HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEAK VIEW SUBDIVISION - PDP (RE-SUBMITTAL) - 26-00 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - TRAFFIC STUDYI� � ,I� � aii•n fi Irh � i I _:M,
c
r`•J
1/3 ---),
N
y
N
Q 3/12
°i
U)
M •-
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
nom .
nom = nominal
Pleasant Valley
a ► distribution
nom
a >
A)
80%
6/3
12/6 -►
6/3 --,4
4—3/12
Elizabeth
Figure 5
PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC
C. Trip Distribution
'r Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the avail-
able roadway system. In this case, all traffic must use Elizabeth Street to access the
site. Current biases reflect heavy weighting to the east during the morning peak hour
and more balanced conditions during the afternoon peak hour. For purposes of this
study, 80% of site traffic was assumed to be arriving and departing the site to the
east. The remaining 20% were assigned to areas served by Elizabeth Street to the
west. Peak hour site traffic is shown on Figure 5.
Ff
V. FUTURE CONDITIONS
A. Roadway Improvements
k
The site is located in a generally developed section of Fort Collins. Accordingly, no
significant major roadway improvements are planned in the area of the site in the
future. When and if improvements are made is largely speculative and cannot be
reasonably predicted. For analysis purposes, any future improvements are assumed
to occur well beyond the time frames considered in this study. . .
B. 2005 and 2010 Background Traffic Volumes
Background traffic was developed using an annual growth rate in the range of 1% - 2
percent per year. This factor was applied to existing traffic volumes to approximate
future conditions during the time frames requested by the City.
10
e!F Wens Shzabb:ih Sarect
IXW'
sr"/7'afaa SO Arw
WS
IL I
�7
15 vWll fW rya,
BILOCX 5
12
0mIl
m j
TRAI
L! 7.01 r-,
LORY I
ANN
ESTATES
TR -.0 T *A"
m
a Z
61
ccK 3
BLOCK 2
j
0 I's
C..L
r�s�c C1.1
L k NID
Soo 1 U-0 boo 500, :
1
FARM LIL BLOCK 1s BLOCK 1
E Ia a b
2
5,1
-- - - - - - - - - -
boo' 100*
a - Seb-
4-
OVERLAND DARK
/co S, 502t
A'S TRACT "C-.OV[I-,LANO TRAIL FARM p,o ,.Cf T,
Figure 4
CONCEPT PLAN
Ef
IV. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Project Description
Peak View is a residential development with a blend of townhomes, patio homes, and
single family residences. It is expected that construction will start as soon as possible
with completion and full occupancy within the following two years
Two full movement accesses to Elizabeth Street are planned to serve this develop-
ment. Sidewalk and a bicycle lane will be built along the south side of Elizabeth
Street adjacent to the site. A concept plan is presented on Figure 4
B. Site Traffic
Site traffic was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication,
"Trip Generation, 6th Edition", a nationally recognized reference. The apartment
classification was selected to best represent this development. Trips associated with
Peak View are indicated in the following table..
Land Use
D.U.
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
Rate
In
Out
Rate
In
Out
Townhomes
58
5.86
340
0.44
5
21
0.54
21
10
Patio Homes
6
9.57
57
0.75
1
3
1.01
4
2
Single Family
7
9.57
67
0.75
1
3
1.01
5
2
TOTAL
464
7
27
30
14
As shown above, Peak View is expected to generate 34 morning peak hour trips, 44
afternoon peak hour trips, and 464 trips per day. These trips are considered minor.
ri
__j
I 'I
a)
0
Elizabeth
Figure 3
CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY
zisting Traffic Operations
:;. Highway Capacity Manual procedures were used to quantify current intersection oper-
ations. Resultant levels of service (LOS) are indicated below for both morning and
afternoon peak hour conditions. This was undertaken for the Elizabeth Street inter-
sections with Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail. Traffic volumes from Figure 2 were
loaded onto the current roadway geometry, which is shown on Figure 3.
CURRENT OPERATING CONDITONS
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
APPROACH/
MOVEMENT
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PEAK
HOUR
PM PEAK
HOUR
Elizabeth Street —Taft Hill-
Signal
EB
C
C
WB
C
D
NB
C
C
SB
C
C
Overall
C
C
Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail
Stop
SIB LT
A
A
WB LT
B
C
WB RT
B
B
Overall
A
A
Per City standards, overall level of service 'D' is defined as acceptable for arterial
street intersections. As shown above, all intersections currently operate at level of
service 'C' or better during peak hour periods. Capacity work sheets are presented in
Appendix B.
