HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLOOM FILING FOUR - FDP240001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY
PREPARED FOR:
Hartford Homes
PREPARED BY:
Brian Horan, PE, PTOE
Daniela Gonzalez
Galloway & Company, Inc.
5500 Greenwood Plaza Blvd, Suite 200
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
DATE:
May 12, 2023
Revised: August 1, 2023
Revised: August 28, 2023
BLOOM SUBDIVISION
FILING - 4
Fort Collins, Colorado
Memorandum
8-28-23
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Introduction
The following memorandum provides support for the initial Project Development Plan (PDP) described
herein as “Filing 4” of the Bloom Subdivision development. The site plan for Filing 4 is provided as
Attachment I. A Master Traffic Impact Study (MTIS) by Galloway dated revised January 17, 2022, was
prepared for the overall Bloom development. The Master TIS provided operational and queueing analysis
for a number of major intersections. Excerpts from the Bloom MTIS are provided in Attachment II.
The MTIS analyzed the overall project in two distinct phases to provide triggers for infrastructure and the
ultimate improvements necessary to accommodate development. Filing 4 of the Bloom development
consists of Parcel E of the Mulberry Master Plan highlighted within the overall plan in Figure 1.
Infrastructure necessary to support Filing 4 is proposed to be constructed largely with earlier filings.
Infrastructure proposed to be constructed with Filing 4 consists of the construction of local roads within
the parcel. The development area and roadways proposed with Filing 4 are highlighted in Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 1, the Applicant is proposing to construct all proposed roadway connections to their
ultimate buildout as recommended by the MTIS. The operational analysis contained herein provides
summary of the analysis of the build out of Filing 4 and the proposed geometries as shown in Figure 1.
A scoping call was had with the City on March 31, 2023, to discuss the scope of the analysis and information
contained herein. Generally, it was determined that this memorandum would include a comparison of the
MTIS, what has been approved with previous Filings, inclusion of additional background information, a
discussion of the parking needs and assessment of the proposed Filing 4 plan. The following memorandum
addresses the scope of what was discussed in the meeting.
Methodology
The analysis contained herein utilizes the same base assumptions found within the MTIS in order to
determine consistency with the MTIS. Forecasts for the operational analysis utilize existing volumes,
background growth consistent with the MTIS, and updated traffic volumes from the nearby Montava
Traffic Impact Study. Figures from the MTIS are provided as Attachment II and annotated for ease of
reference.
Synchro software version 11 was used to evaluate levels of service at each of the study intersections during
the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Synchro is a macroscopic model used for optimizing traffic signal
timing and performing capacity analyses. The software can model existing traffic signal timings or optimize
splits, offsets, and cycle lengths for individual intersections, an arterial, or a complete network. Synchro
allows the user to evaluate the effects of changing intersection geometrics, traffic demands, traffic control,
and/or traffic signal settings as well as optimize traffic signal timings.
The levels of service reported for the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed herein were taken
from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th reports generated by Synchro 11.
2
ArterialArterial
Minor Collector
Minor Collector
Figure 1 - Filing 4 Location
Filing 4
䙩汩湧‴
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Existing Conditions and Future Conditions without Site Development
Overview
The following section summarizes the results from the MTIS for the existing and background conditions.
The assumptions and results for existing and background conditions are still valid and have been
recreated herein.
Traffic Volumes
Existing counts collected in March of 2021 were presented as Figure 3-1 in the MTIS. The existing
volumes, consistent with the MTIS, are provided annotated in Attachment II and recreated herein as
Figure 2. Background growth for the Filing 4 2023 build out year was applied to the through movements
along Timberline Road to account for regional development outside the boundary of the study scope.
These growth projections are provided in Attachment II and recreated herein as Figure 3.
Figure 2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Since the time of completion of the MTIS, a nearby background study has been submitted supporting the
Montava development specifically Phases G and E. With this study more recent existing counts were
conducted. Excerpts from this study are provided in Attachment III. Figure 3 of the Montava study
provides the more recent counts. In order to provide a comparison a section was isolated between the
Timberline Road/Vine Drive intersection and Timberline Road/Sykes Drive intersection. A comparison
shows that the Bloom MTIS counts are approximately 7% greater in both the southbound and northbound
direction for both AM and PM peak hours. With this confirmation it should be noted that the Bloom MTIS
provides a more conservative analysis of the region and therefore the Bloom MTIS conclusions and
recommendations are still considered valid as it relates to existing conditions.
4
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Figure 3 Build out 2023 Growth Projections
Capacity and Queue Analysis
Existing levels of service (LOS) and queues for the subject intersections operate acceptably. As shown in
Table 1 and Table 2 below and consistent with the MTIS, the studied intersections operate at LOS E or
better in existing conditions and background future 2023 conditions and queues are contained within their
effective storage.
5
Table 1
Bloom
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (1) (2)
Operating Street Approach/ AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EB C [15.1]B [12.2]
EBL C [23.7] D [26.6]
EBTR B [13.6] B [10.5]
WB D [28.1]D [29.9]
WBL E [35.3] E [35.1]
WBTR A [9.8] B [11.2]
NB A [0.3]A [1.0]
NBL A [8.9] A [8.2]
NBT A [0.0] A [0.0]
NBR A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB A [0.2]A [0.7]
SBL A [8.0] A [8.7]
SBTR A [0.0] A [0.0]
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EB A [0.8]A [0.8]
EBL A [7.9] A [7.8]
EBT A [0.0] A [0.0]
WB A [0.0]A [0.0]
WBTR A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB B [10.8]B [10.8]
SBL B [12.3] B [13.1]
SBR A [10.0] A [9.6]
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP EB A [6.8]A [6.9]
EBTR A [6.8] A [6.9]
WB A [7.6]A [7.8]
WBLT A [7.6] A [7.8]
NB A [6.7]A [6.9]
NBLR A [6.7] A [6.9]
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EB B (11.1)D (43.6)
EBL C (20.8) B (10.2)
EBT B (11.0) D (45.8)
EBR A (7.6) A (7.8)
WB C (25.6)B (13.6)
WBL A (8.2) C (27.1)
WBT C (26.1) B (12.7)
WBR A (6.7) A (6.8)
NB C (31.9)C (34.1)
NBL C (31.3) C (34.7)
NBTR C (32.5) C (33.5)
SB C (30.7)D (43.4)
SBLTR C (30.7)D (43.4)
C (21.0) C (31.9)
Notes : (1) Numbers in brackets [] represent delay at unsignalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
(2) Numbers in parenthesis () represent delay at signalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Frontage Rd
Frontage Rd
Greenfields Ct
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Overall
Existing 2021
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Table 2
Bloom
Existing Intersection Queueing Summary (1)
Operating Street Approach/Available AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Storage Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EBL 130 2.5 2.5
EBTR - 7.5 5
WBL 200 45 35
WBTR - 2.5 2.5
NBL - 0 5
NBT - 0 0
NBR 375 0 0
SBL 145 0 2.5
SBTR - 0 0
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EBL 300 0 2.5
EBT - 0 0
Vine Dr WBT - 0 0
SBL - 2.5 2.5
SBR - 2.5 2.5
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP Frontage Rd EBTR - 2.5 5
Frontage Rd WBLT - 7.5 10
Greenfields Ct NBLR - 2.5 2.5
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EBL 185 12 15
EBT - 254 850
EBR 280 15 18
WBL 575 21 71
WBT - 756 378
WBR 240 0 0
NBL 210 86 102
NBTR - 42 48
Greenfields Ct SBLTR - 56 146
Notes : (1) Queue length is based on the 95th percentile queue as reported by Synchro, Version 10.
Existing 2021
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Timberline Rd
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Site Analysis
Overview
As mentioned previously, the first phase of the MTIS analyzed all the development that could be
supported by the initial infrastructure improvements of the overall Bloom development. This first phase of
the project encompasses approximately the first four filings that have been approved or are in process.
Filing 4 represents the remainder of the phase 1 development assumptions and infrastructure.
Proposed Site Access
Filing 4 is proposed to be accessed via two full movement access along Aria Way and two full movement
access locations along Greenfields Drive. The Applicant is proposing to build out the connections to their
full geometry as required by the LCUASS consistent with volumes determined by the MTIS.
Site Trips
Trip generation estimates for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as the weekday average daily
traffic (ADT), were derived from the standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual rates/equations, as published in the 10th edition for the MTIS. Since the time of the MTIS, ITE has
been updated to the 11th edition. A comparison of the approved development program from the MTIS and
the approved or in process filings is provided in Table 3.
The distribution of the forecasted trips generated by the completion of Filing 4 is consistent with distributions
from the MTIS:
To/from the north on Timberline Road: 20%
To/from the east on Vine Drive: 10%
To/from the east on Mulberry Street: 40%
To/from the west on Mulberry Street: 30%
Consistent with the distributions above the site trips were assigned to the local network. The trip
assignments are depicted on Figure 4 consistent with the MTIS.
Right Turn Lane Analysis
With the site trips developed an assessment of the right turn lanes can be completed. Figure 8-4 of
LCUASS provides the warrants for right turn lanes. The roadways in the vicinity of the subject site are 35
mph or less. Therefore, no turn lanes would be required if turning movements are fewer than 40 right
turns in a peak hour. As shown on Figure 4 no entrance to the development experiences more than 40
peak hour turns. Therefore, no additional turn lanes would be required.
Site Trip Comparison
A comparison is provided herein of the trip generation used in the MTIS for the first four filings to what
was ultimately approved. As shown in Table 3, 1,385 units were assumed in the first four filings while
1,185 units were ultimately approved/proposed. This represents 67 fewer AM peak hour and 79 fewer PM
peak hour trips. This reduction results from a combination of fewer overall units as well as the updated
trip generation rates between the 10th and 11th editions.
