Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RIDGEVIEW CLASSICAL SCHOOL, REVISED PHASE IV ADDITION - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 16-01B - REPORTS - TRAFFIC STUDY
CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSK Project Description N1. •. EB WB NB SIB Lane group L TR L T R L TR L TR Adj. flow rate 117 150 128 106 106 128 1828 94 928 Satflow rate 1805 1763 1805 1900 1615 1805 3579 1805 3587 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.28 0.16 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.64 0.52 0.64 0.52 Lane group cap. 332 279 295 301 256 402 1879 213 1883 v/c ratio 0.35 0.54 0.43 0.35 0.41 0.32 0.97 0.44 0.49 Flow ratio 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.51 0.26 Crit. lane group N Y N N N N Y N N Sum flow ratios 0.74 Lost time/cycle 20.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.89 Mnane�Grou C ac LIT :Con rol D_ela -� a c.�rrd; : EB WB NB SB Lane group L TR L T R L TR L TR Adj. flow rate 117 150 128 106 106 128 1828 94 928 Lane group cap. 332 279 295 301 256 402 1879 213 1883 v/c ratio 0.35 0.54 0.43 0.35 0.41 0.32 0.97 0.44 0.49 Green ratio 0.28 0.16 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.64 0.52 0.64 0.52 Unif. delay d1 33.9 46.5 34.3 45.0 45.5 9.5 27.7 25.5 18.3 Delay factor k 0.50 10.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.9 7.2 4.6 3.2 4.9 2.1 15.3 6.5 0.9 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.726 1.000 0.726 Control delay 36.8 53.7 38.9 48.2 50.4 11.6 35.4 1 32.0 14.2 Lane group LOS D D D D D B D I B Apprch. delay 46.3 45.4 33.8 15.8 Approach LOS D D C B Intersec. delay 30.7 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d VOLUME ADJL rMENT AND SATURATION FLOC. -,ATE WORKSHEET GeneralTlnforma11 Project Description EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 105 70 65 115 95 145 115 1550 95 85 800 35 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow Rate 117 78 72 128 106 106 128 1722 106 94 889 39 Lane Group L TR L T R L TR L TR Adj. flow rate 117 150 128 106 106 128 1828 94 928 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 - 0.480 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.058 0.000 -- 0.042 Sa. u.r..aW. Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 f9 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 f-T 0.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 Secondary f-T 0.499 - 0.397 -- 0.238 - 0.060 fRT - 0.928 - 1.000 0,850 -- 0.991 - 0.994 fLpb 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - fRpb - 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1805 1763 1805 1900 1615 1805 3579 1805 3587 Sec. adj. satflow 949 - 755 - 451 113 - FULL REPORT G.e a[a Analyst GC Intersection LEMAY- STUART Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/ 004 Jurisdiction Time Period AAMPM Analysis Year 2010 Grade = 0 0 2 1 i i Grade = 0 $ipW NOfUllurdw T =R =L 0 T R rt� Grade = 0 = LT = L R - .._ ,_ ._,....�... Grade = 0 •r = L T R 1 2 0 A pl it EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 105 70 65 115 95 1145 115 1550 95 85 800 35 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 4 3 4 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N I I N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left I NS Perm 07 08 G= 10.0 G= 19.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 63.0 G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 5 1Y= Y= 4 IY= 5 1 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 lCycle Length C = 120.0 ,APACITY AND LOS WORKSH" GeneraI - ORM Project Description Ca ace EB WB NB SB Lane group L TR L T R L TR L TR Adj. flow rate 111 211 156 139 139 106 1517 144 1389 Satflow rate 1805 1795 1805 1900 11615 1805 3536 1805 3578 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.50 0.62 0.50 Lane group cap. 338 329 279 348 296 238 11768 213 1789 v/c ratio 0.33 0.64 0.56 0.40 0.47 0.45 0.86 0.68 0.78 Flow ratio 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.43 0.39 Crit. lane group N Y N N N N Y N N Sum flow ratios 0.71 Lost time/cycle 20.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.85 Lane Grou .Ga aci -ontrOWDeta and L�QS Determma. Pon_tr�: EB WB NB SB Lane group L TR L T R L TR L TR Adj. flow rate 111 211 156 139 139 106 1517 144 1389 Lane group cap. 338 329 279 348 296 238 1768 213 1789 v/c ratio 0.33 0.64 0.56 0.40 0.47 0.45 0.86 0.68 0.78 Green ratio 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.18 0.18 0.62 0.50 0.62 0.50 Unif. delay d1 31.6 45.3 33.0 43.2 43.8 16.7 26.3 26.8 24.