The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPINNACLE TOWNHOMES - PDP - 34-00A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (5)S. We disagree with the finding of the TIS that a left turn lane is not required on Prospect Rd. at the entrance to the proposed development. In Appendix C of the TIS there is a chart labeled "Volume Warrants for Left Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections." This chart uses a prediction of 10 turns per hour into the proposed development during the peak afternoon traffic period. Using the peak traffic count of 1041 vehicles per hour shown in Figure 3 of the citizen's data, the chart would indicate that a left turn lane is warranted by the proposed development. C.A.P. Smith Page 5 2i12/2cxn 5. The TIS makes inaccurate statements about the required level of service. In Section 4.5.3.A.3.b and Table 4-3 of the Standards, the threshold for acceptable service in a low density mixed use residential area at a signalized intersection is defined as "D." A threshold of D refers to a 35 to 55 second average delay at the signalized intersection (Standards Attachment H). The TIS states on page 3, "Per City standards, overall level of service `E' is defined as acceptable for arterial street intersections." This statement is incorrect. The TIS states on page 21, "As shown above, acceptable operations are expected under both the short- and long-term conditions." This statement is incorrect because it also refers to an inaccurate reading of the Standards. We believe that the TIS is invalid because it bases its conclusions on incorrectly applied Standards. 6. We dispute the finding in the TIS of no negative impacts on the level of service at the signalized intersection at Prospect and Lemay. In Section 4.5.2.A.2 of the Standards it says, A project is defined as significantly impacting a study intersection when ... the following criteria are satisfied:... When the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) causes an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service standards; and when the project traffic causes more than a 2 percent increase in the intersection delay. In Figure 3, the largest measured count of peak hour traffic was 1041 vehicles per hour. This represents a 20% increase when compared to the TIS. We assert that the level of service at the intersection of Prospect and Lemay would be below acceptable standards if the citizen's data were used in the analysis. Furthermore, on page 9 of the TIS it states, "As shown above, Pinnacle Townhomes is expected to generate... 30 afternoon peak hour trips... per day." The projected impact of 30 afternoon peak hour trips is larger than 2 percent of the measured afternoon peak hour traffic. Thus we believe that the project meets the definition of "significantly impacting a study intersection" as defined in the Standards. 7. The omission of accident data from the TIS is significant. The citizens have obtained accident statistics for E. Prospect Rd. These data are shown in Figure 5. The intersections at Remington and Lemay are rated as "Severe" for accidents by the City of Fort Collins. The intersection at Stover accounts for about 25% of the total number of accidents in this corridor. The Stover intersection is especially important because of the proximity to drop-off points for nearby schools. We believe that accidents and safety are important issues that were ignored in the TIS. Accident Data -Last 24 Months 16 14 12 10 6 --�--- Other A. —Laney 6- 4 2 A 0 ,acoacl 141:1,i 41 . Q Qa OS oo ea 5a 2 O Figure 5. Accident Data from City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer C.A.P. Smith Page 2/12/2002 Traffic Counts -Westbound E. Prospect 1200 +56% +20% 1041 1000 - 867 870 Y n Q. 800 - = 600 556 d Coppola Data ■ Citizen's Data o_ w 400 t u > 200 0 Robertson AM Robertson PM Time and Place of Count Figure 3. Comparison of Citizen's data to TIS data Traffic Counts - Eastbound E. Prospect 1200 +25% 1000 9 6 +10% 804 u p 800 767 = t7 Coppola Data 600 o` ■ Citizen's Data a H 400 U_ O 200 --------------- 0 Stover AM Stover PM Time and Place Figure 4. Comparison of Citizen's data to TIS data CAT Smith Page 3 2/12/2(k)2 C Morning Flow -Citizen's Data 300 s o 150 ...�...EbW U s r L= h ,`A o ,1.1 h ,`P� 1.t+ O h 9A0 O h O h 0A 91 6� �!. Time or Morning 6p 250 200 � � too so 0 Figure 1. Morning Traffic Counts, E. Prospect Rd., 2/5/02 Afternoon Flow - Citizen's Data 350 3 250 '0 2 a ... ... E to W 1 —�WtoE s e > 1 Time of Afternoon 00 00 50 0 00 50 0 Figure 2. Afternoon Traffic Counts, E. Prospect Rd., 2/5/02 C.A.P. Smith Page 2 2/13/2002 •" Citizens Concerns - Issues With Traffic Study Some elements of the Pinnacle Townhomes TIS are in conflict with the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards: 1. The TIS used non -representative data. The data were collected during the summer when 4 educational institutions located on this stretch of Prospect were not in session. Furthermore, a substantial number of CSU students access the campus using Prospect Street. The University was not in session when the data were collected (August 10, 2000). Section 4.3.2.A of the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards says, "The intent of completing an analysis of the existing (current) study horizon is to establish a baseline of traffic conditions." Section 4.4. LA states, "The Local Entity may require the use of seasonal adjustment factors depending on when data was collected..." We contend that the conclusions of the TIS are in doubt because the data were collected during a season in which the traffic was consistently less than average. This non -representative sample of traffic data defeats the purpose of the study outlined in section 4.3.2.A. We request that the City of Fort Collins apply a seasonal adjustment factor per section 4.4. LA and then request a revision of the TIS. 2. The TIS is missing some required "key elements." Section 4.3.4.B of the Standards states that a TIS, "...shall include the following evaluations:" 1... 2... 13. Safety and accident analysis 14... 15. Neighborhood and public input issues The TIS does not contain an analysis of accident and safety issues. The author of the TIS did not solicit input from citizens of the neighborhood, nor from the public at large. We believe that the TIS is invalid because it is missing these required key elements. 3. The TIS does not report the data in the required format. Section 4.4. LA of the Standards says, "Each peak hour count shall be conducted over a two hour period and shall include fifteen (15) minute count data to clearly identify the peak hours. The TIS contains appendices in which a variety of data are reported. However, nowhere in these appendices are the 15 minute counts reported in the way specified by the Standards. Because the data are not reported per the Standards, it is not possible to "clearly identify the peak hours" used in the analysis. We believe that this error in data reporting invalidates the survey. 4. The citizens conducted their own traffic counts using the methods outlined in the Standards. The data from these counts are presented in Figures 1 and 2 below. The data were collected on Tuesday February 5, 2002. Data from the peak morning and evening hours, in each direction of traffic, are displayed in Figures 3 and 4. In Figures 3 and 4, the data collected by citizens is compared to the peak hour data reported in the TIS. The comparison shows that in every case the current traffic volume is higher than reported in the TIS; in one case the traffic is more than 50% higher than reported in the TIS. C.A.P. Smith Page 1 2/13/2002