Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
REDTAIL - MAJOR AMENDMENT - 26-01B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Fairway Lane & College Avenue Short Bkgd AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi $0 $0 tt r tt r Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0%, 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 0 6 5 0 25 0 2014 20 19 1006 3 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 0 6 6 0 29 0 2263 22 22 1184 4 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 1 1 Upstream signal (ft) 710 pX, platoon unblocked '0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 vC, conflicting volume 2389 3514 592 2905 3495 1131 1187 2285 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1228. 1228 2263 2263 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1161 2285 642 1232 vCu, unblocked vol 3080 6200 592 4512 6147 0 1187 2792 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 100 99 10 100 92 100 55 cM capacity (veh/h) . 72 0 450 7 13 391 584 49 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3. SB 4 Volume Total 2 6 6 29 0 1131 1131 22 22 592 592 4 Volume Left 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 6 0 29 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 4 cSH 72 450 7 391 1700 1700 1700' 1700 49 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.01 0.90 0.08 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.01 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 36 6 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 56.7 13.1 1000.0 : 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 127.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B F B F Approach Delay (s) 24.0 179.1 0.0 2.4 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph 11/2/2006 , Matthew J. Delich , P. E. �p 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Cameron Drive & College Avenue Short Bkgd PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I ? r d F I TT r Vi TT ? Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1776 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1352 1863 1583 1361 1583 142 3539 1583 156 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 25 1 9 41 1 82 4 1445 42 129 1762 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 1 10 47 1 94 5 1642 48 145 1980 3 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 9 0 0 85 0. 0 16 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 1 1 0 48 9 5 1642 32 145 1980 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 52.5 51.5 51.5 62.5 56.5 56.5 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 54.5 52.5 52.5 63.5 57.5 57.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.69 0.66 0.66 0.80 0.72 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 136 187 159 137 159 138 2337 1045 267 2560 1145 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 0.46 c0.05 c0.56 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.04 . 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.06 .0.04 0.70 0.03 0.54 0.77 0.00 Uniform Delay, dl 32.8 32.2 32.2 33.3 32.3 ' 6.8 8.6 4.7 9.9 6.9 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 . 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 2.3 2.3 0.0 Delay (s) 33.6 32.2 32.2 34.9 32.5 7.0 10.3 4.7 12.1 9.3 3.1 Level of Service C C C C C A B A B A A Approach Delay (s) 33.2 33.3 10.2 9.4 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 10.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' Joseph Matthew J. Del ich , P. E. q l 11 /2/2006 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Cameron Drive & College Avenue Short Bkgd AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r d r Vi tt r tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 .4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 . 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1779 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1342 1863 1583 1372 1583 460 3539 1583 128 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 5 2 3 47 3 153 7 1877 20 89 912 16 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 -0.88 0:88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 6 2 4 53 3 174 8 2133 23 105 1073 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 95 0 0 6 0 0 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 6 2 1 0 56 79 8 2133 17 105 1073 13 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 55.3 54.3 54.3 61.5 57.4 57A Effective Green, g (s) 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 57.3 55.3 55.3 63.5 58.4 58.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.77 0.71 0.71 Clearance Time (s) .5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 30 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 169 234 199 172 199 350 2364 1057 199 2496 1117 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.60 c0.03 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.04 c0.05 0.02 0.01 0.37 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.33 0.40 0.02 0.90 0.02 0.53 0.43 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 31.7 31.7 33.0 33.3 4.0 11.5 4.6 17.3 5.2 3.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.0 6.2 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 31.9 31.7 31.7 34.1 34.6 4.1 17.7 4.6 19.9 5.7 3.6 Level of Service C C C C C A B A B A A Approach Delay (s) 31.8 34.5 17.5 6.9 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 15.