HomeMy WebLinkAbout438171 BIKE FORT COLLINS - CONTRACT - AGREEMENT MISC - BIKE FORT COLLINS (6)r_ColorAdo Dept of Transportation
14201 Arkansas Ave
Denver, CO 80222
Buyer: 'Brian Hancock
Phone Number: 303-757-9131
Agency Contact: Marissa Robinson
Phone Number: (303)512-4123
aY-111149rilE' IKIIN
IMPORTANT
The PO# and Line#
must appear on all
invoices, packing slips,
cartons and
correspondence
Vendor Master#2000023 PHONE: 970-221-6770
Vendor Contact:
Purchase Requisition #: 0110449730
v CITY OF FORT COLLINS
E
N PO BOX 580
D FORT COLLINS CO 80522-0580
0
R
INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDOR
1. If for any reason, delivery of this order is delayed beyond the delivery/Installation date shown,
please notify the agency contact named at the top left (Right of cancellation is reserved in instances
in which timely delivery is not made).
2. All chemicals, equipment and materials must conform to the standards required by OSHA.
3. NOTE: Additional terms and conditions on reverse side or at address shown in Special
Instructions.
Purchase Order
State of Colorado
P.o # 211019585 Page # 1 of 1
State Award#
BID#
Invoice
TO: Colorado Dept of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas ave
Denver CO 80222
will be made by this
Ship
To: Colorado Dept of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas ave
Denver CO 80222
Delivery/Installation Date: 07 / 01 / 2 015
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sco/contracts/fiscalrules/PO_terms_&_conditionsl-1-09.pdf
LINE # MATERIAL # UOM QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL ITEM COST
MATERIAL GROUP # PLANT
DESCRIPTION
00010 Activ.unit 1 28,375.00 28,375.00
96100 7001
City of Fort Collins SRTS NI Grant FY13
City of Fort Collins SRTS Non -Infrastructure Grant FY13
City of Fort Collins SRTS program in accordance with the attached grant scope of
work. Purchase Order Number must be shown on all invoices.
Implementation of walking school bus and bike train programs at PSD K-8 schools in
Fort Collins. Program includes family bike rodeos, "train the trainer" workshops,
SRTS resource notebooks, technical assistance for schools, and bike fleet.
THIS PO IS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
This PO is effective on the date signed by the authorized individual.
Signature not required if PO transmitted electronically via Email.
DP-01 (R-02/06)
D e
2013-14 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
SECTION 7: Has your organization received an SRTS grant for any of the schools
indentified in this application in a previous year? Maximum 1 page.
a) The City of Fort Collins has received a total of approximately $300,000 in SRTS
grants (both infrastructure and non -infrastructure) from 2005 to present. All eight
schools targeted for new walking school buses and/or bike trains have received
educational training or new facilities as a result of prior SRTS grants.
b) We have three SRTS grants still in progress, and all three will be complete before the
2013-14 grant begins. We are seeing a clear increase in numbers of children
biking/walking or taking the bus to school. We are also seeing a clear decline in
numbers of children being driven to school by their parents. There is also a dramatic
increase in the number of children and parents participating in events such as
International Walk to School Day and National Bike to School Day. At least half of
all PSD K-8 schools participated in the most recent International Walk to School Day,
and about 90% of students at one school, Laurel Elementary, walked/biked that day
(including children taking the school bus, who were dropped off at a remote location
and allowed to walk the final 1/2 mile to school).
c) Following are some of the major accomplishments in Fort Collins as a direct result of
SRTS grant -funded activities (infrastructure and non -infrastructure):
i. New or improved crosswalks and sidewalks for some schools
ii. New walking/biking audit tool for schools, which is used on an ongoing
basis
iii. Ongoing traffic -calming measures in the vicinity of Fort Collins schools
iv. Acquisition of SRTS bike fleet
v. Regular SRTS presentations to PTOs and wellness teams at PSD schools
vi. Safe Routes maps for all PSD schools
vii. Safe biking/walking training and encouragement activities at all PSD
schools
viii. Ongoing train -the -trainers program (including teacher mentoring)
ix. New bike racks at 10 schools
x. Walking school buses at three Fort Collins schools
d) All programs that have been started at local schools with SRTS grant funding are
ongoing and continuing to grow. New funding will help us keep the momentum going
and unveil the new initiatives described in this grant application. The local SRTS
operating budget and paid personnel (0.5 FTE) are inadequate to implement the
initiatives described herein without additional grant funding.
Page 8 of 9
2013-14 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
SECTION 8: Subcontractors
Will you be subcontracting with an individual or organization to perform any of the activities
includedin this SRTS grant application? (If not, you may skip this section.) Maximum: 1 page
a) Please list any subcontractors included in this grant application.
BPEC member organizations will serve as contractors for this grant application, including Bike
Fort Collins and the PVHS EMT Reserves.
b) Has your subcontractor ever performed work on another project funded by a CDOT SRTS
grant?
Yes, both contractors have performed work for past SRTS grants.
c) Briefly summarize all SRTS grant -funded projects on which you have performed work.
Include year of project, schools included, key activities, and amount of funding received.
See appendix for service agreements with Bike Fort Collins and PVHS EMT Reserves.
d) For all completed projects, please provide data documenting changes in the number of
studentswalking or biking to school.
We have yet to submit our post -survey data to the National Center for Safe Routes to School
from schools receiving training by these contractors, so we do not yet know the full effect of
these trainings.
e) Are SRTS programs continuing at the project school(s)? How have these efforts been
sustained ateach project site?
All schools served by these contractors are increasing their biking/walking activities. Several
schools included in this grant application were selected specifically because of their desire to
start walking school buses and/or bike trains after receiving previous grant -funded programming.
f) How will the work proposed in this application be similar to your previous SRTS projects? How
will itbe unique to this community and school(s)?
The programming in this grant application systematically builds on past SRTS grant -funded
programming. There has been a deliberate, rational buildup over several years' time that has
brought us to this specific grant request. The City of Fort Collins Safe Routes to School program
is a vibrant community program that is embraced by City leaders including the mayor, city
council, city manager, and PSD school superintendent. It is also supported by a diverse group of
community partners, including major health organizations. Our Safe Routes to School program
will be an important reason for the City receiving Platinum Bike -Friendly Community status in
the future (possibly as soon as 2013).
Page 9 of 9
APPENDIX
2011 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUMMARY
City Of
Fort Collins
Traffic
Operations
June 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Introduction.............................................................................................. 1
Section 1 - General Crash Information.......................................................... 2
Number of Crashes.............:................................................................
2
EconomicImpacts................................................................................
2
Comparison with Other Cities.................................................................
3
Crashesby Month................................................................................
5
Crashes by Day of the Week..................................................................
5
Crashes by Time of Day........................................................................
6
Location of Crashes.............................................................................
8
DriverAge..........................................................................................
8
Driving Under the Influence....................................................................
10
Motorcycle Crashes..............................................................................
11
Section 2 - Types of Crashes......................................................................... 12
Analysis of Severe Injury Crash Types ......................................................
15
BicycleCrashes..........................................................................
15
Right Angle Crashes....................................................................
18
Fixed Object Crashes...................................................................
19
Approach Turn Crashes.................................................................
20
Pedestrian Crashes......................................................................
21
RearEnd Crashes........................................................................
24
Section 3 - High Crash Locations.................................................................... 25
CrashDensity Maps............................................................................... 26
Detailed Intersection Analysis.................................................................. 32
Introduction
This Traffic Safety Summary provides a description of traffic crashes that have occurred
on public streets in Fort Collins. This document is intended to be used as a
benchmarking tool to track progress on efforts to reduce the number of crashes and
crash severity. In addition, the document is intended to serve as a tool to help
determine strategies and countermeasures to achieve crash reduction goals. The
document is divided into three sections: 1) a crash summary, 2) a detailed review of the
most common types of crashes, and 3) the identification of high crash locations.
Explanation of Data
The source for crash information is the City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations
Department traffic crash database. This database includes all crashes on public streets
investigated and reported by Fort Collins Police Services plus those crash reports
submitted after the fact to Police Services by involved parties. Traffic Operations staff
reviews each crash report for accuracy and makes corrections as necessary prior to
input into the database to ensure that data is as complete, accurate and consistent as
possible. The numbers included in the report are conservative since some crashes go
unreported. Also, only accidents involving motor vehicles are included so some
accidents, like single vehicle bicycle accidents, are not included as no reports are
created for those crashes.
The City Advanced Planning Department provided demographic data used in this
report. The Colorado Department of Revenue provided data showing the number of
licensed drivers by age in Fort Collins.
Section 1 — General Crash Information
Number of Crashes
Figure 1 shows the total number of crashes in Fort Collins from 2007 — 2010. Crashes
are broken out each year by the severity of injuries. Overall crash numbers have
remained fairly consistent over the past four years with the exception of fatal crashes
that were very high in 2009.
10000
3 10
Z
Figure 1 — Number of Crashes
3738 3462 3580
3561
522 ■ 452 4br 473
250 246 200 36
) 48 30 jE 0 34
4
2
3
2007 2008 2009 2010
--*--Total Crashes Year
(Possible Injury
Vsible, Non Incapacitating Injury
�*—Incapacitatng Injury
CIE— Fa tal
Economic Impact of Traffic Crashes
Table 1 provides an estimate of economic costs associated with crashes in Fort Collins
in 2010. The crash costs are based on figures determined by the Federal Highway
Administration and published in the Highway Safety Manual'. The crash costs shown
are adjusted to reflect 2010 values. Crash costs include monetary losses associated
with medical care, emergency services, property damage, and lost productivity. They
also include costs related to the reduction in the quality of life related to injuries. The
estimated cost of crashes in Fort Collins in 2010 was nearly $94 million.
2
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) completed a study on the
costs of crashesZ. The NHTSA study not only concentrated on the costs of crashes, but
also who pays the costs. The study found that society at large pays for about 75% of all
costs incurred for each crash. Those costs are passed on to the general public through
insurance premiums, taxes, direct out of pocket payments for goods/services, and
increased medical costs. Using that information, it is estimated that traffic crashes cost
the typical family of four in Fort Collins about $2,000 in 2010.
Table 1 — Economic Impact of Crashes, 2010
Crash Severity
Number of
Crashes
Cost per Crash
Cost
Property Damage Only
2815
$9,000
$25,335,000
Possible Injury
473
$52,700
$24,927,100
Non -Incapacitating Injury
236
$91,400
$21,570,400
Incapacitating Injury
34
$249,500
$8,483,000
Fatal
3
$4,500,100
$13,500,300
Total
$93,815,800
Comparison with Other Cities
Table 2 compares the fatal crash rate from 2007 — 2009 in Fort Collins to other cities in
Colorado with similar population (between 85,000 and 200,000) and also compared to
other peer cities nationwide. The nationwide peer cities are participants in an annual
benchmarking survey that Fort Collins Police Services participates in. Crash data for
other communities was obtained from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's Fatal Accident Reporting System. Population estimates are for 2008
and are from the State Demography Office in Colorado and from individual communities
for cities outside of Colorado.
Despite a record high number of fatalities in 2009, the fatal accident rate in Fort Collins
is below the average compared to other comparable Colorado communities and also
compared to peer cities nationwide.
3
Table 2 - Comaarison with Other Cities. Fatal Crashes. 2007 - 2009
City
Population
Fatal Crashes
Fatal Crash Rate
(Crashes/100,000
Population)
2007
2008
2009
Avg.