8
STOP
YIELD
FIGURE 5
Filing 4 Site Trips
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
STOP
STOP
STOP
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
Table 3
Bloom - Filing 4
Site Trip Generation
Land Average
Land Use Use Daily
Code Amount Units In Out Total In Out Total Trips
Approved: (1)
Filing 1 + 2
Single Family Detached Housing 210 371 DU 67 201 268 226 132 358 3,473
Filing 1 + 2 Total 371 DU 67 201 268 226 132 358 3,473
Filing 3
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)221 470 DU 41 115 156 120 76 196 2,560
Filing 3 Total 470 DU 41 115 156 120 76 196 2,560
Filing 4
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)221 540 DU 47 132 179 137 87 224 2,941
Filing 4 Total 540 DU 47 132 179 137 87 224 2,941
Approved Total Site Trips (Filings 1-4) 1,381 DU 155 448 603 483 295 778 8,974
Proposed: (2)
Filing 1 + 2
Single Family Detached Housing 210 260 DU 45 133 178 154 90 244 2,430
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)220 152 DU 17 53 70 54 32 86 1,050
Filing 1 + 2 Total 412 DU 62 186 248 208 122 330 3,480
Filing 3
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)220 360 DU 32 102 134 110 65 175 2,383
Filing 3 Total 360 DU 32 102 134 110 65 175 2,383
Filing 4
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)220 297 DU 28 87 115 93 55 148 1,979
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)221 116 DU 9 30 39 28 18 46 527
Filing 4 Total 413 DU 37 117 154 121 73 194 3,480
Proposed Actual Total Site Trips (Filings 1-4) 1,185 DU 131 405 536 439 260 699 9,343
Difference (Proposed - Approved) (196) DU (24) (43) (67) (44) (35) (79) 369
Note(s):
(1) Trip generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition
(2) Trip generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Parking
Filing 4 will provide a total of 593 on and off-street parking spaces to support the development. This includes
a mix of compact, garage, and accessible spaces as required. The project proposes a parking ratio
consistent with site needs and in conformance with national standards. The proposed development is 413
units which would represent a parking ratio of 1.43 spaces per unit. The ITE Parking Generation Manual
5th edition was consulted for comparison to the proposed parking ratio. The following ratios are provided for
the multifamily LUC used within the analysis:
Weekday Average: 1.31 spaces/DU (542 spaces)
Weekday 85th Percentile: 1.47 spaces/DU (608 spaces)
Saturday Average: 1.22 spaces/DU (504 spaces)
Saturday 85th Percentile: 1.33 spaces/DU (550 spaces)
As can be seen with the national data the proposed parking ratio is greater than or in line with the proposed
parking supply.
Table 4. ITE Parking Demand Summary - Weekday
Weekday Demand Rate
(Parking Demand/Dwelling Unit)Land Use LUC Amount
33rd %Average 85th %
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)221 413 DU 1.13 1.31 1.47
Weekday Parking Demand (Total Spaces)467 542 608
Table 5. ITE Parking Demand Summary - Saturday
Saturday Demand Rate
(Parking Demand/Dwelling Unit)Land Use LUC Amount
33rd %Average 85th %
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)221 413 DU 0.94 1.22 1.33
Saturday Parking Demand (Total Spaces)389 504 550
Analysis of Future Conditions with Filing 4 Site Development
Consistency with MTIS
Future levels of service with the proposed development plan were estimated based on the future traffic
volumes shown on Figure 4 and the HCM 6th methodologies for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
The results of these analyses are provided in Attachment II and presented in Table 4 and Table 5. As
mentioned, the existing volumes in the MTIS are greater than the recent data collection associated with
Montava and the approved and proposed filings represent fewer units and trip generation than the approved
MTIS. These two factors confirm that the approved MTIS provides a more conservative analysis of the first
four filings originally studied.
Total Future 2023 Operational Analysis with Proposed Development
Future levels of service with the proposed development plan were estimated based on the future traffic
volumes shown on Figure 4 and the HCM 6th methodologies for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
The results of these analyses are provided in Attachment II and presented in Table 4 and Table 5.
11
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
As shown in Table 4, levels of service under future site development conditions for the Frontage
Road/Greenfields Drive and International Drive/Greenfields Drive intersections are projected to operate at
LOS “A” in the AM and PM peak hours in 2023.
The International Drive/Greenfields Drive intersection is forecasted to operate acceptably as a two-way
STOP controlled intersection as shown herein and within the MTIS. As noted in the MTIS this intersection
is shown on the Master Street Plan as a roundabout. It was likely assumed that such control would be
necessary at the intersection of two arterials. As shown in the MTIS and herein vehicle trips to and from
the eastern approach of this intersection are forecasted to be minor. The volumes shown herein and the
MTIS would not necessitate the need for improvements.
As an additional check regarding the operations of the future International Drive/Greenfields Drive
intersection a Peak Hour signal warrant was performed for 2023 conditions. The Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices 2009 Edition (MUTCD) provides a nine (9) distinct warrants for determining the
appropriateness of a traffic signal as an operational improvement for an intersection. Due to the availability
of the data from this traffic study, Warrant 3 – Peak Hour warrant, although not the proper warrant for this
intersection, was considered to confirm the use of a traffic signal as an improvement for the above
intersection. As shown below in Figure 5, significant growth would need to occur before a signal would be
warranted.
Total future queues were forecasted using Synchro software. The results of the queuing analysis are
summarized in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, vehicle queues are forecasted to remain within their
proposed effective storage.
As shown in Table 4, levels of service under future site development conditions for the left turn movements
at the Sykes Drive/Timberline Road intersection are projected to operate at LOS “F” in the AM and PM peak
hours in 2023, however queues are contained within their effective storage, and operations do not warrant
a signal for 2023 as shown in the MTIS.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Filing 4 of the Bloom Subdivision is consistent with the assumptions and analysis found within the
Bloom Subdivision (Mulberry) Master TIS.
The existing volumes found in the MTIS are approximately 7% greater than a recent data collection
with the nearby Montava development. The existing conditions analysis should be considered
conservative and valid.
The first four filings of the Bloom development were approved/proposed with 200 fewer dwelling
units than studied in the MTIS. This represents 67 fewer AM peak hour and 79 fewer PM peak hour
trips than studied.
No additional turn lanes would be required based on specific site trip assignments.
The parking ratio requested by the development is more conservative or inline with national
standards shown in ITE
12
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Under 2023 total future traffic conditions with development of Filing 4 of the site, the study
intersections would operate at overall acceptable levels of service consistent with the findings of
the Bloom Subdivision (Mulberry) Master TIS.
No additional improvements or signalization would be required with the approval of Filing 4.
Recommendations
The Applicant should provide discussed roadway connections constructed to their ultimate
geometry to provide access for Filing 4 development consistent with the recommendations of the
Bloom Subdivision (Mulberry) TIS.
13
Warrants Summary Report
4: Greenfield Dr & International Dr
Intersection Information
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lanes
Major Street Minor Street
Approach Speed
Greenfield Dr
NB/SB
2
30
International Dr
EB/WB
2
30
Met? NotesWarrant
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
No
Condition A or B Met?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Condition A and B Met?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
No 0 Hours met (4 required)
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
No
Condition A Met?No 0 Hours met (1 required)
Condition B Met?No 0 Hours met (1 required)
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
No
Peds > 100 Condition Met?No 0 Hours met (4 required)
Peds > 190 Condition Met?No 0 Hours met (1 required)
Warrant 5, School Crossing
No
1 8/17/2021Federal 2003
2023 AM
Warrants Summary Report
4: Greenfield Dr & International Dr
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
No
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
No
Traffic Volume Condition?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Ped Condition?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
No
2 8/17/2021Federal 2003
2023 AM
Warrants Summary Report
4: Greenfield Dr & International Dr
Intersection Information
Street Name
Direction
Number of Lanes
Major Street Minor Street
Approach Speed
Greenfield Dr
NB/SB
2
30
International Dr
EB/WB
2
30
Met? NotesWarrant
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
No
Condition A or B Met?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Condition A and B Met?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
No 0 Hours met (4 required)
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
No
Condition A Met?No 0 Hours met (1 required)
Condition B Met?No 0 Hours met (1 required)
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
No
Peds > 100 Condition Met?No 0 Hours met (4 required)
Peds > 190 Condition Met?No 0 Hours met (1 required)
Warrant 5, School Crossing
No
1 8/17/2021Federal 2003
2023 PM
Warrants Summary Report
4: Greenfield Dr & International Dr
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
No
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
No
Traffic Volume Condition?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Ped Condition?No 0 Hours met (8 required)
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
No
2 8/17/2021Federal 2003
2023 PM
Table 3
Bloom
Total Future Intersection Level of Service Summary (1) (2)
Operating Street Approach/AM PM AM PM AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EB C [15.1]B [12.2]C [15.6]B [12.4]C [17.1]B [14.8]
EBL C [23.7] D [26.6] C [25.0] D [27.8] D [34.9] F [51.3]
EBTR B [13.6] B [10.5] B [13.9] B [10.6] B [13.9] B [10.6]
WB D [28.1]D [29.9]D [30.4]D [31.8]E [47.0]F [73.5]
WBL E [35.3] E [35.1] E [38.6] E [37.5] F [84.5] F [129.1]
WBTR A [9.8] B [11.2] A [9.9] B [11.3] B [10.7] B [12.2]
NB A [0.3]A [1.0]A [0.3]A [1.0]A [0.3]A [0.9]
NBL A [8.9] A [8.2] A [9.0] A [8.3] A [9.0] A [8.3]
NBT A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0]
NBR A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB A [0.2]A [0.7]A [0.2]A [0.6]A [0.6]A [2.6]
SBL A [8.0] A [8.7] A [8.0] A [8.7] A [8.1] A [9.5]
SBTR A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0]
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EB A [0.8]A [0.8]A [0.8]A [0.8]n/a n/a
EBL A [7.9] A [7.8] A [7.9] A [7.8] n/a n/a
EBT A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] n/a n/a
WB A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]n/a n/a
WBTR A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] n/a n/a
SB B [10.8]B [10.8]B [10.9]B [10.9]n/a n/a
SBL B [12.3] B [13.1] B [12.5] B [13.4] n/a n/a
SBR A [10.0] A [9.6] A [10.0] A [9.6] n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
STOP EB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.7]A [0.8]
EBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [7.9] A [7.9]
EBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]
WBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
WBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]
NBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
NBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a B [11.1]B [11.3]
SBL n/a n/a n/a n/a B [13.0] B [14.2]
SBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a B [10.1] A [9.8]
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP EB A [6.8]A [6.9]A [6.8]A [6.9]n/a n/a
EBTR A [6.8] A [6.9] A [6.8] A [6.9] n/a n/a
WB A [7.6]A [7.8]A [7.6]A [7.8]n/a n/a
WBLT A [7.6] A [7.8] A [7.6] A [7.8] n/a n/a
NB A [6.7]A [6.9]A [6.7]A [6.9]n/a n/a
NBLR A [6.7] A [6.9] A [6.7] A [6.9] n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
Roundabout constructed CIRCLE EB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.6]A [3.7]
EBLTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.6] A [3.7]
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.3]A [4.1]
WBLTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.3] A [4.1]
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [2.9]A [3.7]
NBLTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.0] A [3.9]
NBR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [2.8] A [2.9]
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [4.0]A [3.6]
SBLT n/a n/a n/a n/a A [4.0] A [3.6]
SBR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [2.7] A [2.8]
n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.6]A [3.8]
4 International Dr/Private Dr/Greenfields Ct STOP EB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [9.1]A [8.8]
EBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
EBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [9.1] A [8.8]
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]
WBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
WBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [5.4]A [5.5]
NBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [7.4] A [7.5]
NBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]
SBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
SBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0]
