Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJEFFERSON & LINDEN RESTAURANT - FDP - FDP170002 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYDATE: 20 September 2016 I it ) SUBJECT: Linden/Jefferson Restaurant - Transportation Impact $e- f i • :" • • ELB Engineering, LLC Transportation Engineering Solutions Memorandum TO: FROM: Mr. Russ Lee, Ripley Design Mr. Ryan Houdek, JPUC Holdings, LLC ,...,:-.c5s-c's*-,:.-.- , Mr. Ty Fulcher, JPUC Holdings, LLC ,z47,.'".., .0 Ms R F- r, ':'"'•I'l -, Ms. Nichol Hahn, Traffic Engineer, City of Fort Collirw .; ;!•:`,..,,"6°: 1:-.N k.-‘, • /...-'‘` 1 ,, ,,)• k • Eric L. Bracke, P.E., P.T.O.E 1. , , „ • ) • . N This memorandum represents the Transportation Impact Assessment for the proposed Linden and Jefferson Restaurant located on the northwest corner of Jefferson and Linden in downtown Fort Collins, Colorado. The project proposes to build a 5,600 square foot restaurant on the site that is currently used as a park. The project will be requesting a parking variance as part of the developmental submittal. Contact was made with the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff and it was determined that a memorandum TIS will be sufficient for this project. A project map and vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. The Scoping Form is found in Appendix A. North PI,pre I; Vicinity Map Wage Linden/Jefferson Restaurant TIS September 2016 E1.13 Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@1pbroadband.net Existing Conditions The site is currently situated on the northwest corner of Jefferson and Linden. Linden is a collector street that provides access to a variety of businesses and is a direct route in the downtown area for the northeast portion of the city. There have been many recent improvements to Linden in the past few years that include sidewalks, curb and gutter, medians and aesthetic improvements as well. The speed limit is posted 30 mph and the pavement is in excellent condition. Jefferson Street is also State Highway 14, a regional route that carries a significant amount of heavy truck traffic. Due to the high truck traffic volume, Jefferson has been viewed by many as a barrier to the downtown. The City has a Federal-aid project on schedule to improve Jefferson along the project site by removing parking and adding bike lanes and make the road more compatible for all modes of transportation. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph and the pavement is in fair condition. Jefferson carries approximately 17,000 vehicles per day The intersection of Jefferson and Linden is controlled by a 4-phase traffic signal. Pedestrian phases for all directions are in place and operational. The pavement markings at the intersection were all in reasonable condition during the site visit. The project is situated in the downtown area of Fort Collins and is considered a Pedestrian District based on the 2011 Pedestrian Plan. There is on-street parking throughout the downtown area as well as several parking structures. Traffic counts were obtained for the morning and afternoon peak hours. These counts were from 7:30-8:30AM and 4:30-5:30PM. The results of the counts are displayed below in Figure 2. Pedestrian counts for analysis purposes were obtain from the City of Fort Collins Traffic Staff. The count forms can be found in Appendix B. Wage Linden/Jefferson Restaurant T1S September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@Ipbroadband.net 414 23/28 432/458 10/32 •-J * rkpre existinq traffic Cain& (AM/ FM) t om 68/79 41= 482/470 tun 30/36 CNI Ch -c tn (NI CA Jefferson North Capacity analyses were performed at the key intersection to determine if existing deficiencies exist on the roadway network. The analyses followed the procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative term describing operating conditions and expressed in terms of delay. Table 1 below provides the definitions of LOS for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 2 displays the results of the analyses. The key intersection of US50/CR102 is currently operating at acceptable levels of service. The worksheets from the analyses can be found in Appendix C. fable I Level of Service 13efinition5 Level of Service Signalized Intersection Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) Unsignalized Intersection Average Total Delay (seconds/vehicle) A <10 <10 B >lOandS2O >10 and <15 C >20 and <35 >l5andS25 D >35 and <55 >25 and < 35 E >55 and 80 >35 and <50 F >80 >50 Wage Linden/Jefferson Restaurant TIS September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 540 I Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEn2,ineering@lpbroadband.net Table 2 -Existing Traffic Operations AM FM Intersection Movement 1.05 Pelati(sec/ vehicle)I LO5 117 ela4( sec/ vehicle) JEFFERSON AND COLLEGE