configuration
L
TR
L
Upstream Signal? No
0.94 0.94
260 10
1 1
T R
No
No
inor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
,volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
ercent Grade ($)
edian Storage
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
T Channelized?
kanes
Configuration
Approach
ovement
ane Config
5
1
20
25
1
10
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.60
0.60
0.60
5
1
23
41
1
16
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
Yes
1
0 1 0
LTR
Yes
1
0 1 0
LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
EB WB Northbound Southbound
1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L L I LTR I LTR
v (vph)
11
5
29
58
t(m) (vph)
1293
710
612
624
/c
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.09
95% queue length
0.03
0.02
0.15
0.31
ontrol Delay
7.8
10.1
11.2
11.4
OS
A
B
B
B
pproach Delay
11.2
11.4
Approach LOS
B
B
Iatthew J
Matthew J
RCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
Delich
Delich, P.E.
APPENDIX D
' ECS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
Analysis Time Period:
Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Analysis Year:
Project ID: 0117
'East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Michael
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
3/1/01
am m
Ho tooth/Seneca
Fort Co
recent short long EE>
otal
Horsetooth
Seneca
' Intersection Orientation: EW
Vehicle
Major Street: Approach
Movement 1
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound Westbound
2 3 1 4 5 6
'
L
T R
I L T
R
Volume
5
555
840
40
-Hour Factor, PHF
0.94
0.94
0.87
0.87
'Peak
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
5
590
965
45
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
--
Median Type TWLTL
Channelized?
No
'RT
Lanes
1 1
1 1
Configuration
L T
T R
Upstream Signal?
No
No
' Minor Street: Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8 9
1 10 11
12
L
T R
I L T
R
' Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
'Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade M
Median Storage 1
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
. Configuration
A
Delay, Queue Length, and Level
Approach EB WB Northbound
'Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9
Lane Config L I
(vph)
5
'v
C(m) (vph)
686
v/c
0.01
95% queue length
0.02
Delay
10.3
'Control
LO S
B
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
■
0.79
25
2
(S.
W
6
2
0
Yes
1
0
LR
of Service
Southbound
1 10 11 12
1 LR
' HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
Matthew J_ Delich
,Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
563
0.06
0.17
11.8
B
11.8
B
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 '
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: Michael
,Analyst:
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
Date Performed: 3 1101
Analysis Time Period. am m
'Intersection: Horsetooth/Seneca
Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
Analysis Year: recent short long bkgrd otal
Project ID: 0117
'East/West Street: Horsetooth
North/South Street: Seneca
Intersection Orientation:
EW
Study period (hrs):
0.25
Vehicle
Volumes and
Adjustments
Major Street: Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3 1 4 5
6
L
T
R I L T
R
Volume
10
840
245
10
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.87
0.87
0.94
0.94
'Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
11
965
260
10
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
--
Median Type TWLTL
RT Channelized?
No
anes
1 1
1 1
onfiguration
L T
T R
Upstream Signal?
No
No
inor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
,volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
ercent Grade (%)
edian Storage 1
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
T Channelized?
kanes
Configuration
l7
0.60 0.60
41 16
2 2
0
Yes
1
0 0
LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound
ovement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10
ane Config L I I
Southbound
11 12
LR
v (vph)
11
57
(m) (vph)
1293
1072
/c
0.01
0.05
95% queue length
0.03
0.17
ontrol Delay
7.8
8.5
OS
A
A
pproach Delay
8.5
Approach LOS
A
latthew
Matthew
1
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
J. Delich
J. Delich, P.E.
APPENDIX C
1
LTNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level -of -Service
Average Total Delay
sec/veh
A
_< 10
B
>IOand<15
C
> 15 and < 25
D
>25and <35
E
> 35 and < 50
F
> 50
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Average Total Delay
see/veh
MD
<10
> 10 and< 20
> 20 and < 35
> 35 and _< 55
E
> 55 and _< 80
F
> 80
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 '
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: Michael
Agency/Co.: Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
Date Performed: 3/1/01
Analysis Time Period: am pm
'Intersection: Horsetooth/Seneca
Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
Analysis Year: r`e`cen short long bkgrd total
Project ID: 0117
'East/West Street: Horsetooth
North/South Street: Seneca
Intersection Orientation:
EW
Study period (hrs):
0.25
Vehicle
Volumes and
Adjustments
Major Street: Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
3 1 4 5
6
L
T
R I L T
R
Volume
5
500
759
39
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.94 0.94
0.87
0.87
'Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
5
531
872
44
Percent Heavy Vehicles
2
--
Median Type TWLTL
RT Channelized?