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EB B (11.1)D (43.6)B (11.3)E (55.7)n/a n/a
EBL C (20.8) B (10.2) C (22.4) B (10.8) n/a n/a
EBT B (11.0) D (45.8) B (11.2) E (58.4) n/a n/a
EBR A (7.6) A (7.8) A (7.5) A (7.8) n/a n/a
WB C (25.6)B (13.6)C (31.5)B (14.0)n/a n/a
WBL A (8.2) C (27.1) A (8.4) C (27.1) n/a n/a
WBT C (26.1) B (12.7) C (32.2) B (13.2) n/a n/a
WBR A (6.7) A (6.8) A (6.6) A (6.8) n/a n/a
NB C (31.9)C (34.1)C (32.2)C (34.1)n/a n/a
NBL C (31.3) C (34.7) C (31.6) C (34.7) n/a n/a
NBTR C (32.5) C (33.5) C (32.8) C (33.5) n/a n/a
SB C (30.7)D (43.4)C (31.0)D (43.4)n/a n/a
SBLTR C (30.7)D (43.4)C (31.0)D (43.4)n/a n/a
C (21.0)C (31.9)C (24.6)D (38.5)n/a n/a
SB Greenfields Ct Lane Improvements
Signal EB n/a n/a n/a n/a B (14.5)B (14.5)
EBL n/a n/a n/a n/a B (16.0) A (8.0)
EBT n/a n/a n/a n/a B (14.6) B (15.0)
EBR n/a n/a n/a n/a B (11.6) A (8.2)
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a B (19.5)B (11.7)
WBL n/a n/a n/a n/a B (11.1) B (18.4)
WBT n/a n/a n/a n/a B (19.8) B (11.3)
WBR n/a n/a n/a n/a A (0.0) A (0.0)
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a C (28.3)C (30.5)
NBL n/a n/a n/a n/a C (28.2) C (30.8)
NBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a C (28.3) C (30.3)
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a C (31.8)C (33.3)
SBL n/a n/a n/a n/a C (32.3) C (34.0)
SBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a C (25.3)C (26.6)
n/a n/a n/a n/a B (18.9)B (15.1)
Notes : (1) Numbers in brackets [] represent delay at unsignalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
(2) Numbers in parenthesis () represent delay at signalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
Frontage Rd
International Dr
Existing 2021 Background 2023 Total Future 2023
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Overall
Overall
Greenfields Ct
Overall
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Frontage Rd
Frontage Rd
Frontage Rd
Greenfields Ct
Private Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Table 4
Bloom
Total Future Intersection Queueing Summary (1)
Operating Street Approach/ Available AM PM AM PM AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Storage Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EBL 130 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 5
EBTR - 7.5 5 10 5 10 5
WBL 200 45 35 50 37.5 132.5 127.5
WBTR - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 12.5
NBL - 0 5 0 5 0 5
NBT - 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBR 375 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 145 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 12.5
SBTR - 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EBL 300 0 2.5 0 2.5 n/a n/a
EBT - 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a
Vine Dr WBT - 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a
SBL - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a
SBR - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
STOP EBL 300 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 2.5
EBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
WBL 250 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
WBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
NBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
NBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
SBL - n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 2.5
SBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 2.5
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP Frontage Rd EBTR - 2.5 5 2.5 5 n/a n/a
Frontage Rd WBLT - 7.5 10 7.5 10 n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct NBLR - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
Roundabout constructed CIRCLE Frontage Rd EBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
Frontage Rd WBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
Greenfields Ct NBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 25
Greenfields Ct SBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 0
4 International Dr/Private Dr/Greenfields Ct STOP EBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
EBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.5 7.5
WBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
WBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
NBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 7.5
NBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
SBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
SBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EBL 185 12 15 12 15 n/a n/a
EBT - 254 850 268 900 n/a n/a
EBR 280 15 18 15 18 n/a n/a
WBL 575 21 71 21 71 n/a n/a
WBT - 756 378 804 402 n/a n/a
WBR 240 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a
NBL 210 86 102 86 102 n/a n/a
NBTR - 42 48 42 48 n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct SBLTR - 56 146 56 146 n/a n/a
SB Greenfields Ct Lane Improvements
Signal EBL 360 n/a n/a n/a n/a 11 14
EBT - n/a n/a n/a n/a 206 376
EBR 280 n/a n/a n/a n/a 19 18
WBL 575 n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 56
WBT - n/a n/a n/a n/a 468 214
WBR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 24
NBL 210 n/a n/a n/a n/a 95 101
NBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 42 48
SBL - n/a n/a n/a n/a 80 79
SBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 44 53
Notes : (1) Queue length is based on the 95th percentile queue as reported by Synchro, Version 10.
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Existing 2021 Background 2023 Total Future 2023
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Timberline Rd
International Dr
Private Dr
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Dr
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Attachment I
Filing 4 Site Plan
VAULT
VA
U
L
T
B
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 4
DETENTION
POND
BUILDING 5
BUILDING 6 BUILDING 9 BUILDING 10
CLUBHOUSE
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
8
BUILDING 7
IN
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
GREENFIELDS DRIVE
ARIA WAY
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
DO
N
E
L
L
A
D
R
I
V
E
BL
O
O
M
F
I
L
I
N
G
O
N
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
PEAKVIEW DEVELOPMENT,
SHOWN FOR REFERENCE
ONLY- NOT A PART
BL
O
O
M
F
I
L
I
N
G
T
W
O
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
BL
O
O
M
F
I
L
I
N
G
T
W
O
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
BLOOM FILING 3,
SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY- NOT A PART
FINAL DESIGN STILL PENDING
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
PARCEL, SEE FILING ONE
FOR SEEDING AND
GRADING
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
PARCEL, SEE FILING ONE
FOR SEEDING AND
GRADING
BUILDING X
MATCH LINE
PHASE LINE
MATCH LINE
PHASE LINE
OWNER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
OWNER:
DATE:
SHEET TITLE:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
BL
O
O
M
-
F
I
L
I
N
G
F
O
U
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
(
P
D
P
)
FO
R
T
C
O
L
L
I
N
S
C
O
HARTFORD ACQUISITIONS
4801 GOODMAN RD.
TIMNATH, CO
80547
ZMKS
01/25/2023-PDP #1
06/07/2023-PDP #2
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
244 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
#165
FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
P 970.409.3414
NORTH
0 5025 100
SCALE 1" = 50'
R
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Attachment II
Excerpts from Bloom Subdivision (Mulberry)
Traffic Impact Study
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
Executive Summary
Site Location and Study Area
The property that comprises the application area for the proposed development is approximately 235 acres
in size and is largely vacant. It is located east of Timberline Road, west of NW Frontage Road, south of
Vine Drive and north of Frontage Road.
The study area, as reviewed and agreed to by the City of Fort Collins (Staff), is generally bounded by the
site boundaries to the east and west, Vine Drive to the north, as well as Frontage Road to the south. The
study area for the project includes those intersections identified by Staff that could be affected by the
proposed development:
• Sykes Drive/Timberline Road
• Vine Drive/Greenfields Court/Greenfields Drive
• Frontage Road/Greenfields Court
• International Drive/Greenfields Court
• Mulberry Street/Greenfields Court
Description of Proposed Development
The Applicant, Hartford Homes, seeks to develop the property with a mix of commercial and residential
uses. A grid of streets is being proposed to tie into the existing network and facilitate access and circulation
throughout the site and to the existing network. In furtherance of the connectivity of the project the following
standard is included in the PUD language:
To the extent feasible, all development plans shall provide bicycle and pedestrian and/or vehicular
connection at all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously
approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future bicycle
and pedestrian and/or vehicular connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street or
landscape tract connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) f eet along each
development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelop able land, to the extent
feasible. When adjacent to open space, natural areas, railroad tracks, or other similar natural or manmade
impediments that inhibit this standard from being met this standard is not required to be met.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the results of this traffic impact study, the following may be concluded:
• Under existing traffic conditions, the stop-controlled intersections within the study area currently
operate at overall acceptable levels of service (LOS) “E” or better during the weekday AM and PM
peak hours.
• Under background future 2023 and 2030 traffic conditions, without the development of the subject
site, delays would increase slightly at study intersections due to regional traffic growth. The stop -
controlled intersections would continue to operate at LOS “D” or better with Sykes Drive operating
at capacity LOS “F” in the 2030 AM peak hours.
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
• The proposed site development would generate, upon completion and full occupancy, 1,569 new
weekday AM and 1,857 new weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips as well as 21,821 new weekday
daily trips.
• Under 2023 total future traffic conditions with development of Phase 1 of the s ite, all study
intersections, including proposed site connections would operate at overall acceptable levels of
service consistent with background conditions. The exception to this is the westbound left
movement at Sykes Drive/Timberline Road. A signal would not be warranted at this level of
forecasted volume. Phase 1 of the proposed development can be accommodated solely through
the connection at Sykes Drive through the Mosaic development and the extension of Greenfields
Court to the south via a newly constructed roundabout.
• Under 2030 total future traffic conditions the full buildout of the proposed development will be
accommodated by the proposed connections to the surrounding network. The exception to this is
the westbound left movement at Sykes Drive/Timberline Road. A signal would be warranted at this
level of forecasted volume.
• In 2040 long range conditions would be accommodated by the full buildout of the proposed network
with all study intersections operating at acceptable levels of service.
Recommendations
• During Phase 1 of development the Applicant should provide the following improvements to
accommodate site development:
o Construct Greenfields Court from Sykes Drive to the Frontage Road
o Improve the Greenfields Court/Frontage Road intersection to a roundabout with flared dual
lane approaches on the north and southbound approaches
o Provide connections to the west to connect to the Sykes Drive/Timberline Road intersection
• New roadways within the site should be constructed per the City of Fort Collins design guidelines
contained within the LCUASS and analyzed herein.
• It is recommended that as nearby pipeline development is constructed, and growth continues to
occur, signal warrant studies be conducted at Sykes Drive/Timberline Road to determine timing
and cost share for future signalization. At such a time where a signal is warranted at Sykes
Drive/Timberline Road or a filing is forecasted to trigger a warrant the Applicant should:
o Contribute to the signalization of Sykes Drive/Timberline Road intersection
• In order to accommodate development traffic north of the Great Western Railroad the Applicant
should provide the following improvements to accommodate site development:
o Construct Greenfields Court from Sykes Drive north to connect to Vine Drive
o Provide pedestrian and bicycle connection to facilitate access across the Great Western
Railroad
• During Phase 2 of the development contributions should be made to the improvement of Mulberry
Road/Greenfields intersections improvements.
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
II. Background Information
Study Area
During the scoping meeting the study area and study intersections were agreed upon. The agreed upon
scope of work form is provided as Appendix B. As discussed, and agreed upon, the traffic study focuses
primarily on the following intersections:
Study Intersections
• Sykes Drive/Timberline Road
• Vine Drive/Greenfields Court/Greenfields Drive
• Mulberry Frontage Road/Greenfields Court
• International Drive/Greenfields Court
• Mulberry Street/Greenfields Court
Study Assumptions
For purposes of this analysis only, the proposed uses are assumed to be built and occupied in two distinct
phases. It was assumed that Phase 1 uses would be built and operational in study year 2023 and the
remainder of the site would be developed by 2030. As requested by Staff, a long-term analysis of 2040 was
also provided. One pipeline development was identified that would utilize study intersections. The pipeline
development was assumed complete after the development of Phase 1 of the subject site.
