HomeMy WebLinkAboutHANSEN FARM - PDP170036 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYHCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information
Intersection Information
Agency
Duration, h
0.25
Analyst
Analysis Date
7/30/2017
Area Type
Other
Jurisdiction
Time Period
Analysis Year
PHF
Analysis Period
0.92
1> 7:00
Urban Street
Intersection
TIMBERLINE - ZEPHYR
File Name
TIMBERLINE-ZEPHYR.xus
Project Description IST LT AM PM'
Demand Information
EB WB1 NB
Approach Movement
L
T R L
T R I L I T R
L T R
Demand v. , veh/h
85
10 45' .. 25` '
15 1 65< 1 65 .1190 35 :
90 .:1590 ` 80
Signal Information
Cycle, s 76.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point. Erid
Green
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'? ``•
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap ENV On
Yellow
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Force Mode Fixed Simult: Gap NIS On
Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
Timer Results
EBL
EBT
WBL WBT
NBL .
NOT
SBL,.::.
Assigned Phase
4
8
5
2
1 6
Case Number
6.0.;
6:0 .:.
1 1..1..
.. ;:3 0.. >
1:1 3.0`:•
Phase Duration, s
18.0
18.0
14.0
44.0
14.0 44.0
Change Period, (.Y+R o), s
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 .
Max Allow Headway (MAH), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
Queue. Clearance Time ( g z ), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0:0 '
0.0 0.0
Green Extension Time (g e ), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
Phase Call. Probability "
0.00.
0.00
0.00 .'
0.00
0.00. 0.00
Max Out Probability
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results
EB
WS .
NB
SB
Approach Movement
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
Assigned. Movement
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6..
16
Adjusted Flow Rate (v ), veh/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s), veh/h/In
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0_
0
0
0.
Queue Service Time (g s), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cycle. Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s :
0.0
0.0 ..
0.0
0.0.
0.0
; 0.0
. 0.0
0.0
'. 0.6 ::
' .0.0.
Green Ratio (g1C)
0.20
0.20
0.20 0.20
0.66
0.53
0.53
0.66
0.53
0.53
Capacity ( c), veh/h
298.
327 1
323
327
352
.1904
847'
435
1904
: 847
Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X)
0.310
0.183
0.094 0.266
0.201
0,679
0.045
0.225
0.908
0.103
Back of Queue ( Q ), I/In (50 th percentile)
41.6
23.9
11 35.7
16.9
180.6
7
13.5
327.2
16.7'
Back of Queue ( Q ), vehAn ( 50 th percentile)
1.7
1.0
0.4
1.4
0.7
7.2
0.3
0.5
13.1
0.7
Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ) (50 th percentile)
0.00
0.00
0.00'. 0.00:
0.00
0:00
1 0.00
.0,0.0
0.00
0.00
Uniform Delay ( d t ), s/veh
29.3
25.4
26.9 25.8
14.5
13.3
8.7
8.8
16.3
9.0
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh
2.7
1.2
0.5
2.0
1.3
2.0
0.1,
1.2
7.8
0.2
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Control Delay ( d), s/veh
32.0
26.6
27.4 27.8
15.8
15.2
8.8
16.0 :..24.1
9.3
Level of Service (LOS)
C
C
C
C
B
B
A
B
C
A
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS
29.9
C
27.7.
C ,:
15.1
B
22.7 �J C
Intersection Delay, sNeh / LOS
20.2
C
Multimodal Results
EB WB
NB. S13
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS
Copyright 0 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010r Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 8MI2017 5:22:36 AM
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary.
General Information Intersection Information
Agency
Duration, h
0.25
Analyst
Analysis Date
7/30/2017 Area Type
Other
Jurisdiction
Time Period
PHF
0.92
Urban Street
Analysis Year
Analysis Period
1> 7;00
Intersection
TIMBE INE - ZEPHYR
File Name
TIMBERLINE-ZEPHYR.xus
Project Description
ST (LWAM) PM
Demand Information;
EB .: WB
Approach Movement
L
T
R L
T R L T
R
L
T R
Demand (v ), veh/h
90
10.
` 35.26
.10 135 ° . 20 1440
15,
65
865:. 25
Signal Information
Cycle, s 76.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point .,End.
Green
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.0
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap ENV
'Yellow
Red 10.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 10.0 10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Force Mode I Fixed I Simul . Gap N/S. On
Timer Results
EBL
EBT
WBL WBT
`NBL
NBT"
SBL
'. SBT
Assigned Phase
4
8
5
1 2
1
6
Case Number
6.0
6.0'
1A
3.0+
Phase Duration, s
18.0
18.0
14.0
44.0
14.0
44.0
Change Period, ( Y+R a), s
3.0
3.0 `.
4.0
.4.0,
4:0
4:0 `.
Max Allow Headway (MAH ), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Queue Clearance Time (g a), s
.0.0
00
0.0
0:0
0.0.
.0.0-
Green Extension Time ( g a), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Phase Call Probability
0.00
0.00
0.00
0:00
0:00
Am1
Max Out Probability
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Movement Group. Results
EB
WB
NB
SB,
Approach Movement
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
Assigned Movement
7
4
14
3
8
18
5 .
2'
:12
1'' : "Ay
`
; 16`
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/Mn
0 .
0
0
0
0 ..
0
0
1
0 ,`:
0 .
0
Queue Service Time (g e , s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g a), s
0.0
0.0,
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0;
0.0:
0:0:
0:0
0:0,
Green Ratio (g/C)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.66
0.53
0.53
0.66
0.53
0.53
Capacity c),veh/h
234
329
.333,
321.
535 1904.
847
379 :1904
. 847
Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X)
0.419 0.149
0.082
0.491
0.041 0.822
0,019
0.186 0.494
0.032
Back of Queue ( Q );'ftAn ( 50 th percentile)
149.8
19.3
10.9
71.1
2.6 257.3
3
..13.7 .111.8
5. .
Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/In ( 50 th percentile)
2.0
0.8
0.4
2.8
0.1
10.3
0.1
0.5
4.5
0.2
Queue Storage Ratio RQ 50 th percentile).
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00 `'r
0.00
Uniform Delay (d t ), s/veh
32.5
25.2
26.5
27.1
6.0 15.0
11.5
8.7
Incremental Delay (d 2), s/veh
5.4
1.0.
0.5
5.3
0.1 . .4.2
0.9..
0.T"
Initial Queue Delay( d 3), s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
tAB
0.0
0.0
Control Delay ( d),.s/veh
38:0 26.2
27.0
32.4
6.1 19.2
12.4
.::
&T
Level of Service LOS
D
C
C
C
A
B
B
A
Approach, Delay, s/veh / LOS
34.1
C
31.6
C
18.9
B4
B`
Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS
18.2
B
Multimodal Results
EB WB
NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS
Copyright 02017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010TM Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 8/29/2017 S:24:33 AM
l
Analyst
Intersection
TIMBERUNE- STREET A
Agency/Co.:
.- ..
Jurisdiction .'
..:.. .
Date Performed
8/28/2017
East/West Street
Analysis Year
2037
.' North/South Street
Time Analyzed
ST rLT AM PM
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
Intersection orientation
North -South'
Analysis Time. Period (hrsy .,:..
0;25,.
Project Description
Lanes
vimSIN
NO
Major Street North -South
�/�hi�fl es.and A1�justhiorts ,:Y ,� " __:.
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
V.
;'T
R
N'..
L'
T
. W
U
Priority
10
11
12
7
8
9
1U
1
2
3
4U
4
5
6
Number of lanes
0
0
0.:.
0-
0.
."0'
..0
:.1
-: 2..:
0
0
'...0.
2
..1.
Configuration
U1
L
T
T
R
Volume (veh/h)
45
25
35
1305
1735
100
Percent Heavy Vehicles
3
3
3
Proportion Time Blocked
77
Right Turn Channel'rzed
No
No
No
No
Median Type
LeftOnly
Median Storage
1
Derr, ,Qul to Length, apd Level: of $ervke
Flow Rate (veh/h)
76
38
Capacity
104
281
777
v/c Ratio
0.73
0.14
95%Queue Length
3.9
0.5
Control Delay (s/veh)
101.3
19.8
Level of Service.(LOS).
Ii
C
Approach Delay (s/veh)
101.3
0.5
Approach LOS '
F
Copyright ® 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved, HCS 2010U TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 8/29/2017 533:51 AM
TIMBERLINE - STREET Axtw
HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control
Summary Report
Intersection TIMBERLINE - STREET A
Analyst
Agency/Co. :Judsdictlon
Date Performed
8/28/2017
East/West Street
Analysis Year
2037
North/South Street
Time Analyzed
ST &T AM PM
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
Intersection Orientation.
North -South
Analysis time Period (hrs)
025.
Project Description
OWNflit
unions
Major Street NorttrSouth
iki/Loan Div
Eastbound Westbound Northbound
Approach
Southbound
Movement
U
L
T
R
U
L
T
R
U
L
T.
R
U,
L
77
Priority
10
11
12
7
8
9
1U
1
2
3
41.1
4
5
Number of Lanes
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
1
2
0
0
0 . .
n
I 2
Configuration
LR
L
T
T
R
volume (vefiA)
55
45
10
1655
: ..
Percent Heavy Vehicles
3
3
3
Proportion Time Blocked
Right Turn Channelized
No
No
No
No
.Median Type
Left Only
Median Storage
1
'roil,
Flow Rate (veh/h)
11.11.�.,.,
..W
109
Capacity
316
673
v/c Ratio
0.34
0.02
95% Queue Length
.1.5
0.0
Control Delay (s/veh)
22.2
10.4
Level of Ser,4
C
B
A
Approach Delay (s/veh)
22.2
0.1
Approach LOS
L C
Copyright Q 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 201011111 TWSC Version 6.80 Generated., 8/29/2017 5:35.19 AM
TIMBERLINE - STREET Axtw
APPENDIX E
Analyst
Intersection TIMBERLINE&ZEPHYR
Agency/Co., ..
Judsdicdon'
Date Performed
7/30/2017
East/West Street
Analysis Year.
2017
North/South Street TIMBERLINE
Time Analyzed
EX ST LT &MAlvl
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Intersection Qdentation
North -South
Analysis Time Period (hrs) .' 025 '.. .
Project Description
Major street North -South
Approach
Eastbound
West ound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement..
U
L .:
.T
R .
U :
L
T ".
( R .;'
U:
L:
T.'
R ...
. .0 :..
L :.
.T ;
It
Priority
10
11
12
7
8
9
1U
1
2
3
4U
4
5
6
Number of Lanes
1
::.;1::..
.0
1
1 :
0 ,
''..: .0.
1'
2
1
0'
1';.
2
Configuration
L
TR
L
TR
L
T
R
L
T
R
Volume(veh/h) .
90
10
35'
20
10
130
020
1190
15
60
'7,20
25.
Percent Heavy Vehicles
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
froportion.7lme Blocked
V.
Right Turn Channelb:ed
No
No
No
No
Medfan7ype..
Left Only, :
Median Storage
1
Flow Rate (veh/h)
98
49
22
152.
22
65
Capadty.. c
80 ..
..
128
100
230
805'
S19
v/c Ratio
122
0.38
0.22
0.66
0.03
0.13
95% Queue Length
73
1.6
0.8
41
0.1(:
0;4 :
Control Delay (s/veh)
264.0
49.4
50.6
46.7
9.6
129
Levefof'Senrice(LOS): :':'..
.. ..
-.p,..