Signal EBL B 11.9 B 18.5 EBT/R A 9.5 B 15.0 EB APPROACH A 9.6 B 15.2 WBL B 11.0 B 17.8 WBT/R B 10.1 B 15.6 WB APPROACH B 10.1 B 15.7 NB APPROACH C 22.2 B 17.8 SB L C 22.0 B 18.0 SBT/R C 21.7 B 16.2 SBR C 21.9 B 16.3 SB APPROACH C 21.8 B 17.1 OVERALL B 11.6 B 16.0 The intersection and all movements are currently operating at acceptable levels of service. Project Proposal The project is proposing to construct a 5600 square foot restaurant of which 2,800 square feet will be the customer area. There will be a shared parking arrangement for a few spaces with the Rodizio Grill, directly to the west of the site. This access is from an existing curb cut on Jefferson. There is another curb cut on Linden to the site that is currently not used and should be closed off as part of the project. The majority of the parking for the project is proposed to be on the on-street parking that is near the site as well as the two parking structures in the downtown. Trip generation rates for the proposed project are based on the ITE Trip Generation, 91/1 Edition. The manual presents data from numerous trip generation studies for a variety of land uses from across the country. ITE Code 931, Quality Restaurant was used to estimate the amount of trips produced by the development. Table 3 below summarizes the proposed trip generation for the project. For the entire project, during the morning peak hour, 32 trip ends can be expected and 50 trip ends can be expected from the project during the afternoon peak hours. 4 !Page Linden/Jefferson Restaurant 'FIS September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@Ipbroadband.net Table 3 —Trip Generation AM Rate AM Trips AM Trips PM Rate PM Trips PM Trips Use ITE CODE Size Daily Rate Daily Trips IN OUT IN OUT Phase I Restaurant 931 5.6 89.95 504 5.57 26 6 9.02 31 19 TOTAL 504 26 6 31 19 Trip assignment is the normal course of analysis that follows trip generation. However, since the site is in the downtown area and very little parking is being provided on-site, trip assignment for the project was not conducted as part of this TIS. Parking Analysis Parking requirements for any development are found in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 3.2. The project respectively requests a variance to the code requirements with the justification outlined below. Under the LUC Section 3.2.2(K)(2), the project is required to provide a minimum of 5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of use. This project is required, under the code to provide 28 parking spaces. The project is also required to provide 1 bike parking space per 1000 square feet which translates into 6 bike spaces. Space limitations on site prevent this motor vehicle parking requirement from being met. Although the several spaces can be provided on site, the project will rely on the availability of parking on surrounding street system as well as the parking in the structures. First, and most importantly, the downtown area of Fort Collins is a pedestrian district by virtually every transportation planning or comprehensive planning effort conducted by the city over the last 25 years. There is virtually no expectation of the public that one will be able to park in front of the business they intend to visit in downtown. Being able to park in front of a business or in a business parking lot is an expectation of suburban development rather than in downtowns. The City requested that Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis be conducted as part of this Transportation Impact Analysis. This analysis followed the procedures identified in the 2011 Pedestrian Plan. The study examined the pedestrian corridors between the parking Wage Linden/Jefferson Restaurant TIS September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@Ipbroadband.net structure located on Laporte Avenue as well as the parking structure located at the corner of Remington and Mountain Avenue. From the Laporte Avenue structure, a pedestrian would travel east across College Ave, north on Pine Street, then east to the Linden/Jefferson intersection. The distance is 1445 feet. Each of the crossings has pedestrian signals, enhanced crosswalks, numerous pedestrians, good lighting and is visually appealing. From the Remington parking structure, a pedestrian would travel across Mountain Avenue with the use of a rapid flashing beacon, good crosswalk, through old town, across the stop controlled intersection of Linden and Walnut then north to the Linden/Jefferson intersection. The distance traveled is 1385 feet. The worksheets for the pedestrian LOS analysis is found in Appendix D along with the maps showing the routes. Table 4 below displays the summary results of the analysis Table 4 —Pedestrian Level of Service Analysis Jefferson © Linden Directness A Continuity A Street Crossing B Visual