Study Methodology
Synchro software version 11 was used to evaluate levels of service at each of the study intersections during
the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Synchro is a macroscopic model used for optimizing traffic signal
timing and performing capacity analyses. The software can model existing traffic signal timings or optimize
splits, offsets, and cycle lengths for individual intersections, an arterial, or a complete network. Synchro
allows the user to evaluate the effects of changing intersection geometrics, traffic demands, traffic control,
and/or traffic signal settings as well as optimize traffic signal timings.
The levels of service reported for the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed herein were taken
from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th reports generated by Synchro 11. Level of service
descriptions are included in Appendix C. In order to maintain a conservative analysis a default percent
heavy vehicle (%HV) factor of 2% was used for all movements in the study area.
The LCUASS provides acceptable level of service (LOS) standards for the City of Fort Collins. The following
standards, provided by LCUASS in Chapter 4 – Transportation Impact Study Table 4-3, were used to
evaluate the results of the analysis contained herein:
Overall Any Approach Leg Any Movement
Signalized D E E
Unsignalized
• Arterial/Arterial
• Collector/Collector
E F
Unsignalized D F
Roundabout E E E
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the subject site is provided by Interstate 25 and CO 14/Mulberry Street, and local access
is provided via Vine Drive and Sykes Drive via Timberline Road. Figure 2-1 depicts existing lane use and
traffic controls in the vicinity of the subject site. The following provides a description of each of the roadways
within the study network.
Vine Drive
Vine Drive is an undivided two-lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 45 mph in the vicinity of the subject
site. The roadway is classified by Larimer County as an arterial providing east-west connection through the
region and access to several residential developments. Bike lanes exist in both directions along the site
frontage. The intersection with Timberline Road operates under STOP control and the intersection with
Greenfields Drive also operates under STOP control. The Master Street Plan designates Vine Drive
proximate to the site as a 2-lane arterial.
Greenfields Drive
North of the site Greenfields Drive is an undivided two-lane roadway with bike lanes and a center turn lane.
The posted speed limit is 25 mph in the vicinity of the subject site. The roadway is classified by Larimer
County as a Collector and provides north-south connection through the region and access to several
residential developments. The intersection with Vine Drive operates under unsignalized control. The Master
Street Plan designates future Greenfields Court through the site as a 2 -lane arterial.
Frontage Road
Frontage Road is an undivided two-lane roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 mph in the vicinity of the
subject site. The roadway is classified by Larimer County as a Collector providing east-west connection
through the region and access to several commercial developments. The intersection with Greenfields
Court operates under unsignalized control. The Master Street Plan designates Frontage Road proximate
to the site as a 2-lane collector.
Timberline Road
Timberline Road is an undivided two-lane roadway expanding to a two-lane roadway with a center turn lane
provides access to residential and commercial development through the City. The roadway is classified by
Larimer County as an arterial providing north-south connection through the region and access to several
residential and commercial developments. The posted speed limit is 30-45 mph in the vicinity of the subject
site. The intersection with Vine Drive operates under unsignalized control. The Master Street Plan
designates Timberline Road proximate to the site as a 4-lane arterial.
Existing Non-Auto Connections
As shown on the City of Fort Collins existing bike map there currently exists limited bike and pedestrian
trails in the area. The City Bike Map is provided as Figure 2-2. This is largely due to the subject area being
undeveloped as well as surrounding areas not being developed. The only designated bike route in the
existing condition is along Vine Street and is designated as a “higher volume, higher speed roadway”.
The adopted Bicycle Master Plan, provided as Figure 2 -3, calls for a “Paved Trail/Shared Use Path to cut
through the entirety of the site from Vine Street along the rail line and then along Greenfields and across
Mulberry. The Bloom project proposes to provide this connection in addition to many others to further build
out the non-auto connections in the area. As shown in Figure 2 -4, this project will construct the trail as
STOP
YIELD
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
STOP
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
III. Analysis of Existing Conditions
Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes counts were conducted on Tuesday March 9, 2021 and
Tuesday August 17, 2021 from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM at the study intersections by
IDAX Data Solutions. Due to the current Covid-19 global pandemic consideration has been given to the
accuracy of the collected counts. It has been observed by CDOT, that traffic counts are generally consistent
or greater than pre-Covid conditions. With that observation in mind, and consistent with nearby traffic
studies the collected counts were considered useable for this analysis
For purposes of this study, the individual peak hours were selected based on a review of the intersection
volumes. The existing volumes are summarized on Figure 3-1. Copies of traffic counts are included in
Appendix D. Existing peak hour factors (PHF) were also computed by approach from the traffic counts and
applied to the analysis with a minimum of 0.85 and a maximum of 0.92.
Operational Analysis
Capacity/level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted at the study intersections based on the existing
lane use and traffic controls shown on Figure 2-1, existing baseline vehicular traffic volumes shown on
Figure 3-1. The capacity analysis results are presented in Appendix E and summarized in Table 3-1 and
on Figure 3-2.
As shown in Table 3-1, the study intersections currently operate at overall acceptable levels of service
(LOS) “E” or better during the weekday peak hours.
Existing Intersection Queues
An analysis of intersection 95th-percentile queues was performed at key locations. The results of the
queuing analysis, as reported by Synchro, are summarized in Table 3-2.
As shown in the table, the existing queues are contained within the effective storage within the study area.
STOP
YIELD
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
STOP
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
YIELD
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
STOP
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
Table 3-1
Bloom
Existing Intersection Level of Service Summary (1) (2)
Operating Street Approach/ AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EB C [15.1]B [12.2]
EBL C [23.7] D [26.6]
EBTR B [13.6] B [10.5]
WB D [28.1]D [29.9]
WBL E [35.3] E [35.1]
WBTR A [9.8] B [11.2]
NB A [0.3]A [1.0]
NBL A [8.9] A [8.2]
NBT A [0.0] A [0.0]
NBR A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB A [0.2]A [0.7]
SBL A [8.0] A [8.7]
SBTR A [0.0] A [0.0]
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EB A [0.8]A [0.8]
EBL A [7.9] A [7.8]
EBT A [0.0] A [0.0]
WB A [0.0]A [0.0]
WBTR A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB B [10.8]B [10.8]
SBL B [12.3] B [13.1]
SBR A [10.0] A [9.6]
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP EB A [6.8]A [6.9]
EBTR A [6.8] A [6.9]
WB A [7.6]A [7.8]
WBLT A [7.6] A [7.8]
NB A [6.7]A [6.9]
NBLR A [6.7] A [6.9]
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EB B (11.1)D (43.6)
EBL C (20.8) B (10.2)
EBT B (11.0) D (45.8)
EBR A (7.6) A (7.8)
WB C (25.6)B (13.6)
WBL A (8.2) C (27.1)
WBT C (26.1) B (12.7)
WBR A (6.7) A (6.8)
NB C (31.9)C (34.1)
NBL C (31.3) C (34.7)
NBTR C (32.5) C (33.5)
SB C (30.7)D (43.4)
SBLTR C (30.7)D (43.4)
C (21.0) C (31.9)
Notes : (1) Numbers in brackets [] represent delay at unsignalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
(2) Numbers in parenthesis () represent delay at signalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Frontage Rd
Frontage Rd
Greenfields Ct
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Overall
Existing 2021
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Table 3-2
Bloom
Existing Intersection Queueing Summary (1)
Operating Street Approach/ Available AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Storage Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EBL 130 2.5 2.5
EBTR - 7.5 5
WBL 200 45 35
WBTR - 2.5 2.5
NBL - 0 5
NBT - 0 0
NBR 375 0 0
SBL 145 0 2.5
SBTR - 0 0
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EBL 300 0 2.5
EBT - 0 0
Vine Dr WBT - 0 0
SBL - 2.5 2.5
SBR - 2.5 2.5
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP Frontage Rd EBTR - 2.5 5
Frontage Rd WBLT - 7.5 10
Greenfields Ct NBLR - 2.5 2.5
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EBL 185 12 15
EBT - 254 850
EBR 280 15 18
WBL 575 21 71
WBT - 756 378
WBR 240 0 0
NBL 210 86 102
NBTR - 42 48
Greenfields Ct SBLTR - 56 146
Notes : (1) Queue length is based on the 95th percentile queue as reported by Synchro, Version 10.
Timberline Rd
Existing 2021
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
V. Site Analysis
Overview
The Applicant proposes to develop the 235-acre site with residential and commercial uses. The
development will be built in phases to be determined. For purposes of this study only, the site will be
developed in two phases. The analysis contained herein concludes that Phase 1 (first PDP submission)
can be accommodated solely with the proposed extension of Greenfields Court between Sykes Drive and
Frontage Road as well as connections to Sykes Drive through the Mosaic development. It is proposed that
the Greenfields Court/Frontage Road intersection will be reconstructed as a roundabout. The remainder of
the site will benefit from further connecting Greenfields C ourt to the north and the signalization of Sykes
Drive/Timberline Road. These phases were based on the portion of the overall site that would likely be filed
initially for Phase 1 PDP and the necessary improvements to accommodate that initial development. Phase
2 represents the ultimate buildout of the site to identify any additional improvements that may be necessary.
The future lane use and traffic control is shown on Figure 5-1 for 2023 Phase 1 and Figure 5-2 for 2030
Phase 2.
For analysis purposes it was assumed that Phase 1 would be complete in 2023 and Phase 2 would be
complete in 2030. The following land use development programs were analyzed:
Phase 1 - 2023
371
470
DU
DU
Single Family Detached
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
Phase 2 – 2030
336
1260
49,230
184,860
DU
DU
SF
SF
Single Family Detached
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
General Office Building
Retail
Grid of Streets
As mentioned previously the proposed ultimate layout of this project furthers the City’s Master Street Plan
shown in Figure 1-4. As shown in the Master Street Plan a north-south and east-west arterial are planned
which are provided as the extension of Greenfields Court and International Drive respectively. Additionally,
two east-west collectors are planned as the extension of Sykes Drive and Donella Court as it is shown in
the current plans. A north-south collector connection is also planned for which is the extension of Delozier
Drive. Finally, a north-south Spine Road/Parkway Corridor will provide significant non-vehicular connection
for the development as well as provide connection to the future regional trail that parallels that existing rail.
These connections are being provided for to the extent possible that the development can provide.
The connections of Donella Drive and Delozier Drive as well as the ultimate extension of International Drive
are dependent on neighboring properties to be completed. This project will further these connections and
extensions to the extent possible and will allow for the ultimate conditions bein g realized once neighboring
properties redevelop. A quick description of each new roadway connection and its furtherance of the overall
network connectivity is provided below:
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
Sykes Drive
As mentioned previously Sykes Drive will provide a necessary east -west connection to the existing
neighborhood to the west as well as provide connection to the future connection of Greenfields Court, and
the north-south spine road shown as the Parkway Corridor. This roadway will provide substantial east-west
collector connections for existing and future development for both vehicular and non-vehicular traffic.
Donella Drive
Similar to the Sykes Drive connection mentioned previously, Donella Drive provide connection to existing
neighborhoods to the west as well as providing connection to the north-south spine road One Drive and
future Greenfields Drive extension. This roadway will provide essential connections to any future north-
south Delozier Drive extensions.
Greenfields Court
The north-south arterial extension of Greenfields Court will further the Master Street Plan and provide
essential connection for the future development and existing network. The roadway will provide vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian crossing of the Great Western Railway and provide connection between Vine Drive
and Mulberry Street, a connection that currently only exists at Timberline Drive to the west. This roadway
will help activate connection between the proposed residential developments to the commercial
developments oriented along Mulberry Street. It is designed that this connection will be utilized for both
vehicular and non-vehicular traffic for the existing neighborhoods to the north of Vine Street as well as to
the west of the proposed developments.
One Drive/Parkway Corridor
This north-south connection will provide primarily non-vehicular connectivity between the proposed
development areas. The roadway will be designed as a collector but is planned for greater use for bicycle
and pedestrian traffic. This will allow residential and commercial connection to prioritize walking and biking
trips and take vehicular traffic off the network.
International Drive
As shown on the Master Plan, International Drive would ultimately provide east-west connection regionally
and provide alternatives to Vine Street and Mulberry Street. The ultimate alignment of International Drive
on the Master Plan shows a circuitous route around an existing runway. It is anticipated that although the
opportunity exists for east-west mobility with the construction of International Drive it would be a less
desirable route than either Vine Street or Mulberry Street. This development would construct International
Drive to its Master Planned section.
Delozier Road
As shown on the Master Plan, the existing segment of Delozier Road is planned to provide a north south
connection to the Mulberry Street frontage road, which it currently intersects with the east west collectors
and arterials to the north, specifically Donella Drive, International Drive and Sykes Drive. Right-of-way for
this roadway currently exists through a number of existing buildings and is offset to the west of the subject
property. This project proposes to provide the right-of-way necessary to construct a half section of Delozier
on the property and provide a fee-in-lieu as it is understood that the ultimate connection of Delozier Road
requires so further design and the redevelopment of neighboring properties. Until such a time that Delozier
can be designed a constructed a temporary trail would be provided for to maintain non-auto connections to
the extent possible.
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
The connections as proposed and shown will provide high levels of connectivity for existing neighborhoods
to the west to the surrounding network. Additionally, the ultimate development is providing a number of
additional elements of connectivity to serve the proposed development and neighboring developments.
Connections both vehicular and non-vehicular are being provided every approximately 660’ feet to provide
recommended connectivity opportunities.
Additional benefits of the planned grid of streets and the larger cohesive neighborhoods are greater
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) opportunities. TDM refers to the strategies and programs that
leverage existing infrastructure to cut down on single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips. The planned
connection to the regional trail, bicycle and pedestrian focused Parkway and consideration for bicycle and
pedestrian connections under the railway will help to promote non-SOV trips. Although specific programs
have not been determined to date, opportunities for reducing non-SOV trips through cohesive neighborhood
programs would be available due to the planned branding and vision for the Bloom project.
As mentioned previously, in furtherance of the connectivity of the project the following standard is included
in the PUD language:
To the extent feasible, all development plans shall provide bicycle and pedestrian and/or vehicular
connection at all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously
approved development plans or existing development. All development plans shall provide for future bicycle
and pedestrian and/or vehicular connections to adjacent developable parcels by providing a local street or
landscape tract connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six hundred sixty (660) feet along each
development plan boundary that abuts potentially developable or redevelop able land, to the extent
feasible. When adjacent to open space, natural areas, railroad tracks, or other similar natural or manmade
impediments that inhibit this standard from being met this standard is not required to be met.
Proposed Site Access
As shown on the Applicant’s plan (Figure 1-2) and mentioned above access to Phase 1 will be provided via
the following connections/improvements:
• Sykes Drive
• Greenfields Court
• Greenfields Court/Frontage Round roundabout
Access to the full buildout of the development, Phase 2, would be provided via the following additional
connections/improvements:
• Greenfields Court/Vine Drive
• Signalization of Sykes Drive/Timberline Road
• Mulberry Street/Greenfields Court improvements
o Eastbound Dual Lefts
o Westbound Right Channelization
o 6 lanes of through capacity along Mulberry Street
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
VI. Analysis of Future Conditions with Site Development
Overview
An analysis of total future conditions, with development of the site, is provided for each of the buildout phase
years (2023 and 2030). It was determined that in addition to bac kground growth as described previously,
the nearby Peakview development would be built coincident with Phase 2 of the subject site.
Pipeline Development
As agreed, to with Staff, an approved but unbuilt/unoccupied (i.e., “pipeline”) development was identi fied
for consideration within the study. According to a TIS provided by Staff the Peakview development would
be built with the following mix of uses:
6,500 SF Drive in Bank
54,500 SF Office
154,500 SF Retail
4,000 SF High Turnover Sit-down Restaurant
70 Rooms Hotel
3,000 SF Fast Food with Drive-thru
The location of the pipeline development in relation to the Applicant’s property is shown in Figure 6-1.
Pipeline development trips were generated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 10 th
Generation Trip Generation rates/equations and applied to the study intersections in Figure 8 of the
pipeline’s TIS. The site trip assignments contained therein assume the full buildout of the network and have
been assumed for both the 2030 (Phase 2) and long range analyzes. Relevant excerpts from the Peakview
TIS are provided in Appendix H.
Total Future Traffic Forecasts
The 2023 and 2030 total future traffic forecasts associated with the proposed development were developed
by combining the baseline traffic volumes shown on Figure 3-1, background future forecasts shown on
Figure 4-3 (2023), Figure 4-4 (2030), the Peakview trips for the 2030 scenario only and the total site trip
assignments shown on Figure 5-4 (2023) and Figure 5-5 (2030). The resulting total future traffic forecasts
are provided on Figure 6-2 for 2023 and Figure 6-3 for 2030.
Total Future 2023 and 2030 Levels of Service with Proposed Development
Future levels of service with the proposed development plan were estimated at key study intersections
based on the future traffic volumes shown on Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3, the future lane use on Figure 5-1
and Figure 5-2, and the HCM 6th methodologies for signalized, roundabout and unsignalized intersections.
The results of these analyses are provided in Appendix I and presented in Table 6-1. Total future levels of
service are also presented graphically on Figure 6-4 (2023) and Figure 6-5 (2030).
2023 Phase 1 Levels of Service
As shown in Table 6-1, levels of service under Phase 1 future site development conditions would generally
remain consistent with background conditions. All study intersections would continue to operate at overall
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
acceptable levels of service with the exception of Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd. Consistent with background
conditions side street delays are forecasting to operate at LOS “F”.
2030 Phase 2 Levels of Service
As shown in Table 6-1, levels of service under Phase 2 future site development conditions would generally
remain consistent with Phase 1 conditions. All study intersections would continue to operate at overall
acceptable levels of service with the exception of Sykes Drive/Timberline Road. Consistent with Phase 1
conditions side street delays are forecasting to operate at LOS “F”.
Total Future 2023 and 2030 Queuing
Total future queues were forecasted using Synchro software. The results of the queuing analysis are
summarized in Table 6-2. In general, vehicle queues would be consistent with background future
conditions. However, as shown in Table 6-2, the westbound left at Sykes Drive/Timberline Road is
forecasted to exceed the available storage during 2030 Phase 2 buildout conditions .
Total Future 2023 and 2030 Improvements
As shown in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 the side street delays at the Sykes Drive/Timberline Road are
forecasting to operate at LOS “F” during the background and total future scenarios. A signal warrant
analysis was done, which is detailed in future sections of this report, and found that a signal was NOT
warranted in 2023 scenarios but was warranted in 2030 scenarios. The Sykes Drive/Timberline Road was
analyzed as a signalized intersection for the 2030 scenario with signalized improvement.
Under signalized control the Sykes Drive/Timberline Road intersection is forecas ted to operate at
acceptable LOS as well as experience queues that are contained within the effective storage of the
intersection.
It is recommended that Sykes Drive/Timberline Road be improved to a signalized intersection as the full
buildout of Bloom and Peakview developments and additional regional growth generate sufficient trips to
trigger warrants consistent with guidance found in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
A sensitivity analysis for this proposed signal is provided in later sections of this report.