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph 11/2/2006 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. APPENDIX C I Morning Peak Hour WB LT WB RT EB LT EB RT Average Delay 28 sec 14 sec 31 sec 32 sec Longest 43 sec 33 sec 124 sec 62 sec Shortest 13 sec 0 sec 6 sec 2 sec Afternoon Peak Hour WB LT WB RT EB LT EB RT Average Delay 30 sec 15 sec 32 sec 13 sec Longest 28 sec 35 sec 108 sec 46 sec ' Shortest 31 sec 1 sec 4 sec 0 sec 08,9&1�VPU "� G;,L01V. )0 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Low density Intersection type Commercial Mixed use mixed use All other corridors districts residential areas Signalized intersections D E' D D (overall) Any Leg E E D E Any Movement E E D E Stop sign control N/A P* P* E (arteriallcollector or, locat— any approach leg) Stop sign control N/A C C C (collector/local—any approach leg) mitigating measures required " considered normal in an urban environment l 5" UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -Service Average Total Delay sedveh A _< 10 B > 10 and _< 20 C > 20 and _< 35 D > 35 and _< 55 E > 55 and _< 80 F > 80 Mi ■ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Fairway Lane & College Avenue Recent PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations T* Mi $ Vi tt r '� tt Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% ' Volume (veh/h) 3 0 7 6 0 9 2 1470 13 18 1798 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 0 8 7 0 11 2 1652 15 20 2020 2 Pedestrians ' Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ' Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 1 1 ' Upstream signal (ft) 710 pX, platoon unblocked 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 vC, conflicting volume 2902 3731 1010 2715 3719 826 2022 1666 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2061 2061 1656 1656 ' vC2, stage 2.conf vol 841 1671 1059 2063 vCu, unblocked vol 3290 4477 1010 3023 4459 320 2022 1523 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 ' tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 92 100 97 88 100 98 99 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 43 44 238 58 47 472 277 303 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 4 8 7 11 2 826 826 15 20 1010 1010 2 Volume Left 4 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 ' Volume Right 0 8 0 11 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 2 cSH 43 238 58 472 277 1700 1700 1700 303 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.07 0.59 0.59 0.00 ' Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 3 10 2 1 0. 0 0 5 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 96.1 20.7 75.4 12.8 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C F B C C ' Approach Delay (s) 43.3 37.8 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS E E Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 I ' Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11 /2/2006 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3:.Fairway Lane & College Avenue Recent AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations, Vi $ $ Vi tt r Vi tt r Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 2 0 6 5 0 25 0 1926 13 19 962 3 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 0 6 6 0 29 0 2164 15 22 1132 4 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 1 1 Upstream signal (ft) 710 pX, platoon unblocked 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 vC, conflicting volume 2288 3355 566 2781 3344 1082 1135 2179 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1176 1176 2164 2164 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1111 2179 617 1180 vCu, unblocked vol 2743 5498 566 4015 5470 0 1135 2461 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 100 99 47 100 ' 93 100 69 cM capacity (veh/h) 92 1 468 11 19 420 611 72 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 2 6 6 29 0 1082 1082 15 22 566 566 4 Volume Left 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 6 0 29 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 4 cSH 92 468 11 420 1700 1700 1700 1700 72 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.01 0.53 0.07 0.00 0.64 0.64 0.01 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 1 30 6 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 45.0 12.8 519.5 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS E B F B F Approach Delay (s) 20.9 98.4 0.0 1.5 Approach LOS C F Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1 % ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph Matthew J. Delich . P. E. 11 /2/2006 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Cameron Drive & College Avenue Recent PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r 4 r Vi tT r tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1776 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1354 1863 1583 1361 1583 142 3539 1583 180 3539 1583 Volume (vph) .25 1 9 39 1 78 4 1382 40 123 1685 3 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 1 10 45 1 90 5 1570 45 138 1893 3 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 9 0 0 81 0 0 15 0 0 1 Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 1 1 0 46 9 5 1570 30 138 1893 2 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 52.8 51.8 51.8 62.8 56.8 56.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 54.8 52.8 52.8 63.8 57.8 57.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.69 0.66 0.66 0.80 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _Vehicle Lane Grp Cap (vph) 134 185 157 135 157 138 2345 1049 284 2567 1148 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 0.44 c0.04 c0.53 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 c0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.00 We Ratio 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.06 0.04 0.67 0.03 0.49 0.74 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 32.4 32.4 33.5 32.5 6.0 8.2 4.6 7.8 6.5 3.