HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGGIE VILLAGE NORTH REDEVELOPMENT - SPAR - SPA130005 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYII
IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
This study assessed the impacts of the Aggie Village North development on the
short range (2016) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result
of this analysis, the following is concluded:
• The development of the Aggie Village North site is feasible from a traffic
engineering standpoint. At full development, the Aggie Village North site will
' generate approximately 695 daily vehicle trip ends, 58 morning peak hour vehicle
trip ends, and 83 afternoon peak hour vehicle trip ends.
' • Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable.
1
• In the short range (2016) future, given development of the Aggie Village North
site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections operate
acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and
afternoon peak hours.
• Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes
based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines.
—li' DELICH
% 1 [ —ASSOCIATES
Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
Page 30
11
Pedestrian Level of Service
Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Aggie Village
North site. The Aggie Village North site is located within an area termed as a "pedestrian
district," which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A & B for all measured factors.
There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Aggie Village North:
1) the Colorado State University Campus; 2) the residential neighborhood west of the
site; 3) the residential neighborhood to the southwest of the site; and 4) the Spring
Creek Trail. In most cases, sidewalks exist within the pedestrian influence area. It is
assumed that sidewalks will be completed as properties develop. Appendix E contains
a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet.
Bicycle Level of Service
Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are two destination areas
(CSU & Spring Creek Trail) within 1320 feet of the Aggie Village North. The bicycle level
of service is acceptable. The bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix E. There
will be bicycle storage facilities on site, as well as indoor bicycle parking in the Lake Street
Garage across the street from Aggie Village North.
Transit Level of Service
Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Route 7 and Route 2.
Route 7 runs from the Mall Transfer Point, along Drake Road, Centre Avenue, through
the CSU Campus, and to the CSU Transit Center. Route 2 operates on Whitcomb
Street serving neighborhoods west of the CSU Campus. There are transit stops very
close to this site. In addition, transit service and route frequency enhancements are
planned to be implemented by/before 2016. Connections will be made to the Fort
Collins MAX system. It is expected that these improvements will reduce single
occupant vehicle trips to off -campus destinations.
—//' DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
-71 r=ASSOCIATES Page 29
A&
E
N
0
1A
U
�w - Denotes Lane
SHORT RANGE (2016) GEOMETRY Figure 18
—// I DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
1 r=ASSOCIATES Page 28
TABLE 4
Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service
AM
PU
Prospect/Centre
(signal)
EB LT
A
A
EB T
B
q
EB RT
B
A
EB APPROACH
B
A
WB LT
A
A
WBT
B
A
WB RT
B
A
WB APPROACH
B
q
NB LT
D
D
NB T
D
C
NB RT
D
C
NB APPROACH
D
D
D
D
SB LT
D
SB T
C
SB RT
A
C
D
SB APPROACH
D
OVERALL
B
B
P
(siggnal)gnal) Prospect/Whitcomb
EB LT
A
q
EB T/RT
A
q
EB APPROACH
A
A
WB LT
A
A
WB T/RT
A
A
WB APPROACH
A
A
NB LT/T
D
D
NB RT
p
p
NB APPROACH
D
D
SB LT/T
D
E
SB RT
D
D
SB APPROACH
D
D
B
OVERALL
A
Centre/Lake
(all -way stop)
EB T/RT
B
B
WB LT/T
B
B
B
NB LT/RT
B
OVERALL
B
B
Whitcomb/Lake
(all -way stop)
EB LT/T/RT
C
C
WB LT/T/RT
C
C
NB LT/T/RT
C
B
SB LT
B
B
SB T
B
C
SB RT
A
B
SB APPROACH
B
C
OVERALL
C
C
—/ILn-DELICH
-71 rASSOCIATES
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 27
TABLE 3
Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service
AM
PM
Prospect/Centre
(signal)
EB LT
A
A