Ce
t
' s
m
00
M 00 00
co °' a �— 43/122
N to to
to-4-- 89/337
i 48/122 1 �— 63/168
,s Elizabeth
1 I 98/148 - 1
243/278 —►
M.- � orn
M °'
rZ 116/147 nLO
0 CO
Ln co
�u
�
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
nom = nominal
Figure 2
CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
e'
1' i D _
x�
.`,
Overland Trail is a two lane north -south arterial roadway. It serves the west areas of
w Fort Collins and lies on the west boundary of the urban area.
Elizabeth Street is an east — west minor arterial roadway extending east and west of
Colorado State University (CSU). It is a three -lane roadway narrowing to two -lanes in
the immediate area of the site. Current daily traffic on Elizabeth Street is estimated at
10,500 vehicles.
Taft Hill Road is an arterial roadway having two lanes in each direction. It accommo-
dates north - south travel and is located some 0.9 mile to the east of the site. It
extends through the City of Fort Collins and typically has auxiliary lanes at all key
intersections and on -street- bicycle lanes. A functional sidewalk system exists along .
both sides of Taft Hill Road.
B. Surrounding Land Uses
The Peak View site is currently vacant. Residential developments surround the site
with Overland Park situated directly to the south. The area is considered fully built.
C. Existing Traffic
Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were obtained for the
Elizabeth Street - Taft Hill Road intersection and the Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail
intersection. This information is presented on Figure 2.
4
II. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS
ate=
" Prior to undertaking this study, a scoping session was held with Eric Bracke, City
;`:'Traffic Engineer. During that discussion, it was determined that an abbreviated
transportation impact study was appropriate. Key items of agreement and direction
r are identified below.
• A full assessment of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service needs
to be conducted.
• The Taft Hill Road — Elizabeth Street, Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail and
r
site access intersections should be investigated during weekday morning
and afternoon peak hours.
'r An assessment of existing and future conditions is appropriate. Future
conditions were identified as the years 2005 and 2010.
s
• Traffic growth on nearby arterial streets of 1'/2 2% percent per yearis rea-
sonable to estimate future background traffic.
The above items are included or addressed in the following sections of this report.
The City's Transportation Impact Study base assumptions and pedestrian destina-
tions forms are attached in Appendix A.
i
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Existing Road Network
The Peak View site is located along the south side of Elizabeth Street east of Over-
land Trail.
II
U
F _
H
'
LaPorte Ave
QZ Q
r c r
vv
r. p
--- -- r W IV ulberry St
.i'•• A
OfCh ftl Ply I
j `i
L '
c'
k-ln t i
c 1 PoWar Gr
SITE I :rabtree D i
i I N Lake St = wi
I / I
!„
W Pro pecV
Spr. - Dn p) h
l
U q v i S�
c pan i t C-3
f
r
!;; I 0 mi 0.2 0.6 of
Figure 1
Cooyf,gni 0 1988-1997• Mi=wft Commtiw
�,,�• VICINITY MAP
2
I. INTRODUCTION
S
Peak View is a planned residential development along the south side of Elizabeth
Street to the east of Overland Trail in Fort Collins, Colorado. A vicinity map is pre-
sented on Figure 1.
=` < This transportation impact study follows the established guidelines for such studies as
are applicable and appropriate to the proposed project. The following key steps were
undertaken as part of this study.
• Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site.
• Evaluate current operations to establish base conditions.
' Determine site generated traffic volumes and distribute this traffic to the
nearby -street system.
• Estimate roadway traffic volumes for future conditions.
• Evaluate operations with the Peak View fully operational.
• . Inventory, evaluate, and assess the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit net-
works serving the site.
• Identify deficiencies and recommend measures to mitigate the impact of
site generated traffic and enhance the alternate travel mode systems as
® appropriate.
Key areas of investigation are documented in the following sections of this transporta-
tion impact study.
List of Tables
r,
Table 1 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet........................................................................22
'Table 2 Bicycle LOS Worksheet..............................................................................24
Table 3 Future Transit Level of Service..................................................:................26
List of Figures
tile 2
Figure1
Vicinity Map...............................................................................................2
Figure 2
Current Peak Hour Traffic..........................................................................5
•'
:. Figure 3
Current Roadway Geometry ......................................................................7
Figure 4
Concept Plan.......................................................................:.....................9
= Figure 5
Peak Hour Site Traffic.............................................................................11
Figure 6
Existing Total Traffic................................................................................13
Figure 7
2005 Total Traffic....................................................................................14
Figure 8
2010 Total Traffic....................................................................................15
Table of Contents
<`..