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.3 1.9 0.0 Delay (s) 33.8 32.4 32.4 35.0 32.7 6.1 9.7 4.7 9.1 8.4 3.0 Level of Service C C C C C A A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 33.4 33.5 9.5 8.4 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 10.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group I ' Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11 /2/2006 II HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Cameron Drive & College Avenue Recent AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t ? 4 r '� Tt r tt r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1779 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539. 1583 Fit Permitted 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1345 1863 1583 1373 1583 490 3539 1583 127 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 5 2 3 45 3 146 7 1795 19 85 872 16 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 6 2 4 51 3 166 8 2040 22 100 1026 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 0 ,97 0 0 6 0 0 6 Lane Group Flow (vph) 6 2 0 0 54 69 8 2040 16 100 1026 13 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 55.7 54.7 54.7 61.9 57.8 57.8 Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 57.7 55.7 55.7 63.9 58.8 58.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.70 0.67 0.67 0.77 0.71 0.71 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 227 193 167 193 372 2378 1064 199 2510 1123 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.58 c0.03 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.04 c0.04 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.32 0.36 0.02 0.86 0.01 0.50 0.41 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 32.1 32.0 32.0 33.3 33.4 3.9 10.5 4.5 14.9 4.9 3.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 32.2 32.0 32.0 34.4 34.6 3.9 14.8 4.5 16.9 5.4 3.6 Level of Service C C C C C A B A B A A Approach Delay (s) 32.1 34.5 14.7 6.4 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 13.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11 /212006 ' I 10 1 APPENDIX B I CO) H Z q O o J t U LL. T CO)> r- R V � o cc O G VF m `W` m q LL A Z O > omt.) two / LL O N Q=Z 40 O 2 W g (D>=a G � _j p � N d 421 A. a a VAL `Ch r 0 Of to _ M N 00 � O a tM to r . ao to In to tO F T C* N O w m c" to N. co 2A C ~ 10 LL co r` t` to N I,- C N O O O O O O m J O N N O pc4 N N, eV cm h. C 7 O 0 0 0 0 0 F-i O O N Y O N th � LO 1.- to I --Go to Ln tO 0 c to , O O N O '7 C N N N N ` l J m cn N 00 t0 p� fA fo cn r, r--. cn o cn ti c OD 00O m O 2F-j O O O CDN O m E � v.� o m A tsi A A tt1 OD t5i aD 1� co 1— o Z M N O o v .Wd V F r = •fiJ Vf to W d o LL az°�Dd, > Co ORUE LLB CO S G A O aZg°i �- _I 0 > c Q O G N a C Li cm T � co N Q � � trnWZ Of(n_ —a ti c to Oco N') � N � 4D YYF y N O O U. V M M (N C 7 V% O N O O O y T J O O (O O O (7 C N r M Q .Q co E ~ ci r O N O O N p C 7 0 N O O O O A W O M Q - 7 a O O 9.0 co "Cr O p 01 r• <f --* 40 F vl f� 00 C N M N r ffVV N In N O C 7 CD t*- O) U1 tJ, N N N (�V J ll) I N N drMy Q .O� A cw . N N C 7 N 1� V (O (Op O_ M O N co M In (") O Z J O m m to m E r S I91IF41pi1A1$31IQ1 I N N N N N O O O O O c0 l.[) N O O co em of as (p �. N O .— O O O O) Q Q CO (O m 100 CM M I 9 I 400b I I0 I co m Q fh N (`) ((i m (`� c4i v Nil r -7 77] Harmony ® l Re tail CO N CO d �T 7 C N Q \ Pedestrian Influence Area 7GALL: 1 "=1000' If �� (Q 6C-,O(9?Q troti 14PPr?ov&�b —TR,p PcA)GoeA-r►oA) As I-,OCC Gb l,Ov 11/0& r!S (Aa- )26SI'berA ►AL. AAA ?M No►ezr� 4 4 DA). D� tG 290 <IOU.. 3 OU rlcJ ! T OUT 17 5©OTW `aZ �>.U- t5- 40 (p 34- 3Z I(o /Crick. 83ca. q sZ 49 z4- ?f�- Ptit �sS��G,�r►,AL/4,eFr��� 'DA! l� AM OUT ►� our 4 Q D. %. 2 qG 3 I� t- 8 � SA44&-) SovT4 ©pr-�ctv 750 9 3 13 17 BS o-rAL 1040 9& 31 34 'l3 I tPF9,e9-Xuc6P- 'OeT4v&2;7,c) 50UrI-I qZ't_U �►a�c.y 'cSv(z&-s-r A ti 467 S APA our -- Z I o� ©r--rre6� px-t 1,00 our %2)ubD,ATC 7-IS No Text Harmony O 0 tf l Redtail s° o �co 01%// > o ° c0 cM (� U i i i SCALE: 1 "=500' SITE LOCATION, Figure 1 3 4 - Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name '2(gt 1- 1 L Project Location d &S Q a'U•Avr F 6� OL.tMGr TIS Assumptions Type of Study Full: AJO Intermediate: C O Study Area Boundaries North: F' i fwA �� South:C N�Iel East: US Z 67 West: U S 097 Study Years ShortRange: Z O p 9 Long Range:.2020 Future Traffic Growth Rate Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5. 2.I1S287 �mF 3. S W74PAt 7. 4. 8. Time Period for Study AM:_ 7:00-9:0 4:0 - Sat Noon: Aj Trip Generation Rates pl TC Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: MIA Captive Market: /J/A Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions N i1 Committed Roadway Improvements WoMG- �,00ooN Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study Date: 1�efA e C a 3 ©, 2 6 ©-7 Traffic Engineer: Local Entity Engi Larlmer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Page 4-35 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins 0 APPENDIX A IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of the Redtail Development on the short range (2009) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: The development of the Redtail Development is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Redtail Development will generate approximately 1040 daily trip ends, 127 morning peak hour trip ends, and 127 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Current operation at the key.intersections is acceptable: In the short range (2009) future, given development of the Redtail Development and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections are shown to operate acceptably. The short range (2009) geometry is shown in. Figure 8, this is the current geometry. Bicycle and transit level of servicewill be acceptable. Acceptable level of service. for all pedestrian factors cannot be achieved.. 