Interest A Secuity A College @ Laporte Mountain @ Remington Linden @ Walnut A A A A A A B B A A A A A A A The results of the analysis clearly shows that the pedestrian routes from the two parking structures to the Linden/Jefferson restaurant clearly meet the intent of the pedestrian level of service as outlined in the Pedestrian Plan. In addition, the availability of on-street parking along Linden, Jefferson, Willow, and other nearby streets negates the need for surface parking on site. As a pedestrian, getting to the restaurant will have the directness, security, continuity, safety and security as well as the enhancements to safety that are expected in the downtown area. Based on the above, it is recommended that the project be granted a variance to the minimum parking requirements and that there is no detriment in terms of safety or convenience to the public in granting the request. 61Page Linden/Jefferson Restaurant T1S September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 Conclusions Based on the review and findings of this memorandum, the following can be concluded in regards to the Linden and Jefferson Restaurant project in Fort Collins, Colorado: • Traffic generated by the proposal is minimal from a traffic engineering perspective producing only 32 AM trips and 50 PM trips • The intersection of Jefferson and Linden operates as good levels of service under existing traffic conditions. • All pedestrian routes to the project meet the City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Level of Service Requirements • The parking variance is recommended to be granted • 6 bike parking spaces should be provided by the project. If you require additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. 7IPage Linden/Jefferson Restaurant TIS September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 540ITaylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering(a),Ipbroadband.net ATFNPIX A Linden/Jefferson Restaurant Appendix September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEng,ineerinu(ilpbroadband.net Date: 31 0.0 tt<= Local Entity Engin= (thy. Traffic Engineer: Chapter 4 — Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name Project Location TIS Assumptions Type of Study i.-...../tc Full: Intermediate: Study Area Boundaries North: South: _ as,ti__,--- West: Study Years , .. .. Sh ort Range: e Long Range: Future Traffic Growth Rate , Study Intersections I. All access drives 5. 2- ftT....,5- ')- qp4 6' 3. ki 7. 4. 8. . Time Period for Study AM: 7:00-9:00 PM: 4:00-6:00 Sat Noon: , Trip Generation Rates . .. -1-r -• - C..ctro-a. .1- --)e) Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: Captive Market: Overall Trip Distribution 1-AA- SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Committed Roadway Improvements A-W. 5-TjaAh-,k. -, -:----3) Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study -1),r3.,...1L-, Apc--- i-----tS-1 s 1.77--,.7 rt+A Nu\ iNtzti \i ii-i A-13 Pl -ir illn Lk Ladmer County Urban Area Street Standards Repealed and Reenacted AprI11. 2007 Page 4-39 Adopted by Larimer County. City of Loveland, City of Fart Collins APPN\IPIX 13 Linden/Jefferson Restaurant Appendix September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@Ipbroadband.net ELB Engineering, LLC Transportation Engineering Solutions 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 (970) 988-7551 Tabular Summary of Vechicle Counts Date 7-Sep-2016 City/Town Fort Collins, CO Intersection Jefferson/Linden Time Eastbound Westbound Total east/west Southbound Northbound Total north/south .01,11,4$ dIti lMI rota! Begins L T R Total L T R Total L T R Total L T R Total ALL 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 „,........, 7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 7:30 7 101 3 111 8 107 10 126 236 6 7 3 16 2 5 6 13 29 f 265 7:45 4 115 2 121 7 103 10 120 241 10 8 7 25 4 6 7 17 42 283 8:00 8 111 3 122 7 117 27 161 273 15 10 9 34 1 4 8 13 47 320 8:15 4_ 105 - 2 111 8 155 21 184 295 . 12 12 15 39 4 7 4 16 54 349 8:30 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 o o o 0 o o o o o 0 , 8:45 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 o o o 0 o o o o 0 0 231 4321 10 301 4821 68 1045 431 371 34 114 111 221 25 1721 12171 0.73 7:30-8:30 PHF 465 0.96 580 0.79 58 0.85 Time Eastbound Westbound Total ..east/..west .... _ Southbound Northbound Total north/south Total Begins L T R Total L T R Total L T R Total L T R Total ALL 4;00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 4:15 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0. o o o o 0 0 0 0 o o 4:30 5 121 7 133 7 76 17 100 233 32 17 8 67 10 10 17 37 94 327 4:45 4. 111 4 119 5 _ 122 20 147 266 27 14 14 65 7 10 18 35 90 356, 5:00 9 116 12 137 7 111 17 135 272 31 16 25 72 8 12 15 35 107- 379 5:15 10 110 9 129 17 161 25 203 332 33 21 9 63 7 17 20 44 107 439 5:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 . 