EB T
B
_
q
EB RT
g
q
EB APPROACH
B
A
WB LT
A
A
WBT
A
A
WB RT
A
A
WB APPROACH
A
A
NB LT
D
D
NB T
D
C
NB RT
D
C
NB APPROACH
D
D
SB LT
D
D
SB T
C
p
SB RT
A
C
SB APPROACH
C
D
OVERALL
B
B
Prospect/Whitcomb
(signal)
EB LT
A
q
EB T/RT
A
A
EB APPROACH
A
q
WB LT
A
q
WB T/RT
A
A
WB APPROACH
A
q
NB LT/T
p
p
NB RT
D
p
NB APPROACH
D
p
SB LT/T
D
E
SB RT
D
D
SB APPROACH
D
D
OVERALL
A
B
Centre/Lake
(all -way stop)
EB T/RT
B
B
WB LT/T
B
B
NB LT/RT
B
B
OVERALL
B
B
Whitcomb/Lake
(all -way stop)
EB LT/T/RT
C
C
C
B
B
C -
WB LT/T/RT
C
NB LT/T/RT
C
SB LT
B
SB T
B
SB RT
A
B
SB APPROACH
B
C
C
OVERALL
C
LDELICH
-7,f [—ASSOCIATES
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 26
58/2
-Se
N M�N 00
(7 f M
N' 1/10 00
co
3/6
1/3
N
0/0
010
Cl) N aD
r7�(D O
3/3 � Lake
1/16
0/0
0 211 0 N 0/1
M N
��_(p
N N r��
gyO
0/a 1/2 Prospect
v1
8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL
PEDESTRIAN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Figure 17
_--/I I DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
-71 [—ASSOCIATES Page25
E
0
U
t
Of
0/15
3/—y
- p�0 M V
Cl)
4/6 IT
—y
43/24
0/1
2/0
o ! n
N 0)
�OLn
N
013
--w8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL
BICYCLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
N
v —__
o Lake
c7
Prospect
Figure 16
--// I DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
71 rASSOCIATES Page24
wo
E
0
U
♦_-
L
`�
+=-M40/866/1251/25
MN
� ��
�166178
r `r
— 4271898
Iv
32/311
778/52
f I
921/723 - ►
14/12
o
o C�
N
---*— 8:45-9:45am/145-4:45pm
SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL
VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
A&
N
� 166/166
62/112
178/214 i
78/93
o_ �
c7 �
O 1
129/64
r� O N
N r C'
f 543/839
182/220
148/44
`/—
1
f
732/822
Q m m
122/84
0 °i N
N n
N
R'
u
Figure 15
--/,/ I DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
7,1 rASSOCIATES Page23
Lake
Prospect
assignment of the site generated peak hour vehicle traffic. The site generated vehicle
traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted
vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Figure 15 shows the short range (2016) total
peak hour vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Figures 16 and 17 show the short
range (2016) total peak hour bicycle and pedestrian traffic at the key intersections,
respectively.
Signal Warrants
As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants
are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). None of
the stop sign controlled intersections are expected to meet peak hour signal warrants.
Operation Analysis
Operation analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operation
analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, reflecting a year 2016 condition.
As mentioned earlier, the ProspectNVhitcomb intersection has shared left-turn/through
lanes on the Whitcomb Street legs. Therefore, the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection was
analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000HCM) software.
Using the short range (2016) background peak hour traffic volumes, the key
intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are
provided in Appendix C. The key intersections operate acceptably with existing control,
geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 15, the key intersections operate in the
short range (2016) total condition as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these
analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections operate similar to the
background operation with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning
and afternoon peak hours.
Geometry
The short range (2016) geometry is shown in Figure 18. The geometry at the
analyzed intersections is the existing geometry. As mentioned earlier, according to
LCUASS, eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes are required with the existing
traffic volumes at the Prospect/Centre intersection. At the Prospect/Whitcomb
intersection, a westbound right -turn lane is required with the existing traffic. Typically,
when turn lanes are shown to be required based on volumes, they are not built unless
the operation at the subject intersection is determined to be unacceptable.
