HomeMy WebLinkAboutHICKORY COMMONS - FDP - FDP130014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY (3)DELICH Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
ASSOCIATES
direction. At the N. College/Conifer intersection, Conifer Street has westbound dual left-
turn lanes and a westbound right-turn lane. The N. College/Hickory and N.
College/Conifer intersections have signal control.
Figure 2 shows recent peak hour counts at the N. College/Hickory and N.
College/Conifer intersections. The traffic count data was collected by the City of Fort
Collins in March 2009. Raw traffic counts are provided in Appendix B. More recent
traffic counts were not done at this time due to roadway construction on N. College
Avenue to the north. The Fort Collins Traffic Operations Engineer agreed to use the
March 2009 traffic counts. These counts were adjusted/balanced between the N.
College/Hickory and N. College/Conifer intersections. The adjusted/balanced recent
peak hour traffic is shown in Figure 3. The adjusted/balanced recent peak is the same
as shown in the Jax Mercantile Expansion Transportation Impact Study, dated October
2009. Table 1 shows the current peak hour operation of the N. College/Hickory and N.
College/Conifer intersections. The N. College/Hickory and N. College/Conifer
intersections operate acceptably overall during both the morning and afternoon peak
hours. Due to the coordination with signalized intersections in the area, the City of Fort
Collins signal timing was used. A description of level of service for signalized and
unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing
the Fort Collins Motor vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in
Appendix C. The Hickory Commons site is in an area termed as “Commercial
corridors.” In “commercial corridors,” acceptable overall operation at signal
intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At
signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of
service E. At unsignalized intersections, in commercial corridors, there is no minimum
level of service criteria.
The North College Corridor Improvements – Phase II has been through a design
process. This project covers North College Avenue, from Vine Drive through Hickory
Street. The construction of these improvements, described below, have been funded
and are expected to be built in the next 1-3 years. It is expected that the improvements
at the N. College/Conifer intersection will include: two through lanes in each direction, a
northbound right-turn lane (in front of Jax Mercantile), and a southbound left-turn lane.
It is expected that the improvements at the N. College/Hickory intersection will include:
two through lanes in each direction and a northbound left-turn lane. The left-turn lanes
between these two intersections will be side-by-side left-turn lanes, which will increase
the storage capacity. While the design shows curb/gutter/sidewalk on both sides of
North College Avenue and a raised center median island, these components are not
expected to be constructed in the next five or so years. The subsequent analyses in
this TIS assumes that the geometry at these key intersections would be as described.
Figure 4 shows the site plan for Hickory Commons. Hickory Commons is
proposed as 20 units each with 1,250 square feet (25,000 square feet total) of
commercial/light industrial on the ground floor and one residential dwelling unit above
each unit. Hickory Commons is intended and being marketed as live/work units. The
types of uses in the commercial area could include artist studios, architect offices,
DELICH Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
ASSOCIATES
contractor’s shops (carpenter, electrician, plumber, handyman), and non-customer
oriented offices. It is anticipated that approximately 40 percent of the commercial units
would have one outside employee, otherwise, the only employee would be the
residential occupant above the office area. Therefore, a reduction in the residential and
commercial trip generation is anticipated. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation
for the Hickory Commons site. Trip Generation, 8th Edition, ITE was used as the
reference document in calculating the trip generation. The apartment land use (Code
220) was used for the residential units. To be conservative, the office land use (Code
710) was used for the commercial units.
The Fort Collins Traffic Operations Engineer, Ward Stanford, agreed that it is
likely that the trip generated at Hickory Commons would be as shown in Table 2.
However, he requested that the trip generation used for analysis purposes not be
reduced in the event that live/work units are rented independently of the residential units
and that there is no reduction in the trip generation. Table 3 shows the trip generation
used in the traffic operation analyses. Use of this higher trip generation provides a
conservative analyses of the key intersections.
The trip distribution was determined using the existing traffic counts, knowledge
of the existing and planned street system, development trends, and engineering
judgment. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution and site generated traffic assignment of
Hickory Commons.