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 18 2c, t Liv c.rp 4.) 2 +111- PM 10 5 18 22 NORTH ItcO Cate PI-5 $ine t 51tee rime 'Cu Nam* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 Linden Jefferson PM 39 FJ 6 1 7 11 t cSb c1,1) Page 3 of 3 4 0 c5-4D Record Numb 498 (-v-d 4.) AM 5 0 NORTH 15 Wednesday, July 16, 2014 Linden Jefferson AM 39 FJ 1 0 .1.1.11.1.1T-41- 5 0 Dale N.3 Street EN.' Street TITO 'Cu 17 ze514 7e.szi (61,4. Page 1 of 3 A9I9 NPIX C Linden/Jefferson Restaurant Appendix September 2016 ELB Engineerini4, LLC 5401 Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@Ipbroadband.net SBR r 34 16 0 0.96 1.00 1863 37 1 0.92 2 480 0.32 1515 37 1515 1.5 1.5 1.00 480 0.08 480 1.00 1.00 21.5 0.3 0.0 0.7 21.9 C HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Linden & Jefferson 9/14/2016 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations ) ii-> v- 1 II) 4+ ''i A, 1 Volume (veh/h) 23 432 10 30 482 68 11 22 25 43 37 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 25 470 11 33 524 74 12 24 27 47 40 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 487 2062 48 552 1816 256 116 223 218 507 590 Arrive On Green 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 815 3534 83 908 3113 438 215 704 689 1313 1863 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 25 235 246 33 297 301 63 0 0 47 40 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 815 1770 1847 908 1770 1781 1607 0 0 1313 1863 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 5.7 5.8 1.6 7.6 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 5.7 5.8 7.4 7.6 7.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 1,3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.25 0.19 0.43 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 487 1032 1078 552 1032 1039 556 0 0 507 590 V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 487 1032 1078 552 1032 1039 556 0 0 507 590 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.7 9.0 9.0 10.8 9.4 9.4 21.8 0.0 0.0 21.6 21.5 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Linden & Jefferson IVIover ____ jang111111111PRIPPrEBL Lane Configurations v- 1 Volume (veh/h) 28 Number 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 Adj No. of Lanes 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 Cap, veh/h 388 Arrive On Green 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 815 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhAn 815 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 388 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile Back0fQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.5 LnGrp LOS B Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer 1 Assigned Phs Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Green Setting (Gmax), s Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s Green Ext Time (p_c), s EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 1M ) tli. 1 t 1 r 458 32 36 470 79 32 49 70 123 68 56 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.96 1.00 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 498 35 39 511 86 35 53 76 134 74 61 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1617 113 419 1457 244 158 239 301 595 776 632 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0A8 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 APPNPIX Linden/Jefferson Restaurant Appendix September 2016 ELB Engineering, LLC 5401Taylor Lane Fort Collins, CO 80528 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@Ipbroadband.net ' 1,..yeste,9 .--,rntence Store , Google Maps https://www.goog1e.com/maps/@40.5889823,-105.0757181,491m/data,-13mIlle3 Go( gle Maps Distance from Laporte Parking Structure 1446 feet Imagery ©2016 Google, Map data ©2016 Google 200 ft Measure distance Total distance: 1445.72 ft (440.65 m) 1 of 1 9/14/2016 8:15 PM Ch'u. r C52 111= A ; 311M1 Eli LI . tI r,13 f.•.11i!t' , 1-1 Nii ./1. mr 'A., 1E5 N,..- Nft , . , kAil '2 Sr • . .14' .. siottia!ltilewing . - . I I I II lb- orb bo-III • ..e. ,., , . ow., **. A, Limo - - •*. t, Yob • • / ''' 41111411* 4111111 - OdelkBiejving Compa,ny PP i 1 ..• . I I iiitiryiTri .',.* '' \• ' IL . ._. .. ..,.... .00,,Niwimkg,.....raraseiblincolrrAve 1"46P;ILapor1,- t.T. •,-. ilt ..? 414 ‘ - = I . -3 •nte Goat Art sar ;4> 4, . - • ° 1 VVI I .• - •.#1)'ilVt- - ''' 6 re, .___24 A • ' 4 11 -,"4-ve "...1 •-,.. W MountaiwAye N7Mountain Ave v r E M -. ' -.!!' •'. 11.4 i 41 I e . Lari -. 7,,w ,c), t - a. . ,mer COU My Vehtcle -- ---'t - -'11J11' i , t l' ! -,. -4—'-7 - ILI. censing Departhient ( ' . -.21 65 - i li - -7 'imi c r - • . ,..,„ ‘. 5 - r.r W Oa k7St., . : ..., 6- ilp o ,.te 1 . .h,70-1116., 1 ill..; -g.7" i •. , 3 1 •ii - 0 .0.4 . ' '•:: ".