I.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................:..
II.
AGENCY DISCUSSIONS..................................................................................3
3
:...
III.
EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................................
A.
Existing Road Network......................................................................................3
B.
Surrounding Land Uses.....................................................................................4
C.
Existing Traffic...................................................................................................4
D.
Existing Traffic Operations.................................................................................6
IV.
DEVELOPMENT ISSUES..................................................................................8
A.
Project Description.............................................................................................8
B.
Site Traffic .......................
..........8.
C.
Trip Distribution..............................................................................:......10
V.
FUTURE CONDITIONS....................::.....:.........................:::...........................10
A.
Roadway Improvements..................................................................................10,
B.
2005 and 2010 Background Traffic Volumes...................................................10
VI.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS.........................................................................................12
A.
Auxiliary Lane Requirements...........................................................................12
C.
Existing Total Operating Conditions.................................................................16
D.
2005 Operating Conditions..............................................................................17
E.
2010 Operating Conditions......................................................
........................18 ..
IVII.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES..............................................................................19
A.
Existing Conditions..........................................................................................19
I
B.
Planned Improvements....................................................................................19
C.
Levels -of -Service ......................
....20
Vill.
BICYCLE FACILITIES.....................................................................................21
A.
Existing Conditions..........................................................................................21
B.
Planned Improvements....................................................................................21
C.
Levels of Service.............................................................................................23
IX.
TRANSIT.........................................................................................................23
A.
Existing Conditions.........................................................23
B.
Planned Improvements....................................................................................25
1
C.
Levels of Service ................................ .............................................................25
■
X.
CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................27
Transportation Impact Study
PEAK VIEW
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared For:
Design Development Consultants
2627 Redwing Road #350
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Prepared By:
Eugene G. Coppola, P.E.
P. O. Box 260027
Littleton, CO 80127
303-792-2450
June 26, 2000
TRAFFIC VOLUMS GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN OF alCff TURN LANES
2 — LANE MIGMWAYS
t00
FULL- WIDTH TURN LAN&
� ea
o �
x
Y
W
d �
z
I
P. 40
FL�
Warranted?
Yes
No X
20 NOTE: For paced rpteds at Or under 45 mall,
Wok hour rigor turns grtawr ttttn 4Q,vph
and tees! Ptak hear approaeh lees than 3b0 vOh.
Add milt A«r r�lght ant - .
Peek r right turf — 20
100 200 300 400 300 Goo 700
TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME IVPMI
Location: Acc,4S G - to � I �47 P Time: � ' L
2 — LANE MIGMWAYS
Warranted?
FULL- WIDTH TURN LANE
Yes
s
Y
W
4 so
z No
1•
H 40
2
O I
C y
NOTE: For paved spuds n a under 4S mph,
ptaL hour right turns graatgr than 40 vph,
and mtai peak hour a"rosch Itaa than 300 tph.
adW right w urrss.
At4urt /ulcbw
At4ht WMI
Peak 11 ri rns — 20
100 200 300 400 Soo t00 700
A TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME IVPHI
Location: Acee% - W 5I (.za.be— Time: ?e 10 P M
Source: NCHRFR 279 Intersection Channelization Design Guide TRB Nov. 1985
VOLCIE WARRANTS FOR LEFT TURN LANES 17 iiNL=_,NAL'%FD iVTERSECT.IOVS
Two Lanes - 40 mpii
IlAr1 •e L0 I•lArl AGAC
/ G;a
,
N%r
RED
1
aL
a0rnrwG rO.Vvl Ir•�i
Location: &ceeiz, -
Time: a010 /�,vt
V0 = I50 CIA
L7 in Va = .7 °/
Warranted'? _Yes X No
r 0,10,
iJ.�/nSs i..�
3
iMM,� /%
iU.lc�.£`iiia
�ry/1��11/j�• � 1
�M1
/
,.
gi s
r✓�ftuX/r
//
�■
%. %t
✓�
r
ru'
rMM"/ys�?y
ii
." /
,/ �F'i/ r
.CCL �v.' Arita ;b=e/il
VA AOYAL�IMG YOLIWI IYIVI w ,
Location: AedeEz -U) cjC((.&4sed
Time: dV to 764
VC = ags VA = a65
% LT in VA =
Warranted? Yes No
I�
rA .•O+wwClwG +OlVrl IY•nl
Location: Location:
Time: Tire:
Vo = VA = '10 =
9. L T in V. A= M L in VA
Warranted' Yes No Warranted? Yes No
Source: NCHRPR 279 Intersection Channelization Design Guide TRB Nov. 1985
Apr 24 01 06:53a Gene ccppola aua !az p.!