Figure 6 shows the short range (2015) background peak hour traffic at the N.
College/Hickory and N. College/Conifer intersections. Background traffic volume
forecasts for the short range (2015) future were obtained by reviewing traffic studies for
other developments in this area, CDOT growth factors, and reviewing historic counts in
the area. The CDOT growth factor for this area of North College Avenue is 1.7 percent
per year. The proposed Jax Mercantile Expansion traffic was also added in the short
range (2015) background traffic. To be conservative, no reduction in traffic was taken
along Hickory Street between North College Avenue and the site access. Table 4
shows the short range (2015) background peak hour operation at the N.
College/Hickory and N. College/Conifer intersections. Calculation forms are provided in
Appendix D. The N. College/Hickory and N. College/Conifer intersections will operate
acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Figure 7 shows the short range (2015) total peak hour traffic at the key
intersections. Table 5 shows the short range (2015) total peak hour operation at the
College/Hickory, N. College/Conifer, and the Hickory/Site Access intersections.
Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. The key intersections will operate
acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Signal warrants were not analyzed in this TIS. The N. College/Hickory and N.
College/Conifer intersections are signalized. The Hickory/Site Access will not be
signalized.
DELICH Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
ASSOCIATES
The Hickory Commons site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian
and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is
within 1320 feet of Hickory Commons. The Hickory Commons site is located within an
area termed “activity center,” which sets the level of service threshold at LOS B for all
measured categories. There are two destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed
Hickory Commons: 1) the residential neighborhood to the north and 2) the Poudre Trail
to the south. This development will add sidewalk to their frontage along Hickory Street,
which will create a pedestrian connection to the Poudre Trail spur. It is expected that
when other properties in the area develop, the appropriate pedestrian connections will
be made with this developments. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet.
The Bicycle LOS analysis is provided in Appendix F. Based upon Fort Collins
bicycle LOS criteria, there is one bicycle destination within 1320 feet of the proposed
Hickory Commons. This is the Poudre Trail to the south. This site is adjacent to the
Poudre Trail. There are designated bicycle facilities along Hickory Street and Conifer
Street. With the North College Avenue Corridor Improvements, there will be bike lanes
on North College Avenue. This site will meet the minimum bicycle LOS.
Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 8.
It is anticipated that the trip generation will be lower for the live/work units than if
each residential and office was sold/rented separately. It is concluded that, with full
development of Hickory Commons, the future level of service at the N. College/Hickory,
N. College/Conifer, Hickory/Site Access intersections will be acceptable with the higher
trip generation used in this transportation impact study. Therefore, the operation will be
acceptable with the expected trip generation. The geometry is shown in Figure 8. The
level of service for pedestrian and bicycle modes will be acceptable
Conifer Street
Hickory Street
Vine Drive
College Avenue
SCALE: 1"=500'
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
Hickory Street
AM/PM
College Avenue
Conifer Street
63/79
438/1006
36/44
868/706
21/56
68/99
897/788
20/27
442/1022
99/92
30/58
103/228
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
Hickory Street
AM/PM
College Avenue
Conifer Street
60/79
419/1007
36/44
852/710
21/56
67/100
899/783
20/27
449/1028
100/93
30/58
103/227
ADJUSTED/BALANCED
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
DELICH Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
ASSOCIATES
TABLE 1
Current Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement Level of Service
AM PM
EB LT C C
EB RT C C
EB APPROACH C C
NB LT A A
NB T A A
NB APPROACH A A
SB T/RT A A
N. College/Hickory
(signal)
OVERALL A A
WB LT C C
WB RT C C
WB APPROACH C C
NB T/RT A A
SB LT A A
SB T A A
SB APPROACH A A
N. College/Conifer
(signal)
OVERALL A A
SITE PLAN Figure 4
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
SCALE 1"=60'
DELICH Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
ASSOCIATES
TABLE 2
Expected Trip Generation
Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out
220 Apartments 20 DU 6.65 134 0.10 2 0.41 8 0.40 8 0.22 4
25% of Apartment is external trips 34 1 2 2 1
710 General Office 25.0 KSF 11.01 276 1.36 34 0.19 5 0.25 6 1.24 31
50% of Office is external trips 138 17 3 3 16
172 18 5 5 17
TABLE 3
Trip Generation Used For Operational Analysis
Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out
220 Apartments 20 DU 6.65 134 0.10 2 0.41 8 0.40 8 0.22 4
710 General Office 25.0 KSF 11.01 276 1.36 34 0.19 5 0.25 6 1.24 31
410 36 13 14 35
Hickory
Street
AM/PM
College Avenue
Conifer Street
15/4
3/1
1/2
4/15
4/14
0/1
14/4
1/0
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND SITE
GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
80%
15%
5%
NOM
18/5
NOM
5/17
Hickory
Street
AM/PM
College Avenue
Conifer Street
66/87
466/1123
40/49
946/793
23/62
74/110
995/866
25/37
497/1137
120/120
35/73
120/278
SHORT RANGE (2015) BACKGROUND
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
97/172
106/136
DELICH Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
