HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY SAFEWAY, BLOCKBUSTER - FINAL - 33-94C - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY (3)LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level -of -service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of
delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel
consumption, and lost travel time. Delay is a complex measure, and is
dependent on a. number of variables, including the quality of [the
signal] progression, the cycle length, the green time ratio, and the v/c
ratio for the lane group or approach in question.
Level -of -service A describes operations with very low delay, i.e.,
less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is
extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.
Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also
contribute to low delay.
Level -of -service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1
to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good
progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS
A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Level -of -service C describes operations with delay in the range of
15.1 to 25 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may
begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is
significant at this level, although many still pass through the
intersection without stopping.
Level -of -service D describes operations with delay in the range of
25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of
congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c
ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping
declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
Level -of -service E describes operations with delay in the range of
40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of
acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle
failures are frequent occurances.
Level -of -service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0
seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most
drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when
arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also
occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures.
Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing
causes to such delay levels.
' Excerpted from Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209,
Transportation Research Board, national Research Council, Washington
D.C., 1985.
I
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
' The level of service criteria are given in Table A. As used here, total
delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at
the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this
time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -
in -queue position to the first -in -queue position.
The average total delay for any particular minor movement is a function
of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of
saturation.
Average total delay less than 5 sec/veh is defined as Level of Service
(LOS) A. Follow-up times of less than 5 sec have been measured when
there is no conflicting traffic for a minor street movement, so this
range is appropriate. To remain consistent with the All Way Stop
Controlled intersection analysis procedure, a total delay of 45 sec/veh
is assumed as the break point between LOS E and F.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
TABLE A.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA
FOR TRW INTERSE(TICNS
AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY
(SEC/VER)
<5
>5 and <10
>10 and <20
>20 and 730
>30 and <45
>45
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209, Third
Edition. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council. Washington, D.C., 1994.
APPENDIX B
Level of Service Definitions
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
This study assessed the traffic impacts of constructing the
Safeway - Harmony Village Center commercial development at
Harmony Road and McMurray Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado.
As a result of the analysis, the following conclusions were
drawn:
The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated
at the following intersections: Harmony/Lemay, Harmony/
McMurray, Lemay/Wheaton, Wheaton/Monte Carlo, Harmony/Whea-
ton, McMurray/Monte Carlo, and the access drives.
Traffic impact analysis was performed for the Years 1997 and
2015. The future background traffic (without project) and
total traffic conditions, with completion of the proposed
project, were evaluated.
The results of the intersection operational analysis
indicate that, for the Year 1997 background traffic con-
ditions (without project), each of the study intersections
are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service.
After completion of the proposed project, each of the study
intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels
of service.
The results of the intersection operation analysis for the
Year 2015 background traffic conditions (without project)
indicate that each of the study intersections would operate
at an acceptable level of service, with the exception of
Lemay/Wheaton. The left -turn and through movements from
Wheaton are projected to experience long delays.
The results of the intersection operation analysis for the
Year 2015 total traffic conditions, after completion of the
proposed project, indicate each of the study intersections
will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service,
with the exception of Lemay/Wheaton. As expected, this
location would continue to experience delays to traffic on
1 Wheaton.
11
21
1�
The levels of service for Year 2015 total traffic condi-
tions, after completion of the proposed project, are pro-
vided in Table 5. These results indicate that the study
intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels
of service, with the exception of Lemay/Wheaton. The left -
turn and through movements from Wheaton are expected to
continue to experience long delays. This is a typical
condition of intersections of collector streets and arterial
streets. A review of the projected traffic volumes for Year
2015 total traffic conditions indicate that signalization
would most likely not be warranted.