Two -Way Stop Control
Page 2 of 2
pproacn ueiay
pproach LOS -- _ IS
NC57000� Copyright O 2000 VnivmsiV Of Florida, Ail Rights RacmJ Vnwian .IA
file://C:\W 1NDOWS\TEhII'\u2kG086. TMP 4/23(01
Hp 24 ❑ i C;6:LICa Gene L.oppcla
Two-Wav St07 Ccptr9',
emu. z:1 _
p.0
Page 1 of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Gen eral Information I.qita Infnrmatinn
nai st
GC
Agency/Co.
Date Performed
4123101
Analysis Time Period
PM
ST ELIZABETH 8 -1I
Intersection O^entation: East-West[Study
Period (hrs): 0,25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street
Eastbound
Wastbuund
Movement
1
2
3
4
5
6
L
T
R
L
T
R
Volume
0
215
10
20
245
0
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00 I
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
0
215
10
20
245
0
Percent Heavy
Vehicles
0
0
Median Type
Undivided
RT Channelized
0
0
Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
onfiguration
TR
LT
stream Signal
0
0
inor Street
Northbound
Southbcund
ovement
7
8
9
10
11
1 12
L
T
R
L
T
R
Volume
10
0
10
0
0
0
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
7.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
10
0
10
0
0
0
Percent Heavy
Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent Grade (o)
0
0
Flared Approach
N
IN
Storage
0
0
RT Channelized
0
0
Lares
0
0
0
0
0
0
[Configuration
LR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach
EB
V15
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
?
4
7
8
S
10
11
12
Lane Configuration
LT
LR
v (vph)
20
20
(m) (vph)
1350
639
v/C
0.01
0.03
95% aueue length
0.04
0.10
Control Delay
7.7
10.8
OS
A
a
lc-!, C.\W INDO W S\TEXfP\u2kiA�86.T4'23/0l
Apr 24 C1 3o:51a Gene Coppola 303-792 p.5
Two -Way Stop Control
Page 2 of 2
pproach Delay — 9.6
Approach LOS ! _ A
ML-IJUM --- Lopynght'9 .'UUO LBuvmity of Florida. All Righu Rc cn cd Vmioo 4.1
filo://C:1W WDOW S\TEMP\u2kE086. TNT 4/23/01
Rpr as t; CS:a Gene .:oppcla Jug zie p."t
Tu'o-Wav Stop Control
Page 1 of 2
TVVO•WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information
Site Information
intersection
WEST EL/ZAEETH 8
nal st
GC —�
lency/Co.ACCESS
'Date Performed
4/23/01
urisdiction
Analysis Time Period
a1
nai sis Year
2010
Project ID
East/West Street: WEST EL!ZABETH
orth/South Street: ACCESS
L•i;ersection Orientation: East-West
_fftudy
Period (,Irs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street
Eastbound
Westbound
Movement
1
2
g
4
5
8
-
T
P
L
T
P.
Volume
0
140
10
10
140
0
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
0
140
10
10
140
0
Percent Heavy
ehicles
0
_
0
Median Type
Undivided
T Channe!ized
0
0
ane-s
0
1
0
0
i
0
Configuration
TR
LT
stream Signal
0
0
Minor Street
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
7
8 1
9
10
11
12
L
T
R
L
T
R
olurne
10
0
20
0
0
0
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
10
0
20
0
0
0
Percent Heavy
Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent Credo (%)
0
0
Flared Approach
N
N
Storage
0
0
RT Channelized
0
C
Lanes
0
0
0
0
0
0
Configuration
LR
Dela , Queue Len th, and Level of
Service
pproaci
EB
WB
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
1
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
Lane Configuration
LT
LR
(vph)
10
30
(m) (vph)
1444
820
!C
0.01
0.04
5% queue length
0.02
0.11
Co,ntroi Delay
7.5
9.6
LOS
A
A
fie:,/C:VvVNDOWS\TEN P\u2kE036.TNfP 4'23/01
No Text
was determined that under 2010 peak hour conditions, the access will function at level of
service (LOS)'A' overall with all individual traffic movements operating at LOS'B' or
better. Accordingly, no operational deficiencies are expected and the site access will
meet or exceed City requirements, Capacity work sheets are attached.
Future peak hour traffic (2010) was reviewed to determine if consolidating the access to
West Elizabeth would result it an auxiliary lane(s) being needed. it was determined that
no auxiliary lanes are needed with a single access to West Elizabeth. This is consistent
with the earlier study. Warrant sheets are attached.