Arvada
107,750
2
4
6
4.0
3.7
Boulder
101,100
2
2
5
3.0
3.0
Fort Collins
137,700
4
2
11
5.7
4.1
Greeley
91,400
4
3
0
2.3
2.5
Lakewood
144,600
11
9
6
8.7
6.0
Longmont
85,550
4
1
6
3.7
4.3
Pueblo
106,200
12
9
8
9.7
9.1
Thornton
115,600
3
7
2
4.0
3.5
Bellevue, WA
120,600
2
2
1
1.7
1.4
Boca Raton, FL
85,400
23
14
11
16.0
18.7
Broken Arrow, OK
101,000
4
3
4
3.7
3.7
Cedar Rapids, IA
128,050
5
4
7
5.3
4.1
Coral Springs, FL
127,200
8
9
14
10.3
8.1
Naperville, IL
145,550
1
1
1
1.0
0.7
Norman, OK
112,550
9
11
9
9.7
8.6
Olathe, KS
125,250
6
2
2
3.3
2.6
Overland Park, KS
173,250
6
9
4
6.3
3.6
Richardson, TX
99,700
10
15
3
9.3
9.3
San Angelo, TX
91,900
6
6
6
6.0
6.5
Springfield, MO
168,800
9
17
11
12.3
7.3
Colorado Cities
889,900
42
37
44
41.0
4.6
Overall
2,369,150
131
130
117
126.0
5.3
Crashes by Month
Figure 2 shows crashes by month in Fort Collins over the past four years. As shown,
more crashes occur in the fall/winter than in the spring/summer. Inclement weather and
a higher student population at those times likely contribute to the increase seen during
the colder months.
Figure 2 — Crashes by Month, 2007 - 2010
1600
1400
1200
a 1000
m
a 800
m
L
U 600
400
200
0
Jai 2'�A x�°r ��. �a� Jce S31
ac le)
�e P �eQ p �o� Oeu
Month
Crashes by Day of Week
Figure 3 shows crashes by day of the week over the past four years. More accidents
occur on Fridays than on other days of the week. Daily variation in crashes tracks
closely with daily variations in traffic volumes (blue line). Fridays tend to have both the
highest traffic volumes and also the most accidents.
3000
2500
w 2000
m
1500
U 1000
500
0
Figure 3 — Crashes by Day of Week, 2007 - 2010
2556
2083
r
x
URR
t�
R
n ,
t
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
O Crashes —Traffic Volume Day
20.0%
18.0%
16.0 0 u
14.0% HE
12.0% F-
10.0% >
8.0% y
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
f 'Purchase
Order Terms 'and" ° onditions
1. Offer/Acceptance. If this purchase order ("PO") refers to vendor's bid or proposal, this PO is an
ACCEPTANCE of vendor's OFFER TO SELL in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
"solicitation" identified in vendor's bid or proposal. The solicitation includes an REP, IFB, or any other
form of order by buyer. If a bid or proposal is not referenced, this PO is an OFFER TO BUY, subject to
vendor's acceptance, demonstrated by vendor's performance or written acceptance of this PO. Any
COUNTER-OFFER TO SELL automatically CANCELS this PO, unless a change order is issued by
buyer accepting a counter-offer. This PO shall supersede and control over any vendor form(s) or part(s)
thereof included in or attached to any bid, proposal, offer, acknowledgment, or otherwise, in the event
of inconsistencies or contradictions, regardless of any statement to the contrary in such form(s) or pans
thereof. 2. Safety Information. All chemicals, equipment and materials proposed and/or used in the
performance of this PO shall conform to the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970. Vendor shall furnish all Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for any regulated chemicals,
equipment or hazardous materials at the time of delivery.
3. Changes. Vendor shall furnish products and/or services strictly in accordance with the specifications
and price set forth for each item. This PO shall not be modified, superseded or otherwise altered,
except in writing signed by purchasing agent and accepted by vendor. Each shipment received or
service performed shall comply with the terms of this PO, notwithstanding invoice terms or acts of
vendor to the contrary, unless this PO has been modified, superseded or otherwise altered in
accordance with this section.
4. Delivery. Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation or this PO, delivery shall be FOB destination.
Buyer is relying on the promised delivery date, installation, and/or service performance set forth in
vendor's bid or proposal as material and basic to buyer's acceptance. If vendor fails to deliver or
perform as and when promised, buyer, in its sole discretion, may cancel its order, or any pan thereof,
without prejudice to its other rights, return all or pan of any shipment so made, and charge vendor with
any loss or expense sustained as a result of such failure to deliver or perform as promised. Time is of
the essence.
5. Intellectual Property. Any software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other
documents, drawings or materials (collectively
"materials") delivered by vendor in performance of its
obligations under this PO shall be the exclusive property of buyer. Ownership rights shall include, but
not be limited to, the right to copy, publish, display, transfer, prepare derivative works, or otherwise
use the materials. Vendor shall comply with all applicable Cyber Security Policies of the State of
Colorado (the "State"), or buyer, as applicable, and all confidentiality and non -disclosure agreements,
security controls, and reporting requirements.
6. Quality. Buyer shall be the sole judge in determining "equals" with regard to quality, price and
performance. All products delivered shall be newly manufactured and the current model, unless
otherwise specified.
7. Warranties. All provisions and remedies of the Colorado Uniform Commercial Code, CRS, Title 4
("CUCC"), relating to implied and/or express warranties are incorporated herein, in addition to any
warranties contained in this PO or the specifications.
8. Inspection and Acceptance. Final acceptance is contingent upon completion of all applicable
inspection procedures. If products or services fail to meet any inspection requirements, buyer may
exercise all of its rights, including those provided in the CUCC. Buyer shall have the right to inspect
services provided under this PO at all reasonable times and places. "Services" as used in this section
includes services performed or tangible material produced or delivered in the performance of services.
If any of the services do not conform m PO requirements, buyer may require vendor to perform the
services again in conformity with PO requirements, without additional payment. When defects in the
quality or quantity of service cannot be corrected by re -performance, buyer may (a) require vendor to
take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to PO requirements and (b) equitably
reduce the payment due vendor to reflect the reduced value of the services performed. These remedies
do not limit the remedies otherwise available in this PO, at law, or in equity.
9. Cash Discount. The cash discount period will star from the later of the date of receipt of acceptable
invoice, or from date of receipt of acceptable producudservices at the specified destination by an
authorized buyer representative.
10. Taxes. Buyer and the State are exempt from all federal excise taxes under Chapter 32 of the
Internal Revenue Code [No. 84-730123K] and from all State and local government sales and use taxes
[CRS, Title 39, Article 26, Parts 1 and 11). Such exemptions apply when materials are purchased for the
benefit of State, except that in certain political subdivisions (e.g., City of Denver) vendor may be
required to pay sales or use taxes even though the ultimate product or service is provided to buyer.
Buyer shall not reimburse such sales or use taxes.
11. Payment. Buyer shall pay vendor for all amounts due within 45 days after receipt of products or
services and a correct notice of amount due. Interest on the unpaid balance shall begin to accrue on the
461h day at the rate set forth in CRS §24-30-202(24) until paid in full. Interest shall not accrue if a good
faith dispute exists as to buyer's obligation to pay all or a portion of the amount due. Vendor shall
invoice buyer separately for interest on delinquent amounts due, referencing the delinquent payment,
number of day's interest to be paid, and applicable interest rate.
12. Vendor Offset. [Nat Applicable to Inter -governmental POs] Under CRS §24-30-202.4 (3.5), the
State Controller may withhold payment under the State's vendor offset intercept system for debts owed
to State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support debts or arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of tax, accrued
interest, or other charges specified in CRS §39-21-101, et seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to the Student
Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; (d) amounts required to be paid to the
Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid debts owing to the State as a result of final
agency determination or judicial action.
13. Assignment and Successors. Vendor shall not assign rights or delegate duties under this PO, or
subcontract any pan of the performance required under this PO, without the express, written consent of
buyer. This PO shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon vendor and buyer and their respective
successors and assigns. Assignment of accounts receivable may be made only upon written notice
furnished to buyer.
14. Indemnification. If any article sold or delivered under this PO is covered by a patent, copyright,
trademark, or application therefore, vendor shall indemnify and hold harmless buyer from any and all
loss, liability, cost, expenses and legal fees incurred on account of any claims, legal actions or
judgments arising out of manufacture, sale or use of such article in violation or infringement of rights
under such patent, copyright, trademark or application. If this PO is for services, vendor shall
indemnify, save, and hold harmless buyer, its employees and agents, against any and all claims,
damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related expenses,
incurred as a result of any act or omission by vendor, or its employees, agents, subcontractors or
assignees, arising out of or in connection with performance of services under this PO.
15. Independent Contractor. Vendor shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent contractor
and not as an employee. Neither vendor nor any agent or employee of vendor shall be deemed to be an
agent or employee of buyer. Vendor and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment
insurance or workers compensation benefits through buyer and buyer shall not pay for or otherwise
provide such coverage for vendor or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits
will be available to vendor and its employees and agents only if coverage is made available by vendor
or a third party. Vendor shall pay when due all applicable employment, income, and local head taxes
incurred pursuant to this PO. Vendor shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind buyer to
any agreement, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth herein. Vendor shall (a) provide
and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts
required by law, (b) provide proof thereof when requested by buyer, and (c) be solely responsible for
its acts and those of its employees and agents.
16. Communication. All communication concerning administration of this PO, prepared by vendor for
buyer's use, shall be furnished solely to purchasing agent.
17. Compliance. Vendor shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and
regulations in effect or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to
discrimination and unfair employment practices.
18. Insurance. Vendor shall obtain, and maintain, at all times during the term of this PO, insurance as
specified in the solicitation, and provide proof of such coverage as requested by purchasing agent.
19. Termination Prior to Shipment. If vendor has not accepted this PO in writing, buyer may cancel
this PO by written or om1 notice to vendor prior to shipment of goods or commencement of services.
20. Termination for Cause. (a) If vendor refuses or fails to timely and properly perform any of its
obligations under this PO with such diligence as will ensure its completion within the time specified
herein, buyer may notify vendor in writing of non-performance and, if not corrected by vendor within
the time specified in the notice, terminate vendors right to proceed with the PO or such part thereof as
to which there has been delay or a failure. Vendor shall continue performance of this PO to the extent
not terminated and be liable for excess costs incurred by buyer in procuring similar goods or services
elsewhere. Payment for completed services performed and accepted shall be at the price set forth in this
PO. (b) Buyer may withhold amounts due to vendor as buyer deems necessary to reimburse buyer for
excess costs incurred in curing, completing or procuring similar goods and services.(c) If after
rejection, revocation, or other termination of vendors right to proceed under the CUCC or this clause,
buyer determines for any reason that vendor was not in default or the delay was excusable, the rights
and obligations of buyer and vendor shall be the same as if the notice of termination had been issued
pursuant to termination under §21.
21. Termination in Public Interest. Buyer is entering into this PO for the purpose of carrying out the
public policy of the State, as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, and Courts. If this PO
ceases to further the public policy of the State, buyer, in its sole discretion, may terminate this PO in
whole or in pan and such termination shall not be deemed to be a breach of buyer's obligations
hereunder. This section shall not apply to a termination for vendor's breach, which shall be governed
by §20. Buyer shall give written notice of termination to vendor specifying the pan of the PO
terminated and when termination becomes effective. Upon receipt of notice of termination, vendor
shall not incur further obligations except as necessary to mitigate costs of performance. For services or
specially manufactured goods, buyer shall pay (a) reasonable settlement expenses, (b) the PO price or
rate for supplies and services delivered and accepted, (c) reasonable costs of performance on
unaccepted supplies and services, and (d) a reasonable profit for the unaccepted work. For existing
goods, buyer shall pay (e) reasonable settlement expenses, (f) the PO price for goods delivered and
accepted, (g) reasonable costs incurred in preparation for delivery of the undelivered goods, and (h) a
reasonable profit for the preparatory work. Buyer's termination liability under this section shall not
exceed the total PO price plus a reasonable cost for settlement expenses. Vendor shall submit a
termination proposal and reasonable supporting documentation, and cost and pricing data as required
by CRS §24-106-101, upon request of buyer.