•,' ! ,:-.'i.'7 , rarv b ..:(ii Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Table P- 2: Pedestrian Level of Service Descriptions Directness Excellent and direct connectivity through full utilization of urban space, streets, transit, and activity centers with clear linear visual statements. (AIM Ratio < 1.2)* Excellent and direct connectivity with clear linear and visual connection to transit facilities, streets, and activities. Minimum acceptable directness and connectivity standard. Perceptions and urban space become less coherent with the beginnings of discomfort with visual clarity and lack of linearity. Increasing lack of directness, connectivity and linearity with incoherent and confusing direction and visual connection to pedestrian Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan 6 or more lanes to cross and/or Missing 4 elements of A Missing 5 Missing 6 elements of A elements of A Missing 7 elements of A Signalized Crossings** A 3 or fewer lanes to cross Signal has clear vehicular pedestrian indications 4 or 5 lanes to cross and/or Missing 2 elements of A Well marked crosswalks Good lighting levels Standard curb ramps Automatic pedestrian signal phase Amenities, signing, and sidewalk and roadway character strongly suggest the presence of a pedestrian crossing Drivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views February 15, 2011 39 Comfort and convenience nonexistent, design has overlooked needs of users. Total discomfort and intimidation. Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Unsignalized Major Street A Crossing *** Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Unsignalized Minor Street A Crossing *** Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Mid-block major street crossing *** A t. Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Visual Interest and Amenity A B Visually Generous F appealing and compatible with local sidewalks, visual clarity, some street o IA ir architecture, furniture and v Generous sidewalk landscaping, no blank o width, active building frontages, pedestrian lighting, street trees, and quality street furniture. street walls. Design ignores pedestrian with negative mental image. Security Sense of security enhanced by presence of other people using sidewalks and overlooking them from adjacent buildings. Good lighting and clear sight lines. Good lighting levels and unobstructed lines of sight. Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Unobstructed Sidewalk Major Streetscape lines of sight. configuration breaches in is pedestrian and parked cars may inhibit vigilance from the street. pedestrian visibility from street, adjacent land uses, and activities. intolerant. NM Ratio: Actual distance between pedestrian origin/destination divided by minimum distance defined by a right angled grid street system. A signalized intersection LOS will go up one Level of Service with a dedicated pedestrian signal phase and/or a colored or textured crosswalk. Unsignalized crossing at intersection of major street (minor arterial to major arterial) and minor street (local, connector and collector). February 15, 2011 41 Cra4kr-ScD/L-1, Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Table P- 2: Pedestrian Level of Service Descriptions Directness Excellent and Minimum Increasing Poor No directness direct acceptable lack of directness or connectivity with clear directness and directness, and connectivity connectivity. connectivity. Total linear and connectivity and linearity Pedestrian pedestrian visual standard. with perception of disorientation; connection to Perceptions incoherent a linear no linearity transit and urban and connection and facilities, streets, and space become less confusing to desired direction and destination confusing. activities. coherent with visual falters and the connection to serves only beginnings of pedestrian the person discomfort with visual clarity and lack of linearity. destinations. with no other choice. (AM Ratio 1.2 (A/M Ratio (A/M Ratio (A/M Ratio (A/M Ratio > to 1.4)* 1.4 to 1.6)* 1.6 to 1.8)* 1.8 to 2.0)* 2.0)* Continuous Continuous Pedestrian Significant Complete stretches of stretches of corridors are breaks in breakdown in sidewalks sidewalks not well continuity. pedestrian which are which may connected traffic flow. physically have variable with several All people separated by widths, with breaches in select a landscaped and without pedestrian different parkway. landscaped parkways. network. routes. No network exists. Excellent and direct connectivity through full utilization of urban space, streets, transit, and activity centers with clear linear visual Signalized Crossings** 3 or fewer lanes to cross Signal has clear vehicular pedestrian indications Well marked crosswalks Good lighting levels Standard curb ramps Automatic pedestrian signal phase Amenities, signing, and sidewalk and roadway