In summary, the reduction in the number of dwelling units and the consolidation of
access to a single point along West Elizabeth will not change the findings of the
transportation study for this project. It is therefore concluded that the original Peak View
Transportation Impact Study remains valid.
I trust this letter satisfies your current needs. Please call if you need any further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Eugene G. Coppola, P.E.
Attachments
EUGENE G. COPPOLA, P.E.
P.O. Box 260027
Littleton, CO 80126-0027
303-792-2450
April 23, 2001
Mr. Don Leffler
Design Development Consultants
2627 Redwing Road #350
Fort Collins, CO 80526
RE: Impact of Site Changes on the Peak View Transportation Impact Study
Fort Collins, CO
Dear Mr. Leffler:
I have reviewed the proposed Peak View site changes as they relate to the
Transportation Impact Study dated June 26, 2000. The results of this review are
documented below.
Reduction in the Number of Dwelling Units
The current site plan reduces the number of dwelling units to 58 from the earlier
proposed 62 units. This represents a reduction of about 6 percent which Is an
improvement from a traffic standpoint but negligible. Accordingly, no significant change
is expected with this reduction.
Reduction in the Number of Access Points
The current site plan has one access to West Elizabeth instead of two accesses as
previously planned. Traffic from the earlier study was combined to represent conditions
with one access to West Elizabeth. Capacity analyses were performed at the access. It
Future transit operations are expected to achieve level of service 'B' condi-
tions. This level of service exceeds City standards.
In summary, the transportation demands associated with Peak View are considered
minor. They can be easily absorbed and accommodated by the current transportation
system. Based upon analyses documented in this study, acceptable operating condi-
tions can be expected in the vicinity of this development for the foreseeable future.
1
1
1
1
28
X. CONCLUSIONS
fir. -
Based upon the analyses, investigations, and findings documented in earlier sections
of this report, the following can be concluded:
Current roadway operations in the area of the Peak View site are accept-
able during all peak hour periods.
Site traffic associated with the Peak View development is expected to be 34
morning peak hour trips, 44 afternoon peak hour trips, and 464 trips per
r
day. These_ trips can be easily accommodated.
The impacts of site generated traffic are negligible. This is verified by the
Vol '1
finding that overall intersection levels of service remain relatively constant
between current and future conditions with Peak View fully built.
• No site related transportation improvements are needed. The proposed full
movement access points to Elizabeth Street will not require construction of
auxiliary lanes.
• Per City criteria, traffic operations will be acceptable with the proposed de-
velopment.
• The Peak View development will build pedestrian facilities along the south
side of Elizabeth Street. Anticipated levels of service with this improvement
will meet or exceed City criteria.
• Future bicycle levels of service will exceed those required by City standards
due to construction of a bicycle lane along the south side of Elizabeth Street
in conjunction with this development. The site will have direct access to
east -west on -street bicycle lanes with connections to north -south bicycle
lanes.
27
N
rn
t® f� Ift M M ft OL N1 . M
Table 3
Travel Time Factor Worksheet
Destination
Approximate
Distance
Auto Travel
Time
Bus Travel Time
Travel Time
Factor
Fort Collins Hi hSchool
7.3 miles
23 min.
44 min.
Foothills Fashion Mall .
5.6 miles
19 min.
38 min.
CSU Transit Center
3.0 miles
13 min.
10 min.
Downtown
3.3 miles
14 min.
25 min.
Total Travel Time
69 min.
117 min.
1.7
Service Level Standards Worksheet
Standard
Mixed Use
Centers and
Commercial
Corridors
Remainder of
the Service
Area
Meets Standard
Fails Standard
Score
Hours of Weekday Service
18 Hours
16 Hours
1
0
1
Weekday Frequency of Servic
. 15 Minutes
20 Minutes
0
1
1
Travel.Time Factor
2.0 X
2.0 X
1
0
0
Peak Load Factor
<= 1.2
<= 1.2
1
0
1
J OT4
LOS 'B'
Route-3 runs when CSU is in session during the fall and spring semesters. It runs
from 6:50 A.M. to 11:02 P.M. This approximates 16 hours per day. The current peak
load factor is less than 1.20 for a representative weekday peak hour.
B. Planned Improvements
No improvements are planned in the immediate area of the site. Passenger demand
is expected to be the driving force behind increases in the frequency of service and
hours of operations. It is expected that Transfort will adequately serve this area in
concert with ridership demands.
C. Levels of Service
Using the criteria. presented in the Manual, current and future transit levels of service.
were determined.