_// L
-DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
1 rASSOCIATES Page 29
A&
>_
N
0
:;t
U
8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
SITE GENERATED VEHICLE
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Figure 14
—/,/ I DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
IrASSOCIATES Page 21
E
0
0
Y
>L
2/38
ca
58/2
co 0
I
- N �
CC) CD
N 1/10 N
N
0/0
0/0
O N cc)
0)3/3 Lake
1 /16
0/0
o n
0/1
to Dco
LO
M o^ O ct
1/2 Prospe
---- 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
SHORT RANGE (2016) BACKGROUND
PEDESTRIAN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
DELICH
-71 [--ASSOCIATES
Figure 13
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 20
A&
E
N
0
CU
..r
L
0/15
_ 0/0
�o
316
o�v�
o
o
CDN��
0/0
n
v co
4/6
N
`°
n
Lake
5/1
38~
4/4 �
0/1
1/1
o
N
-p
vo
N
LO
0/0
0/3
Cl)
0/1
co co Prospect
1/1
2/1
�— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
SHORT RANGE (2016)
BICYCLE PEAK HOUR
--/ILDELICH
-71 [—ASSOCIATES
W,
BACKGROUND
TRAFFIC Figure 12
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 19
E
0
U
r c7 r
O N
`
140/86
m M
N co (
f 72/122
19/18
64/40
f
141/118 —�
25/40
-T N
N
V' N
v CD
r
166/78
L M
-- 427/898
32/31
75/38
f
921/723 —►
14/12
c m
0 `U)
M to
N
-�*8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
SHORT RANGE (2016) BACKGROUND
VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
N
� 165/163
62/112
176/213 —
50/75
(n v
(n
(o
123/37
N `O
°'
f- 543/839
182/220
148/44 �
f �-
732/822
122/84
Cl) M co
( N 00
(o r
N
N
C
U
Figure 11
_—/,/ I--DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
7 1 [—ASSOCIATES Page 18
Lake
Prospect
University
N
South
W
Pitkin
10%
Lake
tA.
f`
25% r
Prospect
I (D
c
o �
U
E
O
U
t
SGALt: 1"=500'
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
_--/JJ-DELICH
-7 j rASSOCIATES
Figure 10
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 17
i
i
1
1
1
L]
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
[1
1
1
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
-7Sine
Code
Use
AidYDTE
AM Peak Hour
PM Peek Hour
Rat®
Trips
Kato
inRafe
Out
Rate
M
Rita
I Out
Existing Aggie Village North
220
Apartment
300 Beds
3.31
993
0.06
18
0.22
66
0.26
78
0.14
42
New Aggie Village North
220
Apartment
1000 Beds
3.31
3310
0.06
60
0.22
220
0.26
260
0.14
140
New Trips
2317
42
154
182
98
30% Vehicle Trips
695
12
46
54
29
30% Bicycle Trips
695
13
46
55
30
40% Pedestrian Trips
927
17
62
73
39
-/I' DELICH
-7,1 F--ASSOCIATES
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 16
W- arm
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Aggie Village North is a proposed residential redevelopment with approximately
1000 beds. Figure 9 shows a site plan of the Aggie Village North development. The
site plan shows access to/from Lake Street. It will replace the existing Aggie Village
North residential facility. The existing Aggie Village North has approximately 300 beds.
The short range analysis (Year 2016) includes development of the Aggie Village North
site and an appropriate increase in background traffic, due to normal growth, and other
approved developments in the area.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this
upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information
contained in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be
generated by the proposed/expected use at this site. Table 2 shows the daily and peak
hour trip generation for the existing Aggie Village North site (300 beds) and the
redeveloped Aggie Village North site (1000 beds). Since the current proposal uses a
parking ratio of one space per three beds, it is assumed that the travel mode split is 30
percent vehicle trips and 70 percent bicycle/pedestrian trips. Current bicycle and
pedestrian counts indicate that there are slightly more pedestrians than bicycles.
Therefore, it is assumed that 30 percent of trips will utilize the bicycle mode of travel
and 40 percent will utilize the pedestrian mode of travel. There will be ten "zip car"
spaces on the site.
Trip Distribution
Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for the Aggie Village
North site. It is assumed that all bicycle and pedestrian traffic will be to/from the CSU
Campus. Figure 10 shows the vehicle trip distribution used for the Aggie Village North
site.
Background Traffic Projections
Figures 11, 12, and 13 show short range (2016) background peak hour vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian traffic projections at the key intersections, respectively. All
modes of traffic at the key intersections were increased at a rate of one percent per year
for the short range (2016) background traffic forecasts.
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. Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 10, Figure 14 shows the
—/,/ LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
-71 I -=-ASSOCIATES Page 14
The Prospect/Centre intersection is in an area termed "mixed -use district." In areas
termed "mixed -use districts," acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the
peak hours is defined as level of service E or better for the overall intersection, and level
of service E or better for any leg or movement. It is important to note that, since the
Prospect/Whitcomb intersection has shared left-turn/through lanes on the Whitcomb
Street legs, the signalized analysis, using the 2010HCM software, has errors using
shared lanes. This anomaly has been recognized by the City of Fort Collins Traffic
Engineer also. Therefore, the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection was analyzed using the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000HCM) software and the operation is also shown in
Table 1. Subsequent analyses for the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection use the
2000HCM software.