l:
I
I
II
1
1
20
1
TABLE 5 (concluded)
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Wheaton/Access Drive
(stop -control)
EB L/T
B
EB R
A
WB L/T
B
WB R
A
NB L
A
SB L
A
McMurray/Access Drive
(stop -control)
EB L/T
B
EB R
A
WB L/T/R
B
NB L
A
SB L
A
Harmony/Access Drive
(stop -control)
SB R A
KEY:
Signalized Intersection - LOS(delay/v/c ratio)
B
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
C
A
A
B
19
TABLE 5
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Harmony/Lemay
(signal)
C(19.1/0.835)
D(27.1/0.904)
Harmony/McMurray
(signal)
C(16.6/0.773)
C(24.4/0.973)
Lemay/Wheaton/Whalers
(stop -control)
EB L/T
E
F
EB R
A
A
WB L/T
F
F
WB R
A
A
NB L
A
A
SB L
A
A
Wheaton/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
WB L/R
A
A
SB L
A
A
Wheaton/Harmony
(stop -control)
NB R
B
A
SB R
A
A
EB L
B
C
WB L
C
B
McMurray/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
EB L/T/R
A
A
WB L/T/R
A
B
NB L
A
A
SB L
A
A
(continued)
18
TABLE 4
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Harmony/Lemay
(signal) C(17.2/0.739) C(23.6/0.863)
Harmony/McMurray
(si "al) C(15.6/0.719) C(15.1/0.822)
g
Lemay/Wheaton/Whalers
(stop -control)
EB L/T
D
EB R
A
WB L/T
E
WB R
A
NB L
A
SB L
A
Wheaton/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
WB L/R
A
SB L
A
Wheaton/Harmony
(stop -control)
NB R
B
SB R
A
EB L
A
WB L
C
McMurray/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
EB L/T/R
A
WB L/T/R
A
NB L
A
SB L
A
KEY:
Signalized Intersection -
LOS(delay/v/c ratio)
E
A
F
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
17
TABLE 3 (concluded)
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Wheaton/Access Drive
(stop -control)
EB L/T
B
B
EB R
A
A
WB L/T
B
B
WB R
A
A
NB L
A
A
SB L
A
A
McMurray/Access Drive
(stop -control)
EB L/T
B
B
EB R
A
A
WB L/T/R
B
B
NB L
A
A
SB L
A
A
Harmony/Access Drive
(stop -control)
SB R
A
B
KEY:
Signalized Intersection - LOS(delay/v/c ratio)
16
TABLE 3
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
Level of Service
AM Peak Sour PM Peak Hour
Harmony/Lemay
(signal)
C(16.4/0.719)
C(23.7/0.891)
Harmony/McMurray
(signal)
B(13.5/0.662)
C(15.4/0.740)
Lemay/Wheaton/Whalers
(stop -control)
EB L/T
C
D
EB R
A
A
WB L/T
C
D
WB R
A
A
NB L
A
A
SB L
A
A
Wheaton/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
WB L/R
A
A
SB L
A
A
Wheaton/Harmony
(stop -control)
NB R
A
A
SB R
A
B
EB L
A
B
WB L
B
B
McMurray/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
EB L/T/R
A
A
WB L/T/R
A
A
NB L
A
A
SB L
A
A
(continued)
15
TABLE 2
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
Level of Service
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Harmony/Lemay
(signal) C(15.2/0.665) C(19.8/0.833)
Harmony/McMurray
(si nal) B(12.8/0.549) B(14.1/0.626)
g
Lemay/Wheaton/Whalers
(stop -control)
EB L/T
C
EB R
A
WB L/T
C
WB R
A
NB L
A
SB L
A
Wheaton/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
WB L/R
A
SB L
A
Wheaton/Harmony
(stop -control)
NB R
A
SB R
A
EB L
A
WB L
B
McMurray/Monte Carlo
(stop -control)
EB L/T/R
A
WB L/T/R
A
NB L
A
SB L
A
KEY:
Signalized Intersection -
LOS(delay/v/c ratio)
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
14
IV.
Operational Analysis
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
The Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
techniques, as published in the Highway Capacity Manual by
the Transportation Research Board in 1985, were used to
analyze the following study intersections: Harmony/Lemay,
Harmony/McMurray, Lemay/Wheaton, Wheaton/Monte Carlo,
Harmony/Wheaton, McMurray/Monte Carlo, and the access
drives. These techniques allow for the determination of the
intersection level of service based on the congestion and
delay of each traffic movement.
Traffic analyses were completed for background traffic
(without project) and total traffic (with project) for the
Years 1997 and 2015. The results of these analyses are
provided in Tables 2 and 3 for Year 1997 and Tables 4 and 5
for Year 2015. Definitions of level of service are given in
Appendix B. The capacity worksheets are provided in
Appendix C.
The estimated intersection levels of service for Year 1997
background traffic conditions are shown in Table 2. The
results indicate that each of the existing study inter-
sections are expected to operate at an acceptable level of
service. Acceptable conditions are typically defined as a
Level of Service D or better (LOS A, B, C, or D).
