HomeMy WebLinkAboutINTERSTATE LAND - MASTER PLAN - 34-88A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY•
CO
oMemorandum
CO
o
,o
To: Michael Byrne
W
N
Eldon Ward
o
Rick Ensdorff
19
V
Mo
M
From: Matt Del ich
0
z
Date: April 13, 1988
LU
0
Subject: Preliminary traffic study of Interstate Land
11J
Master Plan
D
z
W
Q
This memorandum presents a preliminary traffic
z
a
study of the Interstate Land Master Plan addressing
_
z
specific concerns. The following specific concerns are
m
presented:
C2
- Trip generation
- Trip distribution
- Access locations
- Need for signals
- Signal progression
- Road geometrics
This study relates to the conceptual plan prepared by
Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. dated March 29, 1988. No
specific development proposal is part of this submis-
sion. The master plan is presented in a conceptual
sense. When specific development proposals are put
forth on all or part of the land, a detailed traffic
C-,
study should be performed.
z
Cr
w
w
z
Streets
z
w
This proposed development is located at the
CL:
?
northwest quadrant of I-25 and Prospect Road in Fort
U
•
Collins, Colorado. Prospect is classified as an
=
o
arterial and I-25 is a freeway. There is a partial
v
a
diamond interchange 4-aith access to I-25 being to/from
W
the south only. It is expected that, in the not too
o
a
distant future, north ramps will be added to this
z
interchange. Prospect Road will have an ultimate cross
-�
section of four lanes with a center turn lane at
appropriate locations. The timing of that cross section
3
c�
is dependent upon traffic volumes which are, in turn, a
uJ
U_
function of land development in the area and general
=
cc a
urban growth.
F--
There is a frontage road on the west side of I-25
which intersects with Prospect Road just west of the
southbound on -ramp. This is a two lane facility also
intersecting with State Route 14 (Mulberry Street) one
mile to the north.
Summit View Road intersects with Prospect Road
approximately 3200 feet west of I-25. This is a two
lane paved road also intersecting with State Route 14
approximately 1.3 miles to the northwest at a signalized
intersection.
Interstate Land Master Plan
Interstate Land is proposed to be a mixed -use
commercial and residential development. Of the 192
acres., 120 acres (62%) are intended to have commercial
uses. A schematic of the plan is shown in Figure 1.
The letters on the schematic refer to parcels which are
shown in Table 1, Trip Generation.
Intended access to the site is also shown in Figure
1. The frontage road is expected to be redirected
through the site which would move its intersection with
Prospect Road approximately 1 300 feet west of I -25.
This distance provides better operations once the ramps
are completed and traffic increases. Most access to the
site is expected to be from the realigned Frontage Road.
Additional access is proposed at Parcel G. This access.
will also serve the residential parcels to the north of
Parcel G. Access intersections along Prospect Road will
be evaluated with regard to potential signalization.
Potential access is shown from Summit View Road to the
west and Canal Drive to the north. These accesses are
subject to negotiations with adjacent property owners.
Trip Generation
Trip generation is important in considering the
impact of a. development such as this upon the existing
and proposed street system. A compilation of trip
generation information was prepared by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers in 1976, updated in 1983, and
was used to project trips that would be generated by the
proposed uses at this site. Table 1 shows the expected
trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The
assumed use categories for the residential portion of
the site from the Trip Generation Manual are single
family detached and apartment. The commerical area was
assumed to be retail and highway business (gas, conven-
ience retail, motel, restaurant, etc.). An alternative
use on Parcel A is industrial business park. The
analysis assumed no transit, ridesharing, or internal
0)
co
B
j
A
'1�
H
D
oo
0
PROSPECT ROAD
SCHEMATIC OF
INTERSTATE LAND SITE
k to
0 N
w
co
m
w
z
1
Ji
FIGURE 1
•
•
Table 1
Trip Generation
Daily Noon Peak P.M. Peak
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
Parcel A
Regional Retail
27900
285
175
1195
1240
750 KSF
Alternative Indust.
Park - 750 KSF
5250
405
120
145
445
Parcel B
Retail - 4.0 KSF
470
5
5
25
25
Parcel C
Retail - 32.0 KSF
1190
15
10
50
55
Parcel D
Highway Business
11960
265
250
440
345
230 KSF
Parcel E
Highway Business
1145
25
25
40
35
22 KSF
Parcel F
Highway Business
1665
35
35
60
50
32 KSF
Parcel G
Retail - 55 KSF
205
20
15
85
90
Parcel H
Residential Multi-
1070
15
65
65
30
Family - 162 DU
Parcel J
Single Family Resid.