Pedestrian Facilities
There are sidewalks along Prospect Road, Centre Avenue, Whitcomb Street, and
Lake Street.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle lanes exist on Centre Avenue and Lake Street. Prospect Road has no
bicycle lanes. Bike lanes are not required on local or connector streets.
Transit Facilities
Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Route 7 and Route 2.
Route 7 runs from the Mall Transfer Point, along Drake Road, Centre Avenue, through
the CSU Campus, and to the CSU Transit Center. Route 2 operates on Whitcomb
Street serving neighborhoods west of the CSU Campus. There are transit stops very
close to this site.
—/,/' DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
-7,1 [—ASSOCIATES Page 13
TABLE 1
Current Peak Hour Operation
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service
AM,
PM
Prospect/Centre
(signal)
EB LT
A
A
EB T
A
A
EB RT
A
A
EB APPROACH
A
A
WB LT
A
A
WB T
A
A
WB RT
A
A
WB APPROACH
A
A
NB LT
D
D
NB T
D
C
NB RT
D
C
NB APPROACH
D
D
SB LT
D
D
SB T
C
D
SB RT
A
C
SB APPROACH
C
D
OVERALL
B
B
(siggnal)gnal) t/Whitcomb P
EB LT
AA
AA
EB T
A A
B (A)
EB RT
A A
B A)
EB APPROACH
A (A)
B (A)
WB LT
B (A)
A (A)
WB T
B (A)
A (A
WB RT
B (A)
A (A)
WB APPROACH
B (A)
A A
NB LT/T
D D
D (D)
NB RT
D (D)
C D
NB APPROACH
D (D)
D D)
SB LT/T
D (D)
F (E
SB RT
D (D)
C (D)
SB APPROACH
D D
F D)
OVERALL
A (A)
F (B)
Centre/Lake
(all -way stop)
EB T/RT
B
B
WB LT/T
B
B
NB LT/RT
B
B
OVERALL
B
B
Whitcomb/Lake
(all -way stop)
EB LT/T/RT
C
C
WB LT/T/RT
B
C
NB LT/T/RT
C
B
SB LT
B
B
SB T
B
C
SB RT
A
A
SB APPROACH
B
B
OVERALL
C
B
(1000HUM)
—/I' DELICH
-71 r=ASSOCIATES
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 12
A&
E
N
O
U
Y_
2/37 0/0
r
_ r _
56/2 0/0 n
m u�
co 1
�N CD
o ��
N v10 `O a Lake
3/6 _ 1/— 16
1/3 0/0
Q 04 0/1
V
(D
M tN CD
0/4 112 Prospect
1/1 112
N
Y
c
N
U
!— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
FACTORED RECENT PEDESTRIAN
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
_—/I' DELICH
-71 [ —ASSOCIATES
Figure 8
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 11
E
N
0
U
>t
0/15
0/0
0
0
3/6
n
0
?
�
0/0
o
Cl)
aO N e-
N
co
LO
C3Lake
4/6
5/1
37/2
4/4
0/1
1/1
m
2/0
�
N
�
0/0
co N
IM
0/3
Prospect
0/1
1/1
— v1 1
a�
L
a�
U
f 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
FACTORED RECENT BICYCLE
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
—�/�—DELICH
1 rASSOCIATES
Figure 7
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 10
E
0
U
L
C�
`V
In M M
135/82
N ^ "'
- 70/118
18/177
62/39 -
!�
1
137/115 y
m OD N
24/39
r
IT N
N
^
�161n6
-
N
M
�— 4131870
32/31
73/37
!�
1
8931702
14/12
N
--w— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm
FACTORED/BALANCED RECENT
VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
I&
N
f 160/158
58/106
171 /207 —
47/72
C
m Cl)
N
CD
�—
1 �
119/36
N " O'
— 527/814
168/206
144/43
!/--
1
7tOn98 —�
1 osno
m CD
L Cn
N 0
N
Figure 6
_--//_I DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013
1 r—ASSOCIATES Page 9
Lake
Prospect
A&
E
N
0
U
.0
2/37 0/0
5612 0/0
m
_ _M
N
N N coO�O� C-
N v10 IT`D Cl) Lake
_ 3/3
3/~ 1/16 _
8:45-9:45am/ 8:45-9:45am/
3:15-4:15pm 4:15-5:15pm
1/3 0/0
2/1
r) 0/1
_ cliN_12
e N � �� 0)co
L' Prospect
0/4 1/2
1/1 — 1/2 -�
N
c
N
U
RECENT (2-19-13) PEDESTRIAN
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
_—/,/L—DELICH
-1 (—ASSOCIATES
Figure 5
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 8
1
I
1
1
1
a
E
0
U
>.0
0/15
o
316
co
N N
4/6
37/2
8:45-9:45am/
3:15-4:15pm
0/1
N
0/0
0/0
M+r N-
5/1 tr) Lake
4/�
8:45-9:45am/
4.15-5:15pm
—y
2/0
m
�O N r r
Q
r N
- 013
RECENT (2-19-13) BICYCLE
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
_—//_I DELICH
7,1 [—ASSOCIATES
—y
0/0
0/1 r , Prospect
Figure 4
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 7
E
O
U
L
Of
O
In(00
rn
135/82
rn
N r LO f 701118
1 18/17
62/39 I r
137/115 m co 0
e N
24'39 N
N
8:45-9:45am/
3:15-4:15pm
co
IT 1 158177
f° T �— 404/885
f ` l/t31/32
73/37
8801709 v v
14/12 0 L'
c� C14
N
RECENT (2-19-13) VEHICLE
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
_—//I—DELICH
-71 f --ASSOCIATES