ASSOCIATES
TABLE 4
Short Range (2015) Background Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement Level of Service
AM PM
EB LT C C
EB RT C C
EB APPROACH C C
NB LT A A
NB T A A
NB APPROACH A A
SB T/RT A A
N. College/Hickory
(signal)
OVERALL A A
WB LT C C
WB RT C C
WB APPROACH C C
NB T A A
NB RT A A
NB APPROACH A A
SB LT A A
SB T A A
SB APPROACH A A
N. College/Conifer
(signal)
OVERALL A A
Hickory
Street
AM/PM
College Avenue
Conifer Street
97/99
466/1123
45/51
946/793
25/67
85/140
1005/894
26/39
526/1148
120/120
37/74
120/278
SHORT RANGE (2015) TOTAL
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
97/172
NOM
106/136
36/14
NOM
13/35
DELICH Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
ASSOCIATES
TABLE 5
Short Range (2015) Total Peak Hour Operation
Intersection Movement Level of Service
AM PM
EB LT C C
EB RT C C
EB APPROACH C C
NB LT A A
NB T A A
NB APPROACH A A
SB T/RT A A
N. College/Hickory
(signal)
OVERALL A A
WB LT C C
WB RT C C
WB APPROACH C C
NB T A A
NB RT A A
NB APPROACH A A
SB LT A A
SB T A A
SB APPROACH A A
N. College/Conifer
(signal)
OVERALL A A
Hickory/Site Access WB LT/T A A
(stop sign) NB LT/RT A A
Hickory
Street
AM/PM
College Avenue
Conifer Street
SHORT RANGE (2015) GEOMETRY Figure 8
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, October 2010
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hickory & College
Recent AM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3518
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 519 3539 3518
Volume (vph) 21 67 60 419 852 36
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 25 79 68 476 947 40
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 71 0020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 25 8 68 476 985 0
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 6.8 60.2 60.2 60.2
Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 8.3 63.7 63.7 63.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.80 0.80 0.80
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 184 164 413 2818 2801
v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.13 c0.28
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.05 0.16 0.17 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 32.3 1.9 1.9 2.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.47 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.3
Delay (s) 32.9 32.4 1.7 1.0 2.7
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 32.5 1.1 2.7
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hickory & College
Recent PM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3508
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 571 3539 3508
Volume (vph) 56 100 79 1007 710 44
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 66 118 92 1171 826 51
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 99 0040
Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 19 92 1171 873 0
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.2 11.2 55.8 55.8 55.8
Effective Green, g (s) 12.7 12.7 59.3 59.3 59.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.74 0.74 0.74
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 281 251 423 2623 2600
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.33 0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.16
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.07 0.22 0.45 0.34
Uniform Delay, d1 29.4 28.6 3.2 4.0 3.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.31 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.5 0.3
Delay (s) 29.8 28.8 2.2 1.8 3.9
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 29.2 1.8 3.9
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.8 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Conifer & College
Recent AM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 3442 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 3442 768 3539
Volume (vph) 103 30 449 100 20 899
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 121 35 516 115 22 977
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 15 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 4 616 0 22 977
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 6.8 60.2 60.2 60.2
Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 8.3 63.7 63.7 63.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.80 0.80 0.80
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 356 164 2741 612 2818
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.18 c0.28
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.02 0.22 0.04 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 32.2 2.0 1.7 2.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.36
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3
Delay (s) 33.9 32.3 2.2 0.9 1.1
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 33.5 2.2 1.1
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.3 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Conifer & College
Recent PM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 3495 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 3495 382 3539
Volume (vph) 227 58 1028 93 27 783
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 264 67 1105 100 30 860
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 56 7000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 264 11 1198 0 30 860
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.2 11.2 55.8 55.8 55.8
Effective Green, g (s) 12.7 12.7 59.3 59.3 59.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.74 0.74 0.74
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 545 251 2591 283 2623
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.34 0.24
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.04 0.46 0.11 0.33
Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 28.5 4.1 2.9 3.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.38
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.3
Delay (s) 31.3 28.6 4.7 2.0 1.7
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 30.8 4.7 1.7
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level-of-Service Average Total Delay
sec/veh
A < 10
B > 10 and < 15
C > 15 and < 25
D > 25 and < 35
E > 35 and < 50
F > 50
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level-of-Service Average Total Delay
sec/veh
A < 10
B > 10 and < 20
C > 20 and < 35
D > 35 and < 55
E > 55 and < 80
F > 80
Table 4-3
Fort Collins (City Limits)
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections)
Land Use (from structure plan)
Other corridors within:
Intersection type Commercial
corridors
Mixed use
districts
Low density
mixed use
residential
All other
areas
Signalized intersections
(overall)
DE*DD
Any Leg EEDE
Any Movement EEDE
Stop sign control
(arterial/collector or local—
any approach leg)
N/A F** F** E
Stop sign control
(collector/local—any
approach leg)
N/A C C C
* mitigating measures required
** considered normal in an urban environment
APPENDIX D
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hickory & College
Short background AM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3518
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 451 3539 3518
Volume (vph) 23 74 66 466 946 40
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 27 87 75 530 1051 44
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 76 0020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 11 75 530 1093 0
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 62.0 62.0 62.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 0.78
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 198 350 2743 2726
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.15 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.12 0.05 0.21 0.19 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 30.8 2.4 2.4 2.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.40 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 31.3 31.0 2.5 1.1 3.4
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 31.0 1.3 3.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.4 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hickory & College
Short Background PM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3508
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 499 3539 3508
Volume (vph) 62 110 87 1123 793 49
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 73 129 101 1306 922 57
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 106 0050
Lane Group Flow (vph) 73 23 101 1306 974 0
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 12.6 54.4 54.4 54.4
Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 14.1 57.9 57.9 57.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.72 0.72 0.72
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 312 279 361 2561 2539
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.37 0.28
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.20
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.08 0.28 0.51 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 27.5 3.8 4.8 4.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.31 0.28 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.7 0.4
Delay (s) 28.7 27.7 3.0 2.0 4.7
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 28.0 2.1 4.7
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 5.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Conifer & College
Short background AM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 3539 1583 815 3539
Volume (vph) 120 35 497 120 25 995
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 141 41 571 138 27 1082
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 31 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 5 571 107 27 1082
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 429 198 2743 1227 632 2743
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.16 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.03 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.39
Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 30.7 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.34
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4
Delay (s) 32.4 30.8 2.6 2.3 1.1 1.4
Level of Service C C AAAA
Approach Delay (s) 32.0 2.5 1.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.6 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Conifer & College
Short Background PM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 3539 1583 366 3539
Volume (vph) 278 73 1137 120 37 866
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 323 85 1223 129 41 952
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 70 0 36 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 15 1223 93 41 952
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 12.6 54.4 54.4 54.4 54.4
Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 14.1 57.9 57.9 57.9 57.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 605 279 2561 1146 265 2561
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.35 0.27
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.05 0.48 0.08 0.15 0.37
Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 27.4 4.7 3.2 3.4 4.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 0.35
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.2 0.4
Delay (s) 30.9 27.5 5.3 3.4 2.5 1.8
Level of Service C C AAAA
Approach Delay (s) 30.2 5.1 1.9
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 7.7 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
APPENDIX E
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hickory & College