780
15
45
50
30
78 DU
Parcel K
Residential Multi-
635
10
40
40
20
Family - 96 DU
Total
47020
690
665
2050
1920
trips. As such, the generation values used in subse-
quent analyses are conservatively high.
Trip Distribution
Directional distribution of the generated trips
from/to Interstate Land was determined assuming the
future street system in the area and future land uses in
the city. The distribution shown in Figure 2 was used
in this preliminary traffic analysis_. The North Front
Range Corridor Study was used to develop the long range
future trip distribution.
Traffic Assignment
Using the above trip generation and trip
distribution, an average daily traffic assignment was
performed. A daily, rather than peak hour assignment,
was performed since this master plan is not specific and
is intended only to show, order of magnitude traffic.
Detailed analysis of individual intersections should be
performed in later traffic studies when more specific
development proposals are put forth. The traffic
assignment is shown in Figure 3. Background traffic was
obtained from the North Front Range Corridor Study and
other traffic studies performed in this general area.
Only a long ranee (2010) traffic projection was
conducted in this preliminary traffic study. Short and
long range projections should be shown in subsequent
traffic studies when specific developments are proposed.
Si gnal Warrants
As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not
installed at any location unless warrants are met
according to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices." However, it is possible to determine whether
traffic signals are likely to be met based upon
estimated ADT and utilizing the chart shown in Table 2.
Using the major and minor street volumes shown in
Figure 3, it is likely that signals will be warranted at
the Prospect/Frontage Road intersection and the
Prospect/Parcel G access intersection. It is expected
that eventually signals will be warranted at the 1-25
ramp intersections and at the Prospect./Summit View
intersection. Signals may be warranted at one or two
intersections along the Frontage Road. However, this
determination and subsequent evaluation should be made
in a later traffic study.
Q
0
w
5/, LU
Q
z
(:SITE 0
oc
LIL
PROSPECT ROAD
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
00
H
NJ
N w
SITE
4-•-5 �/ ""-
lj
o U� o
a o
25,000_ Q Z0,000
PROSPECT ROAD
O
- 5 �° am
ZO%
FIGURE
FIGURE 2
SITE AND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FIGURE 3
0
0
0
CD
0
0
0
0
ae
N
N
O
O
►-
r
n
►�
O
N
N
N
N
tD
tD
'-
M
N
N
*
Ln
W
J 1
ae
O
c0
O
co
O .O
O
O
O
v
O
ct
O
CC)
O
CC)
N
V
d •
CD
tD
to
co
co
CC)
CO
d
-,I-C
r--�
co
CM
M
d
V
r
r
N
N
d
n
c
w
bit
CD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
0
o
0
to
0
to
0
o
0
C)
r J
M
w
^
r
c3-
ct
lD
tD
N
N
MM
M
O
to
C
Z W
.r
O Cr Z
O^
r-
b
CD
CD
C)ct
d
to
to
aE
=)
r-
r
r
r
r
r-
0-
M
O M::
tD
a)cyl
\
W Q -i
CL' O Z
a E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
,_
U
mM
1
W O Of O
CDN
N
tD
to
tD
tD
►-
M
O D- Z
_p
a)
>,
tr) > d C)
E
Q)
.0
W 6 +
J cr F F
a E
to
O
C:)o
QJ
U W iJ U
C:)
CD
C:)
C)
C:)
r-
C:)
CDaJ
cli
C
W W
CDto
to
CD
N
C)r`
N
r
r
Z
x ED Cif a
r
♦-
r
tb
E
w I-- ►-'
s
CO
C
•r
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
O
O
O
CD
to
r
L.
a)
C
cT
a E
O
r--
m
O
O
O
O
r
to
r�
to
to
r.
al
rC
a)
L
H
7
to
Ln
r-
r.
to
co
0
o
co
N
C
,—
1
N
O
CDW'W
-::r*
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C)
C)
C)W
v
{'
W
as
v
O
O
-S
to
O
0
O
C)
O
C)
O
CD
Li
C)
ai
N
._j F-
o
to
o
o
aw'd
d
O
«)
lD
co
u7
-
tD
C)
N
N
CD
t-
co
4-3m
N
LA
ae
C)C)
0
C)
C)
C)
0
C)
FL
i
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
71)
O
O
O
O
O
to
(�
O
M
O
O
M
_
f 1
r
CO
O
O
co
N
Ln
to
N
aj C
LnE
7...�
V]
r-
r
r
r-•
r
r
rtn
rb
b
=
a)
O.