STOP
YIELD
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
STOP
YIELD
YIE
L
D
YIELD
YI
E
L
D
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
YIELD
YIE
L
D
YIELD
YI
E
L
D
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
YIELD
STOP
YIELD
Table 6-1
Bloom
Total Future Intersection Level of Service Summary (1) (2)
Operating Street Approach/ AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EB C [15.6]B [12.4]C [17.6]B [13.4]C [17.1]B [14.8]n/a n/a
EBL C [25.0] D [27.8] D [30.3] D [33.2] D [34.9] F [51.3] n/a n/a
EBTR B [13.9] B [10.6] C [15.4] B [11.1] B [13.9] B [10.6] n/a n/a
WB D [30.4]D [31.8]E [43.2]E [41.5]E [47.0]F [73.5]n/a n/a
WBL E [38.6] E [37.5] F [56.4] E [49.7] F [84.5] F [129.1] n/a n/a
WBTR A [9.9] B [11.3] B [10.1] B [12.0] B [10.7] B [12.2] n/a n/a
NB A [0.3]A [1.0]A [0.3]A [0.9]A [0.3]A [0.9]n/a n/a
NBL A [9.0] A [8.3] A [9.4] A [8.4] A [9.0] A [8.3] n/a n/a
NBT A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] n/a n/a
NBR A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] n/a n/a
SB A [0.2]A [0.6]A [0.2]A [0.6]A [0.6]A [2.6]n/a n/a
SBL A [8.0] A [8.7] A [8.1] A [9.0] A [8.1] A [9.5] n/a n/a
SBTR A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] n/a n/a
Signal added
Signal EB n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B (13.8)B (13.7)
EBL n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B (15.8) B (14.7)
EBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B (13.4) B (13.5)
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B (15.7)B (15.1)
WBL n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B (16.3) B (15.4)
WBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B (15.0) B (14.6)
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A (5.1)A (5.0)
NBL n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a B (13.8) A (6.7)
NBT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A (5.1) A (5.2)
NBR n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A (4.2) A (3.6)
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A (9.5)A (5.9)
SBL n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A (6.7) B (10.1)
SBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A (9.7)A (4.6)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A (9.5) A (6.6)
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EB A [0.8]A [0.8]A [0.7]A [0.7]n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBL A [7.9] A [7.8] A [8.0] A [7.9] n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBT A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] n/a n/a n/a n/a
WB A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBTR A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] n/a n/a n/a n/a
SB B [10.9]B [10.9]B [11.3]B [11.3]n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBL B [12.5] B [13.4] B [13.3] B [14.3] n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBR A [10.0] A [9.6] B [10.3] A [9.8] n/a n/a n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
STOP EB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.7]A [0.8]A [0.5]A [0.5]
EBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [7.9] A [7.9] A [8.0] A [8.0]
EBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0]
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]A [1.2]A [1.9]
WBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [7.9] A [8.4]
WBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0]
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]C [15.5]C [18.9]
NBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] C [21.3] D [28.2]
NBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [9.9] B [10.9]
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a B [11.1]B [11.3]B [13.4]C [15.1]
SBL n/a n/a n/a n/a B [13.0] B [14.2] C [19.2] C [24.7]
SBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a B [10.1] A [9.8] B [10.4] B [10.1]
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP EB A [6.8]A [6.9]A [6.8]A [6.9]n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBTR A [6.8] A [6.9] A [6.8] A [6.9] n/a n/a n/a n/a
WB A [7.6]A [7.8]A [7.6]A [7.8]n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBLT A [7.6] A [7.8] A [7.6] A [7.8] n/a n/a n/a n/a
NB A [6.7]A [6.9]A [6.7]A [6.9]n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBLR A [6.7] A [6.9] A [6.7] A [6.9] n/a n/a n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
Roundabout constructed CIRCLE EB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.6]A [3.7]A [9.6]D [28.4]
EBLTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.6] A [3.7] A [9.6] D [28.4]
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.3]A [4.1]A [6.9]C [16.3]
WBLTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.3] A [4.1] A [6.9] C [16.3]
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [2.9]A [3.7]A [7.7]D [30.1]
NBLTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.0] A [3.9] A [7.9] D [31.0]
NBR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [2.8] A [2.9] A [2.9] A [3.0]
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [4.0]A [3.6]A [9.3]D [25.1]
SBLT n/a n/a n/a n/a A [4.0] A [3.6] A [9.5] D [26.2]
SBR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [2.7] A [2.8] A [3.6] A [4.1]
n/a n/a n/a n/a A [3.6] A [3.8] A [8.5] D [27.5]
4 International Dr/Private Dr/Greenfields Ct STOP EB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [9.1]A [8.8]B [11.0]B [11.9]
EBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] B [13.7] C [22.2]
EBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [9.1] A [8.8] B [10.7] A [10.0]
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]C [15.5]C [22.8]
WBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] C [18.2] D [28.1]
WBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [9.0] A [9.9]
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [5.4]A [5.5]A [2.6]A [3.0]
NBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [7.4] A [7.5] A [7.9] A [8.1]
NBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0]
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.1]A [0.5]
SBL n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [7.5] A [7.9]
SBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0] A [0.0]
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EB B (11.3)E (55.7)B (12.4)F (111.6)n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBL C (22.4) B (10.8) C (22.6) B (14.0) n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBT B (11.2) E (58.4) B (12.4) F (116.9) n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBR A (7.5) A (7.8) A (7.5) A (7.8) n/a n/a n/a n/a
WB C (31.5)B (14.0)E (73.9)B (16.5)n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBL A (8.4) C (27.1) A (9.7) C (27.1) n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBT C (32.2) B (13.2) E (75.7) B (15.9) n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBR A (6.6) A (6.8) A (6.6) A (6.8) n/a n/a n/a n/a
NB C (32.2)C (34.1)C (32.2)C (34.1)n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBL C (31.6) C (34.7) C (31.6) C (34.7) n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBTR C (32.8) C (33.5) C (32.8) C (33.5) n/a n/a n/a n/a
SB C (31.0)D (43.4)C (31.0)D (43.4)n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBLTR C (31.0)D (43.4)C (31.0)D (43.4)n/a n/a n/a n/a
C (24.6) D (38.5) D (49.7) E (69.8)n/a n/a n/a n/a
SB Greenfields Ct Lane Improvements
Signal EB n/a n/a n/a n/a B (14.5)B (14.5)B (12.2)B (19.3)
EBL n/a n/a n/a n/a B (16.0) A (8.0) C (23.6) C (34.5)
EBT n/a n/a n/a n/a B (14.6) B (15.0) A (10.0) B (16.5)
EBR n/a n/a n/a n/a B (11.6) A (8.2) A (7.6) A (8.0)
WB n/a n/a n/a n/a B (19.5)B (11.7)B (16.1)B (12.4)
WBL n/a n/a n/a n/a B (11.1) B (18.4) A (7.6) C (21.1)
WBT n/a n/a n/a n/a B (19.8) B (11.3) B (16.3) B (11.9)
WBR n/a n/a n/a n/a A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0)
NB n/a n/a n/a n/a C (28.3)C (30.5)C (32.6)C (33.5)
NBL n/a n/a n/a n/a C (28.2) C (30.8) C (31.8) C (33.9)
NBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a C (28.3) C (30.3) C (33.1) C (33.2)
SB n/a n/a n/a n/a C (31.8)C (33.3)F (105.6)F (229.9)
SBL n/a n/a n/a n/a C (32.3) C (34.0) F (109.2) F (244.3)
SBTR n/a n/a n/a n/a C (25.3)C (26.6)C (27.9)C (28.9)
n/a n/a n/a n/a B (18.9) B (15.1) C (25.7) D (45.0)
Notes : (1) Numbers in brackets [] represent delay at unsignalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
(2) Numbers in parenthesis () represent delay at signalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Private Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Frontage Rd
Frontage Rd
Frontage Rd
Greenfields Ct
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Overall
Overall
Greenfields Ct
Overall
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Frontage Rd
International Dr
Total Future 2030Background 2023 Background 2030 Total Future 2023
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Overall
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Table 6-2
Bloom
Total Future Intersection Queueing Summary (1)
Operating Street Approach/ Available AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Storage Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EBL 130 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 5 n/a n/a
EBTR - 10 5 10 5 10 5 n/a n/a
WBL 200 50 37.5 67.5 47.5 132.5 127.5 n/a n/a
WBTR - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 15 12.5 n/a n/a
NBL - 0 5 0 5 0 5 n/a n/a
NBT - 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a
NBR 375 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a
SBL 145 0 2.5 0 2.5 2.5 12.5 n/a n/a
SBTR - 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a
Signal added
Signal EBL 130 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 11 7
EBT - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
WBL 200 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 101 73
WBT - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0
NBL - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9 29
NBT - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 123 209
NBR 375 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 17 20
SBL 145 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24 66
SBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 471 153
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EBL 300 0 2.5 0 2.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBT - 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Vine Dr WBT - 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBL - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBR - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
STOP EBL 300 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 2.5 0 2.5
EBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0
WBL 250 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 5 7.5
WBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0
NBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 25 32.5
NBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 7.5 10
SBL - n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 2.5 5 5
SBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct STOP Frontage Rd EBTR - 2.5 5 2.5 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Frontage Rd WBLT - 7.5 10 7.5 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct NBLR - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct Access added
Roundabout constructed CIRCLE Frontage Rd EBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 50 150
Frontage Rd WBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 25
Greenfields Ct NBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 25 75 425
Greenfields Ct SBLTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 0 75 275
4 International Dr/Private Dr/Greenfields Ct STOP EBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 2.5 7.5
EBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.5 7.5 17.5 12.5
WBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 12.5 15
WBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 2.5 0
NBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 7.5 5 12.5
NBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0
SBL 100 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0
SBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EBL 185 12 15 12 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBT - 268 900 325 1088 n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBR 280 15 18 15 21 n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBL 575 21 71 21 71 n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBT - 804 402 980 512 n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBR 240 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBL 210 86 102 86 102 n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBTR - 42 48 42 48 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Greenfields Ct SBLTR - 56 146 56 146 n/a n/a n/a n/a
SB Greenfields Ct Lane Improvements
Signal EBL 360 n/a n/a n/a n/a 11 14 101 245
EBT - n/a n/a n/a n/a 206 376 181 448
EBR 280 n/a n/a n/a n/a 19 18 15 18
WBL 575 n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 56 21 58
WBT - n/a n/a n/a n/a 468 214 416 239
WBR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 24 32 50
NBL 210 n/a n/a n/a n/a 95 101 149 174
NBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 42 48 52 65
SBL - n/a n/a n/a n/a 80 79 276 401
SBTR - n/a n/a n/a n/a 44 53 242 628
Notes : (1) Queue length is based on the 95th percentile queue as reported by Synchro, Version 10.
Timberline Rd
Background 2023 Background 2030 Total Future 2023 Total Future 2030
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Private Dr
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Vine Dr
Greenfields Dr
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Dr
International Dr
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
VII. Analysis of 2040 (Long Range) Future Conditions
Methodology
The 2040 future traffic forecasts were developed for 2040 conditions based on a composite of 2030 total
future conditions, and additional regional traffic. The total future 2040 lane use and traffic control is
consistent with total future Phase 2 2030 lane use provided on Figure 5-2.
Regional Growth
Consistent with previous methodologies increases in traffic associated with regional growth were estimated
at two (2.0) percent per year, as agreed upon in the scope of work, compounded for through movements
along Timberline Road and Vine Drive up to 2040. The resulting increases in traffic within the study area
are reflected on Figure 7-1.
Total Future 2040 Traffic Forecasts
A long range 2040 analysis is provided for informational and planning purposes. The 2040 total future traffic
forecasts were created by combining the baseline traffic volumes shown on Figure 3-1, growth up to the
year 2040 shown on Figure 7-1. The resulting total future 2040 traffic forecasts are provided on Figure 7-
2.
Total Future 2040 Levels of Service
Future levels of service with the proposed development plan were estimated at key study intersections
based on the future traffic volumes shown on Figure 7-2, the lane use and traffic control shown on Figure
5-2, and the HCM 6th methodologies for signalized, roundabout and unsignalized intersections. The results
of these analyses are provided in Appendix J and presented in Table 7-1. Total future 2040 levels of service
are also presented graphically on Figure 7-3 (2040).
As shown in Table 7-1, during the 2040 scenario all study intersections would continue to operate at overall
acceptable levels of service consistent with 2030 conditions with improvements.
Total Future 2040 Queuing
Total future queues were forecasted using Synchro software. The results of the queuing analysis are
summarized in Table 7-2. As shown in Table 7-2, during the 2040 all study intersection queues would be
contained within their effective storage.
The 2040 long range analysis is provided for informati onal purposes only. Due to the long range of timing
the level of growth and development may not materialize, and certain developments may not be constructed
as studied.
Master Plan Street Considerations
The analysis above does not consider the implications of the ultimate connections of International
Boulevard and Delozier Road as these connections require the redevelopment of neighboring properties.
According to the analysis contained herein the proposed development and pipeline developments would
require the previously mentioned improvements and would not require the International Boulevard and
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
Delozier Road connections. At such a time that these connections were made the following considerations
should be made.