character strongly suggest the presence of a pedestrian crossing Drivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views 4 or 5 lanes ) to cross and/or Missing 2 elements of A c)rD Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Missing 6 elements of A Missing 7 elements of A 6 or more Missing 5 lanes to cross elements of A and/or Missing 4 elements of A February 15, 2011 39 Design ignores pedestrian with negative mental image. Comfort and convenience nonexistent, design has overlooked needs of users. Total discomfort and intimidation. L1 (rJ-Lr- Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Unsignalized Major Street Crossing *** A Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Unsignalized Minor Street Crossing *** A Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Mid-block major street crossing *** A Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Visual Interest and el Amenity Visually Generous F appealing and compatible with local sidewalks, visual clarity, some street c % i architecture, furniture and 1, Generous sidewalk landscaping, no blank c width, active building frontages, pedestrian lighting, street trees, and quality street furniture. Te_g tx-) Security Sense of security enhanced by presence of other people using sidewalks and overlooking them from adjacent buildings. Good lighting and clear sight lines. Good lighting levels and unobstructed lines of sight. Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Unobstructed Sidewalk Major Streetscape lines of sight. configuration breaches in is pedestrian and parked cars may inhibit vigilance from the street. pedestrian visibility from street, adjacent land uses, and activities. intolerant. AIM Ratio: Actual distance between pedestrian origin/destination divided by minimum distance defined by a right angled grid street system. A signalized intersection LOS will go up one Level of Service with a dedicated pedestrian signal phase and/or a colored or textured crosswalk. Unsignalized crossing at intersection of major street (minor arterial to major arterial) and minor street (local, connector and collector). February 15, 2011 41 Continuity Pedestrian sidewalk appears as a single entity with a major activity area or public open space. Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Table P- 2: Pedestrian Level of Service Descriptions Excellent and Minimum Increasing Poor No directness direct acceptable lack of directness or connectivity with clear directness directness, and and connectivity connectivity. connectivity. Total linear and connectivity and linearity Pedestrian pedestrian visual standard. with perception of disorientation; connection to Perceptions incoherent a linear no linearity transit and urban and connection and facilities, streets, and space become less confusing to desired direction and destination confusing. activities. coherent with visual falters and the connection to serves only beginnings of pedestrian the person discomfort with visual clarity and lack of linearity. destinations. with no other choice. (AM Ratio 1.2 (AIM Ratio (AIM Ratio (A/M Ratio (AIM Ratio > to 1.4)* 1.4 to 1.6)* 1.6 to 1.8)* 1.8 to 2.0)* 2.0)* 4 C Continuous Continuous Pedestrian Significant Complete stretches of stretches of corridors are breaks in breakdown in sidewalks sidewalks not well continuity. pedestrian which are which may connected traffic flow. physically have variable with several All people separated by widths, with breaches in select a landscaped and without pedestrian different parkway. landscaped parkways. network. routes. No network exists. Directness Excellent and direct connectivity through full 6 or more lanes to cross and/or Missing 4 elements of A Missing 5 Missing 6 elements of A Missing 7 elements of A elements of A 1,0--Y-77-ct--1 4117-14 Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Signalized Crossings** 3 or fewer lanes to cross Signal has clear vehicular pedestrian indications \- Well marked crosswalks Good lighting levels Standard curb ramps 4 or 5 lanes to cross and/or Missing 2 elements of A N A Automatic pedestrian signal phase Amenities, signing, and sidewalk and roadway character strongly suggest the presence of a pedestrian crossing Drivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views February 15, 2011 39 Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Unsignalized Major Street A Crossin *** Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Unsignalized Minor Street A Crossing *** Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Mid-block major street crossing *** A Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Visual Interest and i Amenit A B C D E F Visually Generous Functionality Design Comfort and Total appealing and compatible with local sidewalks, visual clarity, some street operational with less