,Lanes
1 1
1 1
No
Configuration
L T
T R
Upstream Signal?
No
No
'Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12
L T R I L T R
volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
ercent Grade (8)
edian Storage 1
Flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
RT Channelized?
anes
Configuration
U
0.79 0.79
24 3
2 2
0
Yes
1
0 0
LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach
cMovement
ane Config
EB WB Northbound
1 4 1 7 8 9
L I
Southbound
1 10 11 12
I LR
v (vph)
5
27
t(m) (vph)
745
635
/c
0.01
0.04
95% queue length
0.02
0.13
Delay
9.9
10.9
tontrol
O S
A
B
pproach Delay
10.9
Approach LOS
B
tatthew J.
Matthew J.
1
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
Delich
Delich, P.E.
' HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
'Analyst:
Agency/Co.:
Date Performed:
Analysis Time Period:
'Intersection:
Jurisdiction:
Analysis Year:
Project ID: 0117
'East/West Street:
North/South Street:
Michael
Matthew J. Delich,
3/l/01
am m
orsetooth/Seneca
short
ns
recent short long
Horsetooth
Seneca
Intersection Orientation: EW
1 Vehicle
Major Street: Approach
Movement 1
P.E.
bkgrd total
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Volumes and Adjustments
Eastbound
Westbound
5
'
L
T R
I L
T
R
Volume
6
762
219
7
Factor, PHF
0.87
0.87
0.94
0.94
feak-8our
ourly Flow Rate, HFR
6
875
232
7ercent
Heavy Vehicles
2
Median Type TWLTL
RT Channelized?
No
'Lanes
1 1
1 1
Configuration
L T
T R
Upstream Signal?
No
No
'Minor Street: Approach
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8 9
1 10
11
12
L
T R
I L
T
R
' Volume
24
7
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
0.60
0.60
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
39
11
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Median Storage 1
flared Approach: Exists?
Storage
T Channelized?
Lanes
.Configuration
2
Yes
1
LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12
Lane Config L I I LR
v (vph) 6 50
,C (m) (vph) 1328 1136
v/c 0.00 0.04
95% queue length 0.01 0.14
Control Delay 7.7
,LOS A
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
' HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1
Matthew J. Delich
8.3
A
8.3
A
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
APPENDIX B
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: 970 669.2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 2-22.01 Observer: Michael
Day: Thursday City: Fort Collins
R = right tum Intersection: Horsetooth/Seneca
S = straight
I = loft ti irn
Time
Begins
Northbound:
Southbound: Seneca
Total
northlsouth
Eastbound: Horsetooth
Westbound: Horsetooth
Total
east/west
Total
All
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
7:30
0
3
3
6
6
3
165
168
55
2
57
225
231
7:45
0
11
2
13
13
1
220
221
55
2
57
278
291
E8.00
0
3
1
4
4
1
211
212
58
2
60
272
276
8.15
0
7
1
8
8
1
166
167
51
1
52
219
227
7:30.8:30
0
0
0
0
14
1 0
1 7
31
31
8
762
0
768
0
219
7
226
994
1025
PHF
nla
0.6
0.87
0.94
4:30
0
6
1
7
7
1
133
134
183
1 8
191
325
332
4:45
0
5
1
6
6
2
121
123
182
10
192
315
321
5:00
0
5
0
5
5
1
127
128
217
12
229
357
362
5:15
0
3
1
4
4
1
119
120
177
9
186
306
310
4:30.5:30
0
1 0
1 0
0
18
1 0
1 3
12
22
1 5
500
1 0
505
0
759
1 39
798
1303
1 1325
PHF
nla
0.79
0.94
0.87
«Z
Seneca Street 34'
10'
0
9S' I
0
0
0
0
L
0
an
0 sus
Stop
its' 6
12' 19 5 1 12'
0
APPENDIX A
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This study assessed the impacts of Stockbridge Village development
on the short range (2006) street system in the vicinity of the proposed
development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded:
- The development of Stockbridge Village is feasible from a traffic
engineering standpoint. At development of Phase 1 (60 townhome
dwelling units), Stockbridge Village will generate approximately
352 daily trip ends, 26 morning peak hour trip ends, and 33
afternoon peak hour trip ends. At full development (Phase 1 &
Phase 2), Stockbridge Village will generate approximately 411
daily trip ends, 31 morning peak hour trip ends, and 39 afternoon
peak hour trip ends.
Current operation at the Horsetooth/Seneca intersection is
acceptable. Acceptable operation at an arterial/local
unsignalized intersection during the peak hours is defined as
level of service E or better for any approach leg.
It is expected that traffic signals will not be warranted in the
short range future.
- In the short range future, given Phase 1 development of
Stockbridge Village and an increase in background traffic, the
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection will operate acceptably.
- In the short range future, given full development (Phase 1 & Phase
' 2) of Stockbridge Village and an increase in background traffic,
the Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection will operate acceptably.
The short range geometry is shown in Figure 9.
' - Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal
transportation guidelines.
18
be 30 minute transit service on Horsetooth Road. It is anticipated
that the level of service will be in the D category with
' implementation of the City's Transit Development Plan. A future
transit level of service worksheet is provided in Appendix F.
Safety & Accident Analysis
' There have been no recent reported accidents at the
Horsetooth/Seneca intersection. With acceptable intersection sight
distance and the recommended left -turn lane, it is expected that this
will not be a high accident location.
U
N
U
Q
- -Denotes Lane
' SHORT RANGE (2006) GEOMETRY
N
h
Figure 9
The short range geometry is shown in Figure 9. It is expected
that Horsetooth Road will be widen to its four -lane arterial cross
section in the future. However, it is unclear when this will occur. In
order to perform a conservative analysis, it was assumed that Horsetooth
Road will retain its two-lane cross section in the short range (2006)
future. The auxiliary lane geometric requirements were determined
using the "Intersection Channelization Design Guide," NCHRP 279, TRB.
According to the cited reference, a westbound left -turn lane is not
required at the Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection. However, since
there is an existing eastbound left -turn lane at the Horsetooth/
Seneca/Access intersection, a westbound left -turn lane should be
striped.
Pedestrian Level of Service
Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of
Stockbridge Village. There will be five pedestrian destinations within
a quarter mile of Stockbridge Village. These are: (1) the residential
area to the west/southwest of the site, (2) the residential area north
of the site, (3) the residential area east/southeast of the site, (4)
the church to the east of the site, and (5) the commercial/office area
to the east of the site. This site is in an area type termed "transit
corridor" and "other." The level of service determination assumes
that future developments will build their streets in accordance with
Fort Collins Standards. This being the case, pedestrian facilities
will exist adjacent to vacant property. This is a reasonable
assumption. The residential area (3) is not within the City of Fort
Collins. It was developed without sidewalks along Horsetooth Road or
within the subdivision itself. Sidewalks along Horsetooth Road
adjacent to this subdivision will not likely occur until Horsetooth
Road is improved to a four -lane arterial cross section as part of a
capital improvement project by the City of Fort Collins. The
Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix G. The minimum level
of service for "transit corridor" is B for all categories, except for
the visual interest & amenities category where it is LOS C. The
minimum level of service for "other" is C for all measured categories.
Pedestrian level of service will be acceptable in the short range
future except for destinations (3) and (4). The continuity standard
will not likely be met in the short range future.
Bicycle Level of Service
Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are no
destination areas within 1320 feet of Stockbridge Village. The Bicycle
LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix F, which indicates that the base
connectivity is acceptable at level of service C.
Transit Level of Service
Currently, there is limited transit service in the area. In the
future, transit service will be improved. In the future, there will
15
short range Phase 1 total condition as indicated in Table 4.
Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The
key intersection will operate acceptably.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8 and recommended
geometrics, the Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection operates in the
short range Phase 1 and Phase 2 total condition as indicated in Table
5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E.
The key intersection will operate acceptably.
TABLE 3
Short Range (2006) Background Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement Level of Service
AM PM
Horsetooth/Seneca SB LT/RT A B
(stop sign) EB LT A B
TABLE 4
Short Range (2006) Phase 1 Total Peak Hour Operation
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service'
AM
PM
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access
(stop sign)
NB LT/T/RT
B
B
SB LT/T/RT
B
B
EB LT
A
B
WB LT
B 1
A
TABLE 5
Short Range (2006) Phase 1 & Phase 2 Total Peak Hour Operation
Intersection
Movement
Level of'SeMce
AM
PM
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access
(stop sign)
NB LT/f/RT
B
B
SB LT/T/RT
B
C
EB LT
A
B
WB LT
B
A
14
U
N
C
N
C)
Co
r•
`r' 2 N
10/40
O
CD 1.0
Z `-4
14,080
r — 245/840
5/25
_ 1
10/5
840/555 —►
I I
U.) o
5/5
u' OZ n
N
AM/PM
Rounded to Nearest
5 Vehicles
Daily
SHORT RANGE (2006) PHASE 1 & PHASE 2
TOTAL DAILY AND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
13
14,930
d
Horsetooth
Figure 8
14,070
�— 10/40
245/840
�— 5/20
10/5 - ) f r
840/555 L o
5/5 —� to Z o
N
AM/PM
Rounded to Nearest
5 Vehicles
Daily
N
SHORT RANGE (2006) PHASE 1 TOTAL Figure 7
DAILY AND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
U
U)
a
Z
70 _ { 3/18
1/4 f r
N O)
v p co
Z I
PHASE 1
282 no
Horsetooth
AM/PM
Daily
N
U
N
O co
Z
O
Z
82 + 4/21 329 _
1/5 � � 1 � Horsetooth
c� o
'n O
Z N
N AM/PM
Daily
Q � �
PHASE 1 & PHASE 2
SITE GENERATED DAILY AND Figure 6
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
l
ca
U
N
C
N
co
C)
CD
C)
to N
CD LO
"—10/40
14,000 --a-- 245/840
� r
10/5
840/555
AM/PM
Rounded to Nearest
5 Vehicles
Daily
SHORT RANGE (2006) BACKGROUND
DAILY AND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
10
14,600
Horsetooth
Figure 5
' Background Traffic Projections
' Figure 5 shows the short range (2006) background traffic
projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future
horizon were obtained by contacting Fort Collins Transportation Planning
' Staff. This contact determined that background traffic on Horsetooth
Road would increase at the rate of approximately 2 percent per year.
Trip Assignment
Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are
' expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the
resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 6 shows the site
generated daily and peak hour traffic assignment of Phase 1 and Phase 2
' of Stockbridge Village. Figure 7 shows the short range (2006) Phase 1
total (site plus background) daily and peak hour traffic at the
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection. Figure 8 shows the short range
' (2006) Phase 1 and Phase 2 total daily and peak hour traffic at the
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection.
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. Signal warrants are not expected to be met at
the Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection.
Sight Distance Analysis
Intersection sight distance was evaluated at the Horsetooth/Seneca
intersection. Horsetooth Road is level from a traffic engineering
perspective. The intersection sight distance of 1030 feet can be
achieved in both directions at the subject intersection.
Operation Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed at the Horsetooth/Seneca
intersection. The operations analyses were conducted for the short
range analysis, reflecting a year 2006 condition.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 5, the Horsetooth/Seneca
intersection operates in the short range background condition as
indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided
in -Appendix C. The key intersection will operate acceptably during the
peak hours.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7 and the recommended
geometrics, the Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection operates in the
9
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Site
�J
N
Horsetooth
Figure 4
8
p LJ u
u u U
a
U \
N V
- - L��j
W.HORSETOOTH RD.
NO SCALE
M
SITE PLAN
Figure 3
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Stockbridge Village is a residential development, located south of
Horsetooth Road near Seneca Street in Fort Collins. Figure 3 shows a
site plan of Stockbridge Village. The site plan shows access via the
Horsetooth/Seneca/Access intersection. The short range analysis (Year
2006) includes development of Stockbridge Village and an appropriate
increase in background traffic. Stockbridge Village is expected to be
built in two phases. The second phase is not considered to be a
certainty. Therefore, the analyses and impacts were considered at the
Phase 1 level of development and Phase 1 and 2 level of development.
This was done so that an additional transportation impact study would
not be required if, in fact, Phase 2 were to be undertaken within the
analysis future time frame.
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,
6th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by
' the proposed/expected use at this site. Phase 1 of the proposal is for
six senior townhome buildings with six units in each and six senior
townhome buildings with four units in each. A potential Phase 2 of
' Stockbridge Village is proposed to have an additional senior townhome
building with six units and an additional senior townhome building with
four units. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and
peak hour basis. To be conservative, the conventional townhome land use
from Trip Generation, 6th Edition, ITE was used to forecast trip
generation, rather than land uses related to senior housing.
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
Code
Use
S7zc
AWDT'E
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
RM
I TfVo
Rite
in
Rata
OLA
RNW
In
RMO
Out
Phase 1
230
Townhome
60 D.U.
5.86
1 352
0.07
4
0.37
22
0.36
22
0.18
11
Phase 2
230
Townhome
10 D.U.
5.86
59
0.07
1
0.37
4
0.36
4
0.18
2
Total
411
5
26
26
13
Trip Distribution
Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for
Stockbridge Village based upon the distribution of the existing traffic
volumes and the location of trip productions for these types of land
uses. Figure 4 shows the trip distributions used for the following
analyses.
6
description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized
intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is also provided in
Appendix B. The key intersection operates acceptably during both the
morning and afternoon peak hours. Acceptable operation at an
arterial/local unsignalized intersection during the peak hours is
defined as level of service E or better for any approach leg.
Experience indicates that if level of service E can be achieved during
the peak hours, operation will be at level of service C or better for
20-22 hours of an average weekday.
TABLE 1
Current Peak Hour Operation
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service
AM
PM
Horsetooth/Seneca
(stop sign)
SB LT/RT
A
B
EB LT
A
A
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks exist adjacent to all developed residential and
commercial uses within 1320 feet of the site. Along Horsetooth Road,
the existing sidewalks are separated from the roadway by a landscaped
parkway. There are no sidewalks along vacant parcels or parcels that
are not within the City of Fort Collins. This site is within 1320
feet of: existing residential areas west and north of the site,
existing commercial uses in the northwest quadrant of the
Shields/Horsetooth intersection, an a church in the southwest quadrant
of the Shields/Horsetooth intersection.
Bicycle Facilities
There are bicycle facilities along Horsetooth Road. Along Seneca
' Street north of Horsetooth Road, bike lanes are not striped, since it
is a local street. There are bicycle facilities along Seneca Street,
south of Horsetooth Road.
Transit Facilities
' Route 6 and NightLITe transit routes are within 1320 feet of this
site. Route 6 operates along Horsetooth Road from the South Transit
' Center, north on Dunbar Avenue, west to Taft Hill, and then east to
CSU. Route 6 provides year-round service on 60 minute headways
between 6:15am and 7:OOpm. The NightLITe operates on Shields Street
on Fridays and Saturdays during CSU sessions.
1
5
6600 (1997)
6/5
762/500 —
RECENT DAILY AND
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
AM/PM
Daily (year)
A&
N
8300 (2000)
Figure 2
4
N
JT
Seneca
Horsetooth
x
m
Seneca
'O
t
Stockbridge
Village
SCALE 1 "=2000'
' SITE LOCATION Figure 1
3
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of Stockbridge Village 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 residential and commercial.
Residential uses exist adjacent to the site and to the north across
Horsetooth Road. Commercial uses exist east of the site, north of
Horsetooth Road near Shields Street. The center of Fort Collins lies to
the northeast of Stockbridge Village.