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.6 9.3 7.9 3.4 5.3 5.9 5.7 15.9 3.4 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.767 1 1.000 0.767 Control delay 34.2 54.6 40.9 46.6 49.1 22.6 25.8 42.7 22.2 Lane group LOS C D D D D C C D C Apprch. delay 47.6 45.3 1 25.6 24.1 Approach LOS D D I C C Intersec. delay 29.0 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved version �. to VOLUME ADJL _ WENT AND SATURATION FLO4..wTE WORKSHEET e eea In o . Mat 10 1V '; Project Description . .: .. .. tiAIlf Volume"Ad ustms� C"iO +�"al. 3 K ..��., EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 100 120 70 140 125 125 95 1180 185 130 1175 75 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow Rate 111 133 78 156 139 139 106 1311 206 144 1306 83 Lane Group L TR L T R L TR L TR Adj. flow rate 111 211 156 139 139 106 1517 144 1389 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 - 0.370 0.000 - 0.000 0.000 - 0.136 0.000 0.060 Sa P Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fa 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 fLU 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 fLT 0.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 -- 0.950 1.000 - 0.950 1.000 -- Secondary fLT 0.457 - 0.313 -- 0.087 0.063 fRT - 0.945 - 1.000 0.850 - 0.980 -- 0.991 fLpb 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 -- 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fRpb - 1.000 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.000 1 -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1805 1795 1805 1900 1615 1805 3536 1805 3578 Sec. adj. satflow 869 - 594 -- 165 119 - FULL REPORT Ge en'rano�m"affor� 19� it 1 - I ■���'�' Intersection LEMAY - STUART ." Analyst GC Agency or Co. Area Type Al! other areas Date Performed 41212QQ4 Jurisdiction Time Period A PM Analysis Year 2010 Grade = 0 0 2 1 - - T7 - --{. Grade = 0 S110Mt Nartll MaY T 1 - = R -41 _. L 0 - -- -=TR Grade = 0 = LT = LR Grade = 0 114r = L T R 1 2 0 luineN�an m n n EB WB NB SIB LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 100 120 70 140 125 1125 95 11180 185 130 11175 1 75 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 1 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N. N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 G= 10.0 G= 22.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= 60.0 G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C = 120.0 � ,JO WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMo`Y General information.. Analyst GC Intersection LEMAY - ACCESS Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/21 4 Analysis Year 2010 Analysis Time Period AM Project Description East/West Street: ACCESS North/South Street: LEMAY Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes. Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 1380 65 65 1320 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1380 92 92 1320 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 80 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourlv Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 0 114 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Del'a"Queue"Leh tti�iand eel o et,�t: , Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 92 114 C (m) (vph) 464 392 v/c 0.20 0.29 95% queue length 0.73 1.19 Control Delay 14.7 17.9 LOS 8 C Approach Delay — 17.9 Approach LOS — C Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.td Version 4.1 d T"'O-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMAPY Analyst GC Intersection LEMAY - ACCESS Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 004 Analysis Year 2010 Analysis Time Period M Project Description East/West Street: ACCESS North/South Street: LEMAY Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Y`Mcle Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 1590 110 110 870 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1590 157 157 870 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 170 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 242 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I R D.e"la " Queu n t e' Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v(vph) 157 242 C(m)(vph) 364 335 v/c 0.43 0.72 95% queue length 2.10 5.35 Control Delay 22.2 39.3 LOS C E Approach Delay - — 39.3 Approach LOS - E Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1d eilf Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period T"VO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GC Intersection Jurisdiction 4/2/2 04 Analysis Year A STUART-ACCESS 2010 Project Description East/West Street: STUART North/South Street: ACCESS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 40 215 125 20 250 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 40 215 178 28 250 5 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 - - 0 - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration L T R L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 165 0 60 5 0 45 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 235 0 85 7 0 64 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR CohtrogDela a EB e; WB Northbound Southbound Approach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LTR Volume, v (vph) 40 28 235 85 71 Capacity, cm (vph) 1322 1177 441 830 720 v/c ratio 0.03 0.02 0.53 1 0.10 0.10 Queue length (95%) 0.09 0.07 3.06 0.34 0.33 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 8.1 22.1 9.8 10.5 LOS A A C A B Approach delay s/veh 18.8 10.5 Approach LOS I C B HCS20007M Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. t d Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMM/`RY GC Intersection Jurisdiction 4/ 2004 Analysis Year M PM STUART-ACCESS 2010 Project Description East/West Street: STUART North/South Street: ACCESS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 �' ia"'>Tij V(Xrj 1>x Y Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 40 85 170 50 230 10 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 40 85 242 71 230 10 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 - 0 -- - Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 .0 Lanes 1 i 1 1 1 0 Configuration L T R L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 120 0 50 5 0 5 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Hourly Flow Rate veh/h 171 0 71 7 0 7 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Contro I ela UOU Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LTR Volume, v (vph) 40 71 171 71 14 Capacity, cm (vph) 1339 1244 479 980 541 v/c ratio 0.03 0.06 0.36 0.07 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.09 0.18 1.60 0.23 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 8.1 16.6 1 9.0 11.8 LOS A A C A B Approach delay s/veh _ 14.4 11.8 Approach LOS -- - B B HCS2000M Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4 1d Rocky Mountain Counts 1106 Cherry Court Default Comments Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Change These in The Prefer-Ehm srW680641-0445 Fax (303) 857-9191 Select File/Preference in the Main Scree Then Click the Comments Tab File Name : G2 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 02/27/2004 Page No :1 RIDGEWAY STUART ST RIDGEWAY STUART ST From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 31 11 1 2 0 5 1 33 10 5 0 103 07:15 AM 1 0 0 1 1 54 27 1 8 0 43 0 104 7 6 0 253 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 5 55 35 4 25 0 45 0 90 26 12 2 299 07:45 AM 2 0 1 1 2 52 2 0 6 0 12 1 7 30 16 0 132 Total 3 0 1 41 10 192 75 61 41 0 105 21 234 73 39 21 787 Grand Total 3 0 1 4 10 192 75 6 41 0 105 2 234 73 39 2 787 Apprch % 37.5 0.0 12.5 50.0 3.5 I 67.8 26.5 2.1 27.7 0.0 70.9 1.4 67.2 I 21.0 11.2 0.6 I Total % 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.3 24.4 9.5 0.8 5.2 0.0 13.3 0.3 29.7 9.3 5.0 0.3 RIDGEWAY Out In Total 49 8 57 3 0 1 4 L Right Thrueft Peds '--1 o 0 S � (n �r-I' North C ym ~ C � - ~ 2712004 7:00:00 AM N ^' � ,tQ�-� 27/2004 7:45:00 AM w 0 a Unstufted ,o ao a go �E T r Left Thru Ri ht Peds 1051 01 411 2 ® 148 457 out In Total Rocky Mountain Counts 1106 Cherry Court North/South Street: Lemay Fort Lupton, CO 80621 File Name : Lemay & Stuart 10-15-03 East/West Street: Stuart Phone (303) 641-0445 Fax (303) UXb-CtWb : 00000066 Time: AM Start Date : 10/15/2003 Weather: Sunny Page No : 1 Lemay Stuart Lemay Stuart From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru ELeft Peds Right Thru Left I Peds Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:30 AM 9 164 19 0 40 24 38 0 22 425 34 0 16 15 24 0 830 07:45 AM 5 167 20 0 28 18 13 1 23 346 20 0 15 14 20 2 692 Total 14 331 39 0 68 42 51 1 45 771 54 0 31 29 44 2 1522 08:00 AM 5 186 23 01 30 15 23 1 18 298 28 0 11 16 17 2 673 08:15 AM 10 174 11 1 27 24 24 0 17 266 18 0 13 17 29 0 631 "'BREAK "' Total 15 360 34 1 1 57 39 47 1 35 564 46 01 24 33 46 2 1304 "'BREAK "' 12:00 PM 16 279 19 3 14 12 19 0 4 226 9 0 22 13 14 1 651 12:15 PM 15 312 20 0 14 11 23 1 13 191 13 0 5 16 23 0 657 12:30 PM 14 209 19 0 12 12 15 0 11 205 11 0 20 11 17 0 556 12:45 PM 12 230 16 0 21 13 15 0 15 242 12 0 11 15 22 0 624 Total 57 1030 74 3 61 48 72 1 43 864 45 0 58 55 76 1 2488 "'BREAK "' 04:45 PM 21 397 12 0 I 16 21 33 0 I 12 250 25 0 I 20 21 31 2 05:00 PM 30 379 19 0 29 18 32 3 17 217 23 0 27 26 23 2 05:15 PM 25 427 30 0 30 22 34 0 10 233 24 0 21 26 30 0 Grand Total 185 3216 228 4 282 212 298 7 176 3149 235 1 199 209 289 10 Apprch % 5.1 88.5 6.3 0.1 35.3 26.5 37.3 0.9 4.9 88.4 6.6 0.0 28.1 29.6 40.9 1.4 Total % 2.1 37.0 2.6 0.0 3.2 2.4 3.4 0.1 2.0 36.2 2.7 0.0 2.3 2.4 3.3 0.1 768 861 1629 845 912 8700 Weather JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Counted by: TAS for Windows Site Code : 00000200402" Board N Copyright 1999 Start Date: 02/26/2004 Other File I.D. RIDGELEMAY Street name :RIDGEWAY ENT OFF LEMAY LNI-EXIT LN2-ENT Pate 1 Begin <------ 1------ ><------ 2------ >< ------ Combined ------> Thursday Time A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 12:00 02/26 12:15 I I - 12:30 I • I 12:45 01:00 I 1 01:15 I I 01:30 01:45 I • • 1 02:00 1 I 02:15 3 I 6 I 9 02:30 25 1 11 I 36 02:45 24 52 1 5 22 I 29 74 03:00 19 1 ' 4 I 23 03:15 4 I ` 4 I a 03:30 0 I 5 I 5 03:45 10 33 I ' 1 14 1 11 47 04:00 4 I 3 7 04:15 5 I 0 5 04:30 4 1 8 12 04:45 13 26 1 ' 12 23 1 25 49 05:00 4 1 4 8 05i15 2 I ` 6 I 8 05:30 4 I ' 7 1 11 05:45 2 12 I 5 22 I 7 34 06:00 6 I • 5 I 11 06:15 • 0 1 2 1 2 06:30 0 1 14 I • 14 06:45 2 8 1 1 22 1 3 30 07:00 0 1 0 I 0 07:15 0 I • 0 I 0 07:30 0 I 0 I 0 07:45 0 I 0 ' I • 0 ' 08:00 4 ` 0 4 08:15 2 I ' 2 I 4 08:30 0 ` 0 I 0 08:45 0 6 1 0 2 1 0 8 09:00 0 1 ' 0 I 0 09:15 0 1 0 I 0 09:30 0 1 0 I 0 09:45 0 I 0 I 0 ' 10:00 0 I 0 I 0 10:15 0 I 0 I 0 10:30 0 i 0 0 10:45 0 I 0 I ' 0 ' 11:00 0 I 0 I 0 11:15 0 I 0 1 0 11:30 0 I ' 0 I 0 11:45 0 ' I 0 • I • 0 Totals 0 137 0 105 0 242 Day Totals 137 105 242 Split 9 56.6% 43.3% Peak Hour 02:30 04:30 02:15 Volume 72 30 97 P.H.F. .72 .62 .67 Weather JAMAR Technologies, Inc. Counted by: _ TAS for Windows Site Code : 00000200402' Board k Copyright 1999 Start Date: 02/26/2004 Other File I.D. RIDGELEMAY Street name :RIDGEWAY ENT OFF LEMAY LN1-EXIT LN2-ENT Page . 2 Begin < ____ 1 ------ ><------ 2 ------ ><------ Combined ______> Friday Time A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 12:00 02/27 0 1 0 1 0 12:15 0 1 0 I 0 12:30 0 1 0 I 0 12:45 0 1 0 • I 0 01:00 0 0 i 0 01:15 0 0 I 0 01:30 0 1 0 I 0 01:45 0 1 0 • I 0 02:00 0 1 0 I 0 ' 02:15 0 1 0 I 0 02:30 0 1 0 1 0 02:45 0 1 0 • 1 0 03:00 0 1 0 I 0 03:15 0 1 0 1 0 03:30 0 1 0 1 0 03:45 3 3 a 1 3 3 I 6 6 ' 04:00 0 1 0 I- 0 04:15 2 1 1 I 3 04:30 1 1 0 I 1 04:45 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 4 05:00 0 1 0 1 0 05:15 0 1 0 1 0 05:30 0 ' 1 0 1 0 05:45 0 • 1 0 a I 0 a 06:00 0 1 4 I 4 06:15 2 1 12 1 14 06:30 2 1 1 1 3 06:45 14 18 ` 1 10 27 • 1 24 45 07:00 35 1 7 1 42 ' 07:15 51 1 17 1 68 07:30 22 I 8 1 30 ' 07:45 i • I 140 08:00 I 1 08:15 1 1 + 08:30 08:45 09:00 I • I 09:15 • I . • i 09:30 I i 09:45 i 10:00 I I 10:15 I • I 10:30 I • • I . 10:45 11:00 1 11:15 I I 11:30 I I + 11:45 • I I Totals 132 0 63 0 195 0 Day Totals 132 63 195 Split % 67.6% 32.3% Peak Hour 06:45 06:45 06:45 Volume 122 42 164 P.H.F. .59 .61 .60 Rocky Mountain Counts 1106 Cherry Court Default Comments Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Change These in The Prefer&tmm\(O6806&41-0445 Fax (303) 857-9191 Select File/Preference in the Main Scree Then Click the Comments Tab Groups Printed- Unshifted File Name : G3 Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 02/26/2004 Page No : 1 LEMAY STUART LEMAY STUART From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left I Peds Right Thru I Left I Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru I Left I Peds Int. Total Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.01 1.0 02:30 PM 24 252 23 0 20 3 12 1 43 230 14 0 10 27 24 1 684 02:45 PM 15 227 36 0 27 41 34 0 51 245 21 2 20 33 15 0 767 Total 39 479 59 0 47 44 46 1 94 475 35 2 30 60 39 1 4451 03:00 PM 5 248 33 2 31 33 49 0 37 253 23 4 18 26 25 0 787 03:15 PM 19 285 22 1 29 31 27 0 27 289 23 1 14 19 21 0 808 Grand Total 63 1012 114 3 107 108 122 1 158 1017 81 7 62 105 85 1 3046 Apprch % 5.3 84.9 9.6 0.3 31.7 32.0 36.1 0.3 12.5 80.5 6.4 0.6 24.5 41.5 33.6 0.4 Total % 2.1 33.2 3.7 0.1 3.5 3.5 4.0 0.0 5.2 33.4 2.7 0.2 2.0 3.4 2.8 0.0 Ll out In Total 1209 1192 2401 631 10121 1141 3 Right Thru Left Peds � 1 J = � O EI No th H n 2 r --1 -• 2 j- N N„ 6f2004 2:30:00 PM w 5 r - 612004 3:15:00 PM Furshill r o y �O - u+ T r Left Thru Right Peds 81 10171 1581 7 1 1-9-61 1263 2459 out In Total Rocky Mountain Counts, LLC. 1106 Cherry Ct. Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 Phone (303) 641-0445 Fax (303) 857-9191 (:rm Inc PriM.A- I lnc6Nferl File Name : RIDGE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 02/26/2004 Page No : 1 RIDGEWAY ENT Southbound STUART ST Westbound RIDGEWAY ENT Northbound STUART ST Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right o Left Thru Right t� Left ThN Right Total Total Factor 1.01 1.01 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.01 1.0 02:30 PM 02:45 PM 1 2 0 8 0 10 9 12 10 14 29 0 47 4 39 65 3 58 0 2 0 30 5 88 11 9 43 35 60 52 89 121 142 286 Total 3 0 18 21 24 76 4 104 61 0 32 93 20 103 87 210 428 03:00 PM 1 0 11 12 8 69 2 79 37 0 13 50 9 45 44 98 239 03:15 PM 2 0 15 17 2 54 0 56 23 0 4 27 13 36 16 65 165 Grand Total 6 0 44 50 34 199 6 239 121 0 49 170 42 184 147 373 832 Apprch % 12.0 0.0 88.0 14.2 83.3 2.5 71.2 0.0 28.8 11.3 49.3 39.4 Total % 0.7 0.0 5.3 6.0 4.1 23.9 0.7 28.7 14.5 0.0 5.9 20.4 5.0 22.1 17.7 44.8 RIDGEWAY ENT Out In Total 48 50 9B 44 0 6 Right Thru Left 4� 1 '-► 9 NO th m C C °' a0 t-► 62004 2:30:00 PM �2 �A ~ 62004 3:15:00 PM Q s � � � unsnlrted j-� w � OM a �E m- .+, T r Left Thru Ri ht 121 0 49 181 170 351 Out In Total RIDGEWAY T 4 — Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name le, p lew G'l�vsSie r .Yd'�ao / Project Location I—e w .y TIS Assumptions Type of Study Intermediate: Study Area Boundaries North: South: East: West: Study Years She�G.�, Long Range: 2020 Future Traffic Growth Rate Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5. 2. '�, 5f 6. 3. 7. 4. 8. Time Period for Study AM;. :00-9:00 005-4-017-1 Sat Noon: Trip Generation Rates Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: Captive Market: Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH ci^J c Mode Split Assumptions Committed Roadway Improvements JE- . Areas Requiring Special Study W [3 t. T- a 5 G Date: Traffi Local Larimer 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 SUMMARY Based on the above document analyses, investigations, and findings, the following can be concluded. 1. The school drop-off / pick-up plan should be modified to include: • Conversion of the Lemay access from right -in, right -out to three-quarter access. • Modifying the south lane on Stuart to a right -turn lane for traffic entering the school. • Changing the striping on eastbound Stuart, east of the school exit, to provide a bicycle lane and parking consistent with Stuart to the east. • Removal of the existing on -site speed bumps. • Modification of the traffic routes for student drop-off and pick-up to those shown on Figure 2. The action of course, is subject to adjustment and modification based upon issues that surface during implementation 2. The drop-off / pick-up plan should be capable of serving school needs until such time that 720 students are enrolled. It will likely remain viable beyond that point given the number of conservative assumptions upon which it is based. 3. Intersection operations will meet or exceed City standards at all site access points and the Lemay — Stuart intersection. 4. Improvements have been made to restrict students from cutting through nearby residences and east -west left turn phasing has been installed at the Lemay — Stuart intersection. Consequently, the issues prompting these improvements have already been addressed. 1 trust this report meets your current needs. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need additional assistance. Sincerely, �.`r��v��.