.EFE
'A ..
B
Approach Delay (s/veh)
192.5
472
0.2
1.0
,Approach LO8 ' '
F
E
Copyright Q 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010 W TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 7/30/2017 4:5526 PM
TWSC1.xtw
:•r ..>Y . .. . .>a
HCS 2010 Two
- •��� �.� 'RL
.. , :Ir.a ..a$/r .S,W`-.': ....
-Way Stop Control
n -{2 x. 'hi�i
,.310L6yt :. -
SLIMmary Report
� �0, ]�� f 8f� �,;. ..
a .. ..: 4 ,.. K„ � : � a , . a+o-»ar::
��•(�41�t f •.r �
>;�:x , a ,�...,.
i -.
Analyst
Intersection
TIMBERLINE - STREETA
Agency/Co
Jurisdiction.
Date Performed
7/30/2017
East/West Street
Analysts Year "' , .
"
2037 . ..
: :.':
..
North/South Street'
Time Analyzed
LT AM M
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
Intersection Orientation..
"'
North -South':
AnalysisTme Period.(hrsj':..
Project Description
Major street North -South
n
,1
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
NorthboundnSouthboundMovement
UPriority
10
11
12
7
8
9
1U
1
2
36
Number of lanes
0
0 .
0
-0 :
0..
.. 0 .
0
:. j .
. 3 '
0 ..
0—:
0 :..
. 3
Configuration
LR
L
T
T
TR
Volume (veh/h) .: ,' ::,
,
.
.: 45
.25 .
...`:.
35
1130
,1505
.100.
Percent Heavy Vehicles
3
3
3
Proportion Time Blocked :.
Right Turn Channelized
No
No
No
No
Median Type
Leff Only
Median Storage
1
,
Flow Rate (veh/h)
76
38
Capacity
88
106
v/c Ratio
0.86
0.23
95%QueueLength ..:
...:.'. ".
4.6
0.8'
Control Delay (s/veh)
143A
32.9
Level of Service (LOS) :
F
_. . -
., . Q:
.
....
Approach Delay (s/veh)
143.4
1.0
Approach LOS ''.:
F
Copyright ® 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 201OW TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 7/30/2017 5:56:56 PM
11NSC1.xtw
Analyst
Intersection TIMBERLINE - STREETA
Agency/Co. ,. .:.
Jurisdiction,.
Date Performed
7/30/2017
East/West Street
Analysis Year
2037 '.
North/South Street
Time Analysed
ST. LT PM
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Intersection Orientation
North -South
Analysis Tlme Period (hrs) '
Project Description
Major Street Nortf,South
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U.
l
T:
R
U
L
T.
R
U
L
T.
R'
U
L
T.
R ..
Priority
10
11
12
7
8
9
1U
1
2
3
4U
4
5
6
Number:of lanes
0
:0.
0.
0
0
0
0
.1
3.
0`.
0
Ot :
3
0.
Configuration
LR
L
T
T
TR
Volume (veh/h) ;
55. ` ..
..
45 "
10
1410
760
r25
Percent Heavy Vehicles
3
3
3
Proportion Time Blocked
Right Turn Channelized
No
No
No
No
Median Type':.
Left Only; ..',
Median Storage
1
Flow Rate (veh/h)
109
1
1
1
1
1 11
Capadry
422
458
v/c Ratio
0.26
0.02
95%Queue'Length
. 1.0
0.1:
Control Delay (slveh)
16.5
13.1
Level.of5ervicPS),,:
G.;.
B.>,
;.•
Approach Delay (s/veh)
16.5
0.1
Approach Los
C
Copyright ® 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 201010 TWSC Version 6.80 Generated:7/3012017 5:5357 PM
TWSCt.xtw
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Duration, h
0.25
Analyst
Analysis Date
7/30/2017 Area Type
Other
Jurisdiction
Time Period
PHF
0.92
Urban Street
Analysis Year
2022 Analysis Period
1> 7:00
Intersection T MBERLINE - ZEPIJYR
File Name
Streetsl.xus
Project Description LT AM
Demand Information
EB WB.. :. .: r.;.` :, : NB'
r.SB
Approach Movement
L
T
R L T R L
T R
L
T R
Demand ( v...), veh/h
85 10
45 25 15 rso 65
".980 ': 35
85: .1365 :: 80
Signal Information '.
Cycle, s 66.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset,'s ..:: 0. .Reference Point End. '
Green 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
Uncoordinatedi Yes I Simult. Gap E/W On
Yellow 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Force Mode Fixed Simult: Gap N)S,, 'On
Red TOM
0.0
Timer Results .:: ; :: .. ..
_ : EBL
EBT' .
.. WBL.
.. WBT
NBL
NBT .:
-SBL r SBT'':
Assigned Phase
4
8
5
2
1
6
Case, Number
6:0
6.0
: ,' 1:1
>, ....3 0
1
Phase Duration, s
18.0
18.0
14.0
34.0
14.0
34.0
Change Period; (Y+R s:
3.0
3.0
4.0 .
: ; 4.0 .:..:
410 :.
:.. 4.0 .. .
Max Allow Headway (MAH ), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Queue, Clearance Time(g:); "S.. -
0.0
0:0 ::
0:0:, :..
i.: 0:0
0.0
0.0 .
Green Extension Time (g s ), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Phase Call Probability.
6.00
0.00
0.00 '
-` 0 00 .:
0.00
;0.00 ..
Max Out Probability
0.00
0.00
0.00
l 0.00
0.00
0.00
Movement Group Results
EB.
WB
NB:
SB.;,,
Approach Movement
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
Assigned Movement
7
4
14.
3.
.8
18'
5
2 ,
12. "
1
6
16 .
Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ad`usted:Saturation Flow Rate. a , deh/hAn .
0 ..
.0
0
0
-01
0 !