N
f— 160/158
57/104
171 /207 —i
47no —� C o
rn
8:45-9:45am/
4:15-5:15pm
co
ry w � — 119/36
N tO 0) �— 537n99
168/206
146/43
7201790 -i h
107/69 m
N M
N O
N
Figure 3
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 6
Lake
Prospect
Whitcomb/Lake intersection, Whitcomb Street has all northbound movements combined
in a single lane. The north leg (Meridian Avenue) has separate southbound left -turn,
through, and right -turn lanes. The Whitcomb/Lake intersection has all -way stop sign
control.
Lake Street is an east -west street designated as a collector street on the Fort
Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Lake Street has a two-lane cross section with
parking on both sides of the street. At the Centre/Lake and Whitcomb/Lake
' intersections, Lake Street has all eastbound and westbound movements combined in
single lanes.
Existing Traffic
' Figures 3, 4, and 5 show recent peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic
counts at the Prospect/Centre, Prospect/Whitcomb, Centre/Lake, and Whitcomb/Lake
intersections, respectively. Recent count data was obtained in February 2013 and
' provided by Colorado State University (CSU). These are the analysis peaks in this TIS.
Raw count data is provided in Appendix A.
' In the months since the counts were performed, The Grove Student Housing
development has been constructed south of Prospect Road. Since The Grove is
occupied by CSU students, the bicycle, pedestrian, and (to a lesser degree) vehicle
counts at the Prospect/Centre and Centre/Lake intersections are greater today as
compared to the February counts. Therefore, the recent peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and
' pedestrian traffic counts at the key intersections (Figures 3, 4, and 5) were factored to
reflect conditions with The Grove development. The increase in traffic was based upon
comparing City of Fort Collins peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic counts
' performed before construction of The Grove and counts performed after construction of
The Grove. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show factored recent peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic counts at the key intersections, respectively.
Existing Operation
The Prospect/Centre, Prospect/Whitcomb, Centre/Lake, and Whitcomb/Lake
intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1.
Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The Prospect/Centre and Prospect/
Whitcomb intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing signal control,
geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Centre/Lake
and Whitcomb/Lake intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing all -
way stop sign control and geometry in the peak hours. The intersections were
evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
(2010HCM). A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized
intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort
Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix B.
=/,/ t--DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
-71 [ -ASSOCIATES Page 5
E
N
O
CA
U
.90 - Denotes Lane
EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2
_--/, _L D E L I C H Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
% ,f [—ASSOCIATES Page 4
Laurel
Plum
N
ca
a>v
U)
University
South m
w
Pitkin
Aggie;'
Lake
Village North
Prospect
o
c� U
IL
t
Rolland
Moore
SCALE. 1 "=1000'
SITE LOCATION
_—/I '—DELICH
—/1 rASSOCIATES
Figure 1
Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
Page 3
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of the Aggie Village North site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that
a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented.
Land Use
Land uses in the area are primarily commercial, institutional (CSU), or residential.
Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. This site
is near the center of Fort Collins. Colorado State University and the Fort Collins CBD are
north of the proposed Aggie Village North site. This site is on the CSU Campus.