19 1 provided in Appendix D. All the key intersections will operate acceptably. The College/Fairway intersection calculated delay for the ' morning and afternoon peak hour- minor street (Fairway Lane) was commensurate with level of service E/F. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. As indicated earlier, the calculated delay is significantly higher than the observed 'delay at stop sign controlled intersections. ' Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix E contains a map of the pedestrian influence area that is within 1320 feet. of the Redtail Development. There will be five pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of the Redtail Development. ' These are: 1) the office area (Cameron Park and Fossil Creek Office Park) adjacent to the site, 2) the commercial area north of the site, 3) the commercial/office area north east of the site, .4) the residential area (Fossil .Creek) to the east of the site, and 5) the residential area to the west of the site. This site is in an area type termed "transit .corridor." . The minimum level of service for "transit corridor" is .B for all categories, except for the visual intersect & amenities category where it is LOS C. Acceptable pedestrian level of service cannot be achieved for all pedestrian factors. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix E. Bicycle Level of Service ' Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there is one bicycle destination within 1�20 feet of the Redtail Development. It is the Mason Street/Fossil Creek multi -use path to the west and south of ' . the site. This site will achieve bicycle level of service B connectivity which exceeds the base city-wide minimum. 11 11 Transit Level of Service Currently, this area is serviced by Fox Trot. 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 E. TABLE 4 Short Range (2009) Total Peak Hour Operation .. . ... Ar"OS6600W, Movement Level. PM College/Fossil Creek -Cameron (signal) EB LT c C EB T/RT c C EB APPROACH c C WB LT c C WB T, C c WB RT c C WB APPROACH c c NB LT A A NB B B NB RT A A NB APPROACH B SB LT B B SBT 'A B SB RT A A SB APPROACH A B OVERALL B B College/Fairway (signal)P EB LT F F EB T/RT B c EB APPROACH D F WB LT F F WB T/RT B 13 WB APPROACH F F NB LT B c SB LT F C 17 TABLE 3 Short Range (2009) Background Peak Hour Operation `Intersection . Movement Level of Service AM PM College/Fossil Creek -Cameron (signal) EB LT C C EB T/RT C C EB APPROACH C C WB LT C C WB T C C WB RT C C WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A NB T B B NB RT A A NB APPROACH B B SB LT B B SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL B B College/Fairway (signal) EB LT F F EB T/RT B C EB APPROACH C E WB LT F F WB T/RT B B WB APPROACH F E NB LT A C SB LT F C 16 No Text m 7 c a) Q 4 0 00 U rn r- r` �00 o <� rn 25/9 JN l --0— 0/0 1 � � 5/6 8/5 ' 010 — oo Ln co 12/10 •= LO_ o ' co N O N Fairway Lane A& N coLO O O e-- N 153/83 n r o LInrnrn �._17/4 47/41 _ ' Cameron Drive 19/83 Fossil Creek Parkway 4/14 —= 6/26 N v o . N co O SHORT RANGE (2009) TOTAL. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ' 14 Figure 7 ■ Q 1 m � 0 U ' uO v N c`0 NOM 6/2 ' NOM i 6/3 co 0 a . r- cM O co)O 0/1 ' Cameron Drive 14/58 ' 2/13 3/17 cr) L rn SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ' 13 d Fairway Lane Fossil Creek Parkway ►— AM/PM Figure 6 Trip Assignment/Total Traffic Projections 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 short range (2009) site generated peak hour traffic assignment of the Redtail Development. With the development of the Redtail Development site, an internal connection will be made from Cameron Drive to ' Fairway Lane. This connection .has the potential to eliminate the delay associated with the eastbound left turns at the College/Fairway intersection. It is expected that,if delays become too great drivers will find this connection and utilize it. Figure 7 shows the short ' range (2009) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic at the key intersections with the development of the Redtail Development. ' Signal Warrants ' Signal Warrants were not analyzed in this TIS. The College/Fossil Creek -Cameron intersection. is signalized. The College/Fairway intersection does not meet signal spacing requirements, and will not be signalized. Geometry iFigure 8 shows a schematic of the short range (2009) geometry. This is the existing geometry at the College/Fossil Creek -Cameron and ' College/Fairway intersections.. Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operations analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, . reflecting a year 2009 condition. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 5, the key intersections operate in the short range (2009) background traffic future as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. All the key intersections will operate ' acceptably. At the College/Fairway intersection, the calculated delay for the morning and afternoon peak hour minor street (Fairway Lane) was commensurate with level of service E/F. This is considered to be normal during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections ' along arterial streets. As indicated earlier, .the calculated delay is significantly higher than the observed delay at stop sign controlled intersections. ' Using the traffic volumes "shown' in Figure 7, 'the key intersections operate in the 'short range (2009) total traffic future ' as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are 12 . 1 1 a� W W Q W 1 0' o 1 °° 0 0 U co 00 N o rn 25/9 5/6 1 2/3 ' 0 6/7 N CM o 1 �" 1 0 " 1 " N N 153/82 co rn J- CD CO .. 