22. PO Approval. This PO shall not be valid unless it is executed by purchasing agent. Buyer shall not
be responsible or liable for products or services delivered or performed prior to proper execution
hereof.
23. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of buyer payable after the current fiscal year are
contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If
this PO is funded in whole or in part with federal funds, this PO is subject to and contingent upon the
continuing availability of federal funds for the purposes hereof. Buyer represents that it has set aside
sufficient funds to make payment for goods delivered in a single installment, in accordance with the
terms of this PO.
24. Choice of Law. State laws, rules and regulations shall be applied in the interpretation, execution,
and enforcement of this PO. The CUCC shall govern this PO in the case of goods unless otherwise
agreed in this PO. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with
such laws, rules, and regulations is null and void. Any provision incorporated herein by reference
which purports to negate this or any other provision in this PO in whole or in pan shall not be valid or
enforceable or available in any action at law, whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise.
Unless otherwise specified in the solicitation or this PO, venue for anyjudicial or administrative action
arising out of or in connection with this PO shall be in Denver, Colorado. Vendor shall exhaust
administrative remedies in CRS §24-109-106, prior to commencing anyjudicial action against buyer.
25. Public Contracts for Services. [Nat Applicable to offer, issuance, or sale ofsecurities,
investment advisory services, fund management services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental
POs, or information technology services orproducts and services] Vendor certifies, warrants, and
agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under
this PO and will confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for
employment in the United States to Perform work under this PO, through participation in the E-Verify
Program or the Department program established pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5)(c), Vendor shall not
knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this PO or enter into a
contract or PO with a subcontractor that fails to certify to vendor that the subcontractor shall not
knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to Perform work under this PO. Vendor shall (a) not
use E-Verify Program or Department program procedures to undertake pre -employment screening of
job applicants during performance of this PO, (b) notify subcontractor and buyer within three days if
vendor has actual knowledge that subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien for
work under this PO, (c) terminate the subcontract if subcontractor does not stop employing or
contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving notice, and (d) comply with reasonable
requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5), by the
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If vendor participates in the Department program,
vendor shall deliver to the buyer a written, notarized affirmation that vendor has examined the legal
work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements of the Department
program. If vendor fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS §8-17.5-101 et seq.,
buyer may terminate this PO for breach and, if so terminated, vendor shall be liable for damages.
26. Public Contracts with Natural Persons. Vendor, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or
older, hereby swears and affirms under penalty of perjury that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise
lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (b) shall comply with the provisions of
CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has produced a forth of identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103
prior to the date vendor delivers goods or begins performing services under terms of the PO.
Effective Date 01/01/09
Crashes by Time of Day
Figures 4, 5 and 6 show crashes by time of day for weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays
respectively. The charts also show the percentage of daily traffic by hour (blue line).
On weekdays (Figure 4), crashes are overrepresented during the afternoon hours,
particularly 12 p.m., 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. That is, there are more crashes than expected
given the amount of traffic on the streets at those times. Crashes are also
overrepresented from 12 a.m. to 2 a.m. on weekdays.
On weekends (Figures 5 and 6), early morning hours on Saturdays and Sundays are
significantly overrepresented. At 1 a.m. on Saturdays and from 1 a.m. to 2 a.m. on
Sundays, there are over 4 times as many crashes as would be expected given the
traffic volumes at those times. Saturday evenings are also overrepresented. This data
suggests that evening activities and alcohol use on weekends may contribute to a high
number of crashes. See page 12 for more data on alcohol related crashes.
Figure 4 — Crashes by Time of Day, 2007- 2010
Monday - Friday
1400
1200
1000
N
t 800
N
U
600
400
200
e -e e
00 .00 00 .00 .00 00 00 Q .- .00 ^ 00 ^ 00 ^ 00 00 ��O
6 6 T 0 0' O K ti
Time
® Gashes —Traffic Volume
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
6
U_
m
F
T
G
a
Figure 5 — Crashes by Time of Day, 2007 — 2010
Saturday
1so
140
120
N 100
d
a 80
A
U 60
40
20
0
P� P� Q�
O° O° O° .O° O° O° O° O° O° .O° O° O° O° O° ti0° ,�O° �O° �O° 60°
N. ,�O° �O° 90°
ry. "�. p. y. (b. -\. O. O. °' '�' pry'
Time
Gashes Traffic Volume
Figure 6 — Crashes by Time of Day, 2007 — 2010
Sunday
120
100
80
U)
d
60
U
40
20
0
o° .o° .o° o° o° o° o° o° o° 0.o° o° .o° �o° o° ao° yo° 60° �.o° oo° oo° 01
Time
B Gashes —Traffic Volume
9.00%
8.00%
7.00%
u
6.00%
m
5.00% F
a
4.00% •�
3.00%
a
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
H
T
4.00% p
0
2.00%
0.00%
7
Location of Crashes
Figure 7 shows the location of crashes in Fort Collins for the years 2007 — 2010.
Intersection crashes (including signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections,
driveways and alleys) account for 71 % of all crashes. This illustrates the importance of
proper access control and access design as a component of a traffic safety program.
Figure 7 — Crashes by Location, 2007 - 2010
Non-Interse
29%
AIIeyAccess
1%
Driveway Acce
8%
Driver Age
Unsignalized Intersection
19%
Signalized Intersection
43%
Figure 8 shows the number (and percentage) of at fault drivers involved in crashes in
Fort Collins by age. The chart also shows the percentage of licensed drivers by age in
Fort Collins. As can be seen, drivers 15 — 19 are more than five times as likely to be
involved in a crash as would be expected given the number of licensed drivers in that
age group. 20 — 24 year old drivers are over twice as likely to be in a crash as
expected. All other age groups are underrepresented in crashes. While these statistics
are not unique to Fort Collins, they do indicate that driver inexperience is likely a key
factor in crashes here and countermeasures to deal with this problem would be
appropriate at the local level.
8
3500
y 3000
m
y 2500
U 2000
0
1500
N
E 1000
7
Z 500
0
Figure 8 — At Fault Drivers in Crashes, By Age, 2007 - 2010
2607
2237 2027
—T327 1199
878
443 387
15-19 20-24 25-34 35- 4 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age
❑ Number of Crashes ❑ Percentage of Licensed Driers
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% Cn
R
c
15.0% m
10.0% d
5.0%
0.0%
Figure 9 below shows crashes by age and gender. Only partial data by gender is
available for 2007. So these numbers are somewhat lower than what is shown in Figure
8 above. Overall, male drivers are slightly more likely to be involved in accidents than
female drivers. Younger male drivers (20 — 34) in particular are more likely to be involved
in crashes.
600
500
400
N
N
w 300
m
U
200
100
0
Figure 9 — Crashes by Age and Gender
15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age
❑ fv�le ®Female
9
Driving Under the Influence
Figure 10 shows the number of DUI (driving under the influence) crashes over the past
four years. The 567 DUI crashes represent about 4% of all crashes. However, the 29
incapacitating/fatal accidents represent about 17% of all serious injury accidents.
Figure 10 — Number of DUI Crashes, 2007 - 2010
1000
N1
d
�
142 141
148
to
136
100
w29
C
22
--
f7
24
u 22
20
1
>—
10
7 5
8
g
E
7
Z
1
�-
1
2007 2008
2009
2010
--*—Total Crashes
(Possible Injury
Year
Visible, Non Incapacitating Injury
�Flncapacitating Injury
--*--Fatal
Figure 11 shows the ages of at fault drivers in DUI crashes over the past four years. 20
— 24 year old drivers are about three times more likely than expected to be in alcohol
related crashes given the number of licensed drivers in that age group. Perhaps more
surprisingly, 15 — 19 year old drivers are also overrepresented (nearly four times more
likely than expected) despite the fact that they have not reached legal drinking age. The
data showing DUI crashes combined with the data shown previously in Figures 4 and 5
that showed high accident rates on weekend evenings/early mornings suggests that
driving under the influence continues to be an area of concern.
10
200
180
Nl
d 160
s
140
�j 120
C 100
80
.0 60
Z 40
20
E
Figure 11 — At Fault Drivers in DUI Crashes -- By Age, 2007-2010
186
124
81
65
59
34
a
s
15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age
❑ Number of Crashes o Percentage of Licensed Drj\ers
Motorcycle Crashes
35.0%
30.0%
25.0% a)
10.0% O_
5.0%
- 0.0%
From 2007 — 2010 there were a total of 267 reported motorcycle crashes. While
motorcycle crashes tend to follow the same patterns as other crashes they tend to be
more severe. Figure 12 shows a comparison of crash severity between overall crash
data and motorcycle data. Overall, only 21 % of crashes result in injury while 71 % of
motorcycle crashes result in injury.
Figure 12 — Crash Severity Comparison for Motorcycles
Incapacitating
Non Injury Gashes
1% Fatal Gashes
Incapacitating Fatal Gashes 3%
Injury Crashes l <1%
Incapacitating 6% I Injury
Gashes
Possible Injury 11%
Gashes
13%
ty Damage
Gashes
Overall Crashes 80%
Injury Gashes
Property Darrage
Gashes
29%
39% Possible Injury
Gashes
Motorcycle Crashes 18%
Section 2 - Types of Crashes
There are a variety of different types of crashes:
Approach Turn — Two vehicles traveling in opposite directions, one turns left (or attempts
a U-turn) in front of the oncoming vehicle and is struck.
Bicycle — Any crash that involves a bicyclist.
Fixed Obiect — A single vehicle crash where a fixed object other than a parked vehicle is
struck.
Head On — Two vehicles traveling in opposite directions hit head on
Overtaking Turn — Two vehicles traveling in the same direction, the front vehicle turns
right or left and is hit as the following vehicle tries to pass on the right or left.
Overturning Crash — A single vehicle crash where the vehicle flips over off its wheels.
Parking Related — Any crash involving a parked vehicle or a vehicle entering/leaving a
parking space.
Pedestrian — Any crash that involves a pedestrian.
Rear End — Two vehicles traveling in the same direction, leading vehicle struck by
following vehicle.
Right Angle — Two vehicles traveling on perpendicular streets one fails to yield or passes
a traffic control device and strikes the other.
Sideswipe Opposite Direction — Two vehicles traveling in opposite directions, one veers
into the wrong lane and strikes the side of the other car. This often occurs where a
vehicle waiting at a STOP sign or traffic signal is struck by a vehicle turning right from a
perpendicular road onto the road of the stopped car.
Sideswipe Same Direction — Two vehicles traveling the same direction, one vehicle veers
into the other striking it in the side (usually due to improper lane changes).
Other Non -Collision Crash — Other single vehicle crashes that don't fit into any other
category.
Other — Other crashes that do not fit into any category
12
Figure 13 shows the number and percentage of crashes by type for the years 2007 -
2010. Rear end crashes make up nearly half of all crashes. Right angle, parking
related, approach turn and fixed object crashes are the next most common types of
crashes in Fort Collins.