The. current travel time factor was calculated for transit and automobile trips to Fort
Collins High School, Foothills Fashion Mall, the CSU Transit Center, and the down-
town area as defined in the Manual. Bus travel times and transfer times were ex-
tracted from the current Transfort bus schedule brochure. Walk time from the site to
the bus stop is considered negligible. Auto travel times were estimated as part of this
study. Auto park and walk times were assumed to total 5 minutes. Current travel
times for bus and auto traffic were estimated and resulted in.a travel time factor of 1.7.
It is expected that weekday service will be expanded to accommodate any growth in
user demand. This will result in a future LOS "B" being provided as shown on Table
3. Service beyond the established goal of LOS 'D' will be easily provided.
25
$ Y
Table 2
0
0
N
specific connections to priority sites:
description of
destination area within 1,320'
including address
Blevins Middle School
Poudre High School
Bauder Elementary School
LV5 Worksheet
level of service - connectivity
minimum actual ro osed
base connectivity: C I I C I I A
destination area
classification
see text
Public School
Public School
Public School
A C A
A C A -11
A j C A
t
r
3.
1.:
=7 ` C. Levels of Service
The City of Fort Collins defines level of service based upon connectivity of the site to
=" existing and planned bicycle facilities. In this instance, the site will abut the planned
bicycle lane on the south side of Elizabeth Street resulting in excellent connectivity in
all directions. Alternate connections to the area bicycle system will be further en-
?.. 1..,...+.,.a ha fhe Inrnl efreef evetom fn fhe emef weef onri eni OK of fhe cite
This results in level of service 'A' being realized in the future. A bicycle level of serv-
ice work sheet is presented on Table 2.
Bicycles wishing to go to Bauder Elementary School will be able to go to established
bicycle facilities on Fuqua Drive using either, Elizabeth Street or the Peak View bicycle
trail. From this point they travel south on Fuqua Drive to the school.
Blevins Junior High School is reached by proceeding east from Bauder Elementary
School on Prospect Road to Taft Hill Road. Once at Taft Hill Road, bicyclists can
travel south to the school.
Poudre High School is accessible from the site by traveling east on Elizabeth Street
and then north on Fuqua Drive, Ponderosa Court and Impala Drive- This leads
directly to the high school.
IX. TRANSIT
A. Existing Conditions
Transit stops are currently located near the site along Elizabeth Street. Bus routes 2
and 3 provide 30-minute service to this location. Service is available using Route 2
from 6:52 A.M. to 6:27 P.M., which is about 11'h hours per day on a year round basis.
23
N
N
Table 1
Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
project location classification: Other
description of applicable
level
of service
minimum
based
on project location
classification
destination area within 1,320'
visual
Including address
directness
continuity
street
Interest&
security
crossings
amenities
Ql
Bauder Elementary
minimum
B
B
B
B
B
actual
B
D
B
C
B
ro osed
B
B
B
B
B
02
Blevins Junior High
minimum
B
B
B
C
B
actual
A
D
B
C
B
proposed
A
B
B
B
B
03
Poudre High School
minimum
B
B
B
C
B
actual
A
B
B
C
B
pro osed
A
B
B
C
B
®
Adjacent Residential Areas
minimum
C
C
C
C
C
actual
C
D
B
C
C
pro osed
B
B
B
B
C
minimum
actual
proposed
destination area
classification
Institution
Site
Institution
Site
Institution
Site
Residential
Areas
�l
'j
Five factors were assessed under current and future conditions. These factors pro -
Vide the basis for determining minimum level of service criteria. Based upon the
$: `investigations into current and future pedestrian levels of service, acceptable levels of
4' service will be experienced. A pedestrian level of service worksheet is presented on
Table 1.
VIII. BICYCLE FACILITIES
A. Existing Conditions
Elizabeth Street currently has on -street bicycle lanes to the east and west of the site
with a gap in the immediate area of the site. These lanes connect to established
bicycle routes on Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail. Excellent connectivity is therefore
provided in both.the north -south and east -west directions from the site -outward.
B. Planned Improvements
Improvements are planned on the area bicycle system in conjunction with this devel-
opment. More specifically, a bicycle lane will be built fronting the site on the south
side of Elizabeth Street. The availability of access to Pleasant Valley Road and
connecting local streets leading to the bike/pedestrian trail associated with Peak View
further strengthens the site's connection to bicycle amenities.