3/1 — 47/41 Cameron Drive 1 5/25 2/1 1 3/9 v LO " o " 1 ti °° jl 1 'SHORT RANGE (2009) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1 A N Fairway Lane Fossil Creek Parkway AM/PM Figure 5 m o 0 5%/15% Cameron Drive Fossil Creek Parkway Fairway Lane 4 N Residential/Office H - No Text III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Redtail Development is a residential and office development, located west of College Avenue near the Cameron Drive. Figure 3 shows a site plan of the Redtail Development. The site plan shows access to the site via the Cameron Drive and Fairway Lane. The short range analysis (year 2009) includes development of the Redtail Development and an appropriate. increase in background traffic due to normal growth. Since this is an intermediate level transportation impact study, a long range analysis is not required. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the 'impact .of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. Trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 7th Edition, ITE, was used to estimate trips that would be 'generated by the Redtail Development. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. TABLE 2 Trip Generation . ` AWtYt E `. " S AM PeakHour - PM Peak Wour {A/�`�}}eep� yS'���,a l511�4t giSww �20� FRtx 'A1 .0 3VY{ k�s S}\ o ,� t.: F _.� yRiQ0 A�A p 230 Townhome-north 49 D.U. 5.86 290 0.07 3 0.37 18 0.35 17 0.17 8� 710 Office -south 68.2 KSF 11.01 750 1.36 93 0.19 13 0.25 17 1.24 85 Total 1040 96 31 34 93 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for the Redtail Development was estimated using knowledge of the existing and planned street system, development trends, and engineering judgment. Figure 4. shows the short range (2009) trip distribution used for the peak hour traffic assignment. Background Traffic Projections Figure 5 shows the short range (2009) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the future horizon year were obtained by reviewing the NFRRTP, reviewing traffic studies for other developments, and CDOT.traffic data. 8 should be noted that the average observed delays were: eastbound, 31 seconds and 32 seconds in the respective peak hours; and .westbound, 28 seconds and 30 seconds in the respective peak hours. Comparison of the calculated and observed delays corroborates that the software significantly overestimates the actual delays. Pedestrian Facilities . Pedestrian facilities in this area are sporadic. Sidewalks exist on the Fossil Creek Parkway. Sidewalks .exist adjacent to the commercial/office uses north and northeast of the,site. There are no sidewalks along on Cameron Drive. There is the Mason Trail to the west of the site and .Fossil Creek Trail to the south of the site. Sidewalks will be incorporated within and adjacent to this development. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist on College Avenue. Along Fossil Creek Parkway bike lanes are not striped, however there is sufficient width for bicycles to operate safely. Bike lanes are not required on local or connector streets. Transit Facilities Currently, the Fox Trot is within 1320 feet of this site. It operates along College Avenue from the South Transit Center to Orchards Shopping Center. The Fox Trot provides year-round service on 60 minute headways between 6:17am and 7:llpm. .TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM College/Fossil Creek -Cameron (signal). - EB LT C C EB T/RT C C EB APPROACH C C WB LT C C WB T C C WB RT C C WB APPROACH C C NB LT A A. NB T B A NB RT A A NB APPROACH B A SB LT B A SB T A A SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL B B College/Fairway (signal) EB LT E F EB T/RT B C EB APPROACH C E WB LT F F WB T/RT B B WB APPROACH F E NB LT A C SB LT F C 6 1 a� c a� Q. 0 U rn 00 N rn 25/9 1 ccn M �— 0/0 5/6 2/3 1 0/0 N o M 6/7 o 1 N co (O N 1 co ti in 146/78 CO 0 3/1. . 45/39. Cameron Drive 1 5/25 2/1 —+► - N o 3/9 M LO r- rn N Fairway Lane Fossil Creek Parkway --a— AM/PM Figure 2 Fairway Lane is an east -west on the Fort Collins Master Street two-lane cross section. At the Lane has a left -turn lane; through and a left-turn/through lane and a speed limit on Fairway Lane: Existing Traffic street designated as a local street Plan. Currently, Fairway Lane has a College/Fairway intersection, Fairway lane,.and a right -turn lane eastbound right -turn lane. There is no posted Recent peak hour traffic counts at Cameron and College/Fairway intersections ar traffic data for .the key intersections was Raw traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Existing Operation the College/Fossil Creek- e shown in Figure 2. The collected in August 2006. The College/Fossil Creek -Cameron and College/Fairway intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the peak hour traffic shown in Figure 2, the peak hour operation is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The key intersections operate acceptably during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The College/Fairway intersection calculated delay for the morning and afternoon peak hour minor street (Fairway. Lane) was commensurate with level of service E/F. This is considered to be normal during the, peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix B.. The Redtail Development site is in an area termed. "commercial corridor." In "commercial corridors," acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the, peak hours is defined as level. of service D or better. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service E. At unsignalized intersections, in commercial corridors, there is no minimum level of service criteria. In other TIS', Fort Collins staff has indicated the level of service E is considered to be acceptable. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (intersections) are also provided in Appendix B. Recent research indicates that the intersection analysis software (HCS and Synchro) does not predict the observed delay at two-way stop sign controlled intersections. At. the South College/Fairway intersection, the calculated delay for the minor street left turns were: eastbound, 45.O seconds and 96.1 seconds in the respective peak hours; and westbound, 519.5 seconds and 75.4 seconds in, the respective peak hours. Peak hour delays for the minor street movements.were observed at this intersection and are. shown in a table provided in Appendix B. It 4 1 SCALE: 1 "=1000' 1 SITE LOCATION Figure 1 3 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Redtail Development is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented.. Land Use Land uses ia♦ the area are primarily commercial/office. and residential. Commercial/office uses exist adjacent to the site, to the north, and to .the northeast across College Avenue. Residential uses exist east of the site across College Avenue. The center of Fort t Collins lies to the north of the Redtail Development. The Redtail Development is in. an area termed "commercial corridor." Roads ' The primary streets near the Redtail Development site are College Avenue, Fossil Creek, Parkway, Cameron Drive and Fairway Lane. College Avenue is to the east of the Redtail Development. It is a north -south street designated as a six -lane arterial in the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a four -lane cross. section with appropriate auxiliary lanes. At the College/Fossil Creek -Cameron ' intersection, College Avenue has a northbound and southbound left -turn lane, two through lanes in each direction, and northbound and southbound right -turn lane.. The College/Fossil Creek -Cameron intersection has ' signal control. At the College/Fairway intersection, College Avenue has a northbound and southbound left -turn lane, two through lanes in each direction, and northbound and southbound right -turn lane. The ' College/Fairway intersection has stop sign control on Fairway Lane. .The existing speed limit changes just to the south of the College/Fairway intersection, it is 50 mph to the north and 55 mph to the south. ' Fossil. Creek Parkway is an east -west street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Fossil Creek Parkway has. a two-lane cross section. .Fossil Creek Parkway ' lines up with Cameron Drive, which is .west of College Avenue. At the College/Fossil Creek -Cameron intersection, Fossil Creek Parkway has a deft-turn/through lane and a right -turn lane. The existing speed limit ' in this area is 25 mph. Cameron Drive is an east -west street designated as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Cameron Drive has a ' two-lane cross section. At the College/Fossil Creek -Cameron, Cameron Drive has a left -turn lane, a through lane, and a right -turn lane. Only the left -turn lane is striped, however they function as mentioned above. ' There is an unnamed frontage road just (251) west of College Avenue. There is no posted speed limit on Cameron Drive. 2 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control .requirements at .and near a, proposed Redtail Development. The proposed Redtail. Development is located west of College Avenue (US287) at Cameron Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. This TIS is a revision of the "Redtail Development Transportation Impact Study," November 2006, due to a proposed land use change, within the project. Specifically, the south portion of the site will be changed from a residential land use to an office land use. During the course of the. analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project planning consultant (VF Ripley Associates), the project developer (Lagunitas Companies), and the City of Fort Collins staff. This study conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines as contained in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS). A Base. Assumptions Form and related information are provided in Appendix A.. 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. 1 LIST OF FIGURES . Figure Page 1. Site Location ... ................................. ....... 3 2. Recent Peak Hour Traffic ............................. 5 3. Site Plan ............................. .... ......: 9 4. Trip Distribution .................................. 10 ' 5. Short Range (2009) Background Peak Hour Traffic ....:. 11 6. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ..................... 13 7. Short. Range (2009) Total Peak Hour Traffic ............ 14 ' 8. Short Range (2009) Geometry ...................:....... 15 ' APPENDIX A Base Assumptions Form/Peak Hour Traffic Counts B. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions C Short Range Background Traffic Operation D Short Range Total Traffic Operation E Pedestrian/Bidycle/Transit Level of Service Worksheets TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ......................................... 1 II. Existing Conditions ................................... 2 LandUse ............................................. 2 Reads.............................................. 2 Existing Traffic .......... 4 Existing Operation ................................... 4 Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 4 Bicycle Facilities ................................... 7 Transit Facilities ................................... 7 III. Proposed Development ................................. 