Roads
The primary streets near the Stockbridge Village site are
Horsetooth Road and Seneca Street. A condition sketch of the
Horsetooth/Seneca intersection is shown in Appendix A. Horsetooth Road
is to the north of Stockbridge Village. It is an east -west street
' designated as a four -lane arterial in the Fort Collins Master Street
Plan. In this area, Horsetooth Road currently has a two-lane cross
section with a center left -turn median and right -turn auxiliary lanes at
' appropriate intersections. There is an eastbound left -turn lane and a
westbound right -turn lane on Horsetooth Road, approaching Seneca Street.
The existing speed limit in this area is 40 mph. The Horsetooth/Seneca
intersection has stop sign control on Seneca Street.
Seneca Street is north of Stockbridge Village and will line up
with the access street to this site. It is a north -south street
designated as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan.
Currently, it is has a two-lane local street cross section. There is a
south leg of Seneca Street, approximately 500 feet west of the north leg
of Seneca Street. This is a new street that will eventually connect to
Seneca Street near the Johnson/Webber school complex. The south leg of
Seneca Street is classified as a collector street.
Existing Traffic
Recent peak hour counts at the Horsetooth/Seneca intersection are
shown in Figure 2. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix A.
The traffic data at the Horsetooth/Seneca intersection was collected in
February 2001.
Existing Operation
The Horsetooth/Seneca intersection was evaluated using techniques
provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The peak hour operation
is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. A
E
I. INTRODUCTION
This intermediate transportation impact study addresses the
capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed
development known as Stockbridge Village. Stockbridge Village is
located south of Horsetooth Road near Seneca Street in Fort Collins,
Colorado.
' During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made
with the project planning consultant (TSP Five Architects), the project
developer (Volunteers of America National Services), the Fort Collins
Transportation Planning Staff, and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering
Staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, Chapter 4-Transportation
Impact Study, January 2, 2001. The study involved the following steps:
' - Collect physical, traffic, and development data;
Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment;
' _ Determine daily and peak hour traffic volumes;
Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key
intersections;
' - Analyze signal warrants;
Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit modes of transportation.
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Site Location ........................................
3
2.
Recent Daily and Peak Hour Traffic ...................
4
3.
Site Plan ............................................
7
4.
Trip Distribution ....................................
8
5.
Short Range (2006) Background Daily and
Peak Hour Traffic ....................................
10
6.
Site Generated Daily and Peak Hour Traffic ...........
11
7.
Short Range (2006) Phase 1 Total
Daily and Peak Hour Traffic ..........................
12
8.
Short Range (2006) Phase 1 & Phase 2 Total
Daily and Peak Hour Traffic ..........................
13
9.
Short Range (2006) Geometry ..........................
16
APPENDIX
A Recent Peak Hour Traffic/Condition Diagram
B Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions
C Short Range Background Traffic Operation
D Short Range Phase 1 Total Traffic Operation
E Short Range Phase 1 & Phase 2 Total Traffic Operation
F Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit Level of Service Worksheets
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction ......................................... 1
II. Existing Conditions .................................. 2
LandUse ............................................. 2
Roads................................................ 2
Existing Traffic ..................................... 2
Existing Operation ................................... 2
Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 5
Bicycle Facilities ................................... 5
Transit Facilities ................................... 5
III. Proposed Development ................................. 6
Trip Generation ...................................... 6
Trip Distribution .................................... 6
Background Traffic Projections ....................... 9
Trip Assignment ...................................... 9
Signal Warrants ...................................... 9
SightDistance Analysis .............................. 9
Operation Analysis ................................... 9
Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 15
Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 15
Transit Level of Service ............................. 15
Safety & Accident Analysis ........................... 17
IV. Conclusions .......................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 5
2. Trip Generation ...................................... 6
3. Short Range (2006) Background
Peak Hour Operation .................................. 14
4. Short Range (2006) Phase 1 Total
Peak Hour Operation .................................. 14
5. Short Range (2006) Phase 1 & Phase 2 Total
Peak Hour Operation .................................. 14
STOCKBRIDGE VILLAGE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
MARCH 2O01
Prepared for:
Volunteers of America National Services
920 South Main, Suite 250
Grapevine, TX 76051
Prepared by
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034
DPP �W J Oo.
g 15�63