r
C
U
U
1
aJ
�
a)
E
b
Z
to
C
a)
a)
O J^
O
L
L
d to
H W
a E
C)
CD
C)
CD
O
to
N
CD
C:)
m
Ln
N
0
O x
r�
to
N
N
to
In
(-I
lD
tD
t1)
0
Cr
4-3
CDF - ¢
M
ci
ct
M
•t-J
O
C)
a)
C
L
O
C1
L
cr F- Of
C:)
CD
0
0
0
0
o
N
CD
N
C)
U
4-3wwa
A
m w M
Co
C:)C)
co
co
C:)CDN
tD
f--
r-
to
U
O
C
N
O
S.-C
-J
�-
U CY C)
as
CD
CD
O
O
C)
CD
CD
CD
CD
rb
L
d
L
rtl
r
E
.. O M
O
O
CD
O
O
to
r�
o
CT
O
CD
W
r�
to
to
to
to
Q7
?�
W d U-
L
Cl)
m
rt)
> i O
O
L
C
3
al
a)
a)
a)
t/)
lj
a)
LO
4-1L
a)
O
ti r
tL
l/1
O
O
o
f
L
W d d
O
L
r nLL
O
O
b
d~
►+
r
r
N
N
r
r
N
N
3
m
U- Z d
a)
_
'—
N
~
L
O
L.a)
O
O
O
!Z
7x o u
N
E
E
E
E
trt
W ,E d
Of
LO
Lo
W
a w
O
o
p
O
CO
O
C] Z
Z L C)
I
d
7-r
N
iNvaavM
11
1NvaavM
Signal Progression
Signal progression was analyzed along Prospect Road
to determine if a signal at the Frontage Road intersec-
tion would provide good progression along Prospect Road.
A preliminary signal progression analysis along
Prospect between the east ramp to I-25 and Timberline
Road was conducted. The signal progression was analyzed
based upon the following assumptions:
- Cycle length of 100 seconds
- Posted speed on Prospect Road of 35-40 mph
- Mainline Street Green versus Cycle Length
East Ramp G/C = 0.75
West Ramp G/C = 0.75
Frontage Road G/C = 0.60
Parcel G Access G/C = 0.70
Summit View G/C = 0.65
Prospect Park Way G/C = 0.65
Timberline G/C = 0.40
- Green time on the cross street is greater than
the pedestrian crossing time of the mainline
street at 4 feet per second.
- Achieve the largest possible green bandwidth on
the mainline street (Prospect Road).
Appendix A shows that progression is possible along
Prospect Road with a signal located at the Frontage Road
and Access. to Parcel G using a cycle length of 100
seconds. These analyses should be refined in subsequent
traffic studies.
The above progression analyses are presented to
show that signals can fit along Prospect Road. Design
progression analysis must be conducted on a regular
basis reflecting changes in land use, speed, and other
variables.
Future Access
The following comments are made concerning access
and geometrics with regards to Interstate Land Master
Plan.
- Acces_.s_. from Prospect Road can be made at two
locations, one being the relocated Frontage Road and the
other being to the viest in the area of Parcel G. The
locations shown on the master plan are reasonable from a
signal progression point of view.
- Primary access to the major portion of the site
is intended to be from the Frontage Road. If the
0
•
regional retail use goes into Parcel A, it is likely
that a signal would be warranted at the Parcel A Access,/
Frontage Road intersection. It is expected that a total
of three access intersections will be on the Frontage
Road in the first 2000 feet north of Prospect Road.
- Potential accesses are shown to Summit View from
the west and to Canal Drive from the north. These
accesses would cause a decrease in demand at the
Prospect Road and Frontage Road accesses. They would
create a positive impact on higher volume roads in the
area.
- Figure 4 shows the long range lane requirements
on the area roads and streets. These geometrics are
based upon the traffic volumes shown in Figure 3.
This preliminary traffic study only addresses the
traffic impacts in a generalized manner and is only
appropriate for the master plan submitted. It is
recommended that a more detailed traffic study be
considered as the various elements of this project
advance through the planning process.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from this
preliminary traffic analysis of Interstate Land Master
Plan:
- It is expected that this proposed development,
at full build -out as described, will generate
approximately 47,000 vehicle trip ends on an average
weekday.
- Signals will likely be warranted with full
development of the Interstate Land Master Plan at the
Frontage Road/Prospect Road and Access to Parcel
G/Prospect intersections. With the regional retail use
on Parcel A, it is likely that a signal will be
warranted along the Frontage Road at the major access to
Parcels A and D.
- Relocation of the Frontage Road to the west of
its current location will have a positive impact on the
operation of Prospect Road and the I-25 interchange.
- The signals located along Prospect Road can fit
into a signal progression scheme along Prospect Road.
- The geometric requirements along Prospect Road
are in basic accordance with the Fort Collins Master
Street Plan.
N
LANE REQUIREMENTS FIGURE 4
- Additional traffic studies should be conducted
when specific development proposals are put forth.