Short total AM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3515
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 447 3539 3515
Volume (vph) 25 85 97 466 946 45
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 29 100 110 530 1051 50
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 88 0030
Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 13 110 530 1098 0
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 62.0 62.0 62.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 0.78
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 198 346 2743 2724
v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.15 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.25
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.06 0.32 0.19 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 30.9 2.7 2.4 2.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.40 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 31.4 31.0 3.7 1.1 3.4
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 31.1 1.6 3.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.7 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Hickory & College
Short total PM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3507
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 498 3539 3507
Volume (vph) 67 140 99 1123 793 51
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Adj. Flow (vph) 79 165 115 1306 922 59
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 136 0050
Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 29 115 1306 976 0
Turn Type Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 12.6 54.4 54.4 54.4
Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 14.1 57.9 57.9 57.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.72 0.72 0.72
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 312 279 360 2561 2538
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.37 0.28
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.23
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.10 0.32 0.51 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 27.7 4.0 4.8 4.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.28 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 2.1 0.7 0.4
Delay (s) 28.8 27.8 3.3 2.0 4.7
Level of Service C C A A A
Approach Delay (s) 28.1 2.1 4.7
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 5.5 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Conifer & College
Short total AM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 3539 1583 788 3539
Volume (vph) 120 37 526 120 26 1005
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 141 44 605 138 28 1092
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 31 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 6 605 107 28 1092
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 8.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5
Effective Green, g (s) 10.0 10.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 429 198 2743 1227 611 2743
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.17 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.03 0.22 0.09 0.05 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 30.7 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.34
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4
Delay (s) 32.4 30.8 2.6 2.3 1.1 1.4
Level of Service C C AAAA
Approach Delay (s) 32.0 2.6 1.4
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 4.6 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Conifer & College
Short total PM
Joseph
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1583 3539 1583 361 3539
Volume (vph) 278 74 1148 120 39 894
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 323 86 1234 129 43 982
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 71 0 36 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 15 1234 93 43 982
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 12.6 54.4 54.4 54.4 54.4
Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 14.1 57.9 57.9 57.9 57.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 605 279 2561 1146 261 2561
v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.35 0.28
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.05 0.48 0.08 0.16 0.38
Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 27.4 4.7 3.2 3.5 4.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 0.37
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.3 0.4
Delay (s) 30.9 27.5 5.3 3.4 2.7 2.0
Level of Service C C AAAA
Approach Delay (s) 30.2 5.2 2.0
Approach LOS C A A
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 7.7 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
APPENDIX F
Conifer Street
Hickory Street
Vine Drive
College Avenue
SCALE: 1"=500'
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, September 2010
Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
Project Location Classification: Activity Corridor
Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification)
Description of
Applicable Destination
Area Within 1320’
Destination
Area
Classification
Directness Continuity Street
Crossings
Visual
Interest &
Amenities
Security
Minimum B B B B B
1 Actual A A A B B
Residential to the North Commercial/
Office
Proposed A A A B B
Minimum B B B B B
2 Actual A A A B B
Poudre Trail to the
South Residential
Proposed A A A B B
Minimum
3 Actual
Proposed
Minimum
4 Actual
Proposed
Minimum
5 Actual
Proposed
Minimum
6 Actual
Proposed
Minimum
7 Actual
Proposed
Minimum
8 Actual
Proposed
Minimum
9 Actual
Proposed
Minimum
10 Actual
Proposed
Conifer Street
Hickory Street
Vine Drive
College Avenue
SCALE: 1"=500'
BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA
DELICH
ASSOCIATES
Hickory Commons TIS, September 2010