Roads
The primary streets near the Aggie Village North site are Prospect Road, Centre
' Avenue, Whitcomb Street, and Lake Street. The existing geometry at the key
intersections is shown in Figure 2.
Prospect Road is to the south of (adjacent to) the Aggie Village North site. It is
classified as a four -lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently,
Prospect Road has a four -lane cross section near the Prospect/Centre intersection. At
the Prospect/Centre and Prospect/Whitcomb intersections, Prospect Road has
eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes and two travel lanes in each direction.
According to LCUASS, eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes are required with the
existing traffic volumes at the Prospect/Centre intersection. At the Prospect/Whitcomb
intersection, a westbound right -turn lane is required with the existing traffic. Typically,
when turn lanes are shown to be required based on volumes, they are not built unless
the operation at the subject intersection is determined to be unacceptable. The
Prospect/Centre and Prospect/Whitcomb intersections have signal control. The existing
speed limit in this area is 35 mph.
Centre Avenue is to the east of (adjacent to) the Aggie Village North site. In this
area, it is a north -south street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master
Street Plan. Currently, it has a two-lane cross section. At the Prospect/Centre
intersection, Centre Avenue has northbound and southbound left -turn lanes, one
through lane in each direction, and northbound and southbound right -turn lanes. At the
Centre/Lake T-intersection, Centre Avenue has the northbound movements combined
in a single lane. The Centre/Lake intersection has all -way stop sign control.
Whitcomb Street is a north -south street designated as a local street on the Fort
Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Whitcomb Street has a two-lane cross section
with parking on both sides of the street. At the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection,
Whitcomb Street has the northbound movements combined in a single lane, a
combined southbound left-turn/through lane, and a southbound right -turn lane. At the
�—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
-71 rASSOCIATES Page
1. INTRODUCTION
This intermediate transportation impact study (ITIS) addresses the capacity,
geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Aggie Village North. The
proposed Aggie Village North site is located in the northwest quadrant of the
Centre/Prospect intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado.
During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project
developer (CSU) and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. This study generally
conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines
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.
—/y LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
-71 [—ASSOCIATES Page
1
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Site Location.............................................................................................................
3
2. Existing Intersection Geometry .................................................................................
4
3. Recent (2-19-13) Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic.............................................................
6
4. Recent (2-19-13) Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic..............................................................
7
5. Recent (2-19-13) Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic........................................................
8
6. Factored/Balanced Recent Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic ..............................................
9
7. Factored Recent Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic............................................................
10
8. Factored Recent Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic.......................................................
11
9. Site Plan..................................................................................................................
15
10. Trip Distribution.......................................................................................................
17
11. Short Range (2016) Background Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic ...................................
18
12. Short Range (2016) Background Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic ...................................
19
13. Short Range (2016) Background Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic ..............................
20
14. Site Generated Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic Assignment ...........................................
21
15. Short Range (2016) Total Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic ..............................................
23
16. Short Range (2016) Total Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic ...............................................
24
17. Short Range (2016) Total Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic .........................................
25
18. Short Range (2016) Geometry ................................................................................
28
APPENDICES
A. Recent Peak Hour Traffic
B. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins LOS
Standards
C. Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation
D. Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation
E. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service
_--// LDELICH
-71 [-ASSOCIATES A99ie Village North TIS, December 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 2
LandUse......................................................................................................................... 2
Roads.............................................................................................................................. 2
ExistingTraffic................................................................................................................ 5
ExistingOperation........................................................................................................... 5
PedestriansFacilities.................................................................................................... 13
BicycleFacilities............................................................................................................ 13
TransitFacilities............................................................................................................ 13
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................. 14
TripGeneration............................................................................................................. 14
TripDistribution............................................................................................................. 14
Background Traffic Projections..................................................................................... 14
TripAssignment........................................................................................................... 14
SignalWarrants............................................................................................................ 22
OperationAnalysis........................................................................................................ 22
Geometry...................................................................................................................... 22
Pedestrian Level of Service.......................................................................................... 29
Bicycle Level of Service................................................................................................ 29
TransitLevel of Service................................................................................................. 29
IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................30
LIST OF TABLES
1. Current Peak Hour Operation................................................................................. 12
2. Trip Generation....................................................................................................... 16
3. Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 26
4. Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation..................................................... 27
—/,/ '—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013
-7/ r=ASSOCIATES
AGGIE VILLAGE NORTH
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DECEMBER 2013
Prepared for:
CSU Facilities Management
Prepared by:
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034
Project #1389