Figure 13 — Crashes by Type, 2007 - 2010
Sideswipe -Opposite
Direction, 199, 1%
O\,ertaking Turn, 260, 2%�
Bicycle, 585, 4%
Sideswipe - Same
Direction, 969, 7%
Fixed Object, 1001, 7%
Approach Turn, 1095, 8%
Parking Related, 1613,
11%
Pedestrian, 147, 1%
92, 1 %
Other, 223, 2%
Right Angle, 1695, 12%
IRear End, 6462, 44%
13
While all traffic crashes are of concern, those that cause the most serious injuries
are of special concern. Figure 14 shows the number of incapacitating injury and
fatal crashes (the most severe crashes) by type from 2007 - 2010. Bicycle, Right
Angle, Fixed Object, Approach Turn, Pedestrian and Rear End crashes account
for about 85% of the serious injury/fatal crashes in Fort Collins. Note that while
bicycle and pedestrian accidents make up only about 5% of total crashes they
make up nearly a third (30%) of serious injury crashes.
Figure 14 — Severe Injury/Fatal Crashes by Type, 2007 - 2010
Other, 10, 6%
Pedestrian, 16, 9%
Bicycle, 38, 22%
Head On, 3, 2%
Fixed Object, 26, 15%
Right Angle, 27, 16%
Parking Related, 9, 5%
Approach Turn, 27, 16%
14
Analysis of Severe Injury Crash Types
The remainder of this section of the report examines Bicycle, Right Angle, Fixed Object,
Approach Turn, Pedestrian and Rear End crashes in detail to help determine what
countermeasures could be applied to reduce these types of crashes.
Bicvcle Crashes
Figure 15 shows the number of bicycle crashes in Fort Collins from 2007 — 2010. The
frequency of bike crashes has remained relatively constant over the past four years.
Figure 15 — NUMBER OF BICYCLE CRASHES
t-Total Crashes Year
(Possible Injury
— N—Visible, Non Incapacitating Injury
��Incapacitating Injury
CIF Fa to I
Figure 16 shows the age of bicyclists involved in crashes in Fort Collins as well as the
percentage of population by age. 10 - 34 year old bicyclists are all overrepresented in
crashes. 15 — 19 year older riders are most overrepresented. They are more than
twice as likely as expected to be involved in a crash when compared to the population
by age.
15
Contact Information Sheet
Organization (check one) School District ❑ City ® County ❑ State ❑ Other ❑
Project Title: Fort Collins Safe Routes to School
Contact Name: Nancy Nichols
Contact Title: Safe Routes to School Coordinator
Organization: City of Fort Collins
Mailing Address: 281 N. College, PO Box 580
City, State, Zip: Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Best Phone # to Call: 970-416-2357
Contact E-mail: nnichols@fcgov.com
Contact Fax: 970-221-6239
Amount of Funding
Requested: $22,700
School District(s): Poudre School District (PSD)
School Name(s)
& Address(es): All PSD K-8 schools in Fort Collins, with special focus on Beattie, Bennett, Irish,
Putnam, Riffenburgh, Shepardson, Werner, and Zach elementary schools.
CDOT Region R1 ❑ R2 ❑ R3 ❑ R4 ® R5 ❑ R6 ❑
(See Addendum E)
Congressional District: D1 ❑ D2 ❑ D3 ❑ D4 ® D5 ❑ D6 ❑
Safe Routes to School Coordinator Dec. 6, 2012
Signature and Title of Person Submitting the Proposal* Date
*By signing, applicant admits to being authorized to sign for _City of Fort Collins_ (name of organization) and that all the information contained herein is true
and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
180
160
N
t 140
R 120
U 100
C 80
L
60 -
40 -
Z 20 -
0
Figure 16 — Bicycle Crashes by Bicyclist Age, 2007 - 2001
159
114
101
42
_
43
18
1
31
fl
0
04 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 3544 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+
Age
❑ Number of Crashes ❑ Percentage of Population
30.0%
25.0% N
rn
20.0% ;a
c
15.0% 2
L
N
10.0% a-
5.0%
0.0%
Bicycle crashes can be further classified by type of collision. Table 3 shows bicycle
accidents by type. Right angle crashes are by far the most common type of bike crash.
Significant contributing circumstances in bike crashes include wrong way riding (37% of
crashes) and sidewalk riding (34% of crashes). Note also that crashes at intersections
account for about 85% of all bike crashes. This picture illustrates a typical right angle
crash involving wrong way riding.
16
Table 3 — Twes of Bicvcle Crashes, 2007 - 2010
Type of Accident
Total
Serious
In'u /Fatal
Right Angle
Bike riding against traffic on sidewalk/crosswalk
126
2
Bike riding against traffic on street
71
5
Bike riding with traffic on sidewalk/crosswalk
41
5
Bike riding with traffic on street
74
5
Midblock Crossings
7
1
Unknown Location of Bike
44
2
.... _
Total Ri ht An lees ,
;
-3,63
,4 . -20'
Overtaking Turn
Bike riding with traffic on sidewalk/crosswalk
9
1
Bike riding with traffic on street
62
2
Bike riding against traffic
5
0
Total Overtaking
76
1 3
Approach Turn
Bike riding with traffic on sidewalk/crosswalk
7
2
Bike riding with traffic on street
44
2
Unknown Location
2
0
Total Approach Turn
53
4
Sideswipe
Bike riding against traffic on street
8
3
Bike riding with traffic on street
31
2
Unknown Location of Bike
3
0
Total Sideswipe -Same Direction
42 ..:
5
Parked Related
Bike riding with traffic on street or sidewalk/crosswalk
11
0
Bike riding against traffic on street or sidewalk/crosswalk
5
0
Unknown Location of Bike
2
1
Total Parked Motor Vehicle
18
1
Rear -End
Bike riding with traffic on street
15
2
Unknown Location of Bike
2
Head -On
Bike riding against traffic on street
2
1
Total Head -On 1
2
1
Total Obiects Non -Collision oriNo Information
14
2
Total 1
5851
38
17
Right Angle Crashes
Right angle crashes occur at intersections when vehicles arrive on perpendicular roads
and collide.
There are two main types of right angle crashes:
1) Failure to yield after stopping — These accidents can occur at STOP signs, traffic
signals or before exiting a driveway. Typical contributing factors to these crashes
include sight obstructions such as fences, trees, shrubs or parked cars that prevent the
stopped driver from seeing oncoming traffic. They also occur where side street drivers
encounter heavy traffic at intersections. The heavy traffic and difficulty entering or
crossing the main road may encourage bad decisions or more risk taking.
2) Passing a signal/STOP sign without stopping - These may occur at a traffic signal or
STOP sign controlled intersection. Typical contributing factors to these crashes include
inattention, wide streets (that make STOP signs less visible), "busy" areas where
numerous distractions tend to make traffic control devices blend in or become less
obvious, and icy roads.
Figure 17 shows the breakdown of right angle crashes by type (failure to yield or
passing a traffic control device) and by location (signalized or unsignalized intersections
— including private driveway/public street intersections). As shown, most right angle
crashes occur at unsignalized intersections where someone stops but then proceeds
into oncoming traffic.
Figure 17 — Right Angle Crashes by Type and Location, 2007 — 2010
d 1000
L
N
v 100
0
d 10
n
E
0
Z 1
FTY After Ran Red Light FTY After Ran STOP FTY After
Stopping Stopping Sign Stopping at
Unsignalized Alley/Private Signalized
Intersection Driveway Intersection
Type of Crash
❑Total Crashes 0 Severe Injury/Fatal Crashes
18
Approach Turn Crashes
Approach turn crashes occur at either signalized or unsignalized intersections. They
occur when someone turns left in front of oncoming traffic without yielding the right of
way.
There are two main causes of approach turn crashes:
1) Poor estimation of distance and/or speed of approaching through traffic -- These
accidents occur at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Poor visibility can
contribute to these accidents. Offset left turn lanes can result in vision obstructions as
shown in the illustration below. Note that this offset created between opposing left turn
lanes is a disadvantage of raised medians at intersections.
4
Left turner's yict v blo.ekage,area
yl — - — — —
V I: Left`turaing vehicle
V2: opposite laft turning vehicle.
V3:'Opposing-through v.ekicle that the left-turn,dricer can't See'
2) Inappropriate response to the onset of the yellow or red signal display — This situation
can occur at signalized intersections where permissive left turns are allowed. A driver
waiting to turn left on a green ball at a signalized intersection is required to yield the right-
of-way to opposing through traffic. When the traffic signal turns yellow and/or red, some
left turning drivers assume that oncoming traffic will stop. This causes them to turn in
front of oncoming traffic that may not be able (or willing) to stop.
Figure 19 shows approach turn crashes by type of intersection. Note that unlike
broadside crashes, the majority of approach turn crashes (75%) happen at signalized
intersections. The combination of increased complexity and higher turning volumes
along with the issue of turning on the yellow/red explain this trend.
19
Figure 19 — Approach Turn Crashes by Location, 2007 — 2010
1000
827
Signalized Unsignalized Private Driveway Non -Intersection
Intersection Intersection
Location of Crash
❑ Total Crashes p Severe InjurylFatal Crashes
Fixed Object Crashes
Fixed object crashes are single vehicle crashes where a driver collides with a fixed
roadway feature such as a curb or a median or runs off the road and hits a roadside
feature such as a tree or utility pole. Table 4 shows fixed object crashes by type of object
struck.
Table 4 — Fixed Object Crashes by Type, 2007 — 2010
All
Serious In'./Fatal
UtilitV Pole
173
4
Curb or Median
167
3
Sign
156
2
Fence
124
4
Tree
120
4
Wall or Building
32
2
Embankment
30
2
Railroad Crossing Warning Device
17
1
Rocks
17
2
Bridge Structure
16
2
Other/Unknown
169
0
Total Fixed Object Crashes
1021
26
20
Alcohol plays a big part in fixed object crashes. Figure 18 shows that nearly 20% of all
fixed object crashes and more than 40% of severe injury or fatal fixed object crashes
involved alcohol. 38% of severe injury or fatal crashes involving parked cars (another
type of fixed object) were alcohol related.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fiqure 18 - Percentaqe of Will Crashes by Type, 2007 - 2010
I
_MIN
I MEN I
�` I,
oil MEL —M
Fixed Parking Pedestrian Bicycle Approach Rear End Right Angle Other
Object Related Turn
❑ Total Crashes a Seeere Injury/Fatal Crashes
Pedestrian Crashes
Figure 20 shows the number of pedestrian crashes in Fort Collins from 2007 — 2010.
There was a large increase in the number of pedestrian crashes in 2010 compared to
previous years. No specific cause has been identified for the sudden increase.
Figure 20 — Pedestrian Crashes by Year, 2007 - 2010
100
58
27 30 .32 33
t
to
N 17
V 13 1
10
0 g 10
10
d
9 4 6
4 3
Z
2007 2008 2009 2010
+Total Crashes
+Possible Injury Year
fVisible, Non Incapacitating Injury
—0f—Incapacitating Injury
#I- Fatal
21
Figure 21 shows the age of pedestrians involved in crashes for the years 2007 - 2010.
10 — 34 year old pedestrians are overrepresented in crashes. 15 — 19 year old
pedestrians in particular were about twice as likely as expected to be in a crash
considering the population in this age range.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 21 — Pedestrian Crashes by Pedestrian Age, 2007 - 2010
its
27
24
11 11 11
s
_ 3
11
04 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+
Age
❑ Number of Crashes ❑ Percentage of Population
25.0%
20.0% y
5.0%
0.0%
Pedestrian crashes can be further classified by type of collision. Some common types
of pedestrian crashes are described below:
Motorist Fails to Yield at Signalized Intersection — Crashes at signalized intersections
where a pedestrian legally crossing the street is hit by a motorist. These crashes
typically involve a turning driver whose attention is diverted.
Motorist Fails to Yield at Unsignalized Intersection — Crashes where a pedestrian legally
in the street is hit by a driver who does not yield the right of way. These crashes
typically involve a turning driver whose attention is diverted.
Motorist Fails to Yield while Exiting a Driveway — Crashes that involve motorists
crossing a sidewalk in the process of exiting a driveway to a public street and striking a
pedestrian on the sidewalk crossing the driveway.
Dart Out - Crashes where a pedestrian enters the street in front of an approaching driver
who is too close to avoid a collision. An example of this type of crash is a child chasing a
ball into the street running out in front of a car.
Pedestrian Crosses Against Signal — Crashes at signalized intersections resulting from
a pedestrian crossing against the signal indication.
22
Pedestrian Fails to Yield at Uncontrolled Locations - At non -crosswalk locations
pedestrians must yield to motorists prior to crossing. These crashes involve
pedestrians who attempted to cross without waiting for a safe break in traffic. Most of
these crashes occur at night when pedestrians are less visible to motorists.
Pedestrian Standing/Walking in Road — Pedestrian walking on the road but not
attempting to cross is struck by a motorist.
Crashes shown as "Other" include many different types of crashes including pedestrians
hanging onto the outside of vehicles, pedestrians eluding the police, suicide attempts,
pedestrians exiting parked vehicles and pedestrians who fell off the sidewalk into the
street.
Table 5 shows pedestrian crashes by type and by age in Fort Collins for the years 2007-
2010. Crashes involving cars that failed to yield at signalized intersections are the most
common type of pedestrian crashes.
Table 5 — Pedestrian Crashes by Type, 2007-2010
Type of Accident
Total
Serious
In'u /Fatal
Motorist Fail to Yield at Signalized Intersection
Motorist Turning Left on Green
18
1
Motorist Turning Right on Green
10
1
Motorist Turning Right on Red
17
1
Motorist Going Straight
3
0
Total Motorist Fail to Yield at Signalized Intersection
48
1 3
Motorist Fail to Yield at Unsi nalized Intersection
20
0
Dart Out ;.
19
5
Pedestrian Fail to Yield at Uncontrolled Location
17
5
Pedestrian Crosses Against Si nal
12
1
Pedestrian Standin /Wal king in Road
10
1
Motorist Fail to Yield Exiting Driveway
6
0
Other
12
1
(fell off skateboard
into the street
Total
147
16
23
Rear End Crashes
Less than 1 % of all rear end crashes result in a serious injury or fatality in Fort Collins.
However, because of the sheer number of these types of crashes, there are a number
of injuries related to them.
Rear end crashes are typically the result of motorist inattention often combined with
unexpected stops in the traffic stream. Figure 22 shows the number of rear end
crashes by location. As can be seen, the majority (56%) of rear end crashes occur at
signalized intersections. Inattention along with the sudden onset of a yellow light
combined with heavy traffic and/or high speeds can result in increased rear end
accident potential.
Figure 22 — Rear End Crashes by Location, 2007 — 2010
10000
w
m
y 1000
m
U
0 100
m
E 10
M
z
Signalized Intersection Mid -Block Unsignalized Intersection
Location of Crash
❑ Total Crashes Im Severe Injury/Fatal Crashes
Care must be taken to avoid increasing rear end crash potential by implementation of
countermeasures intended to reduce other types of crashes. For example, installation
of traffic signals, addition of protected only left turn signal phasing at traffic signals, and
red light camera enforcement are all countermeasures that may be used to reduce right
angle or left turn crashes. They also tend to increase the potential for rear end crashes.
Since right angle and left turn crashes tend to be more severe it might make sense to
implement these countermeasures at locations with a history of these types of crashes.
However, it may not be appropriate to use these countermeasures at locations where
there is not a history of these sorts of crashes because of the increased risk of rear end
crashes.
24
Section 3 - High Crash Locations
Density Maps
Figures 23 — 28 are crash density maps which show crash concentrations by location.
They are arranged as follows:
Figure 23 — All Crash Types Combined
Figure 24 — Bicycle Crashes
Figure 25 — Right Angle Crashes
Figure 26 — Approach Turn Crashes
Figure 27 — Pedestrian Crashes
Figure 28 — Rear End Crashes
Note that the bicycle and pedestrian maps include all bike/pedestrian crashes
respectively. The other maps only show intersection related crashes since other mid -
block crashes (except bikes/pedestrians) have not been geo-coded yet for use with the
GIS system. Note also that there is not a map showing fixed object crashes since many
of these crashes occur at mid -block locations.
25
t ,
c
2013-14 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
SECTION 1. Existing conditions.
a) Current risks/obstacles.
According to local emergency -medicine data (Nov. 1, 2009, to Oct. 31, 2010), a total of 41
children 4 to 15 years old were treated at local hospitals for significant traumatic injuries related
to bike crashes (39) and pedestrian/motorist crashes (2). These data do not include kids with
minor injuries who were treated and released from the emergency room, or when a trauma team
was not activated. Of the 39 bike accident patients, only 15 were documented as wearing a
helmet. Local parents' perceived barriers to biking and walking include: major arterial streets,
speed and volume of traffic, fear of child abduction, distance to school, missing sidewalk
segments and bike lanes, and lack of crosswalks. Well -designed routes for walking school buses
and bike trains will help alleviate many of these issues for concerned parents.
b) Crash/traffic data.
According to the City of Fort Collins 2011 Traffic Safety Summary, people who are 10 to 34
years old are overrepresented in bicycle and pedestrian crashes. People 15 to 19 years old are
most overrepresented; they are more than twice as likely to be involved in both bicycle and
pedestrian crashes when compared to the general population. (See appendix for full report.)
c) Complete the following chart for each school affected by the proposed program.
The following elementary schools will be targeted for new walking school buses and bike trains.
See appendix for each school's 2-mile buffer map.
School
Grades
Demo ra hies
# walk*
# Bike*
% within
2 Miles of School*
# Benefit
% F/R lunch
Beattie
K-5
71%WH:29%MIN
19%
4%
77
288
48
Bennett
K-5
77% WH:23% MIN
6%
3%
55
478
26
Irish
K-5
75%I1IS;25%MIN
326
90
Putnam
K-5
58% HIS; 42% MIN
29%
0%
78
1 332
85
Riffenbur h
K-5
72%WH:28%MIN
14%
24%
80
314
37
She ardson
K-5
77% WH:23% MIN
1 13%
1 21%
87
348
24
Werner
K-5
85%WH:15%MIN
20%
11%
94
561
12
Zach
K-5
89% WH;11% MIN
18%
42%
94
609
3
*Data derived from most recent SRTS parent surveys.
Notes: WH=White; MIN=Minority; HIS=Hispanic. Regarding school buses, elementary schools has students who live I mile or greater
from school or if there is a significant arterial street that students must cross. Busing distance is greater for middle schools ( 15 miles).
Despite their relative affluence and good rates of walking and biking, Werner and Zach have significant traffic congestion and air qualiq
problems.
d) Describe any existing programs at the affected school(s) for walking/bicycling.
■ Poudre School District (PSD) has vibrant safety and wellness programs, including an "1 Walk
& Ride Safely" program, campus security officers and school resource officers whose duties
include safety during arrival and dismissal times, and a school crossing guard program.
■ The PSD Wellness Program includes 40 schools that participate in such activities as school
wellness teams, walkathons, running clubs, activity breaks in the classroom, activity
competitions (such as "Schools on the Move" challenge), healthy -eating projects/lessons,
wellness days, and other school policy work that helps establish an environment encouraging
healthy behaviors and habits for students, staff, and families.
■ An increasing number of PE teachers are embracing Safe Routes to School and working to
embed SRTS education into their PE curriculum.
■ Safe Kids Larimer County conducts Strap -and -Snap helmet fittings and bicycle rodeos in
3rd-grade classrooms throughout Larimer County, including PSD schools.
Page 2 of 9
Figure 23 - All Crash Types
11112007 - 1213112010
All Collisions
_-- _-- — --- Parks ❑ ■ ��, J,,. o
Schools
26
,
Figure 24 - Bicycle Crashes
1/1/2007 - 1213112010
Bicycle Collisions
Parks
— — -__Schools 1 = 2-3 = 4 - 7 ® 8+._�
27
Figure 25 - Right Angle Crashes
1/1/2007 - 1213112010
'Parks Right Angle Accident Density
_ _ Schools 1 2 3 D 4E = 7 12 0 More than 13 ,
Figure 26 - Approach Turn Crashes
11112007 - 1213112010
Parks Approach Turn Collisions J-
Schools
I E] 24 D 5-8 E] 9-16 M More than 17
29
Figure 27 - Pedestrian Crashes
11112007 - 1213112010
Parks Pedestrian Collisions
L ME2-3 M4+
___JSchools
Figure 28 - Rear -End Crashes
11112007 - 1213112010
l� Parks Rear -End Collisions 1
(� '_^ Schools 1-2El
3-22 � 23-45 D 46-80 More titan 81
Detailed Analvsis
While density maps can be used to get a general idea of potential crash problem spots,
staff also conducts more detailed analysis to identify intersections where there are more
crashes than expected taking into account traffic volumes, roadway geometry, type of
traffic control etc. These locations will likely be the best candidates to realize a
reduction in crash frequency through implementation of specific countermeasures.
Traffic crashes are at least partially deterministic (i.e. factors affecting crash potential
can be controlled). At the same time crashes are, to some extent, random events.
When a period with a comparatively high crash frequency is observed at a location, it is
statistically likely that the following period will have a comparatively low crash frequency
and vice versa. This tendency is known as regression to the mean.
This random nature of crashes makes it difficult to determine if a location is truly a
problem versus a location where natural variations lead to a high crash frequency
during the observation period. In order to identify locations that truly warrant further
investigation it is helpful to use a methodology that accounts for this phenomenon.
In 2010 the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published the Highway Safety
Manual (HSM). The HSM includes a statistical approach used to account for regression
to the mean bias in order to identify locations that have a high crash frequency even
after accounting for random variation. That approach was applied to intersections in
Fort Collins.
The method applied uses a calibrated model (a regression equation) to predict the
number of crashes at a location given the traffic volumes, the roadway geometry, and
the type of intersection control. This prediction is then combined with the actual crash
frequency using a statistical technique to determine an adjusted number of expected
crashes that accounts for regression to the mean. The more the adjusted number of
crashes exceeds the number of crashes predicted by the model the more likely it is that
a location has an unusually high number of crashes or injury crashes.
Locations are ranked by excess crash costs. Since injury crashes tend to have higher
crash costs associated with them, the ranking method gives more weight to locations
with more injury crashes compared to locations with only "fender benders". While
locations are ranked by excess crash cost, any location with a positive excess crash
cost could possibly benefit from the application of countermeasures. The cost of
specific improvements also needs to be considered when determining where safety
projects are best implemented. For low cost safety improvements it is possible to
achieve a high benefit to cost ratio even at locations that are lower on the list (with an
excess crash cost greater than zero.)
Table 6 shows the results of the statistical evaluation of intersections in Fort Collins using
data for the years 2007 - 2010.
32
Table 6 - Intersection Excess Crash Costs. 2007 - 2010
STREETI
STREET2
Model
Predicted
CrasheslYear
Model
Predicted FI
Crashes/Year'
Adjusted Adjusted
Actual Actual FI
Crashes/Year Crashes/Year'
Excess
Exce:PD Excess FICrash
Crash" Crashes/Year' Costs/Year
TIMBERLINE RD
HARMONY RD
17.4
3.8
43.3
7.4
22.3 3.6 $470,696
LEMAY
HARMONY RD
15.8
3.5
32.0
6.7
13.0 3.2 S359,109
COLLEGE AV
HORSETOOTH RD
21.3
4.8
36.8
7.6
12.6 2.9 $328,736
SHIELDS ST
DRAKE RD
17.3
3.8
28.7
6.5
8.8 2.7 $278,913
COLLEGE AV
TRILBY RD
13.7
2.9
21.2
5.8
4.6 2.9 $255,318
LEMAY
MULBERRY ST
14.6
3.2
26.3
1 4.4
10.4 1.3 $187,781
COLLEGE AV
MONROE
17.8
3.9
28.7
1 5.2
9.7 1.2 $179,793
COLLEGE AV
LAUREL
11.2
2.6
20.9
1 4.0
8.3 1.4 $179,777
SHIELDS ST
PROSPECT RD
14.9
3.3
22.8
1 4.8
6.4 1.5 $170,312
COLLEGEAV
HARMONY RD
16.5
3.6
28.8
4.3
11.6 0.7 $159,605
COLLEGE AV
FOOTHILLS
12.5
2.8
21.7
3.9
8.1 1.1 $154,709
TIMBERLINE RD
HORSETOOTH RD
15.4
3.3
24.2
4.4
7.7 1.1 $152,600
COLLEGE AV
MULBERRY ST
13.5
3.0
24.2
3.8
10.0 0.7 $144,814
TIMBERLINE RD
DRAKE RD
9.7
2.1
17.0
3.3
6.2 1.2 $144,557
COLLEGEAV
DRAKE RD
23.9
5.4
37.8
5.5
13.7 0.1 $133,705
COLLEGE AV
PROSPECT RD
21.3
4.8
31.1
5.4
9.2 0.6 $129,240
COLLEGE AV
TROUTMAN
17.4
3.8
21.9
5.0
3.4 1.2 S116,759
MASON
MULBERRY
4.0
1.4
10.6
2.1
5.9 0.7 $108,114
LEMAY
DRAKE RD
14.0
3.0
19.5
3.8
4.7 0.8 $103,851
SHIELDS ST
MULBERRY ST
9.7
2.0
16.1
2.6
5.7 0.6 S99,211
TIMBERLINE RD
PROSPECT RD
12.8
2.8
22.8
2.9
9.9 0.1 $95,630
COLLEGE AV
KENSINGTON
13.1
2.9
16.7
3.8
2.7 1.0 $95,078
BOARDWALK DR
HARMONY RD
16.0
3.5
17.7
4.5
0.7 1.0 $81,846
SHIELDS ST
HORSETOOTH RD
14.9
3.2
18.1
4.0
2.4 0.8 $78,431
RIVERSIDE AV
MULBERRY ST
9.8
2.1
16.8
2.1 1
7.0 0.0 S65,682
LEMAY
PROSPECT RD
14.3
3.1
17.8
3.5
3.0 0.4 $60,924
MCMURRY
HARMONY RD
13.8
3.1
15.0
3.7
0.5 0.7 $53,981
CORBETT
HARMONY RD
8.1
1.8
12.3
2.0
4.0 0.2 $51.249
TAFT HILL RD
PROSPECT RD
9.7
2.0
12A
2.4
2.0 0.4 $50,067
SNOW MESA
HARMONY RD
11.0
2.4
11.1
3.1
-0.6 0.7 $49,826
Shields
Davidson
3.9
1.0
6.1
1.4
1.9 0.4 $47,324
JFK
BOARDWALK
5.4
1.1
8.0
1.3
2.4 0.2 S40,459
MASON ST
HORSETOOTH RD
11.7
2.5
14.0
2.8
2.0 0.3 $39,250
TAFT HILL RD
DRAKE RD
9.0
1.9
13.6
1.8
4.7 -0.1 $36,933
SHIELDS ST
TRILBY RD
6.5
1.3
7.6
1.6
0.8 0.4 $34,416
LEMAY
LINCOLN
6.1
1.3
8.0
1.5
1.6 0.2 S32,651
LEMAY
CARPENTER
3.5
0.7
4.9
1.0
1.1 0.3 $30,494
TAFT HILL RD
HORSETOOTH RD
7.3
1.5
9.2
1.7
1.7 0.2 $29,402
COLLEGE AV
CHERRY
9.9
2.1
10A
2.4
0.2 0.3 $25,183
Stover
Prospect
5.1
1.2
10.1
0.9
5.3 -0.3 S24,928
City Park
Mulberry
3.1
0.6
4.9
0.8
1.7 0.1 $23,513
Welch
Prospect
5.1
1.2
7.3
1.2
2.1 0.0 $22,016
TAFT HILL RD
ELIZABETH ST
9.2
2.0
12.2
1.9
3.1 - -0.1 $21.274
Mason
Magnolia
2.0
0.4
3.3
0.5
1.2 0.1 $14,881
33
STREET?
STREET2
Model
Predicted
Crashes/Year
Model
Predicted FI
Crashes/Year*Crashes/Year
Adjusted
Actual
Adjusted
Actual Fl
Crashes/Year'
Excess
Excess PDO Excess FI Crash
Crashes/Year" Crashes/Year' Costs/Year
MELDRUM
LAUREL
9.1
2.1
9.2
2.3
-0.1 0.2 $13,478
COLLEGE AV
MOUNTAIN
11.8
2.8
16.2
2.4
4.8 -0.4 $12.548
Overland
Drake
2.3
0.4
3.6
0.5
1.3 0.0 $12,542
Taft Hill
Trilby
1.8
0A
2.4
0.5
0.5 0.1 511,836
ZIEGLER
ROCK CREEK
2.0
0.4
3.0
0.5
0.9 0.0 $10,842
Lady Moon
Kechter
0.7
0.1
1.3
0.2
0.5 0.1 $10,232
SHIELDS ST
ELIZABETH ST
12.6
2.9
17.3
2.4
5.2 -0.5 $9,100
SHIELDS ST
MOUNTAIN
6.6
1.4
6.5 1.5
-0.3 0.2 58,675
LEMAY
RIVERSIDE
9.7
2.1
10.3 2.1
0.6 0.0 $8,656
SUMMITVIEW
PROPSECT
3.1
1.1
4.2 1.1
1.1 0.0 $8.297
Overland
Mulberry
1.8
0.4
2.5 0.4
0.7 0.0 $7,822
Shields
Wabash
2.3
0.5
2.7 0.6
0.4 0.1 $7,633
REMINGTON
LAUREL
1.6
0.4
2.3 0.4
0.7 0.0 $7,618
Worthington
Centre
1.1
0.2
1.6 0.3
0.4 0.0 57,261
SHIELDS ST
SWALLOW
12.6
2.8
11.1 3.1
-1.8 0.3 $6,991
Robertson
Prospect
3.7
0.8
4.0 0.9
0.3 0A $6,774
Lemay
Whalers Way
3.7
0.8
3.9 0.9
0.1 0A $5,536
NW Frontage Road
Vine
0.6
0.1 1
0.9 0.2
0.3 0.0 $5,462
College
Plum
3.2
0.8
3.5 0.8
0.4 0.0 $5,000
DUNBAR
HORSETOOTH
1.9
0.7
2.0 0.8
0.0 0.1 54,845
REMINGTON
ELIZABETH ST
1.3
0.3
1.7 0.3
0.4 0.0 $4,825
Impala/Ponderosa
Mulberry
2.0
0A
2.8 0.3
0.9 -0.1 54,252
Rolling Green
Horsetoolh
2.3
0.6
3.3 0.6
1.1 -0.1 54,071
La Plata
Prospect
1.0
0.3
1.4 0.3
0.3 0.0 $3,930
TAFT HILL RD
LAPORTE
3.5
0.8
4.1 0.8
0.6 0.0 $3,746
College
Oak
1A
0.3
2.0 0.2
1.0 -0.1 $3,438
Taft Hill
Lake
4.7
1.1
5.1 1.1
0.5 0.0 $3,331
Strauss Cabin
Harmony
4.1
1.0
3A 1.2
-1.1 0.2 $3,073
Tulane
Drake
3.5
0.8
3.8 0.8
0.3 0.0 $2,980
Overland
Elizabeth
1.3
0.3
1.6 0.3
0.3 0.0 $2,713
SENECA
HORSETOOTH
2.3
0.8
2.2 0.9
-0.1 0.0 $2,622
College
Mason/Palmer
3.2
0.8
3.9 0.7
0.8 -0.1 $2,583
Lemay
Haxton
2.0
0.5
2.2 0.5
0.1 0.0 $2,457
LEMAY
TRILBY RD
3.6
0.7
3A 0.8
-0.3 0.1 $2,336
Edinburgh
Drake
2.1
0.5
2.2 0.5
0.1 0.0 52,265
Shields
Maple north int.
1.1
0.3
1.3 0.3
0.2 0.0 $2,147
Howes
Maple
0.7
0.1
0.9 0A
0.2 0.0 $2,120
REMINGTON
MULBERRY ST
9.7
2.1
9.7 2.1
0.0 0.0 $2,063
TIMBERLINE RD
TRILBY RD
5.1
1.0
4.8 1.1
-0.4 0.1 $1,943
Loomis
Oak
0.7
0.1
1.0 0.1
0.3 0.0 51,764
SHIELDS ST
LAPORTE
5.1
1.1
5.6 1.0
0.5 0.0 $1,678
Century
Horsetooth
1.9
0.4
2.0 0.5
0.0 0.0 $1,524
Crestmore
Mulberry
0.9
0.2
0.9 0.3
0.0 0.0 $1,323
Meldrum
Mountain
1.3
0.2
1.5 0.2
0.2 0.0 $1,218
Impala
Laporte
0.8
0.2
1.0 0.1
0.3 0.0 51,161
SHIELDS ST
VINE
2.6
0.5
2.9 0.5
O.3 0.0 $1,154
Lochwood
Horselooth
2.2
0.5
2.6 0.5
11 0.5 0.0 5940
34
STREETI
STREET2
Model
Predicted
Crashes/Year
Model
Predicted FI
Crashes/Year•
Adjusted Adjusted
Actual Actual FI
Crashes/Year Crashes/Year'
Excess
Excess PDO Excess FI Crash
CrashesNear" CrashesNear• CostsNear
LEMAY
MAGNOLIA
3.7
1.2
4.0 1.2
0.3 0.0 $919
Strauss Cabin
Horsetooth
0.2
0.0
0.3 0.0
0.2 0.0 $596
Meldrum
Laporte
1.8
0.4
1.9 0.3
0.2 0.0 $379
Timberline
Vine
3.0
0.7
2.9 0.7
-0.2 0.0 $374
Meldrum
Magnolia
1.1
0.2
1.3 0.2
0.2 0.0 $341
Automation Way
Horsetooth
2.5
0.5
2.4 0.6
-0.1 0.0 -$61
12th
Magnolia
0.6
0.1
0.7 0.1
0.2 0.0 -$505
MCCLELLAND
DRAKE
5.7
1.9
6.3 1.8
0.7 -0.1 -$511
Lynnwood
Prospect
1.4
0.4
1.4 0.4
0.0 0.0 -$622
Arctic Fox
Horsetooth
1.8
0.4
1.5 0.4
-0.3 0.0 -$855
Loomis
Magnolia
1.0
0.2
1.2 0.1
0.2 0.0-$1,111
College
Saturn
2.9
0.7
2.6 0.7
-0.3 0.0-$1,155
Timberline
Fossil Creek
1.6
0.4
1.5 0.4
-0.1 0.0-$1,483
REMINGTON
PITKIN
1.4
0.3
1.2 0.3
-0.2 0.0-$1,507
Brookwood west int.
Drake
0.9
0.3
0.9 0.2
0.0 0.0-$1,829
Kingsley
Horsetooth
1.1
0.2
1.2 0.2
0.1 0.0-$2,345
Cook
Mulberry
1.1
0.3
1.0 0.3
0.0 0.0-$2,560
12th
Lincoln
1.7
0.3
1.8 0.3
0.2 -0.1-$2,597
Shields
Richmond
3.0
0.7
3.4 0.6
0.5 -0.1-$2,945
Cowan
Mulber
2.6
0.6
3.0 0.5
0.6 -0.1-$3,011
TIMBERLINE RD
CARPENTER
4.4
0.9
4.8 0.7
0.5 -0.1-$3,111
Sherwood
Laurel
2.3
0.5
2.3 0.5
0.1 0.0-$3.169
Linden
Willow
2.0
0.4
2.1 0.3
0.1 -0.1-$3,191
Raintree
Drake
2.7
0.6
2.9 0.6
0.2 -0.1-$3,238
Shields
Birch
1.0
0.3
1.2 0.2
0.2 -0.1-$3,264
Loomis
Mountain
1.3
0.2
1.3 0.2
0.0 0.0-$3,343
Overland
CR 42 C
1.6
0.3
1.6 0.3
0.0 -0.1-$3,705
Peterson
Mulberry
2.5
O.6
2.8 0.5
0.4 -0.1-$3,934
Mathews
Mulberry
2.4
0.5
2.6 0.5
0.3 -0.1-54,015
Wood
Cherry
1.7
0.3
1.6 0.3
-0.1 0.0-54,033
College
Triangle
3.1
0.7
2.3 0.7
-0.8 0.0-$4,056
Lemay
Mansfield
1.8
0.4
1.7 0.3
0.0 -0.1-$4,149
Sharp Point
Prospect
1.7
0.4
1.6 0.4
-0.1 -0.1-$4,471
College
Bristlecone
2.1
0.5
2.3 0.4
0.3 -0.1-54,640
Shields
Cherry
1.3
0.3
1.4 0.2
0.1 -0.1-54,793
Remington
Stuart
1.7
0.3
1.5 0.3
-0.2 0.0-54,925
MASON ST
HARMONY RD
13.1
2.8
12.9 2.7
-0.1 -0.1-$5,015
Hanover '
Drake
1.5
0.4
1.3 0.3
-0.1 -0.1-$5,095
Larkbunling
Harmony
3.9
0.9
3.6 0.9
-0.3 0.0-$5,157
MCCLELLAND
HORSETOOTH
6.3
2.1
7.7 1.8
1.7 -0.3-$5,190
Mitchell
Horsetooth
1.7
0.4
1.7 0.4
0.0 -0A-55,217
Lemay
Conifer
1.6
0.3
1.4 0.3
-0.2 0.0-$5,515
City Park
Plum
1.7
0.3
1.6 0.3
0.0 -0.1-$5,527
COLLEGE AV
WILLOX
8.3
1.7
7.3 1.8
-1.1 0.1-$5,555
Fieldstone/Caribou
Horsetooth
1.7
0.4
1.7 0.3
0.1 -0.1-$5,651
MEADOWLARK
SWALLOW
2.2
0.5
1.6 0.5
-0.5 0.0
Sherwood
Laporte
2.1
0.4
1.8 0.4
-0.2 -0.1-$6,480
35
2013-14 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
Section 2: How do you propose to help solve the problem you identified in Section 1?
This grant funding will continue to build the City of Fort Collins Safe Routes to School program.
The City has goals of reaching 11,000 local students annually with education on safe biking and
walking and getting 50% of local schoolchildren biking or walking to school.
a) Describe the activity you plan to implement.
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains — We will establish new walking school buses and bike
trains at a minimum of eight Fort Collins schools (see schools listed in I b). We will also assist
existing walking school buses at Bauder, Laurel, and Lopez elementary schools.
Train the Trainers — League Cycling Instructors will train a minimum of 20 PE and other
teachers/staff and 30 parents or volunteers on how to organize and lead walking school buses and
bike trains. Volunteers of America RSVP volunteers will serve as "team captains" for some
walking school buses/bike trains (see appendix for additional information).
Family Bike Rodeos — We will actively involve parents in the SRTS program by continuing to
host Family Bike Rodeos throughout the year.
Safe Routes to School Resource Notebooks and Technical Assistance for Schools — We will
support school -based SRTS educators by creating and distributing SRTS Resource Notebooks.
The notebooks will include sections on: (a) What Is Safe Routes to School?, (b) City of Fort
Collins SRTS Program, (c) CDOT SRTS Program/Curriculum, (d) How Safe Routes to Schools
Fits with PE and Wellness, (e) How to Create a Walking School Bus or Bike Train,
(f) How to Put on a Bike Rodeo, (g) How to Teach Bike-Ped Ed in School, (h) How to Start a
Bike Club, (i) List of Local Contacts/Resources.
Safe Routes to School Bike Fleet — Ten "balance bikes" will be added to the City's SRTS bike
fleet. Certified mechanics will maintain the fleet before/after each use. We will transport the fleet
to all schools engaged in SRTS activities, ensuring all students can learn safe cycling, regardless
of whether they own a bicycle.
b) How will it address the identified participation and safety problems in Section I?
Through continued development of pedestrian and bicycling education programs in local schools
(including helmet safety), we expect to see fewer serious injuries among youth pedestrians and
cyclists. The walking school buses and bikes trains will address many concerns of local parents
related to safe travel to/from school.
c) How will you ensure these efforts are sustainable?
With the SRTS grant funding received to date, we have been able to provide SRTS programming
to virtually all PSD elementary and middle schools that are within City boundaries. We also have
rolled out a viable sustainability strategy to keep the programming going into the future.
d) How will you ensure parents and the neighborhoods/community are engaged/educated?
The SRTS coordinator has received authorization to participate in the school district's "Share -It"
networking program to communicate the availability of SRTS activities directly to school staff.
We regularly give presentations to PTOs and other community groups. Parents and community
volunteers are target audiences for this program. All partners' websites link to the SRTS site.
e) Whom are you going to target with your program?
School administrators, teachers, parents, students, wellness educators, and community members.
Page 3 of 9
STREET?
STREET2
Model
Predicted
CrashesNear
Model
Predicted FI
Crashes/Year'
Adjusted Adjusted
Actual Actual FI
Crashes/Year Crashes/Year'
Excess
Excess PDO Excess FI Crash
Crashes/Year" CrashesNear' Costs/Year
AcademY
Prospect
3.1
0.7
2.6 0.7
-0.4 0.0-$6,545
Shields
James
1.7
0.5
1.5 0.4
-0.1 -0.1-57,049
Hampshire
Drake
2.0
0.5
1.6 0.4
-0.3 -0.1-$7,641
MANHATTAN
HORSETOOTH RD
10.6
2.3
9.3 2.4
-1.3 0.1-$7,732
Taft Hill
2.3
0.5
2A 0.4
-0.2 -0.1-$8,540
Ponderosa
2.6
0.6
2.4 0.5
-0.1 -0.1-$8,577
Emi h
1.5
0.4
1A 0.3
0.0 -0.1-$8,951
COLLEGE AV
*lBronson
5.5
1.8
5.6 1.6
0.2 -0.2-$9,086
Sa ebrush
1.9
0.5
1.5 0.4
-0.3 -0.1-$9,286
Lema
2.0
0.5
1.7 0.4
-0.2 -0.1-$9,328
Edora west int.
ros
2.3
0.6
2.2 0.5
0.0 -0.1-$9,453
Washington
Mulber
3.9
0.9
2.9 0.9
-0.9 0.0-$9,833
MCCLELLAND
SWALLOW
2.2
0.5
1.3 0A
-0.9 0.0-$10,624
OVERLAND TRAIL
PROSPECT
3.4
0.7
2.6 0.6
-0.7 -0.1-$10,663
Riverside
Ma nolia
2.8
0.6
2.2 0.5
-0.5 -0.1-$10,677
Bryan
Mulberry
1.9
0.4
1.6 0.3
-0.1 -0.1-511,063
Hinsdale
Harmony
2.6
0.6
2.3 0.4
-0.1 -0.1-$11,170
College
Thunderbird
4.2
1.1
4.0 0.9
0.0 -0.1-$11,524
Mason
Troutman
3.3
0.7
2.3 0.7
-0.9 0.0-$11,593
Shields
Spring Creek
2.2
0.6
1.7 0.4
-0.4 -0.1-$12,130
Stover
Mulberry
2.9
0.7
2.5 0.5
-0.2 -0.1-$12,444
Timberline
An elo[Timber Creek
2.5
0.6
1.9 0.5
-0.5 -0.1-512,522
Taft Hill
Springfield (north int.)
1.9
0.5
1.7 0.4
-0.1 -0.2-512,604
Wheaton
Harmony
3.7
1.0
3.7 0.8
0.2 -0.2-$12,853
HOWES
LAUREL
8.5
1.9
8.6 1.7
0.3 -0.2-$12,973
Timberline
Bighorn
3.1
0.8
2.9 0.6
0.0 -0.2-$13,178
Shields
Oak
2.5
0.5
1.7 0.4
-0.7 -0.1-$13,678
Malhews
Pros ect
3.7
0.8
2.7 0.8
-0.9 -0A-513,687
CONSTITUTION
DRAKE
3.4
1.2
3.1 1.0
-0.1 -0.2-573,779
STOVER
SWALLOW
3.1
0.6
1.9 0.6
-1.2 0.0-514,105
COLLEGE AV
SWALLOW
19.0
4.2
19.4 3.9
0.7 -0.3-$14,168
JFK
TROUTMAN
3.3
0.7
2.0 0.6
-1.2 -0.1-514,561
COLLEGE AV
BOARDWALK
18.7
4.2
17.9 4.0
-0.7 -0.1-514,958
Whitcomb
Laurel
2.1
0.5
1.5 0.3
-0.4 -0.2-515,081
LEMAY
OAKRIDGE
5.6
1.2
3.9 1.2
-1.7 0.0-$15,348
Stanford
Drake
3.8
0.9
2.7 0.8
-1.0 -0A-$15,396
College
Parker
1.9
0.6
1.6 0.4
-0.2 -0.2-$15,580
Mason
Laurel
3.2
0.7
3.0 0.5
0.0 -0.2-516,301
TAFT HILL RD
HARMONY RD
6.2
1.3
5.1 1.2
-1.0 -0.1-$16,900
SENECA
HARMONY RD
3.6
0.7
2.2 0.7
-1.3 -0.1-S16,926
ZIEGLER
HARMONY RD
11.5
2.5
13.0 2.0
2.0 -0.5-517,058
CITY PARK
ELIZABETH ST
7.1
1.5
6.6 1.3
-0.3 -0.2-517,063
Taft Hill
Stuart n. or s.?
3.2
0.7
2.2 0.6
-0.9 -0.1-$17,528
MATHEWS
MOUNTAIN
3.0
0.7
1.6 0.6
-1.4 -0.1-$17,805
COLLEGE AV
FOSSIL CREEK
12.6
2.7
10.3 2.8
-2.4 0.1-$17,925
LEMAY
VINE
8.2
1.6
7.5 1.5
-0.6 -0.2-$18,007
LEMAY
SOUTHRIDGE
4.3
0.9
11 2.8 0.8
1 -1.5 -0.1-518,634
36
STREET?
STREET2
Model
Predicted
Crashes/Year
Model
Predicted FI
CrasheslYeaP
Adjusted Adjusted
Actual Actual Fl
Crashes/Year Crashes/Year'
Excess
Excess POO Excess FI Crash
CrasheslYear" CrashesNear' Costs/Year
Heatherid a
Prospect
2.4
0.5
1.6 0.4
-0.6 -0.2-$18,697
Taft Hill
Orchard/Glenmoor
3.7
0.8
2.6 0.7
-0.9 -0.1-$18,819
COLLEGE AV
MAGNOLIA
9.6
2.1
7.8 2.1
-1.7 0.0-$18,966
Taft Hill
Clearview
4.4
1.0
3.3 0.9
-0.9 -0.1-$19,070
SHIELDS
CASAGRANDE
5.7
1.9
5.8 1.6
0.4 -0.3-$20,184
College
Lake
4.8
1.2
4.8 0.9
0.3 -0.3-$20,551
COLLEGE AV
VINE
5.2
1.7
4.5 1.5
-0.6 -0.2-$21,898
YORKSHIRE
DRAKE
3.7
0.7
2.0 0.6
-1.6 -0.1-$23,334
Timberline
Dan6eld/Lambkin
3.4
0.8
2A 0.6
-0.9 -0.2-$23,366
Whedbee
Prospect
4.9
1.1
3.7 1.0
-1.0 -0.2-523,513
9th Lema
Buckingham
4.6
1.1
3.0 0.9
-1.4 -0.2-525.107
SHIELDS ST
PLUM
14.9
3.3
14.7 2.9
0.2 -0.4-$25,305
REMINGTON
PROSPECT
8.5
1.8
7.5 1.6
-0.8 -0.2-525,337
LEMAY
FOSSIL CREEK
4.7
1.0
2.7 0.8
-1.8 -0.1-$26,676
TAFT HILL RD
MULBERRY ST
7.3
1.5
6.1 1.3
-0.9 -0.3-$26,758
Whitcomb/Canyon
Mulberry
4.8
1.1
3.9 0.9
-0.7 -0.3-$26,954
RIVERSIDE AV
PROSPECT RD
10.2
2.1
10.1 1.7
0.3 -0A-527,447
SHIELDS
LAUREL
6.9
2.2
8.1 1.6
1.8 -0.6-527,603
STANFORD
HORSETOOTH RD
9.8
2.1
6.7 2.1
-3.1 0.0-$27,777
Shields
Westward
2.8
0.7
1.5 0.4
-1.0 -0.3-$28,801
Innovation
Hamony
3.5
0.9
2A 0.6
-1.1 -0.3-$29,555
STOVER
DRAKE
8.6
1.8
5.9 1.7
-2.5 -0.1-$33,576
MELDRUM
MULBERRY ST
6.6
1.5
3.4 1.4
-3.1 -0.1-534,491
Shields
Pitkin
4.7
1.0
2.6 0.7
-1.9 -0.2-$35,561
STOVER
HORSETOOTH
4.8
1.7
3.5 1.3
-0.9 -0.4-$36,327
WORTHINGTON
DRAKE
7.6
1.6
5.5 1.4
-1.9 -0.3-$36,866
Lemay
Pitkin n or s?
3.7
0.9
2.2 0.5
-1.1 -0.4-$37,508
College
Myrtle
6.2
1.5
5.6 1.0
-0.2 -0.5 437,597
COLLEGEAV
MAPLEIJEFFERSON
8.8
1.9
6.3 1.7
-2.2 -0.3-$38,928
LEMAY
BOARDWALK
6.1
1.3
2.8 1.1
-3.1 -0.2-540,946
COLLEGE AV
LAPORTE
8.3
2.0
6.9 1.6
-1.0 -0.4-$42,146
TIMBERLINE RD
NANCY GRAY
6.2
1.4
3.3 1.1
-2.7 -0.2-$42,394
CONSTITUTION
ELIZABETH ST
5.8
1.2
2.6 1.0
-3.0 -0.2-$43,875
SHIELDS ST
RAINTREE
13.3
2.9
9.0 2.8
4.2 -0.1-$44,729
SHIELDS
LAKE
6.5
2.2
5.1 1.7
-0.9 -0.5-$46,618
COLLEGEAV
ELIZABETH
7.3
2.5
6.4 1.9
-0.3 -0.6-$46,619
TIMBERLINE RD
BATTLE CREEK
5.9
1.2
3.0 0.9
-2.7 -0.3-$46,999
TAFT HILL RD
VALLEY FORGE
7.1
1.5
3.1 1.3
-3.8 -0.2-$48,954
LEMAY
SWALLOW
4.9
1.7
3.2 1.1
-1.2 -0.5-$49,439
SHIELDS
STUART
5.5
1.9
3.3 1.4
-1.7 -0.5-$50,969
RIVERSIDE AV
MOUNTAIN
7.1
1.5
3.7 1.1
-3.0 -0.3-$51,442
•WHITCOMB
PROSPECT
10.0
2.2
6.3 1.9
-3.4 -0.3-$52,049
TIMBERLINE RD
KECHTER
9.0
1.8
5.0 1.6
-3.7 -0.3-$52,710
TIMBERLINE RD
TIMBERWOOD
8.8
1.9
6.1 1.4
-2.2 -0.4-$52,846
TIMBERLINE RD
CARIBOU
9.9
2.1
6.8 1.7
-2.7 -0.4-$54,279
RESEARC WMEADOW
I-)
DRAKE
9.7
2.1
6.3 1.7
-3.0 -0.4-$54,591
STREET?
STREET2
Model
Predicted
Crashes/Year
Model
Predicted FI
Crashes/Year'
Adjusted Adjusted
Actual Actual FI
CrashesNear Crashes/Year'
Excess
Excess PDO Excess FI Crash
CrashesNear" Crashes/Year' Costs/Year
WHEDBEE
MULBERRY ST
8.1
1.7
4.9 1.3
-2-8 -0A-$54,917
LADY MOON
HARMONY RD
9.9
2.2
6.8 1.7
-2.6 -0.4-$55,420
Mason
Cher
5.5
1.3
2.7 0.9
-2.4 -0.5-$56,115
LEMAY
ELIZABETH ST
10.7
2.3
5.5 2.2
-5.0 -0.2-556,217
LINDEN
JEFFERSON
6.6
1.5
3.0 1.1
-3.3 -0.4-$56,720
JFK
HORSETQOTH RD
12.2
2.6
10.5 2.0
-1.1 -0.6-$57,024
Timberline
Milestone
5.1
1.1
1.8 0.7
-2.9 -0.4-$57,173
LEMAY
STUART
10.7
2.3
7.1 1.9
-3.2 -0.4-$57,309
JFK
HARMONY RD
13.5
2.9
10.0 2.4
-3.0 -0.5-$64,084
LEMAY
PENNOCK
9.4
2.O
5.5 1.6
-3.6 -0.4-564.294
SHIELDS ST
ROLLAND MOORE
7.3
1.6
3A 1.2
-3.7 -0A-$65,881
PROSPECT PKWY
PROSPECT
7.7
1.6
3.4 1.2
-3.9 -0.4-$66,861
LOOMIS
LAUREL
10.2
2.2
5.7 1.7
-4.0 -0.4-$69,456
LEMAY
DOCTORS LN
9.7
2.1
5.0 1.6
-4.2 -0.5-$72,776
CENTRE
PROSPECT
10.3
2.3
6.1 1.8
-3.7 -0.5-$73,095
TRADITION
HORSETOOTH RD
8.0
1.7
3.2 1.2
-4.2 -0.5-$73,097
LOOMIS
MULBERRY ST
8.5
1.8
3.5 1.3
-4.4 -0.5-577,806
SHIELDS ST
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
8.7
1.9
4.1 1.3
-4.0 -0.6-580,338
COLLEGE AV
OLIVE
11.0
2.5
6.6 1.8
-3.6 -0.7-$84,751
COLLEGE AV
SKYWAY
11.3
1 2.4
6.4 1.7
-4.2 -0.7-$88,987
TIMBERLINE RD
VERMONT
13.2
2.9
7.3 2.2
-5.2 -0.7-$99,737
LEMAY
ROBERTSON
9.2
2.0
3.3 1.3
-5A -0.7-5102,110
COLLEGE AV
HARVARD
14.0
3.1
8.4 2.2
A.7 -0.9-S1B6.309
ZIEGLER
COUNCILTREE
10.4
2.3
3.5 1.4
-6.1 -0.8-$118,425
COLLEGE AV
COLUMBIA
17.3
3.8
10.5 2.9
-5.9 -0.9-$121,387
COLLEGE AV
PITKIN
14.3
3.2
7.1 2.3
-6.3 -0.9-$122,171
TIMBERLINE RD
CUSTER
12.9
2.8
7.4 1.7
-4.3 -1.1-$123,437
COLLEGE AV
SPRING PARK
13.9
3.1
6.9 2.0
-5.9 -1.1-$138,145
COLLEGE AV
RUTGERS
16.3
3.6
8.8 2.5
-6.3 -1.2-5145,113
COLLEGE AV
BOCKMAN
18.4
4.1
7.9 2.7
-9.1 -1.4-$187,247
COLLEGEAV
STUART
18.8
4.2
4.9 2.0
-11.8 -2.2-526&902
FI = FataVlnjury Crashes
" PDO = Property Damage Only Crashes
38
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, Volume 1, Page 4-84.
Blincoe, L.J., et al, The Economic Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000,
May 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 809 446. Online at
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.9418
39
No Text
No Text
No Text
T
No Text
I� -c S � k . ; a €[ s r � � a Y �`,. n' � `�i�- � ;� 2�� �L �Tr �.�i � � •V� ��•�;e,
.E[ FI''
1'.
��-Ss. t� � `�tf4��a}yi' �-.. Fl+k N' ��'d..� : 1 yv1 [ cSA�•- e.�-� L- • . �� t �_
{ `�.W - _, tL . k a'" _ i �•'.r. `il lLs , _. _ __y� Q � .il. �. � 1 _ _
TACT .,.. S � 4c r 1 V If� i TL].a .t;.}„i a � + ''� •
Shepardson
2013-14 Safe Routes to School Application
City of Fort Collins
Section 3: Please describe your timeline from project start to finish. (Maximum 2 pages.)
a) Project Timeline:
Date
Milestone
CDOT Authorization to Proceed
August -September
City of Fort Collins Grant Funding Appropriation
2013
Organizational Meeting with BPEC Trainers
Conduct Family Bike Rodeos
Train -the -Trainers Classes for Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
October -November
Meetings w/School Contacts for Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
2013
Identify Content Providers for Resource Notebooks; Notebook Outline
Conduct Family Bike Rodeos
Encouragement Event: International Walk to School Day
December 2013
Train -the -Trainers Classes for Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
Begin Writing Content for SRTS Resource Notebooks
Train -the -Trainers Classes for Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
January -February
Launch First Group of Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
2014
Continue Writing Content for SRTS Resource Notebooks
Train -the -Trainers Classes for Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
March 2014
Launch Second Group of Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
Finalize Content and Copy-edit SRTS Resource Notebooks
Conduct Family Bike Rodeos
Distribute SRTS Resource Notebooks to Schools
April 2014
Strap -and -Snap Helmet Safety Program
Conduct Family Bike Rodeos
Strap -and -Snap Program
May 2014
Conduct Family Bike Rodeos
Encouragement Event: National Bike to School Day
June -July 2014
BPEC MEETING — Program Evaluation
August 2014
Final CDOT Grant Report
Page 4 of 9
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text
No Text