0
0'
0.
0
Queue Service Time (g a), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g. C), s::
0.0,
0.0
0.0
: 0.0 .
:..:
0.0
0.0;
0.0
0.0
0.0• .
' 0.0
Green Ratio (g/C)
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.61
0.45
0.45
0.61
0.45
0.45
Capacity (c ), veh/h
360
376
380.
.377
400
1644
732
488 ,
1644
732 .
Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X)
0.257
0.159
0.072
0.216
0.177 0.648
0.052
0.189
0.902
0.119
Back of Qr eue (; Q ); ttAn (50 th';percentile) . '
-32.9
. 19.2
8.8
26.6,.
11:5. .137.1
:.7.1'
12:3
"257
' .1.7'(
Back of Queue ( Q ), vehAn ( 50 th percentile)
1.3
0.8
0.4
1.1
0.5
5.5
0.3
0.5
10.3
0.7
Queue Storage Ratio ('RQ) (50 th percentile)
0.00
0:00
0.00
0.00,
0.00. .0.06.
0.00:
0.00:
.0.00
: 0.00'
Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh
23.4
20.4
21.6
20.7
11.8
13.9;
10.1
8.0
16.6
10.4
Incremental Delay (dz), s/Jeh
1.7;_
0.9
0.4.
1:3
1.0
2V
. DA ,
..0.9
8.5
0 3.:
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3), sNeh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Control Delay'(d ), sNeh
25.1
21.3:
22:0
22.0
12.8
15.9
. 10.2.
8.9
25.1..'
10.7
Level of Service (LOS)
C
C
C
C
B
B i
B
A
C
B
Approach.Delay;.s/Jeh / LOS
23.6 "
C
22.0
C .
° 15:5 ,..:
! B
23,5
C
sNeh / LOS
Intersection Dela"MultUmodal
20.4
C
ts
EB WB
NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS .
Copyright® 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010" Streets Version 6.80 Generated: 7/30/2017 5:30:37 PM
I
HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
1 1'
Agency Duration, h
0.25
Analyst
Analysis Date
7/3012017 Area Type
Other
Jurisdiction
Time Period
PHF
0.92
Urban Street
Analysis Year
2022 Analysis Period
1> 7:00
Intersection TIMBERLINE -ZEPHYR
File Name
Streets1.xus
Project Description VJ LT M PM
Demand Information
EB, WB NB
SB
Approach Movement
L
T
R L T R L T
R
L
T
R
Demand v , veh/h
90
10
35
20 10 ISO 20.. 1190
15.
..60
' 720
25
Signal Information
x
Cycle, s 66.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset; s ..... 0 Reference.Point. :End
Green
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EAN On
Yellow 0.0 0.0 0.0
Red 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Force Mode li Fixed Simult. Gap N/S.. `On
Timer Results . - ;' ..
EBL. , EBT .
WBL
WBT .
NBL
NBT
:; $BL .. SBT -°
Assigned Phase
4
8
5
2
1
6
Case Number
6.0
6.0
11
3:0.:.
. ; :1:1 `.
3.0 .
Phase Duration, s
18.0
1B.0
14.0
34.0
14.0
34.0
Chan9e Period, Y+R � ), s
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0-.' `
4:0
Max Allow Headway (MAH ), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
QuaueClearanceTime (g8),s.
;0.0 ..
0:0:
0.0:
0.0
0.0
0:0
Green Extension Time ( g a), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Phase C61I Probability .::"
0.00
0:00 :.
;: 0.00
0.00
0:00 `
Max Out Probability
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Movement Group f2egults
EB
WB :`
NB:: -.
SB
Approach Movement
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
Assigned Movement
7
4
14
3
8 :
18
5
2
12
:1 ::
. 6 •
16
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v), veh/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ad uste&Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In
0
. O
0
0-
0
0
0.
0 .
0.. <
0
Queue Service Time (g 9 ), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Mine (go), s.
0.0 10.0
'.
0.0 .
_0.0 .
0.0
1. 0.0. 1
.0.0
0.0...
0.0
0.0
Green Ratio (g/C)
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.61
0.45
0.45
0.61
0.45
0.45
Capacity (c), veh/h
294.
379
' 390
370,
575.-
1644 .:.732
436 1644
:.732:
Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X)
0.332 0.129
0.056
0.411
1
0.038
0.787
0.022
0.150 0.476
0.037
Back of.Queue (0), ft/In (60 th percentile)
38.8 ,15.5
7.
54';
2.6
,189.7
. 3
• .8.7.
88.8.` .
< 5.1
Back of Queue ( Q ), vehAn ( 50 th percentile)
1.6
0.6
0.3
2.2
0.1
7.6
0.1
0.3
3.6
0.2
Queue Storage Ratio (RO) (50 th rcentile)
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0:00.:
0.00.
0.00
"0.00
0.00
0.00.<
. 0.00
Uniform Delay ( d i ), sNeh
26.0
20.3
21.2
21.7
6.3
15.3
9.9
9.6
12.5
10.0
Incremental Delay (d z ),'s/veh
.3.0.
0'.7
0.3
. 3.4
' .
01
3.9
0.1
0.7
1..0 .
0:1
Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 1
0.0
0.0
Control Delay (d) .s/veh
29.0 .21.0
21.5
.25.1'
6.4
19.2
10.0.
10.4 :115•
.10.1
Level of Service (LOS)
C
C
C
C
A
B
A
B
B
B
Approach Delay, sNeh / LOS
26.4
C
24.6 .
- C
18.8 ..
.. B
13:2
B
Intersection Delay, sNeh / LOS
17.7
B
Multimodal Results
EB WB.
N8 SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS
Bicyde LOS Score/ LOS
Copyright 0 2017 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010" Streets Version 6.60 Generated: 7/30/2017 5:31:45 PM
APPENDIX D
Analyst Intersection TIMBERLINE&ZEPHYR
Agency/Co. Jurisdiction.