8 Trip Generation ...................................... 8 Trip Distribution .................................... 8 Background Traffic Projections ....................... 8 Trip Assignment/Total Traffic Projections ......:....:. 12 Signal Warrants ....................................... 12 Geometry.............................................. 12 Operation Analysis ................................... 12 Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 18 Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 18 Transit Level of Service 18 IV. Conclusions .......................................... 19 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 6 2. Trip Generation ............ 8 3. Short Range (2009) Background Peak Hour Operation .... 16 4. Short Range (2009) Total Peak Hour Operation ..........17 REDTAIL DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO APRIL 2006 Prepared for: Lagunitas Companies 3950 JFK Parkway, bldg, 12 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 FUTURE TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE Travel Time Worksheet Destination Approximate Distance Auto Travel Time Bus Travel Time Travel Time Factor CSU Campus Transit Center 4.8 18 37 2.1 Foothills Fashion Mall 2.0 11 24 2.2 Fort Collins High School 3.9 16 37 2.3 Downtown Fort Collins 5.3 19 40 2.1 Total Travel Time 64 138 2.2 2 of 4 = LOS D Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: . Description. of Destination Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Applicable Destination Area street visual Security Area Within 1320' Classification Directness Continuity Crossings AmenInterities 1 Offices adjacent to the Site (Fossil Creek Office Park) Office Minimum B B B C B Actual A D A B C Proposed A D A B C 2 Commercial Uses north of the site Commercial Minimum B B B C B Actual A D A B C Proposed A B A B C 3 Commercial/Office uses northeast of the Site CommerciaV Office Minimum B B B C B Actual B D C B C Proposed B D C B C 4 Residential area to the east of the site Residential Minimum B B B C B Actual A D C B C Proposed A D C B C 5 Residential area to the west of the site Residential Minimum B B B C B Actual D D C B C Proposed D D C B C 6 Minimum Actual Proposed 7 Minimum Actual Proposed 8 Minimum Actual Proposed 9 Minimum Actual Proposed 10 Minimum Actual Proposed 0 � � N Harmony I 3 Re tail CO U) m eel Q d 0 U Pedestrian Influence Area SCALE: 1 "=1000' I'o APPENDIX E z 17 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Fairway Lane & College Avenue Short Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL Lane Configurations T+ T+ ft r I ++ r Sign Control Stop - Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 0 10 6 0 9 8 1595 13 18 1894 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 6 0 12. 7 0 11 9 1792 15 20 2128 19 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (f /s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 1 1 Upstream signal (ft) 710 pX, platoon unblocked 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 3093 3993 1064 2926 3998 896 2147 1807 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2169 2169 1810 1810 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 925 1825 1116 2188 vCu, unblocked vol 3678 5060 1064 3422 5066 306 2147 1703 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 84 100 95 83 100 98 96 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 36 33 219 41 35 450 248 241 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 6 12 7 11 9 896 896 15 20 1064 1064 19 Volume Left 6 0 7 0 9 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 12 0 11 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 19 cSH 36 219 41 450 248 1700 1700 1700 241 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.05 0.17 0.02 0,04 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.08 0.63 0.63 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 4 14 2 3 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 123.5 22.4 109.1 13.2 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C F B C C Approach Delay (s) 56.1 51.6 0.1 0.2 Approach LOS F F Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph 4/4/2007 I Matthew J. Delich , P. E. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Fairway Lane & College Avenue Short Total AM EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j A T+ Vi tt IN Vi tt r Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 8 0 12 5 0 25 1 2028 20 19 1045 5 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 8 0 12 6 0 29 1 2279 22 22 1229 6 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 1 1 Upstream signal (ft) 710 pX, platoon unblocked 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 vC, conflicting volume 2445 3577 615 2952 3561 1139 1235 2301 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1274 1274 2281 2281 vC2, stage 2.conf vol 1171 2303 671 1280 vCu, unblocked vol 3221 6327 615 4612 6281 0 1235 2826 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 88 100 97 6 100 93 100 54 cM capacity (veh/h) 67 0 434 6 12 395 560 48 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 8 12 6 29 1 1139 1139 22 22 615 615 6 Volume Left 8 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 12 0 29 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 6 cSH 67 434 6 395 560 1700 1700 1700 48 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.03 0.94 0.07 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.01 0.46 0.36 0.36 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 2 37 6 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 65.5 13.5 1066.6 14.8 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 131.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F B F B B F Approach Delay (s) 34.3 190.1 0.0 2.3 Approach LOS D F Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 Joseph 4/2/2007 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. ),6- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Cameron Drive & College Avenue Short Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r *T r I tT r T? IN Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time. (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Fri 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1782 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.721 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1347 1863 1583 1369 1583 150 3539 1583 138 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 83 14 26 41 4 83 7 1450 42 129 1765 10 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 94 16 30 47 5 95 8 1648 48 145 1983 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 82 0 0 16 0 0 2 Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 16 4 0 52 13 8 1648 32 145 1983 9 Tum Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 49.8 48.8 48.8 59.8 53.8 53.8 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 51.8 49.8 49.8 60.8 54.8 54.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.65. 0.63 0.63 0.77 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 249 211 183 211 139 2220 993 250 2443 1093 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.00 0.47 c0.05 c0.56 v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.06 0.02 0.28 0.06 0.06 0.74 0.03 0.58 0.81 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 32.0 30.1 29.9 31.0 30.0 8.8 10.3 5.6 12.7 8.7 3.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.2 2.3 0.1 3.2 3.1 0.0 Delay (s) 34.8 30.2 29.9 31.8 30.2 9.0 12.6 5.7 16.0 11.7 3.8 Level of Service C C C C C A B A B B A Approach Delay (s) 33.2 30.8 12.4 12.0 Approach LOS C C . B B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 13.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph 4/4/2007 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Cameron Drive & College Avenue Short Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi t r 4 r 1i Tt r 11 tt if Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 . 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1883 1583 1797 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Said Flow (perm) 1323 1863 1583 1454 1583 442 3539 1583 132 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 19 4 6 47 17 153 26 1878 20 90 917 55 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 5 7 53 19 174 30 2134 23 106 1079 65 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 6 0 0 95 0 0 6 0 0 20 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 5 1 0 72 79 30 2134 17 106 1079 45 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 55.4 53.4 53.4 59.6 55.5 55.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 57.4 54.4 54.4 61.8 56.5 56.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.70 0.66 0.66 0.75 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 241 204 188 204 358 2345 1049 201 2435 1089 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.00 c0.60 c0.03 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.05 c0.05 0.06 0.01 0.36 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.38 0.39 0.08 0.91 . 0.02 0.53 0.44 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 31.7 31.2 31.2 32.8 32.8 4.0 1.1.8 4.7 17.1 5.7 4.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.1 6.7 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 Delay (s) 32.0 31.3 31.2 34.1 34.0 4.1 18.4 4.7 19.6 6.3 4.2 Level of Service C C C C C A B A B A A Approach Delay (s) 31.7 34.0 18.1 7.3 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 15.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group I , Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 4/2/2007 APPENDIX D .z 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Fairway Lane & College Avenue Short Bkgd PM -► 7 'r ~' 't `\ 1 /' �► j r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ A Vi tT r Vi tT r Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 3 0 7 6 0 9 2 1537 13 18 1880 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Hourly flow rate (vph) 4 0 .8 7 0 11 2 1727 15 20 2112 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 1 1 Upstream signal (ft) 710 ' pX, platoon unblocked 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 vC, conflicting volume 3031 3899 1056 2836 3887 863 2115 1742 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 2153 2153 1731 1731 ' vC2, stage 2 conf vol 879 1746 1105 2155 vCu, unblocked vol 3540 4835 1056 3249 4817 303 2115 1614 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 91 100 96 86 100 98 99 92 cM capacity (veh/h) 37 38 222 50 41 464 255 268 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 NB 4 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 SB 4 Volume Total 4 8 7 11 2 863 863 15 20 1056 1056 2 Volume Left 4 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 ' Volume Right 0 8 0 11 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 2 cSH . 37 222 50 464 255 1700 1700 1700 268 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.51 0.51 0.01 0.08 0.62 0.62 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 3 11 2 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 110.7 21.9 89.0 12.9 19.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS F C F B C C Approach Delay (s) 48.5 43.4 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS E E Intersection Summary ' Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 u I ' Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11 /2/2006