International Boulevard
The ultimate connection of International Boulevard would provide additional opportunities for the
development proximate to Bloom to travel between Greenfields Drive and Timberline Drive. This would
relieve some of the burden from the Timberline Drive/Sykes Drive intersection. At such a time that
International Drive can feasibly connect a signal study should be conducted for the Timberline Drive
corridor. If signals are warranted along Timberline Drive at Vine Drive, Sykes Drive, and International Drive
they would be appropriately spaced at quarter mile intervals. This analysis shows that a signal would likely
be warranted at Sykes Drive in the event that a connection at International Boulevard is not available.
As shown in the next section of the report the signal at Sykes Drive and Timberline Drive would meet only
the AM peak hour warrant. It is likely that a connection of International Drive would shift enough traffic that
a signal would not be warranted at either Sykes or International. As stated previously, warrant studies
should be conducted at such time as additional development or the extension of International Drive is
contemplated.
Delozier Road
The ultimate connection of Delozier has been shown to not be necessary for the Bloom development and
the Peakview pipeline development. This connection provides access to the Frontage Road which
ultimately provides connection to the Greenfields Court roundabout. Traffic destined for points east and
west will utilize the roundabout regardless of the Delozier connection as they would enter via the frontage
road or Greenfields Court. The connection at Delozier Road would ultimately only serve the redevelopment
of the Barker property. This connection should be evaluated with future redevelopment.
STOP
YIELD
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
STOP
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
YIELD
STOP
STOP
YIELD
YIE
L
D
YIELD
YI
E
L
D
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
YIE
L
D
YI
E
L
D
ST
O
P
ST
O
P
STOP
YIELD
STOP
YIELD
STOP
STOP
YIELD
YIELD
Table 7-1
Bloom
Total Future 2040 Intersection Level of Service Summary (1) (2)
Operating Street Approach/AM PM AM PM AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EB C [17.1]B [14.8]n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBL D [34.9]F [51.3]n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBTR B [13.9]B [10.6]n/a n/a n/a n/a
WB E [47.0]F [73.5]n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBL F [84.5]F [129.1]n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBTR B [10.7]B [12.2]n/a n/a n/a n/a
NB A [0.3]A [0.9]n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBL A [9.0]A [8.3]n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBT A [0.0]A [0.0]n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBR A [0.0]A [0.0]n/a n/a n/a n/a
SB A [0.6]A [2.6]n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBL A [8.1]A [9.5]n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBTR A [0.0]A [0.0]n/a n/a n/a n/a
Signal added
Signal EB n/a n/a B (13.8)B (13.7)B (16.8)B (16.1)
EBL n/a n/a B (15.8)B (14.7)B (19.2)B (17.3)
EBTR n/a n/a B (13.4)B (13.5)B (16.3)B (16.0)
WB n/a n/a B (15.7)B (15.1)B (19.1)B (17.8)
WBL n/a n/a B (16.3)B (15.4)B (19.9)B (18.2)
WBTR n/a n/a B (15.0)B (14.6)B (18.2)B (17.2)
NB n/a n/a A (5.1)A (5.0)A (5.3)A (5.5)
NBL n/a n/a B (13.8)A (6.7)B (19.2)A (7.4)
NBT n/a n/a A (5.1)A (5.2)A (5.1)A (5.8)
NBR n/a n/a A (4.2)A (3.6)A (4.0)A (3.4)
SB n/a n/a A (9.5)A (5.9)B (16.8)A (6.3)
SBL n/a n/a A (6.7)B (10.1)A (7.1)B (12.4)
SBTR n/a n/a A (9.7)A (4.6)B (17.3)A (4.7)
n/a n/a A (9.5)A (6.6)B (13.9)A (7.2)
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EB A [0.7]A [0.8]A [0.5]A [0.5]A [0.4]A [0.5]
EBL A [7.9]A [7.9]A [8.0]A [8.0]A [8.2]A [8.1]
EBTR A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]
WB A [0.0]A [0.0]A [1.2]A [1.9]A [1.0]A [1.7]
WBL A [0.0]A [0.0]A [7.9]A [8.4]A [8.0]A [8.6]
WBTR A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]
NB A [0.0]A [0.0]C [15.5]C [18.9]C [17.9]C [22.8]
NBL A [0.0]A [0.0]C [21.3]D [28.2]D [26.0]E [36.0]
NBTR A [0.0]A [0.0]A [9.9]B [10.9]B [10.2]B [11.5]
SB B [11.1]B [11.3]B [13.4]C [15.1]B [14.8]C [17.0]
SBL B [13.0]B [14.2]C [19.2]C [24.7]C [22.2]D [29.3]
SBTR B [10.1]A [9.8]B [10.4]B [10.1]B [11.0]B [10.5]
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct CIRCLE EB A [3.6]A [3.7]A [9.6]D [28.4]A [9.6]D [28.4]
EBLTR A [3.6]A [3.7]A [9.6]D [28.4]A [9.6]D [28.4]
WB A [3.3]A [4.1]A [6.9]C [16.3]A [6.9]C [16.3]
WBLTR A [3.3]A [4.1]A [6.9]C [16.3]A [6.9]C [16.3]
NB A [2.9]A [3.7]A [7.7]D [30.1]A [7.7]D [30.1]
NBLTR A [3.0]A [3.9]A [7.9]D [31.0]A [7.9]D [31.0]
NBR A [2.8]A [2.9]A [2.9]A [3.0]A [2.9]A [3.0]
SB A [4.0]A [3.6]A [9.3]D [25.1]A [9.3]D [25.1]
SBLT A [4.0] A [3.6] A [9.5] D [26.2] A [9.5] D [26.2]
SBR A [2.7]A [2.8]A [3.6]A [4.1]A [3.9]A [4.1]
A [3.6]A [3.8]A [8.5]D [27.5]A [8.5]D [27.5]
4 International Dr/Private Dr/Greenfields Ct STOP EB A [9.1]A [8.8]B [11.0]B [11.9]B [11.0]B [11.9]
EBL A [0.0]A [0.0]B [13.7]C [22.2]B [13.7]C [22.5]
EBTR A [9.1]A [8.8]B [10.7]A [10.0]B [10.7]B [12.5]
WB A [0.0]A [0.0]C [15.5]C [22.8]C [15.5]C [22.8]
WBL A [0.0] A [0.0] C [18.2] D [28.1] C [18.2] D [29.7]
WBTR A [0.0]A [0.0]A [9.0]A [9.9]A [9.0]C [16.2]
NB A [5.4]A [5.5]A [2.6]A [3.0]A [2.6]A [3.0]
NBL A [7.4] A [7.5] A [7.9] A [8.1] A [7.9] A [8.1]
NBTR A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]
SB A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.1]A [0.5]A [0.1]A [0.5]
SBL A [0.0] A [0.0] A [7.5] A [7.9] A [7.5] A [7.9]
SBTR A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]A [0.0]
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EB B (14.5)B (14.5)B (12.2)B (19.3)B (12.6)F (81.7)
EBL B (16.0)A (8.0)C (23.6)C (34.5)C (27.5)F (90.4)
EBT B (14.6)B (15.0)A (10.0)B (16.5)B (10.5)F (82.2)
EBR B (11.6)A (8.2)A (7.6)A (8.0)A (7.4)B (17.1)
WB B (19.5)B (11.7)B (16.1)B (12.4)C (24.9)D (52.8)
WBL B (11.1)B (18.4)A (7.6)C (21.1)A (8.3)F (102.5)
WBT B (19.8)B (11.3)B (16.3)B (11.9)C (25.2)D (50.3)
WBR A (0.0)A (0.0)A (0.0)A (0.0)A (0.0)A (0.0)
NB C (28.3)C (30.5)C (32.6)C (33.5)C (34.4)E (67.7)
NBL C (28.2)C (30.8)C (31.8)C (33.9)C (33.4)E (56.1)
NBTR C (28.3)C (30.3)C (33.1)C (33.2)D (35.1)E (76.7)
SB C (31.8)C (33.3)F (105.6)F (229.9)F (109.3)F (109.4)
SBL C (32.3) C (34.0) F (109.2) F (244.3) F (112.4) F (113.8)
SBTR C (25.3)C (26.6)C (27.9)C (28.9)C (29.3)D (41.7)
B (18.9)B (15.1)C (25.7)D (45.0)C (29.0)E (74.8)
Notes : (1) Numbers in brackets [] represent delay at unsignalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
(2) Numbers in parenthesis () represent delay at signalized intersections in seconds per vehicle.
Mulberry St
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Private Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Frontage Rd
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Overall
Greenfields Ct
Overall
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Frontage Rd
International Dr
Total Future 2040Total Future 2030Total Future 2023
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Overall
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Table 7-2
Bloom
Total Future 2040 Intersection Queueing Summary (1)
Operating Street Approach/ Available AM PM AM PM AM PM
Intersection Condition Name Movement Storage Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour
1 Sykes Dr/Timberline Rd STOP EBL 130 5 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
EBTR - 10 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBL 200 132.5 127.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
WBTR - 15 12.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBL - 0 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBT - 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
NBR 375 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBL 145 2.5 12.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a
SBTR - 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Signal added
Signal EBL 130 n/a n/a 11 7 11 7
EBT - n/a n/a 0 0 9 0
WBL 200 n/a n/a 101 73 101 73
WBT - n/a n/a 0 0 0 6
NBL - n/a n/a 9 29 10 30
NBT - n/a n/a 123 209 150 280
NBR 375 n/a n/a 17 20 17 20
SBL 145 n/a n/a 24 66 24 82
SBTR - n/a n/a 471 153 614 191
2 Vine Dr/Greenfields Dr STOP EBL 300 0 2.5 0 2.5 0 2.5
EBTR - 0 0 0 0 0 0
WBL 250 0 0 5 7.5 5 7.5
WBTR - 0 0 0 0 0 0
NBL 100 0 0 25 32.5 32.5 42.5
NBTR - 0 0 7.5 10 10 10
SBL - 2.5 2.5 5 5 5 5
SBTR - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3 Frontage Rd/Greenfields Ct CIRCLE Frontage Rd EBLTR - 0 0 50 150 50 150
Frontage Rd WBLTR - 0 0 0 25 0 25
Greenfields Ct NBLTR - 0 25 75 425 75 425
Greenfields Ct SBLTR - 25 0 75 275 75 275
4 International Dr/Private Dr/Greenfields Ct STOP EBL 100 0 0 2.5 7.5 2.5 7.5
EBTR - 12.5 7.5 17.5 12.5 17.5 12.5
WBL 100 0 0 12.5 15 12.5 15
WBTR - 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 0
NBL 100 2.5 7.5 5 12.5 5 12.5
NBTR - 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBL 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBTR - 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Mulberry St/Greenfields Ct Signal EBL 360 11 14 101 245 76 355
EBT - 206 376 181 448 231 1479
EBR 280 19 18 15 18 15 18
WBL 575 30 56 21 58 21 175
WBT - 468 214 416 239 629 773
WBR - 3 24 32 50 40 461
NBL 210 95 101 149 174 141 160
NBTR - 42 48 52 65 52 141
SBL - 80 79 276 401 258 486
SBTR - 44 53 242 628 194 632
Notes : (1) Queue length is based on the 95th percentile queue as reported by Synchro, Version 10.