Date Performed 7/30/2017 East/West Street
Analysis Year 2017' North/South Street TIMBERLINE .
Time Analyzed ST LT AM M Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Intersectlon'Orientation North -South
Analysts Time.Perfod (hrs)
Project Description
Approach
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Movement
U
L.'
.'T
.' R :'
: U '.
`.L..
.T ..
R'
u
L.:.
.. T
R. .`
�.
C .
T
;'R..:.
Priority
10
11
12
7
8
9
1U
1
2
3
4U
4
5.....
6
Number,ofLanes
0
0 '.
..0..
1
1
01
D.
1. :.
:1
0;'r
p :.
Configuration
L
R
T
R
L
T
Volume (veh/h)
23
59
' .
850
31
82
1159
..
Percent Heavy Vehicles
3
3
3
Proportion Time Blocked'.: .
Right Turn Channelized
No
No
No
No
Median TYPe
_...
Left Only..
Median Storage
1
Flow Rate (veh/h)
25
64
89
Capadty
97.
:325
713.
v/c Ratio
026
0.20
0.12
95%Queue Length .. ... .,
D.9
.07
;..
" 0.4
Control Delay (slveh)
54.7
18.8
10.8
Level of Service (LOS)
p
C
8
Approach Delay (s/veh)
28.9
0.7
Approach LOS
p .
Copyright V 2017 Unlverstty of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010TI5 TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 7/30/2017 *45,01 PM
TWSCtxtw
HCS 2010 Two -Way Stop Control Summary Report
r:��ie {�i101 �Jr,.r�+•hi � �Jr�� � 7� i e9L (a¢rt !`i j y�qy,� o a �, �fa1Fr f t the �"rl{7
�C„I� o i Sr i • lT, Y _- ,rry{Yt.��9G3t� I-,�J aY ss, i " > n•+ 'rya'CY.r r t ,�, x
'qy--,w
C
•• .- • .•MAC
• 1
�. �..
h
,. �
i�`{'L'AST
r .r Ste" vFS�m-^i f Te--e^e-�t>5."'F—S�^-i^S./•
r �,--.-n�.,...
ter-
•^�
1�
r -
r 1'=
'1Y 1. fir.
1
y�Jldl! �11eri a Ir _
ice" a;: ,,�.,.'•�rT,:•
J `q
�K. t
:+ is va a ;,Pcnar 5r +� ntA\n
r f:. �•. 1t;...1_'Cl, .i.-S.LLa._�::Sl.+.,�Lr�:._..�:_ ta.
w f l _ i
r
'
\fir
_
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
•. A. ro i�-).��-�' t'��'1'Y
17.
J'r.J L'-}'r"•I.
• i
r�
r?.
-. c / �f
• a
..
� r
F rvr.
n
i
.•-
-.,--
rsti,
Flow Rate (yeh/h)
Copyright ® 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101D TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 7/30R0174:5156 PM
TWSC1.xtW
APPENDIX C
EUGENE G. COPPOLA, P.E.
P.O. Box 630027
Littleton, CO 80163
Phone: (303)792.2450
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
intersection: Timberline & Zephyr
Date: 5/12/2017 Observer: Vickie
Day: Thursday City: fort Collins, CO
Time
Begins
Northbound:
Southbound:
Total
north/south
Eastbound:
Westbound:
Total
east/west
Total
All
L
S
R
Total
L
S
I R
I Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R I
Total
07:00
0
1229
2
231
9
123
1 0
1 132
363
0
0
0
0
10
0
13
23
23
386
07:15
0
1279
3
282
16
141
1 0
1 167
439
0
0
0
0
2
0
19
21
21
460
07:30
0
1278
2
280
14
1851
0
1 199
479
0
0
0
0
1
0
42
43
43
522
07:45
0
1250
4
254
18
158
0
1 176
430
0
0
0
0
7
0
50
1 .57
57
487
08:00
052
212
15
130
0
145
357
0
0
0
0
5
0
23
28
28
385
08:15
188
12
140
0152340
0
0
0
0
5
0
14
19
19
.359
08:30
g66
230
29
140
0
169
3990
14
0
42
56
56
455
08:45
221
26
117
0
143
364
0
0
0
0
16
0
54
70
70
434
7:00.8:00 1 0 110361 11 1 1047 1 57. 607 1 0 1 664 1 1711 1 0 1 0 .1 0 1 0 120 1 0 11241 144 1 144 1855 71
04:00
0
1 191
5
196
11
2531
0
264
460
0
0
0
0
4
0
1 17
21
21
481
04:15
0
1 191
6
197
12
2821
0
294
491
0
0
0
0
5
0
13
18
18
509
04:30
0
1 210
9
219
24
2711
0
295
514
0
0
0
0
7
0
17
24.
24
538
04:45
0
1 213
5
218
12
2791
0
291
509
0
0
0
0
4
0
15
19
19
528
05:00
0
204
16
313
0
329
533
0000
5
0
16
21
21
554
05:150
0
240
30
296
0
326
566
0
0
0
0
7
0
11
18
18
584
05:30
0.4
g1977
229
7
277
0
284
513
0
0
0
0
9
0
14
23
23
536
05:45
0
1 197
15
230
0
245
442
0
0
0
0
5
0
21
26
26
468
4:30.5:30 1 0 1850 1 31 881 82 1159 0 1241 2122 0 1 0 0 0 23 0 59 82 82 1 2204
PHF 0.92 0.94 1 1 1 0.85
L = left turn S = straight R = right turn
APPENDIX B
— Attachments
Attachment A
Transportation Impact Study
Base Assumptions
Project Name �{lt /7Se.N ¢ `. 2 /S SF /mimes, 2 5o car�das, SAC ecmn��rca
Project Location VpVe /e
Full: X
Intermediate:
Type of Study
Study Area Boundaries
North: s, e
South: S/le
East: Tisr6 L,� /i /'!