21
I
0
11
y+�
C.rlvi
.Levels -of -Service
The City of Fort Collins multi -modal transportation Level -of -Service Manual (the
Manual) was used to assess both current and future pedestrian conditions. It was
' determined that the site fits the "Other" classification due to its relationship to area
attractions. Sidewalks leading to Bauder Elementary School, Blevins Junior High
r School, and Poudre High School were investigated. These school routes were evalu-
ated using the "School Walking Area" classification. Students wishing to walk to
rr Bauder Elementary School could travel east on Elizabeth Street to Azuro Drive, east
:t on Argento Road, south on Deerfield Drive, east on Lake Street, and south on Fuqua
Drive to Prospect Road. Use of the existing pedestrian signal would facilitate a safe
crossing to school grounds. An alternate route would be possible using the internal
north -south aisle to Overland Park leading to the local streets to the east of Peak
View and the Overland Park bike/pedestrian trail. This alternate would connect to
Deerfield Drive just south of Argento Drive. The route identified above would be used
from this.point.
Junior high school students could follow the same path to Lake Street. Once on Lake
Street, they could travel east to Taft Hill Road and south on Taft Hill Road to Blevins
Junior High School.
Poudre High School students would need to travel east on Elizabeth Street to Kimball
Road, north on Kimball Road to Orchard Place, east on Orchard Place to Ponderosa
Court and north on Ponderosa Court to Mulberry Street. They would need to cross
Mulberry Street and go north on Impala to the school.
Other areas such as the King Soopers Shopping Center to the east of the site and
CSU are beyond the 1320' distance specified by City standards. Accordingly, they
were not investigated. It should be noted, however, that bus service is available for
students going to CSU or for that matter King Soopers. Bus service is free to stu-
dents and would likely be the preferred means of accessing these locations and other
attractions.
20
dI
i
11
G�
fr :'alf
VII. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
�4. `Existing Conditions
The existing sidewalk system was field reviewed within 1,320 feet of the Peak View
0. site. Sidewalks currently exist along the south side of Elizabeth Street from the east
{ x. property line to Taft Hill. To the west of this point, they are lacking in the immediate
area of the site and start again to the west of the site.
Pedestrian facilities have been installed under earlier editions of City design stan-
dards. This has resulted in a mix of older and newer designs; however, all facilities
were determined in generally usable condition. Pedestrian ramps are available at
critical intersections and traffic signals facilitate crossings at the Elizabeth Street —
Taft Hill Road intersection. Generally speaking, Taft Hill Road has sidewalk along
both sides as do other area streets. Except for the areas which have been devel-
oped, sidewalk does not exist along Overland Trail.
B. Planned Improvements
The pedestrian system planned adjacent and internal to Peak View will conform to
current City criteria. It will facilitate access to the external pedestrian system thereby
accommodating and complimenting the integration of pedestrians into the site. No
off -site improvements are planned in conjunction with this project. The current side-
walk system at the site boundaries is considered sufficient to serve this site and
pedestrians using this facility. Construction of sidewalk along the site's Elizabeth
Street frontage is planned with this project. When built, the current gap in the side-
walk system will be eliminated. Additionally, the north -south internal drive aisle will
extend from Elizabeth Street to Pleasant Valley Road providing a connection to
adjacent sidewalks, bicycle facilities and neighborhoods.
19
I
I
I
I
2010 Operating Conditions
t 2010=operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full devel-
.opment of Peak View. This investigation used the traffic volumes shown on Figure 8
=" and the existing roadway geometry shown on Figure 3. Resultant operating condi-
tions are shown below
2010 OPERATING CONDITONS WITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
APPROACH/
MOVEMENT
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PK HR
PM PK HR
Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill
Signal
EB
C
D
WB
C
D
NB
C
D
SIB
C
C
Overall
C
D
Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail
Stop
SB LT
A
A
WB LT
C
C
WB RT
B
B
Overall
A
A
Elizabeth Street —Access Points
Stop
EB LT
A
A
SIB LT/RT
A
A
Overall
A
A
As indicated, all intersections will continue to operate acceptably (per City standards)
through the 2010 evaluation period. Capacity worksheets are in Appendix F.
1 18
2005 Operating Conditions
::2005 operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full devel-
;;-opment of Peak View. This investigation used the traffic volumes shown on Figure 7
and the existing roadway geometry shown on Figure 3. Resultant operating condi-
tions are shown below
2005 OPERATING CONDITONS WITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
APPROACH/
-MOVEMENT
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PK FIR
PM PK HR
Elizabeth Street —Taft Hill
Signal
EB
C
D
WB
C
D
NB
C
D
SIB
C
C
Overall
C
D
Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail
Stop
SB LT
A
A
WB LT
C
C
WB RT
B
B
Overall
A
A
Elizabeth Street —Access Points
Stop
EB LT
A
A
SIB LT/RT
A
A
Overall
A
A
Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix E.