�pw • aHFG s ; Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. _*;:_I 15945 c o%, Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Stuart — Access Stop EB LT A A WBLT A A NB LT C C NB RT A A SB LTITH/RT B B Lemay — Access Stop SB LT C B WBRT E C Lemay — Stuart Signal EB LT D C EB TH/RT D D WBLT D D WB TH D D WBRT D D NB LT B C NB TH/RT D C SB LT C D SB TH/RT B C Overall C C Based on the above determined levels of service, all traffic movements, all approaches, and all intersection levels of service will be very acceptable in the future. The indicated levels of service easily satisfy City level of service criteria. Closer scrutiny revealed that the combined left turn queue of left turning vehicles on Lemay between Stuart and the access will total 4 — 5 vehicles during peak hours. The available spacing between these intersections will easily accommodate these vehicles. Stacking on Stuart for westbound left turns onto Lemay can be regulated with the recent installation of east — west left turn phasing. 10 W J m V O Q O M 00 k-145/125 v 10/5 1 o ,� `o M m (o 4--95/125 U) U) 4— 230/250 115/140 1 50/20 Stuart 105/100 1 40/40 =4 1 70/120 — ► ,) 0 0 85/215 —► 0 0 65/70 co co 170/125 _0 tO 0 0 e" tD O N O N b � O M U � rD O O Go • 170/80 Driveway t I OD m m� 0 LEGEND: AMIPM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to Dearest 5 vetddes. Figure 3 2D10 SCHOOL PEAK HOUR TRAFRC it i I sru.xr Sm Right -tam Lane Grades 2-6 Orgy —� 1I V� LEGEND: ,3-- K & 1st Grades 4 Grades 2-6 X = Monitor Grades 2-6 Ordy — — —Parldng+Bike 10 InTt 4\ A u PROPOSED SITE PLAN Al s — NOTES: GRADES K - 1: ENTER LEMAY ONLY, EXIT STUART ONLY GRADES 2 - 6: ENTER STUART ONLY, EXIT STUART OR LEMAY L•J FUTURE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC School peak hour traffic for conditions some 6 years in the future was developed. This assumed that the school would reach an enrollment of some 720 students by that time. It also estimates traffic on Lemay and Stuart using annual growth in the range of 2'h% per year. Resultant future school peak hour traffic is shown on Figure 3. School traffic was shifted to the appropriate site access to reflect changes in the student drop-off / pick-up plan. No reductions in traffic were taken to reflect diverted traffic movements or use of the drop-off area along Stuart. FUTURE OPERATING CONDITIONS Operating conditions in 2010 were assessed using highway capacity analysis procedures. Levels of service for the site access points and the Lemay — Stuart intersection were determined. The new student pick-up / drop-off plan and increases in both street traffic and the number of students are fully considered in this effort. Resultant 2010 intersection levels of service are shown below. 7 An alternate traffic plan was conceptually prepared. The plan is based on the following desirable concepts: • Better balancing of traffic demands between both the Lemay and Stuart accesses. • Retention of the current drop-off and pick-up areas within the site. • Removal of the speed bumps to allow easier circulation. • Increasing the available waiting area for student drop-off and pick-up. • Providing a location where vehicles can drop-off or pick-up students without entering the site. The indicated concepts will promote a reduction in traffic congestion, more balanced traffic flows, less spillover onto adjacent streets, and more efficient operating conditions. Further study, review, and evaluation determined that the following actions would enhance and support the above concepts: • Assigning different grade levels to specific driveways for primary access and egress. • Modifying the existing right -in, right -out access to Lemay to allow southbound left turn turns into the school. • Converting the south lane on eastbound Stuart to a right -turn lane for vehicles entering the school. • Removal of the existing speed bumps. • Converting the south lane on Stuart (east of the school exit) to parking and a bicycle lane consistent with Stuart to the east. This will provide an off -site location for students to be dropped off or picked up. The above actions were developed into a new traffic plan to facilitate student drop-off and pick-up. The plan maximizes the amount of on -site waiting area and results in an increase of some 30% over current conditions. This increase should be sufficient to meet the current shortage and allow for future growth. The traffic plan is shown on Figure 2 and is considered conceptual at this time. It will need to be refined and adjusted prior to implementation; however, the guiding principles behind the plan are appropriate. A number of trips. In any event, as the student population increases, the number of overall site trips is expected to more closely reflect average conditions. Consequently, an increase in student enrollment will not cause a proportionate increase in site traffic. FUTURE SCHOOL TRAFFIC The school has stated that a practical growth target is 720 students with some 60 students in each grade. This reflects an increase of some 25% over the current enrollment. As indicated earlier, an increase in enrollment is not expected to result in a proportionate increase in site traffic. In order to conduct a conservative analysis of future conditions however, current school traffic was expanded by 25% to reflect the school's growth target. This reflects very conservative (high) school traffic demands. EVALUATION OF DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP PLAN All vehicles currently enter from Stuart at the beginning and end of school. These vehicles then proceed to either the K —1 or 2 — 6 pick-up / drop-off areas. Older students are dropped -off or picked up along the curb adjacent to the entrance to the school. Given the ages and number of students in the K - 6 group, these students represent the most severe condition. Observation and discussions with others concerning the current traffic plan resulted in the identification of the following deficiencies. • The use of only one access concentrates all entering traffic at one location. • On one observation, the queue of vehicles waiting to enter the site was long enough to cause 5 vehicles to back up onto Stuart. • The westbound left turn queue at the Stuart — Lemay intersection backed up and occasionally blocked vehicles trying to enter the site from the east on Stuart. In turn, those vehicles interfered with vehicles trying to exit the site. Vehicles are required to enter the site to drop-off students. • Speed bumps internal to the site hinder easy maneuvering. 5 CURRENT ISSUES The City and residents have identified a number of issues surrounding the school. These are generally stated below. Comments or responses are provided where appropriate. 1. Congestion and excessive traffic queues at the beginning and end of school. 2. Long westbound left turn queues at the Lemay — Stuart intersection. During the course of this study, it was mentioned to the City that east -west left turn phasing might decrease queue length at this intersection. The City considered this improvement and the identified phasing has been or will be installed. 3. Pedestrians crossing Stuart should be quantified and addressed if necessary. Eight pedestrians were observed crossing Stuart during the morning school peak hour with two observed during the afternoon peak hour. The number of pedestrians is considered nominal and therefore, no additional investigation is necessary. 4. Students cut through nearby residential areas to access the school. The school has recently installed a fence to prohibit this action. 5. School traffic backs onto Stuart at the beginning and end of school. Outstanding issues will be addressed in the following sections of this letter. SCHOOL TRAFFIC Driveway activity was counted at 620 morning peak hour trips and 445 afternoon peak hour trips. This includes vehicles associated with Children's World and Stuart Professional Park. School traffic is estimated at 570 morning trips and 425 afternoon trips after adjustment for trips related to other uses. Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, 'Trip Generation, Seventh Edition", a private school with grades K —12 and 580 students should generate 460 and 320 morning and afternoon peak hour trips, respectively. Therefore, Ridgeview is generating 25 — 30% more trips than expected for its current student population. This excess will likely lessen as older students become more prevalent and the number of students with siblings at the school increases. Older students could drive their siblings to school thereby reducing the 4 W J v Q N O_ R le� Z L125/107 o m 10/6 m0)M C-r m rn m-81/108 m o a 199/216 �. �-98/122 1 75/34 Stuart 90/85 1 1 39/42 1 62/105 —► rl m 73/184 —► o m N 55162 no o `' 234/147 o n o vs o V ao co I 122n2 Driveway uab N N a LEGEND: AMIPM Peak Four NOTE: 8 pedeshms were observed crossing Stuart during the