West: Si le
Study Years
Short Range: Zp 2 2
Long Range: 203 S
Future Traffic Growth Rate
lY Y -71.,6
/rne % 0 1
-0
Study Intersections
1. All access drives
5.
6.
3.
7.
4.
8.
Time Period for Study
AM
7:00-9:00
M: 4:00-6:00
Sat Noon: Jl%a
Trip Generation Rates
z 76
Trip Adjustment Factors
Passby: D
Captive O
Market:
Overall Trip Distribution
Currus aE A.tr NACHEDQV7S KETCH S
Mode Split Assumptions
O
Committed Roadway Improvements
Tl nl G er/i n e to / den /h y-
Other Traffic Studies
Areas Requiring Special Study
S�rra/ tvAerAW7'Q, ,tl g/S
Date: 2 -! % — f 7
Traffic Engineer.
Local Entity Engineer:
Page 4-34 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007
Adopted by Larlmer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
APPENDIX A
• Southbound right turn and northbound left turn lanes are needed at the
Timberline — Zephyr and site access intersections in the short term. North-
bound left turn lanes at both site access locations are anticipated with the
planned widening of Timberline.
• Short term traffic will be approaching levels normally associated with traffic
signal installation. Consequently, the City should monitor traffic at the Tim-
berline — Zephyr intersection as the short term horizon approaches.
• City required pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be provided with this de-
velopment resulting in excellent connectivity to area attractions. Additional-
ly, students attending Bacon Elementary School will be bused.
• Traffic operating conditions will be acceptable with the proposed develop-
ment in both the short- and long term time frames.
• Hansen is viable from a traffic engineering perspective.
In summary, the traffic demands associated with Hansen can be easily managed.
This is documented by the determination that acceptable operating conditions are
anticipated in the vicinity of this development for the foreseeable future.
23
E. Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks currently exist along the west side of Timberline to the north and south of
the site. With this development, sidewalks will be constructed both internally and
along the west side of Timberline adjacent to the site. This will provide improved
continuity of the sidewalk system along Timberline.
Bacon Elementary school was contacted to determine school access from this site. It
was stated that busing will be available for students from the Hansen development.
F. Bicycle Facilities
Timberline currently has bicycle lanes along both sides of the road adjacent to the site
and for significant distances to the north and south. These bicycle lanes connect to
the east -west bicycle lanes on major cross streets. These lanes provide excellent
connectivity to area destinations.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analyses, investigations, and findings documented in earlier sections of
this report, the following can be concluded:
• Current roadway operations in the area of the Hansen site are acceptable
during all peak hour periods.
• Site traffic associated with build out of Hansen is expected to be 304 morn-
ing peak hour trips, 476 afternoon peak hour trips, and 5,698 trips per day.
These trips are considered manageable.
22
Street A
Zephyr
F
\u
Figure 12
21 LONG TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY
As shown, significant side street delay can be expected with Hansen fully built in the
short term. This is typical of conditions when traffic levels are approaching those
associated with traffic signals. Traffic signals are assumed installed when warranted.
Capacity work sheets are available in Appendix D.
D. Long Term Operating Conditions
Long term conditions were evaluated with Hansen fully built. This reflects the road-
way geometry and traffic controls shown on Figure 12. Future levels of service were
calculated using the long term total traffic shown on Figure 10.
LONG TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH HANSEN
Intersection
Control
Movement/
Direction
Level of Service
AM Pk Hr.
PM Pk Hr.
Timberline — Zephyr
Signal
EB L
D
C
EB TR
C
C
WBL
C
C
WB TR
C
C
NB L
A
B
NB T
B
B
NB R
A
A
SB L
B
B
SB T
B
C
SIB R
A
A
Overall
B
C
Timberline — Street A
Stop
EB LR
C
F
NB L
B
C
As indicated, acceptable long term operating conditions are expected. Capacity
worksheets are presented in Appendix E.
20
Street A
Zephyr
E
Figure 11
19 SHORT TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY
C. Short Term Operating Conditions
Short term operating conditions with Hansen fully built were evaluated using total
traffic. This investigation used the peak hour traffic shown on Figure 9 and the short
term roadway geometry shown on Figure 11 and resulted in the future operating
conditions shown below.
SHORT TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH HANSEN
Intersection
Control
Movement/
Direction
Level of Service
AM Pk Hr.
PM Pk Hr.
Timberline — Zephyr
Stop
EB L
F
F
EB TR
E
F
WBL
F
F
WB TR
E
F
NB L
A
C
SB L
B
B
Timberline — Zephyr
Signal
EB L
C
C
EB TR
C
C
WBL
C
C
WB TR
C
C
NB L
A
B
NB T
B
B
NB R
A
B
SB L
B
A
SB T
B
C
SB R
B
B
Overall
B
C
Timberline —Street A
Stop
EB LR
C
F
NB L
B
D
Site traffic is not expected to significantly impact other intersections along Timberline
Road. This is due to the expectation that site traffic will primarily increase through
traffic movements at those intersections.
18
Short term total traffic and long term total traffic was reviewed to determine the need
for future auxiliary lanes. The results of this review are discussed in the following
section.
A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements
Traffic movements at the above noted intersections were reviewed. This effort fo-
cused on the need for right turn and left turn lanes to accommodate site traffic in the
short- and long term time frames. LCUASS turn lane warrants were used in this
effort. It was determined that right and left turn lanes will be warranted along Timber-
line at both site access points in the short term. Given the planned widening of
Timberline, an additional through lane in each direction and a center left turn lane
were assumed built with that project. No additional site related improvements will be
needed in the long term.