As indicated, all intersections are expected to operate acceptably per City standards.
17
C. Existing Total Operating Conditions
'..Existing operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full
`? * development of Peak View. This investigation used the traffic volumes shown on
Figure 6 and the existing roadway geometry shown on Figure 3. Resultant operating
conditions are shown below.
EXISTING OPERATING CONDITONS WITH PROJECT
INTERSECTION
CONTROL
APPROACH/
MOVEMENT
LEVEL OF SERVICE
AM PK HR
PM PK HR
Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill
Signal
EB
C
D
WB
C
D
NB
C
C
SB
C
C
Overall
C
C
Elizabeth Street — Overland Trail
Stop
SIB LT
A
A
WB LT
A
A
WB RT
A
A
Overall
A
A
Elizabeth Street — Access Points
Stop
WB LT
A
A
NB LT/RT
A
A
Overall
A
A
Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix D.
As shown above, acceptable operations are expected under existing total traffic
conditions with the existing roadway geometry.
16
t
U
k— 85/110
yo�-- 60/145
T r
140/215 —►
0 0
5/5
o
io 0
, CO
f0
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
NOTE: A minimum of 5 vehicles or rounded
to nearest 5 vehicles.
4-- 140/250
4-- 1401245
5/10
5/10
140/215 —►
�`►
5/5
I
o
M
O O
O tM N
u7 00
(o N
135/190
320/345 —►
155/175
M!
k— 50/150
4— 120/430
80/200
Elizabeth
I
00 m o
T N M
CO ,
Figure 8
2010 TOTAL TRAFFIC
A
O
00 O
-t O
N O
fM t0
®R
C
W
L
N
rW
5
80/100
55/135
T (
130/1915 —►
0 0
5/5
�n o
Ln W
t n
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
NOTE: A minimum of 5 vehicles or rounded
to nearest 5 vehicles.
y ei`A`�dn
P
130/230 ♦— 130/235
5/10 5/10
135/195 •—►LO
J►
I
5/5
to
to
i o
in
V)
y
v!
U
N
Q
0) ^
N
•
U)
125/175
290/315 —
140/170
00
In W
M e k— 451135
o 00
fo I " t-- 110/390
A) .i 70/185
r Elizabeth
I I
o uO in
h , in
000 N N
r`
Figure 7
2005 TOTAL TRAFFIC
i
M in M a
W
t—
v
c
m
z
a>
rn
M 1�(
75/90
1(— 50/125
120/185 —►
5/5
41
N C3)
M 0
N r--
G
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
NOTE: A minimum of 5 vehicles or rounded
to nearest 5 vehicles.
N
yUN
U
Q
N
N
1 120/210
5/10
125/185 —►
5/5
i( 0
N
N
U
Q
N
r.�
M
120/210
5/10
LO 0
l.;
0 0
N
k— 45/120
6 1 c
4-- 90/350
65/170
Elizabeth
105/150 -
1 I
255/285
Ln 0 0
120/150
^Ln
Co
m
Figure 6
EXISTING TOTAL TRAFFIC
VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS
In order to assess operating conditions with Peak View fully operational, capacity
za. .
analyses were conducted at the Elizabeth Street — Taft Hill Road, Elizabeth Street —
.�.. mil. 4
Overland Trail and both site access point intersections. Total traffic (background
b
traffic combined with site traffic) was developed for three time frames: the first being
existing conditions with site traffic added, the second being 2005 total traffic and the
third being 2010 total traffic. Existing total traffic is shown on Figure 6, 2005 total
traffic is shown on Figure 7 and 2010 total traffic is shown on Figure 8. Site traffic
was rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles with a minimum of 5 vehicles for each traffic
movement. This represents a very conservative analysis. Total traffic volumes were
reviewed from an auxiliary lane standpoint. The results of this review are discussed in
the following section.
A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements
Traffic movements at the site access points to Elizabeth Street were reviewed. This
effort focused on the need for eastbound right turn lanes and westbound left turn
lanes to accommodate vehicles entering the site under 2010 traffic conditions. No
lanes were determined warranted using criteria presented in Report 279, "Intersection
Channelization Design Guide" as published by TRB. Warrant sheets are presented in
Appendix C. The Elizabeth Street intersections with Taft Hill Road and Overland Trail
were not reviewed given either the current availability of critical lanes or the compara-
tive amount of site traffic expected to use these intersections.
12