Timberline Rd
Total Future 2040Total Future 2023 Total Future 2030
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Private Dr
Sykes Dr
Sykes Dr
Timberline Rd
Timberline Rd
Vine Dr
Vine Dr
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Dr
International Dr
Mulberry St
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Greenfields Ct
Mulberry St
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
VIII. Access Management and Improvements
Signal Warrants
It was identified in 2023 and 2030 analyses that at capacity levels of service on the side streets of the
following intersections may warrant signalization in order to operate at acceptable levels of service:
• Sykes Drive/Timberline Road
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 Edition (MUTCD) provides a nine (9) distinct warrants
for determining the appropriateness of a traffic signal as an operational improvement for an intersection.
Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A – Minimum Vehicular Volume
Condition B – Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Condition C – Combination of Warrants
Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3 – Peak Hour
Condition A – Peak Hour Delay
Condition B – Peak Hour Volume
Warrant 4 – Pedestrian Volume
Condition A – Peak Hour Volume
Condition B – Four-Hour Volume
Warrant 5 – School Crossing
Warrant 6 – Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7 – Crash Experience
Warrant 8 – Roadway Network
Warrant 9 – Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
Due to the availability of the data from this traffic study, Warrant 3 was considered to confirm the use of a
traffic signal as an improvement for the above intersection. The peak hour warrant worksheets are provided
in Appendix J and based on the 2023 and 2030 forecasts provided in Figure 6-2 (2023) and Figure 6-3
(2030) and the LOS analysis provided on Table 7-1. The following scenarios were evaluated for Warrant 3
– Peak Hour warrants:
• Sykes Drive/Timberline Road (2023 – Phase 1) – NOT Warranted
• Sykes Drive/Timberline Road (2030 – Phase 2) – Warranted
As mentioned previously, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine approximately how much
additional development can be accommodated above Phase 1 assumptions before a signal would be
triggered. For this sensitivity analysis, it was assumed that development would occur south of the Great
Western Railroad tracks after Phase 1 and that the Peakview development would not be constructed and
occupied. With these assumptions and those assumptions guiding Phase 1 analyzes, the Phase 1
multifamily unit count was increased until the Peak Hour Warrant was trigger. From this exercise it was
determined that approximately 1,000 additional multifamily units could be accommodated before a signal
was warranted. The worksheet for this analysis is provided in Appendix J. It should be noted that due to the
uncertainty of the pace of background regional growth, the development timeline of the Peakview
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
development and other uncertainties the proposed signal at Sykes Drive and Timberline Road should be
reassessed with filings above and beyond the Phase 1 analysis contained herein.
Access Management
According to access management guidelines provided in the LCUASS signalized spacing along Timberline
Road should be spaced at a minimum of a quarter mile. It is anticipated that the Vine Drive/Timberline Road
intersection will be signalized in the future and is the nearest signalized intersection to the proposed Sykes
Drive/Timberline Road signal. These two intersections are approximately a quarter mile apart and therefore
would meet access management standards. Additionally, if a future signal warrant anticipates that a signal
would be warranted at a future International Boulevard/Timberline Road intersection the spacing of all
signals along Timberline Road would be adequate and operate effectively.
International Boulevard/Greenfields Drive Operations
It has been shown previously in this TIS that the International Boulevard/Greenfields Drive intersection
would operate effectively as a STOP controlled intersection. It has been requested by the City of Fort Collins
to provide a sensitivity analysis related to the possible signalization improvement of this intersection. Peak
hour signal warrants were conducted base on the 2040 volumes contained herein. As provided in Appendix
K and shown below the intersection would require significant additional growth and/or development to
warrant signalization. It is not anticipated that regional growth or regional pipeline development would utilize
the proposed intersection in percentages great enough to trigger the warrant signalization. In the event that
this assumption is wrong the right-of-way would exist to improve the intersection to a signal. A roundabout
would be precluded as an improvement at this location as it would likely never be warranted.
Figure 8-1 International/Greenfields 2040 AM Peak Hour Warrant
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
Figure 8-2 International/Greenfields 2040 PM Peak Hour Warrant
Nearby potential development was considered per conversations with the City of Fort Collins. It was
identified that there is potentially ± 80 acres west of the Bloom development and south of International
Boulevard extension that could be developed (57.41 on Barker and ± 20 acres additional proximate to
Timberline Road. Per the densities provided in the East Mulberry Corridor approximately 3.39 du/acre
was assumed on Barker and 7-12 du/acre (assumed 12 du/ac to be conservative) for the remaining land
area. This would equate to fewer than 500 residential units that would be developed with their own
access and opportunity to access the local network. This represents approximately 350 additional AM and
450 PM peak hour trips spread out over multiple intersections. This additional development and trip
generation is conservative in estimation and on an unknown timeline of development. It is unlikely that
nearby development would trigger the long range signal warrant at International Boulevard and
Greenfields Drive on its own.
Safety Assessment of Mulberry Road/Greenfields Court
Per the request of the City of Fort Collins a safety assessment is being provided for the existing and future
signalized intersection of Mulberry Road/Greenfields Court. Crash data was avai lable for the most recent
four years at the subject intersection provided by Larimer County. Raw crash data is provided as Appendix
K. According to the data there was one (1) incident in 2018, four (4) incidents in 2019, two (2) in 2020 and
two (2) in 2021. Of the nine (9) reported incidents five (5) were directly related to drive behavior (DUI,
distracted, etc.). An additional incident was reported as a vehicle striking a fixed object, and another has a
hit and run. The remaining two incidents are typical of a signalized intersection although one of these is
reported as “non-intersection” The accidents reported for this intersection also reported no pedestrian/bike
accidents. It can be concluded that there is no safety concern at the existing signalized int ersection. All
non-driver incidents were reported as 25 mph or less. Improvements to this intersection will be designed
with all appropriate LCUASS and national guidelines considered. It is anticipated that this intersection will
continue to operate in a safe and effective manner.
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the results of this traffic impact study, the following may be concluded:
• Under existing traffic conditions, the stop-controlled intersections within the study area currently
operate at overall acceptable levels of service (LOS) “E” or better during the weekday AM and PM
peak hours.
• Under background future 2023 and 2030 traffic conditions, without the development of the subject
site, delays would increase slightly at study intersections due to regional traffic growth. The stop-
controlled intersections would continue to operate at LOS “D” or better with Sykes Drive operating
at capacity LOS “F” in the 2030 AM peak hours.
• The proposed site development would generate, upon completion and full occupancy, 1,569 new
weekday AM and 1,857 new weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips as well as 21,821 new weekday
daily trips.
• Under 2023 total future traffic conditions with development of Phase 1 of the site, all study
intersections, including proposed site connections would operate at overall acceptable levels of
service consistent with background conditions. The exception to this is the westbound left
movement at Sykes Drive/Timberline Road. A signal would not be warranted at this level of
forecasted volume. Phase 1 of the proposed development can be accommodated solely through
the connection at Sykes Drive through the Mosaic development and the extension of Greenfields
Court to the south via a newly constructed roundabout.
• Under 2030 total future traffic conditions the full buildout of the proposed development will be
accommodated by the proposed connections to the surrounding network. The exception to this is
the westbound left movement at Sykes Drive/Timberline Road. A signal would be warranted at this
level of forecasted volume.
• In 2040 long range conditions would be accommodated by the full buildout of the proposed network
with all study intersections operating at acceptable levels of service.
Recommendations
• During Phase 1 of development the Applicant should provide the following improvements to
accommodate site development:
o Construct Greenfields Court from Sykes Drive to the Frontage Road
o Improve the Greenfields Court/Frontage Road intersection to a roundabout with flared dual
lane approaches on the north and southbound approaches
o Provide connections to the west to connect to the Sykes Drive/Timberline Road intersection
• New roadways within the site should be constructed per the City of Fort Collins design guidelines
contained within the LCUASS and analyzed herein.
Bloom
Fort Collins, CO
Galloway & Company, Inc.
• It is recommended that as nearby pipeline development is constructed, and growth continues to
occur, signal warrant studies be conducted at Sykes Drive/Timberline Road to determine timing
and cost share for future signalization. At such a time where a signal is warranted at Sykes
Drive/Timberline Road or a filing is forecasted to trigger a warrant the Applicant should:
o Contribute to the signalization of Sykes Drive/Timberline Road intersection
• In order to accommodate development traffic north of the Great Western Railroad the Applicant
should provide the following improvements to accommodate site development:
o Construct Greenfields Court from Sykes Drive north to connect to Vine Drive
o Provide pedestrian and bicycle connection to facilitate access acros s the Great Western
Railroad
• During Phase 2 of the development contributions should be made to the improvement of Mulberry
Road/Greenfields intersections improvements
Bloom
Filing 4 Traffic Memorandum
Attachment III
Excerpts from Montava Phase G&E Traffic Impact
Study
75(44)
0(6)
4(6)
16(16)
2(1)
1(0)
7(3)
100(75)
0(1)
45(83)
60(81)
7(26)
1
10(17)
13(13)
7(10)
55(23)
15(20)
20(34)
5(8)
236(140)
22(13)
8(14)
100(186)
20(56)
2
45(53)
37(43)
1(0)
2(14)
28(29)
1(0)
1(0)
6(26)
13(21)
3
71(42)
1(1)
1(0)
207(140)
30(48)
116(207)
4
1(1)
33(15)
2(0)
1(2)
7(10)
4(7)
1(1)
4(8)
15(9)
2
(9)
2
(11)
4
(2)
5
183(151)
172(142)
10(21)
80(53)
177(253)
4(11)
25(20)
117(51)
4(6)
9
9(185)
4
1(102)
3
6(49)
6
25(19)
44(29)
132(149)
30(57)
100(205)
1(0)
92(64)
220(147)
1
4(27)
4
7(69)
113(163)
7
2(22)
96(231)
26(8)
9(5)
269(163)
4(15)
8
206(152)
91(175)
118(91)
163(120)
108(173)
6
8(106)
9
142(216)
63(118)
205(159)
58(137)
1
51(78)
1
57(103)
10
192(302)
39(59)
346(232)
8(7)
1
10(75)
1
3(12)
11
184(105)
191(314)
385(241)
73(70)
3
(16)
1
(0)
4
1(49)
12
237(144)
26(20)
39(63)
33(31)
9
9(219)
1
(1)
1
68(267)
13
67(37)
221(212)
67(51)
27(59)
155(205)
1(8)
42(44)
16(9)
6(7)
28(88)
6
(12)
20(40)
14
115(89)
197(164)
9(10)
115(112)
108(171)
20(45)
6(3)
281(204)
50(43)
56(67)
1
39(199)
9
1(118)
15