B. Auxiliary Lane Design
Northbound left turn lanes will also be needed on Timberline at Zephyr and the north
site access. Site related left turn lanes at the site access points should be planned as
indicated below assuming retention of the existing 40 mile per hour speed limit and a
12-foot wide turn lane. The anticipated northbound left turn storage needed at Zephyr
is 100 feet with 50 feet of storage needed at Street A. These parameters are subject
to adjustment based upon findings and area wide investigations conducted during
preliminary design. The left turn lanes are assumed available in the short term given
the planned improvements to Timberline.
17
fM
O cr-
W O
/IN
r
Street A
55/45--/4
1
45/25—)
o
O f7
to
to
co
O
W
O ` O
135/65
co m c
N co m
4-10/15
—25/25
Zephyr
90/85—/4
*) 1
10/10-10.
LO o tO
35/45—�
0 °' `�'
N
O
m
C
d
E
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles.
Figure 10
16
LONG TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC
LO
0
o
o
C14l
Street A
55/45�
1
45/25--),
m M
o�
0
v
Ln
co
co
O ` U")
130/60
I N o
N r o
4 10/15
—20/25
Zephyr
90/85--�4
V) 1
10/10--►
Ul o En
35/45�
OR rn
N o r
0)
d
_C
t
d
H
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles.
Figure 9
15
SHORT TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC
L
LO
a
C14
135/65
i
25/25
Zephyr
1
0 LO
a
O r
0
v
r
G1
G
t
d
a
E
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles.
Figure 8
14
LONG TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
LO
co
N
W
cro
R--130/60
i
20/25
Zephyr
En LO
d
c
m
A
E
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles.
Figure 7
13
SHORTTERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
V. FUTURE CONDITIONS
A. Roadway Improvements
Fort Collins plans to improve Timberline to a five lane roadway in the near term. This
improvement will result in two lanes in each direction with a center left turn lane in the
area of the site. This improvement is currently planned and funded by the City for
20201 and is assumed available in the short term time frame.
B. Future Background Traffic
Short term (2022) and long term traffic was estimated using the above agreed upon
growth. Background traffic is present on Figures 7 and 8 for the short and long term
time frames, respectively.
C. Future Total Traffic
Short term and long term total traffic was developed by combining site traffic and
background traffic for those time frames. Total traffic is shown on Figures 9 and 10
for the short term and long term, respectively.
VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS
In order to assess operating conditions with Hansen fully operational, capacity anal-
yses were conducted at the Timberline — Zephyr and site access intersections. Total
traffic (the combination of background traffic and site traffic) was used in this effort.
12
0
0 om
N N
�1
Street A
55/45-
1
45/25—y
Ln LO
oo�
m N
N �
4-10/15
Zephyr
90/85--,*
1
10/10—►
Un U)
35/45--4 V
N c
d
c
z
a)
m
E
LEGEND: AWPM Peak Hour
NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles.
Figure 6
LS,SITETRAFFIC
Street A
Zephyr
m
c
z
d
E
i=
,k
Figure 5
10 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
C. Trip Distribution
Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the availa-
ble roadway system. In this case, all traffic must use either Timberline or Zephyr to
arrive at and depart the site. Site traffic distributions shown on Figure 5 are based on
the current roadway network and current traffic in the area of this site. Resultant peak
hour site traffic is shown on Figure 6 for both the morning and afternoon peak hours.
IV. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS
Prior to commencing with this traffic impact study, key traffic engineering elements
and key assumptions were discussed with Nicole Hahn, representing the City of Fort
Collins. Agreed upon items are identified below:
iy
1. Traffic growth is estimated at 1 Y - 2% per year on streets serving this area.
2. Given the planned uses, weekday morning and afternoon peak hours were de-
termined worthy of investigation.
3. A full traffic impact study is appropriate for this development. The study should
be based on the Scoping Sheet in Appendix A which was submitted to the City.
The above items are fully considered in the following sections of this study.
E01
LOT ANALYSIS
0 45' X 85' LOTS - 47 UNITS
O 50' X 110' LOTS - 45 LOTS
60'X 110'LOTS-34UNITS
® TOWNHOMES - 60 UNITS
t (4) 7-UNIT
(4) 5-UNIT
1
_may -�• _ � � ' "
♦ L
DETENTION
l* MULTI FAMILY I
MULTI FAMILY
`i Imp r, •
` O
ZEPHYR ROAD O ,
.�
• I -..
V..
w l
'
ii-IGROUP
Fgura 6 �' o
CONCEPT PLAN •"` ®•J
III. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
A. Project Description
Hansen is primarily a residential development having, 152 single family homes, 64
townhouses, 250 multi -family units, and 5 acres of commercial development. Con-
struction will start as soon as practical with build out expected in 5 — 7 years.
Site access will be provided two full movement street connections to Timberline. The
south intersection will align with Zephyr Road on the east side of Timberline. The
north intersection will not meet City access spacing requirements; however, this
intersection will maintain acceptable operations. This access is consistent with other
subdivisions along the Timberline corridor. A concept plan is presented on Figure 4.
B, Site Traffic
Site traffic was estimated using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication,
"Trip Generation, 9th Edition", a nationally recognized reference. Trips associated
with Hansen are indicated in the following table.
Land Use
Size
Daily
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Rate
Trips
Rate
In
Out
Rate
In
Out
Single Family
152 D.U.
9.52
1,447
0.75
28
86
1.00
96
56
Townhouses
64 D.U.
5.81
372
0.44
5
23
0.52
22
11
Multi -Family
250 D.U.
6.65
1,663
0.51
26
102
0.62
101
54
Commercial
50,000 SF
44.32
2,216
0.68
19
15
2.71
60
76
TOTAL
5,698
78
226
279
197
As shown above, Hansen is expected to generate 304 morning peak hour trips, 476
afternoon peak hour trips, and 5,698 trips per day. These trips are considered man-
ageable.