importance to ignores pedestrian with negative convenience nonexistent, design has discomfort and intimidation. architecture. furniture and visual interest mental overlooked Generous sidewalk width, active building frontages, pedestrian lighting, street trees, and quality street furniture. landscaping, no blank street walls. or amenity. image. needs of users. February 15, 2011 40 — Security Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Sense of security enhanced by presence of other people using sidewalks and overlooking them from adjacent buildings. Good lighting and clear sight lines. Good lighting levels and unobstructed lines of sight. Unobstructed lines of sight. Sidewalk configuration and parked cars may inhibit vigilance from the street. Major breaches in pedestrian visibility from street, adjacent land uses, and activities. Streetscape is pedestrian intolerant. Lc NM Ratio: Actual distance between pedestrian origin/destination divided by minimum distance defined by a right angled grid street system. A signalized intersection LOS will go up one Level of Service with a dedicated pedestrian signal phase and/or a colored or textured crosswalk. Unsignalized crossing at intersection of major street (minor arterial to major arterial) and minor street (local, connector and collector). February 15, 2011 41 Table P- 2: Pedestrian Level of Service Descriptions Directness B coali-cr Excellent and direct connectivity through full utilization of urban space, streets, transit, and activity centers with clear linear visual statements. Excellent and direct connectivity with clear linear and visual connection to transit facilities, streets, and activities. Minimum acceptable directness and connectivity standard. Perceptions and urban space become less coherent with the beginnings of discomfort with visual clarity and lack of linearity. (A/M Ratio 1.4 to 1.6)* Increasing lack of directness, connectivity and linearity with incoherent and confusing direction and visual connection to pedestrian D E F Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Visual Interest and Amenity (L-Ly Unsignalized Major Street A Crossing *** B C Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Unsignalized Minor Street A Crossing *** Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Mid-block major street crossing *** A Use Crosswalk Treatment Identification Process Visually appealing and compatible with local architecture. Generous sidewalk width, active building frontages, pedestrian lighting, street trees, and quality street furniture. B C F Generous Functionality Design Comfort and Total sidewalks, visual clarity, some street operational with less importance to ignores pedestrian with negative convenience nonexistent, design has discomfort and intimidation. furniture and visual interest mental overlooked landscaping, no blank street walls. or amenity. image. needs of users. February 1-.-, -2-011 40 Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Signalized Crossings** B C D E F 3 or fewer lanes to cross Signal has clear vehicular pedestrian indications Well marked crosswalks Good lighting levels Standard curb ramps Automatic pedestrian signal phase Amenities, signing, and sidewalk and roadway character strongly suggest the presence of a pedestrian crossing Drivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views 4 or 5 lanes to cross and/or Missing 2 elements of A 6 or more lanes to cross and/or Missing 4 elements of A Missing 5 elements of A Missing 6 elements of A Missing 7 elements of A February 15, 2011 39 Security I B 1 Sense of Good lighting I security levels and I enhanced by unobstructed presence of other people using sidewalks and overlooking them from adjacent buildings. lines of sight. Good lighting and clear sight lines. Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Unobstructed Sidewalk Major Streetscape ines of sight. configuration breaches in is pedestrian and parked cars may inhibit vigilance from the street. pedestrian visibility from street, adjacent land uses, and activities. intolerant. ** *** AIM Ratio: Actual distance between pedestrian origin/destination divided by minimum distance defined by a right angled grid street system. A signalized intersection LOS will go up one Level of Service with a dedicated pedestrian signal phase and/or a colored or textured crosswalk. Unsignalized crossing at intersection of major street (minor arterial to major arterial) and minor street (local, connector and collector). February 15, 2011 41 B I C E F B I C D E F destinations. (A/M Ratio 1.6 to 1.8)* Poor directness and connectivity. Pedestrian perception of a linear connection to desired destination falters and serves only the person with no other choice. (A/M Ratio 1.8 to 2.0)* No directness or connectivity. Total pedestrian disorientation; no linearity