Table 3 provides the estimated levels of service for Year
1997 total traffic conditions. As indicated in Table 3, it
the
is expected that by Year 1997, after completion of pro-
posed project, the study intersections would continue to
operate at acceptable levels of service.
Table 4 indicates the estimated levels of service for Year
2015 background traffic conditions. It should be noted that
'
the Year 2015 analysis assumed that Harmony Road would be
improved to a six -lane cross section.
Additionally, based upon previously conducted traffic
studies, the intersection of Harmony/Lemay would be improved
to provide dual northbound left -turn lanes and separate
right -turn lanes on each approach. These improvements were
assumed in the Year 2015 analyses. As indicated in Table 4,
each of the study intersections are projected to operate at
an acceptable level of service, with the exception of
Lemay/Wheaton. Table 4 indicates that the left -turn and
through traffic movements from Wheaton are expected to
experience long delays.
13
4
N
Not to Scale
Whalers Way
m
a 163/188
-*--- 33131
L 104182
a r
2/4
CW 36 I f r 16 J `� �
52/--� N CD
s �51�,2 Monte Carlo Drive I. 8
24/45
N �7
45/46 y �. 7/13 I t r
107/21
R 49110�
N O
CD
o�= I;- Any
L— 83/123 9 u�i L- 1 an e
f-- 5/10 N to a f— Nominal
L42162 SITE J ! L 27/37
45/25 t r 21/31 t r
5110 ---a- ,n 0 N Nominal -+ � $
25/15 11881277
O N C1 cn
Q ` N N t^O
5i �, L W25 L-43/63 % � a � L— 83/106
40 N N 1,002/1,758 m t--1261R,148-0 L 33 'm^ r-1399/2,189
1 L 1981369 Harmony Road F-12SM35 � � 1,419/2,340 J 1 � 1501100
95/204 85/119 r 2,110/1,639 -� 182l160 --II t r
1,881h,240 —� t 1,985/1,444 1'940fl'396 -- o a
2201300 200/150 —� 55i 300/120 a
N N
N
!!
m
7
C
Q C
O
J 3 �
Figure 7
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
AM/PM Peak Hour
4
N
Not to Scale
Whalers Way
mm
_ N �
153/178
M `)
L73/57
�— 23722
a =
113
36415
r
N P
1
-o— 4/17
5/12
ao�� Monte Carlo Drive
17/31 —�
31/32"
5/9
I r
R
75/15 ---e-
34/7
I
N ,n ,0
�m Q
N e
m
O r
i
83/123
Ifl lYl
�' j
12/12
J L
-a— 5/10
42/62
N 1O I"
J 1 L
f— Nominal
19/26
f—
SITE
F-
45/25 --1
1 t r
21/31 --1
1 t r
5/10 ---
25115 —i
,n w N
Nominal —+
1681277 �
o
le
mM
45187
Of
38/58 A
W
in;
72194
--71211,246 co
151/276
.4-893/1,518� 23/33
90/110
^ I
L
—99a1,548
67/s3
Harmony Road
f-1,128/1,748
j
67/142
t r
e0/114
r 1,496/1,178
14W142 —�
I t r
1,194/896 —+
150/200
o N 40
1,406/1,038 —►
90/40
v
1,354/974 —�
114/52
e N ,0
_
In
� N N
Q1
7
7
C
Q
E
t
�
3
�
Figure 6
TOTAL TRAFFIC - YEAR 1997
AM/PM Peak Hour
Whalers Way
e;
90/65
L104/62
-a— 33/31
52136
-� t r
24/45'--►
N
O N
45/46
� C4 S
V3��
Ln
04
Cm Ln
64/125
20/30
�o NI N
L
f— 96a/130 96 v
6Harmony
f-1,219/2,086
1251135
1
Road
J7—
95/204 -j
I
t r
15120 �
r
1,611/1,141 --- *-
N U
1,915/1,345 —►
220/300
200/150
N
N Cf
3
4
N
Not to Scale
N �
§
L— 2/4
1 L
6/24
7/19
i—
7/13
-1 t r
107/21
49/10
CO 0
a
O
w� � � L-36/40
-a--1,35312,123
J1 L f— 150/100
1122/61
t r
1,94011,396 —�
300/120''
o cc
o a
N
N N
d
7
C
d
Q
W
t
7
C1
Figure 5
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC - YEAR 2015
AM/PM Peak Hour
1 .
1
1
Whalers Way
1 t�i n 70/55
•— 23/22
LF-73/57
1 36125 f r
17/31 —► o o
1 31l32to
1
1pj5z Monte Carlo Drive
S
� � �
45187
N
lsns
v
f-670/1,184 �'+-851/1,456
109/214
90/110
Harmony Road
1
67/142
t r
10/15
r
'
124l797 ---►
150/200
o N i.
C S
aw
1,3361939
90/40
e
7
C
Q
�1 T
l0
J
SITE
4
Not to Scale
5
1/3
N w
�- 4/17
j1 L
5/12
5/9
75/15 —►
34/7
a
�o
25/28
f— 944/1,482
67/83
78/43 --1
1 t
r
1,3541974 ---
v 9
114/52
m
r
0
4)
3
C
Q
W
7
V
Figure 4
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC — YEAR 1997
AM/PM Peak Hour
r
Whalers Way
�
rL 83/123
1
1
1
1
1
-a— 42/62
42/62
Harmony Road
' 70/99 —► Qr
0
n
7
r
c
Q
io
1
J
1
4
N
Not to Scale
e
Monte Carlo Drive
N
t
N
m
93/123
L
-a— 5/10
42/62
F- SITE
-�
1 21/31
N
188/277
m
19
23/33 23/33
42/62J + L� 46/66
1-6-65195 �— 46/66
70/99 70/99 —► 70/99 I
70/99 —►
r
3 2
Figure 3
SITE -GENERATED TRAFFIC
AM/PM Peak Hour
Whalers Way
4
N
Not to Scale
> c a
r
a o t
� m o
E 3 �
J
Figure 2
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
III. TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
Trip Distribution
The overall directional distribution of the site -generated
traffic was determined based on the location of the site
within the City of Fort Collins. Additionally, in an effort
to determine the distribution to and from the north, travel
time studies were conducted. The results of these studies
assisted in determining the northern distribution on Wheaton
and McMurray/Ticonderoga. The overall trip distribution
used in the analysis of this report is shown on Figure 2.
Traffic Assignment
Traffic assignment is how the generated and distributed
trips are expected to be loaded on the roadway network. The
site -generated trip assignments are shown on Figure 3.
Current background traffic for the area was developed using
recent traffic counts at the intersections of Harmony/
Lemay, Harmony/McMurray, Lemay/Wheaton, Wheaton/Monte Carlo,
Harmony/Wheaton, McMurray/Monte Carlo. Additionally, traf-
fic projections for the development of adjacent properties
were obtained from recently conducted traffic studies. The
Year 1997 background traffic is shown on Figure 4, and the
traffic count data are included in Appendix A. Background
traffic for Year 1997 was estimated by factoring the traffic
volumes by two percent per year, to reflect overall growth
in the study area, and adding traffic from nearby proposed
developments.
Year 2015 background traffic was estimated by increasing the
recent traffic counts by two percent per year, resulting in
a total increase of 49 percent. The Year 2015 traffic
projections also account for other proposed development
within the study area. The estimated background traffic for
Year 2015 is shown on Figure 5.
Site -generated traffic was combined with the background
traffic to determine total projected traffic in the study
area for Years 1997 and 2015. The resulting total traffic
projections are provided on Figures 6 and 7 for Years 1997
and 2015 respectively.
6
II. DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES
Trip Generation
Standard traffic generation characteristics compiled by the
Institute of. Transportation Engineers in their report
entitled Trip Generation, revised 1991 and updated February
1995, were applied to the proposed land uses in order to
estimate the daily, AM, and PM peak hour vehicle trips for
the site. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle
movement from a point of origin to a point of destination.
Table 1 illustrates the projected daily, AM, and PM peak
hour traffic volumes generated by the proposed land uses.
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION
ITE
AM Peak
Hour
PM
Peak
Hour
Land Use
units
Code
ADT
in
out
tot
in
out
tot
Grocery Store
48
KSF
850
4,960
67
29
96
253
243
496
Retail
40.3
KSF
814
1,639
124
134
258
113
86
199
Restaurant
12
KSF
832
2,134
91
87
178
87
68
155
Fast Food
3.8
KSF
834
2,698
108
104
212
72
67
139
Bank
4.6
KSF
912
1,220
29
22
51
96
105
201
Day Care
6.6
KSF
565
523
46
40
86
42
48
90
TOTAL
13,174
465
416
881
663
617
1,280
Trip Reductions
Combining uses such as the day care, grocery store, and bank
results in an overlapping of trips (where an individual
would visit each of the uses without leaving the site). A
ten percent reduction for internal trips was applied to
account for these combined trips. No other trip reductions,
such as pass -by or diverted link trips, were used.
5
Existing and Future Street System
Within the study area, there would be four primary roadways
which would accommodate traffic to and from the proposed
project: Lemay Avenue, Wheaton Drive, Harmony Road, and
McMurray Avenue. A brief description of each of these
roadways is provided below.
Lemay Avenue is a four -lane north/south arterial street with
' bike lanes. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. The
intersection of Lemay/Wheaton/Whalers is stop -controlled for
Wheaton/Whalers. The intersection of Lemay/Harmony is
signalized.
Wheaton Drive is a north/south collector street adjacent to
the project site. North of the project site it curves to
the west and connects with Lemay Avenue at Whalers Way.
This is a two-lane street with bike lanes. The speed limit
is posted at 30 mph. The T-intersection of Wheaton/Monte
Carlo is stop -controlled for Monte Carlo. The intersection
of Wheaton/Harmony is stop -controlled for Wheaton and is
restricted to right -turns only from Wheaton.
Harmony Road is.a four -lane east/west state highway, SH 68,
which serves the City of Fort Collins. Harmony Road has an
interchange with Interstate 25 to the east of the project
site. There is a grassy median currently on Harmony Road.
The intersections of Harmony at both Lemay and McMurray are
signalized. The speed limit is currently posted at 50 mph.
It is anticipated that by Year 2015 this roadway would be
improved to accommodate three travel lanes in each direc-
tion.
McMurray Avenue is a two-lane north/south street which
boarders the eastern side of the project site. To the north
of the project site, McMurray turns into Ticonderoga Drive
and serves the residential areas. The intersection of
McMurray and Monte Carlo is stop -controlled for Monte Carlo.
11 4
4
N
Not to Scale
N
I. INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact study addresses the capacity, geometric,
and control requirements associated with the proposed
Safeway - Harmony Village Center commercial development at
Harmony Road and McMurray Avenue in the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado. The site location is shown in Figure 1.
`Site Location
The site is located on the north side of Harmony Road
between Wheaton Drive and McMurray Avenue. The study area
to be examined in this traffic impact analysis encompasses
the following intersections: Harmony Road and Lemay Avenue,
Harmony Road and McMurray Avenue, Lemay Avenue and Wheaton
Drive/Whalers Way, Wheaton Drive and Monte Carlo Drive,
Harmony Road and Wheaton Drive, McMurray Avenue and Monte
Carlo Drive and the proposed access drives.
Existing and Proposed Land Uses
The land for this development is currently vacant. The
proposed project would include the following uses: a
48,000-square-foot Safeway grocery store, approximately
40,300 square feet of retail, 12,000 square feet of sit-down
restaurants, a 3,800-square-foot fast food restaurant with
drive through window, a 4,600-square-foot drive-in bank, and
a 6,000-square-foot day care. It is anticipated that the
project would be completed by Year 1997.
Site Access
The proposed site plan allows for three access drives to
serve the project site. The driveways would provide access
to Wheaton Drive, McMurray Avenue, and Harmony Road. The
access drives to Wheaton and McMurray would allow for full
traffic movements into and out of the site. These two
driveways would also be located across from existing or
proposed driveways. The proposed access drive from Harmony
Road would be restricted to right -turns into and out of the
site only.
F
SAFEWAY - HARMONY VILLAGE CENTER
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
January, 1996
Prepared for:
Safeway Inc.
6900 S. Yosemite
Englewood, Colorado 80112
Prepared by:
Krager and Associates, Inc.
1390 Stuart Street Carriage House
Denver, Colorado 80204
(303) 446-2626
590SAF.WPS
1
Safeway/Harmony Village Center
Fort Collins, Colorado
Traffic Impact Study
1
1
Krager and Associates, Inc.