7
C. Surrounding Land Uses
The area surrounding Hansen is primarily composed of residential land uses. Bacon
Elementary School is located on the east side of Timberline along the north side of
Zephyr.
D. Current Operating Conditions
Highway Capacity Manual procedures, based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,
were used to quantify current intersection operations. Resultant levels of service
(LOS) are indicated below for morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. Analyses
were undertaken for the Timberline — Zephyr intersection. Traffic from Figure 3 was
loaded onto the current roadway geometry, which is shown on Figure 2. For definition
purposes, at arterial street intersections with local and collector streets, the individual
stop sign controlled traffic movements are allowed to operate at LOS F. This is typical
of urban peak hour conditions.
CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS
Intersection
Control
Movement/
Direction
Level of Service
AM Pk Hr.
PM Pk Hr.
Timberline — Zephyr
Stop
WB L
D
F
WB R
E
C
SB L
B
B
As shown above, the individual traffic movements at this intersection operate accept-
ably during peak hours. Capacity work sheets are provided in Appendix B.
LO
LO
r
m �
124/59
1
— 20/23
Zephyr
1�
C M
fM
O
m
C
t
01
E
F=
LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour
Figure 3
5
CURRENTTRAFFIC
1 t
iiO► Zephyr
t
m
e
z
m
E
Figure 2
4 CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY
II. CURRENT CONDITIONS
A. Current Road Network
The site is bordered on the east by Timberline Road (Timberline). Zephyr Road
(Zephyr) currently extends east of Timberline. Timberline is classified as a major (4
lane) arterial street with Zephyr Road being a two lane collector street. The posted
speed limit on Timberline is 40 MPH with Zephyr posted at 25 MPH. Bicycle lanes
currently exist on Timberline and Zephyr with sidewalks available adjacent to devel-
opment.
Zephyr extends east of Timberline for about one mile and ends at Ziegler Road. It
mostly serves the local residential areas.
Timberline Road is currently planned for widening in the near term. The existing
roadway system is shown on Figure 2.
B. Current Traffic
Peak hour traffic counts were conducted as part of this study at key intersections.
Counts were undertaken from 7:00 — 9:00 AM and 4:00 — 6:00 PM representing
typical morning and afternoon peak hours. Current peak hour traffic is shown on
Figure 3. It should be noted that traffic associated with Bacon Elementary School
should be included in the morning peak hour counts with a limited amount of school
traffic included in the afternoon peak hour counts. School bell times are 9:00 AM and
3:43 PM based on the school's website. Count tabulations are available in Appendix
B.
3
CopyrViOmW(P) 188E-M2 NO. CorpomOm enNw Ib aqoAll eoft romved. IdmBvMwd%G5dlmNstreefd
Figure 1
2 VICINITY MAP
INTRODUCTION
Hansen is a mixed use development located along the south side of Timberline Road
across from Zephyr Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. As currently planned, it will have
152 single family homes, 64 townhouses, 250 multi -family units, and about 5 acres of
commercial development. A vicinity map is presented on Figure 1.
This traffic impact study follows the established guidelines for such studies as are
applicable and appropriate to the proposed project. It is consistent with the scoping
sheets submitted to the City and provided in Appendix A. The following key steps
were undertaken as part of this study.
• Obtain.current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site.
• Evaluate current operations to establish base conditions.
• Determine site generated traffic and distribute this traffic to the nearby
street system.
• Estimate roadway traffic for future conditions.
Evaluate operations with Hansen fully operational.
• Identify deficiencies and recommend measures to minimize or mitigate the
impact of site generated traffic.
Key areas of investigation are documented in the following sections of this traffic
impact study.
List of Figures
Figure 1
Vicinity Map............................................................ .................2
...................
Figure 2
Existing Roadway Geometry ......................................................................4
Figure3
Current Traffic............................................................................................5
Figure4
Concept Plan..............................................................................................8
Figure 5
Site Traffic Distribution.............................................................................10
Figure6
Site Traffic................................................................................................11
Figure 7
Short Term Background Traffic................................................................13
Figure 8
Long Term Background Traffic.................................................................14
Figure 9
Short Term Total Traffic............................................................................15
Figure 10
Long Term Total Traffic............................................................................16
Figure 11
Short Term Roadway Geometry ...............................................................19
Figure 12
Long Term Roadway Geometry ...............................................................21
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1
II. CURRENT CONDITIONS.......................................................................................3
A. Current Road Network......................................................................................3
B. Current Traffic..................................................................................................3
C. Surrounding Land Uses....................................................................................6
D. Current Operating Conditions...........................................................................6
III. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES.......................................................................................7
A. Project Description...........................................................................................7
B. Site Traffic........................................................................................................7
C. Trip Distribution........................................................................:.......................9
IV. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS.......................................................................................9
V. FUTURE CONDITIONS........................................................................................12
A. Roadway Improvements........................................:........................................12
B. Future Background Traffic..............................................................................12
C. Future Total Traffic.........................................................................................12
VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS..............................................................................................12
A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements..........................................................................17
B. Auxiliary Lane Design.....................................................................................17
C. Short Term Operating Conditions...................................................................18
D. Long Term Operating Conditions...................................................................20
E. Pedestrian Facilities.......................................................................................22
F. Bicycle Facilities.............................................................................................22
VII. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................22
Transportation Impact Study
HANSEN
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared For:
The Landhuis Company
212 N. Wahsatch Ave., Suite 301
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Prepared By:
Eugene G. Coppola, P.E.
P. O. Box 630027
Littleton, CO 80163
303-792-2450
August 28, 20179 15945
sN :F
G'1{i�yFQ� CO%�.
Traffic Impact Study
HANSEN
Fort Collins, Colorado
Eugene G. Coppola, P.E.
P.O. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 303-792-2450