and confusing. (A/M Ratio > 2.0)* (A/M Ratio < (AM Ratio 1.2 1.2)* to 1.4)* Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Continuity A B 4 Pedestrian Continuous 1 sidewalk stretches of appears as a sidewalks single entity with a major which are physically , activity area or public open separated by a landscaped , space. parkway. I I Pedestrian corridors are not well connected with several breaches in pedestrian network. Significant breaks in continuity. Complete breakdown in pedestrian traffic flow. All people select different routes. No network exists. Continuous stretches of sidewalks which may have variable widths, with and without andscaped parkways. February 15, 2011 38 utilization of urban space, streets, transit, and activity centers with clear linear visual statements. (AIM Ratio < 1.2)* B February 15, 2011 38 street walls. :unctionality )perational with less mportance to usual interest )1- amenity. February 15, 2011 40 statements. (A/M Ratio < 1.2)* Continuity CIAT) Pedestrian sidewalk appears as a single entity with a major activity area or public open space. February 15, 2011 38 unctionality perational ith less nportance to sual interest r amenity. February 15, 2011 40 destinations. (AIM Ratio 1.6 to Poor directness and connectivity. Pedestrian perception of a linear connection to desired destination falters and serves only the person with no other choice. (AIM Ratio 1.8 to 2.0)* No directness or connectivity. Total pedestrian disorientation; no linearity and confusing. (AIM Ratio > 2.0)* (AM Ratio 1.2 (AIM Ratio to 1.4)* 1.4 to 1.6)* Continuity A A B ( II Pedestrian Continuous C sidewalk stretches of s appears as a sidewalks s single entity which are v with a major physically h activity area separated by v or public open a landscaped a space. parkway. k p ontinuous tretches of idewalks hich may ave variable idths, with nd without ndscaped arkways. Pedestrian corridors are not well connected with several breaches in pedestrian network. Significant breaks in continuity. Complete breakdown in pedestrian traffic flow. All people select different routes. No network exists. February 15, 2011 38 • , '''',:lit' Via co River Public i ".0 1.3 I I 4 4 -, , • i- ... I US Post Off, PO .11 Oft NE. - I Google p ... 1 f ,,-. z, . • !..„... Jr. .. st 4•Nomok ,., ,.,....:,... a T.' 4 -I : ' 4_ A . 4 .- . N; ... ,.,1 li;. JP 90 L. •'" A --".1 ' , I a, . i -. 7 , ...... J. , .40,-; .. a . I!&3etaIfl r- r- Cioogle Maps 1ittps://www.google.com/maps/g40.51176161,-105.0728351,1167m/data=!3m111e3 Go gle Maps Distance from Mountain/Remington Parking Structure - 1382 feet Imagery ©2016 Google, Map data ©2016 Google 500 ft Measure distance Total distance: 11382.13 ft (421.27 m) 1 of 1 9/14/2016 8:20 PM 3346 234 864 3015 505 263 574 724 1236 1863 1517 263 270 39 299 298 164 0 0 134 74 61 1770 1811 864 1770 1751 1561 0 0 1236 1863 1517 8.1 8.2 2,6 9.4 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.2 2.2 8.1 8.2 10.7 9.4 9,5 5.7 0.0 0.0 6.3 2.2 2.2 0.13 1.00 0.29 0.21 0.46 1.00 1.00 855 875 419 855 846 699 0 0 595 776 632 0.31 0.31 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.10 855 875 419 855 846 699 0 0 595 776 632 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.1 14.1 17.4 14.5 14.5 17.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 15.9 16.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.3 0.7 4.8 4.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.2 1.0 15.0 15.0 17.8 15.6 15.6 17.8 0.0 0.0 18.0 16.2 16.3 B B B B B B B B B 563 636 164 269 15.2 15.7 17.8 17.1 B B B B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 4 6 8 42.0 48.0 42.0 48.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 37.5 43.5 37.5 43.5 7.7 13.7 8.3 12.7 2.2 8.8 2.2 8.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.0 HCM 2010 LOS Linden/Jefferson Restaurant 9/14/2016 PM Existing Synchro 9 Light Report ELB Page 1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %He Back0fQ(50%),veh/In 0.3 3.0 3.1 0.4 3.8 3.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.9 9.5 9.5 11.0 10.1 10.1 22.2 0.0 0.0 22.0 21.7 LnGrp LOS B A A BB BC C C Approach Vol, veh/h 506 631 63 124 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.6 10.1 22.2 21.8 Approach LOS A B C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 57.0 33.0 57.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4,5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.5 52.5 28.5 52.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 11.1 3.7 9.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 8,7 0.8 8.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.6 HCM 2010 LOS Baseline 4,-.1 Synchro 9 Light Report Page 1 6:00-6:00 . 281 4581 32 518 361 4701 79 585 1103 1231 681 56 247 321 491 70 151 3981 15011 PHF 0.96 0.42 0.47, 0.86 970-988-7551 ELBEngineering@Ipbroadhand.net