Ideally, a traffic impact study should be conducted
which considers this property as well as other nearby
development proposals.
•
L�
APPEVIDI K A
MATTHEW J DEL
ARTERIAL *SSION DEGIGN
RUN6
ROUTE,
PROSPECT
INTERSECTIONS?
7 CYCLE LENGTHt
100 SYSTEM OFFSET, 0
BANDWIDTH
LEFT? 30 SrC. R1014T? 30
349e. PERFORMANCE INDEXt
37
EFFICIENCY, 30-;;-' ATTAINABILITY, 80 INTERFERENCE, 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO.
.........TIME -LOCATION DIAGRAM.......... DISTANCE
SPEED
RIGHTSOUND
... READ DOWN LEFT RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
1
XXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxXxxx 1600
0
35
35
2
XXxxxxxxxxx
xxx 5600
1600
35
35
3
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1100
5600
35
35
4
xxxxxxx
XXXXX 820
1100
35
35
5
xxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXX 940
820
35
35
6
XxxxxxxxXX 840
940
35
35
7
XXXXXX
xxxx 0
940
35
35
NO. OFFSET
.........TIME —LOCATION DIAGRAM..........
PHASE
LENGTHS
LEFTSOUND ...
READ UP 1
2 3 4
5 6
7 8
1
20
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX 40
60
2
57
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXX 65
35
3
7
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
65
35
4
55
XX
XXXXXXXXXX 70
30
5
62
XXXXXXXxxxx
XXXXX 60
40
6
52
XXXXXXXXXX
75
25
7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
XXXXXXXXXX 75
25
TIME SPACE DIAGRAM
ROUTE, PROSPECT
COMMENT: RUN6
CYCLE LENGTH 100 SECONDS, SCALE (INCH=40Y OF CYCLE, 1 LINE- 273 FT
r�r*riE■rs�t•t,?e�*+t«���?e�+t*+r*�c�x*+t*r*+erersr*r�r*x?r*�*�+rrr***r*+,r+t?r+rr�?e+err. **tt?e**?rr:r
11`IHiSB�xIN6 xxxxxxxxx�>mxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
2 xxxxxxx XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
35t)"I-r Vtaal XXXxxx xxxxxxx XXXXXX
4Actb-ss ToAxxxxx XXXXXXX XXXXXXX
51-[Op1 TAG 6XPl**lX<XXX XXXXXXXXXX Xxxxxxxxxx
6W69T PA-RXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
7 EAS r �AN P //xxxxxxx xxxxxx
i
r�r���,e.r.*+e*t,.**er*+r.?r,e..+,.rrr*rrttetr*r.?r+t*?rt,er■,rerr*?r*.+,*�*x?r?r�.■*.*r■■.*+t■�ter?t.
I 'r
MAT THEW J DEIAM•
ARTERIAL WESSION DEGIGN
RUN3
ROUTES PROSPECT
INTERSECTIONSs 7 CYCLE LENGTHt 100 SYSTEM OFFSETt 0
BANDWIDTH LEFTS 2766G RIGHTt 27 S E G PERFORMANCE INDEXt 34
EFFICIENCYs 27 /o ATTAINABILITYt 72 1NTERFERENCEt 23
NO.
.........TIME —LOCATION DIAGRAM.......... DISTANCE
SPEED
RIGHTSOUND ... READ DOWN LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
I
XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 1600
0
40
40
2
XXXXXXXX XxXxxx 5600
1600
40
40
3
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1100
5600
40
40
4
XXXXXXXXXXXX 820
1100
40
40
5
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 940
820
40
40
6
XXXXXXXXXX 840
940
40
40
7
XXXXXXXXXX 0
940
40
40
NO.
OFFSET
.........TIME —LOCATION DIAGRAM..........
PHASE
LENGTHS
LEFTBOUND ... READ UP 1
2
3 4
5 6
7 8
1
10
xxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx XXXX 40
60
2
47
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX 65
35
3
97
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 65
35
4
95
XXXXXXXXXXXX 70
30
5
50
XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 60
40
6
42
XXXxxxxxxx 75
25
7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42
XXXXXXXXXX 75
25
TIME SPACE DIAGRAM
ROUTES PROSPECT
COMMENT s RUN3
CYCLE LENGTH 100 SECONDSs SCALE IINCH=40% OF CYCLEt I LINE= 275 FT
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkiFkkkkkkkkkkkkkk/kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
IT,m smiAm Vxxxxxxxxxx*xY/ \ / \XXXxXXXxxXXXX)// xxxxxxxxxxxx
2
3SUMMI�
4 Access
5 FLOUTI
6 WC ST
76AST I
k kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk