HomeMy WebLinkAboutCENTERPOINT PLAZA - PDP - 35-01 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - TRAFFIC STUDYAPPENDIX B
criteria, the delay at the Prospect/Timberline intersection could not
exceed 109.8 seconds and 111.0 seconds in the respective peak hours. These
values reflect a 2 percent increase in delay at this intersection with the
current geometry.
In the course of conducting these evaluations, it was determined that
full development of Centerpoint Plaza (Buildings A, B, and C) would not
meet the APF criteria. In fact, development of Buildings A and B would
meet the APF criteria in the morning peak hour, but would not meet the APF
criteria in the afternoon peak hour. In light of this, an assignment was
conducted using just Building A. The trip generation for Building A is
provided in Table 2. The total floor area in Building A is 7062 square
feet. As analyzed in this memorandum, the use within Building A was 7062
square feet of specialty retail. The description of specialty retail in
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, ITE closely matches convenience retail in the
Fort Collins Code. This trip generation was assigned to the Prospect/
Timberline intersection using the accepted trip distribution shown in the
cited TIS. The forecasted (2006) peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 3.
Table 3 shows the intersection level of service and delay using the volumes
shown in Figure 3. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The
increase in delay is 1.5 percent and 1.4 percent in the respective peak
hours. Based upon this analysis, it is concluded that Centerpoint Plaza,
Building A will meet the APF criteria at the Prospect/Timberline
intersection.
If, after Building A was approved for development by the City of Fort
Collins, Building B was proposed as a PDP or FDP to the City, an APF
analysis would be required. That analysis, like the Building A analysis,
would need to include the current traffic factored to reflect the analysis
year plus all approved developments which are not built at the time of the
Building B proposal. This would include Building A. From the foregoing
analyses reflected in this memorandum, it is likely that Building B would
meet the APF criteria.
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b
Analyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect
Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas
Date: 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Collins Qp
Period: a pm Year recent short bkgr otal J[
Project ID 153 apf
E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
1 Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I
I L T R I L T R I L T R L T R I
I I I I I
No. Lanes I 1 2 0 I 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 I
LGConfig I L TR L TR L TR I L T R I
Volume 1121 927 420 1437 997 78 1405 545 176 166 526 140 1
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 I
RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 I
Duration 0.25
Area
Type: All
other
areas
Signal
Operations
Phase Combination
1
2
3 4
1
5
6
7 8
EB Left
A
P
I NB
Left
A
A
A
Thru
P
I
Thru
A
A
Right
P
I
Right
A
A
Peds
X
I
Peds
X
WB Left
A
A
P
I SB
Left
A
A
Thru
A
P
I
Thru
A
Right
A
P
I
Right
A
Peds
X
I
Peds
X
NB Right
I EB
Right
SB Right
A
I WB
Right
Green
4.0
14.0
48.0
4.0
15.0
35.0
Yellow
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
All Red
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
Cycle Length: 130.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 228 1770 0.58 0.42 29.5 C
TR 1246 3374 1.19 0.37 134.2 F 125.5 F
Westbound
L 343 1770 1.37 0.52 226.1 F
TR 1670 3501 0.69 0.48 27.8 C 85.1 F
Northbound
L
357
1770
1.16
0.42
137.4
F
TR
690
1794
1.07
0.38
93.4
F 109.2 F
Southbound
L
193
1770
0.40
0.32
36.2
D
T
502
1863
1.23
0.27
168.8
F 130.6 F
R
536
1583
0.31
0.34
32.1
C
Intersection Delay
= 110.3
(sec/veh)
Intersection
LOS = F
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b
Matthew J. Delich
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034
E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b
Analyst: Michael Inter.: Timberline/Prospect
Acency:'Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas
Date: 11/17/01 Jurisd: Fort Collins
Period: am pm Year recent s ort bkgr otal
Project 0153 apf
E/W St: Prospect N/S St: Timberline
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I
I L T R I L T R I L T R L T R I
I I I I I
No. Lanes I 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I
LGConfig I L TR 1 L TR I L TR I L T R I
Volume 1104 932 310 1415 872 35 1449 391 242 I110 368 141 1
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1
RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Duration 0.25
Area
Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination
1
2
3 4 1 5
6 7
EB Left
A
P
1 NB Left A
A A
Thru
P
i Thru
A A
Right
P
I Right
A A
Peds
X
1 Peds
X
WB Left
A
P
SB Left A
A
Thru
P
I Thru
A
Right
P
1 Right
A
Peds
X
I Peds
X
NB Right
I EB Right
SB Right
A
I WB Right
Green 14.0 51.0 4.0 21.0 30.0
Yellow 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 130.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 288 1770 0.42 0.51 24.1 C
TR 1337 3407 1.09 0.39 93.5 F 88.1 F
Westbound
L 288
1770
1.68
0.51
361.1
F
TR 1381
3519
0.76
0.39
38.3
D 139.7 F
Northbound
L 438
1770
1.21
0.43
151.5
F
TR 689
1756
1.08
0.39
97.9
F 120.1 F
Southbound
L 193
1770
0.67
0.28
47.2
D
T 430
1863
1.01
0.23
95.2
F 71.5 E
R 597
1583
0.28
0.38
28.4
C
Intersection Delay
= 109.2
(sec/veh)
Intersection
LOS = F
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b
Matthew J. Delich
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034
E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
•u is iy>i-.
Agency:
.-,i �...nci
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
Area Type: All other areas
Q ns
Date:
Period:
11/17/01
am
Jurisd: Fort Col)'iP__s
Year recent shor bkgr total
n Dc�ro�
Project
ID: 0153 apf
oN
E/W St:
Prospect
N/S St: Timberline
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUIIINARY
j Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I
L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R
I I I 1
No. Lanes I 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 I 1 1 1 I
LGConfig I L TR 1 L TR I L TR L T R I
Volume 1121 924 420 1431 997 78 1402 544 176 165 526 140 I
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0
RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4.1 5 6 7 8
EB Left A P i NB Left A A A
Thru P I Thru A A
Right P I Right A A
Peds X I Peds X
WB Left A A P I SB Left A A
Thru A P I Thru A
Right A P I Right A
Peds X I Peds X
NB Right I EB Right
SB Right A I WB Right
Green 4.0 14.0 48.0 4.0 15.0 35.0
Yellow 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
All Red 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle'Length: 130.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 228
1770
0.58
0.42
29.5
C
TR 1245
3373
1.19
0.37
133.2
F 124.7 F
Westbound
L 343
1770
1.35
0.52
217.5
F
TR 1670
3501
0.69
0.48
27.8
C 82.0 F
Northbound
L 357
1770
1.15
0.42
134.3
F
TR 690
1794
1.07
0.38
93.0
F 107.8 F
Southbound
L 193 1770 0.39 0.32 36.1 D
T 502 1863 1.23 0.27 168.8 F 130.8 F
R 536 1583 0.31 0.34 32.1 C
Intersection Delay = 108.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = F
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b
Matthew J. Delich
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034
E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
Date: 11/17/01
Period: (apm
Project 0153 apf
E/W St: Prospect
Area Type: All other areas
Jurisd: Fort Col s
Year : recent shor Cbkgrd total
N/S St: Timberline
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
DA5&
I Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound I
I L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R I
I I I I I
No. Lanes 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
LGConfig I L TR I L TR I L TR I L T R I
Volume 1104 928 310 1410 872 35 1447 391 242 1109 368 141 I
Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 1
RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 I 0 i 0 I
Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 i 5 6 7 8
EB Left A P I NB Left A A A
Thru P I Thru A A
Right P I Right A A
Peds X I Peds X
WB Left A P I SB Left A A
Thru P 1 Thru A
Right P 1 Right A
Peds X I Peds X
NB Right ; EB Right
SB Right A I WB Right
Green 14.0 51.0 4.0 21.0 30.0
Yellow 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
All Red 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
Cycle Length: 130.0 secs
Intersection Performance Summary
Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach
Lane Group Flow Rate
Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS
Eastbound
L 288 1770 0.42 0.51 24.1 C
TR 1336 3406 1.09 0.39 92.7 F 87.4 F
Westbound
L 288 1770 1.66 0.51 352.0 F
TR 1381 3519 0.76 0.39 38.3 D 136.0 F
Northbound
L
438
1770
1.20
0.43
149.7
F
TR
689
1756
1.08
0.39
97.9
F 119.3 F
Southbound
L
193
1770
0.66
0.28
46.9
D
T
430
1863
1.01
0.23
95.2
F 71.4 E
R
597
1583
0.28
0.38
28.4
C
Intersection Delay
= 107.6
(sec/veh) Intersection
LOS = F
HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b
Matthew J. Delich
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034
E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com
OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX A
q N
E
o co
LO
0 0)
F-
v co 0
35/78
872/997
410/431
104/121
` 7777pect
1
928/924
310/420
N It CD
v Q z
rn � I
�t C`') N
— AM/PM
SHORT RANGE (2006) BASE Figure 2
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
E
35/78
�— 872/997
415/437
N
104/121
1
Prospect
932/927 —►
LO
to
co
310/420
v
It
r-
v
rn
'Cr
Nr
C7
N
--a-- AM/PM
SHORT RANGE (2006) BASE PLUS Figure 3
BUILDING A PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
TABLE 1
Short Range 2006 Base Condition
Peak Hour
LOS
Delav
Morning
F
107.6 secs.
Afternoon
F
108.8 secs.
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
4�
y.
�x�Sm'
-� +!'»��4„_hc. 1. i%€'
..�:.t,� "•..°`-£yd ..s-.. `'ems-�ts ..
�"Yat�
�.+.�:t4'.h �w
� _ jr^»
;iw+.
✓ t R�"iy. 9 � �
r7 r..... 1.. k._ -
t sry ., M ..x a. ,t^�" 1 4;-
i.,�l�' -
Building A (7062 S.R)
814
Specialty Retail
7.062 KSF
40.67 1 268
11.92
1 14
11.44
1 10
11.11
8
11.48
1 10
TABLE 3
Short Range 2006 Base Condition Plus Building A
Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
Increase in Delay
Morning
F
109.2 secs.
1.5%
Afternoon
F
110.3 secs.
1.4%
97/112
786/820 —•-
283/368
a
27/61
�— 801 /910
327/327
--a-- AM/PM
Prospect
RECENT (11/01) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 1
MEMORANDUM
co
M
LO
O
M
Cf)
TO: Kevin Frazier
•
LO
Dick Fisher, Cobalt Design -Build
O
0
orn
Louise Herbert, VF Ripley
CC
cOD
City of Fort Collins
O
p
O
U
rn
FROM: Matt Delich
•
o
X
Li
DATE: August 26, 2002
z
a
SUBJECT: Centerpoint Plaza Transportation Impact Study - Building
J
A Adequate Public Facilities Analysis
(File: 0153ME06)
CD
w
E
O
N
cc
0
°)
(0
This memorandum addresses the adequate public facilities (APF)
z
CD
issues at the Prospect/Timberline intersection for Building A within
aCenterpoint
Plaza. The transportation impact study guidelines
_
indicate that significant impact is defined in Section 4.5.2.A.2 in
z
z
the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards," as follows: "When
w
o
the background traffic conditions (without project traffic) causes
CD
an intersection to fail the minimum acceptable level of service
N
r-
standards; and when the project traffic causes more than a 2 percent
N
increase in the intersection delay."
The "Centerpoint Plaza Transportation Impact Study," August
2001 demonstrated that all of the key intersections would operate
acceptably with full development of Centerpoint Plaza in the short
range (2006) future. Given this analysis timeframe, it was assumed
that the Prospect/Timberline intersection would be improved beyond
that which exists today. This analysis included a number of
developments which have approved overall development plans, but no
approved preliminary development plans or final development plans.
The assumed improvements at the Prospect/Timberline intersection were
reasonable for this analysis.
W
The original cited TIS used base (existing) traffic conditions
a.
at the Prospect/Timberline intersection that were dated October 2000.
Z
The analyses contained in this memorandum use more recent traffic
w
counts (supplied by the City) dated November 2001. These traffic
z
counts are shown in Figure 1. These counts indicate that the
VZ
Prospect/Timberline intersection is operating at level of service F
J
U
during both peak hours with the existing geometry.
W
O
0
a
Since improvements to this intersection are not on a capital
improvement program, City staff requested an APF analysis that
'
O
included existing traffic factored to the year 2006 at 1.5 percent
a
i
per year, plus known/approved projects that impact the subject
Q
th
intersection. These projects are: Rigden Farm 6 Filing, Spring
Cr
H
Creek Center, and Midpoint Self Storage. The base (2006) peak hour
W
o2f
traffic at the Prospect/Timberline intersection is shown in Figure
C)
2. The APF analysis must use the existing geometry at the subject
a
intersection. Table 1 shows the intersection level of service and
delay using the volumes shown in Figure 2. Calculation forms are
Q
H
provided in Appendix A. Clearly, this intersection will operate
C
unacceptably with the existing geometry. In order to meet the APF