nxmnuV peak hour with 2 observed during the Figure 1 afternoon peak hour. 2004 SCHOOL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 3 AGENCY DISCUSSIONS A scoping session and several discussions were held with Eric Bracke, City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Bracke asked that a review of current congestion during the beginning and end of school be undertaken in lieu of a normal traffic study. It was agreed that all needed bicycle and pedestrian facilities currently exist and therefore no multi -modal analysis was required. A Base Assumptions worksheet is attached. CURRENT CONDITIONS Ridgeview currently has about 580 students in grades K —12. The number of students is biased to the lower grades since the school is relatively new and the natural maturation process starts in the lower grades and progresses to the higher grades. School hours are 7:45 A.M. — 2:45 P.M. for grades 1 — 6 and 7:30 A.M. — 3:00 P.M. for grades 7 -12. Access is provided by two one-way driveways to Stuart and a right in — right out driveway to Lemay. Current school drop-off and pick-up plans require all traffic to enter from Stuart and exit to Stuart or Lemay. Both Stuart driveways have two lanes with the Lemay driveway having one exiting lane for northbound travel only. The west Stuart driveway (entrance only) is some 225 feet east of Lemay while the Lemay access is 390 feet south of Stuart. All access points are shared by Children's World and the school parking lot is shared by Stuart Professional Park. CURRENT TRAFFIC Traffic counts were undertaken at the beginning and end of school as part of this study. This included all accesses and the Lemay — Stuart intersection during the afternoon peak hour. The City provided morning peak hour counts at this intersection. Drop-off and pick-up activities were observed during both peak periods. Count data includes traffic associated with Children's World and Stuart Professional Park. Traffic data is provided on Figure 1. K Tel: 303-792-2450 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E. P.O. Box 260027 Fax: 303-792-5990 Ul ieton, CO 80163-0027 April 3, 2004 Mr. Larry Trampe Architectural Resource Group P. O. Box 271305 Fort Collins, CO 80527-1305 RE: Ridgeview Classical School Traffic Study 1800 South Lemay Fort Collins, CO Dear Mr. Mr. Trampe: I have assessed the traffic impacts of the expansion of Ridgeview Classical School in Fort Collins, Colorado. The assessment was conducted in conformance with City criteria. Key areas of investigation are documented in the following sections of this letter. PROJECT OVERVIEW Ridgeview Classical School (Ridgeview) is proposing to expand its current facility by some 11,675 square feet on two levels. This represents about a 20% increase. The current playground will be relocated to the north with the expansion located in the area of the existing playground. The new area will allow more room for elective classes such as band, orchestra and other such subjects, as well as, providing a less crowded environment. The expansion will not result in an increase in the student population. Tel: 303-792-2450 P.O. Box 260027 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E. Fax: 303-792-5990 March 13, 2006 Mr. Larry Trampe Architectural Resource Group P.O. Box 271305 Fort Collins, CO 80527-1305 RE: Ridgeview Classical School Transportation Impact Study Dear Mr. Trampe: Littleton, CO 80163-0027 The City has determined that an updated transportation impact study for Ridgeview Classi- cal School is not required. This determination is based on the following items as discussed with Eric Bracke. 1. The earlier study sufficiently addresses increases.in future enrollment. 2. Some of the recommended improvements contained in the earlier study have been implemented and have resulted in a noticeable improvement in traffic conditions. Other recommendations can be implemented in the future if deemed necessary. 3. The City has observed traffic conditions at the beginning and end of school on nu- merous occasions. Based on these observations, the City has determined that con- ditions are at least comparable, and perhaps better than most other schools. I trust this letter will meet your current needs. Please give me a call if you have any ques- tions or need additional assistance. Sincerely, 4X-4y Eugene G. Coppola, P.E.