The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20031541.tiff ri1k DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N. 17'"AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 liDWEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us C. E-maPH s ONE (970)3FAX 0(970) 304-6498 COLORADO June 12, 2003 Michael D. Friesen, Administrator Town of Mead 441 Third Street Post Office Box 626 Mead, Colorado 80542 Subject: The LifeBridge Project PUD Traffic Impact Study, dated June 2002 Dear Michael: Please find enclosed a copy of the LifeBridge Project PUD Traffic Impact Study, dated June 2002 as requested by your office. This study was submitted as part of the Sketch Plan application process administered and commented on by this office in August 2002. Also enclosed is the referral provided to the Department of Public Works by Felsburg Holt& Ullevig dated July 10, 2002. As previously stated, the document submitted is part of the Sketch Plan application and is not forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office for inclusion in the Change of Zone application file. Due to the request on behalf of the Town of Mead, this document, the FHU referral letter dated July 2002 and this cover letter dated June 12, 2003 will be submitted for inclusion in the Change of Zone application file. This set of documents is hereafter identified as Exhibit# MM. Should you need further information, please contact the Clerk to the Board's office at 970/356-4000 ext. 4226. Thank you. Sincerely, Planner III Enclosure File: PZ-1004 RECEIVED JUN 1 2 2 3 IL¢alvt EXHIBIT I M 2003-1541 FEL SBURG (1 HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation solutions July 10, 2002 Mr. Peter Schei, P.E. Weld County Department of Public Works P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD; Traffic Study Review FHU Reference No. 02-127 Dear Mr. Schei: We have completed our review of the LifeBridge PUD traffic impact study. Based on our review, we offer the following comments for the Public Works Department's consideration. 1. The traffic study considers a build-out scenario of 176 single-family homes, 82 apartment units, 222 units for elderly/retirement/congregate care, 98,000 square feet of medical office, 273,0000 square feet of retail uses, and a church campus that could accommodate up to 4500 students. Several development phases have been identified for this development; build out will not occur for over 20 years according to the traffic study. The PUD description mentions a 6000-seat auditorium, but the traffic impacts of activities associated with the auditorium are not specifically addressed in the study. It may be of interest to understand the traffic impacts associated with a service or activity that would fill the auditorium. 2. Trip generation estimates are reasonable. Some adjustments to the typical rates were made to reflect a campus-like development, and these adjustments are reasonable. The trip distribution of LifeBridge trips onto the roadway network is primarily reasonable with one exception; the orientation of trips specifically related to the church campus is high to/from north on County Line Road. Justification for this heavy orientation should be provided. 3. The signal agreement for the SH 119 and WCR 3.5 intersection requires the developer to pay for the signal installation on a pro-rata basis. The need for the signal is brought-on primarily due to the southbound approach traffic along WCR 3.5 given the relatively high level of through traffic along SH 119. Given the ten-year traffic forecasts at this intersection, the LifeBridge PUD development (or at least the portion of the PUD estimated to be completed by that time) would contribute approximately 56 percent of the southbound traffic 303.721.1 440 fax 303.721.0832 thu@fhueng.com Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Ave.Ste.200 Greenwood Village,CO 80111 July 10, 2002 Mr. Peter Schei, P.E. Page 2 (AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes combined). The County should consider requiring reimbursement of 56 percent of the financing responsibility that is specifically associated with uses on the north side of SH 119. 4. SH 119 is classified as an expressway. The spacing along SH 119 between Fairview and WCR 3.5 is only one-half mile, and both of these intersections are shown in the study as being signalized. This scenario is not consistent with the State Highway Access Code's ideal criteria for intersection spacing. While the LifeBridge development is not driving the need to signalize the Fairview intersection, this signalization scheme should be confirmed with CDOT. 5. The plan shown in the traffic study identifies roundabouts for some of the internal intersections. While none are shown at any major intersections, it should be'made clear whether these would on public roads or privates roads and whether the County would be willing to allow this type of intersection control along a public road. 6. The access onto WCR 3.5 for the LifeBridge development appears to align with the accesses on the west side the road. This should be verified. 7. Build out of the LifeBridge development will add 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day onto WCR 3.5. The first phase of development is expected to only increase the WCR 3.5 traffic by 3000 to 4000 vehicles per day (by 2010), and the first two phases are expected to add 14,000 to 16,000 vehicles per day onto WCR 3.5. Ultimate traffic projections at the southern end near SH 119 suggest that four through lanes should be planned for WCR 3.5, but that traffic projections at the north end near WCR 26 would only require two through lanes. The point at which the four-lane cross-section can narrow to two lanes is not known; the traffic study does not show traffic projections at any of the WCR 3.5 intersection between SH 119 and WCR 26. The County may want the applicant develop a WCR 3.5 construction phasing plan that would identify the segments of WCR 3.5 that would be constructed in conjunction with specific development phases. This would also need to identify the logical point of transition between four-through lanes and two through lanes; additional traffic projection data (for intersection between SH 119 and WCR 26) are necessary to better gauge the location of this transition point.. 8. The first LifeBridge access north of SH 119 is only 340 feet north of the highway. While the plan is simply aligning the roadway with Longview Boulevard, this is still a close spacing for these intersections. As the traffic study indicates, this 340-foot section should include side- by-side opposing left turn lanes with the southbound left turn movements being served by dual left turn lanes. / July 10, 2002 '' Mr. Peter Schei, P.E. Page 3 9. WCR 26 will need to be paved with the additional traffic. The County should consider a public improvement agreement in which this applicant would fund the paving of WCR 26 based on a pro-rata share. LifeBridge traffic is estimated to comprise approximately 95 percent of the WCR 26 traffic in 2010, and only 35 percent in 2020 as other development in the area takes place. 10. The intersection of County Line Road and WCR 26 will warrant signalization in the long term planning horizon based on the traffic projections shown. A southbound left turn lane will be critical at this intersection. The planning for this roadway should take place accordingly. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Sincerely, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Christopher J. FasIhing, P.E. Principal THE LIFEBRIDGE PROJECT PUD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WELD COUNTY, COLORADO JUNE 2002 Prepared for: _ LifeBridge Christian Church 10345 Ute Highway Longmont, CO 80504 Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. poi REGiS •,, 2272 Glen Haven Drive o; 004 J.D F9 Loveland, CO 80538 c�i e F�'�;cs Phone: 970-669-2061 1 • 15 FAX: 970-669-5034 \`•,-o'• SbNA1- '. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 II. Existing Conditions 3 A. Existing Road Network 3 B. Existing Traffic Conditions 3 C. Surrounding Land Uses 6 III. Future Traffic Projections 7 A. Development Assumptions 7 B. Site Trip Generation 7 C. Trip Distribution 11 D. Traffic Assignments and Volumes 11 Site Generated Traffic Volumes 11 Background Traffic Volumes 11 Total Traffic 20 IV. Traffic Impacts 25 Short Range Background Traffic 25 Short Range Total Traffic 25 Long Range Background Traffic 28 Long Range Total Traffic 28 Long Range Traffic (2020+) 35 V. Conclusions 36 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Current Peak Hour Operation 6 2. Phase 1 Trip Generation 9 3. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Development Trip Generation 10 4 . Full Development Trip Generation 12 5 . Short Range (2010) Background Peak Hour Operation 26 6. Short Range (2010) Total Peak Hour Operation 29 7 . Long Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation . . . . 30 8 . Long Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation 33 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 . Site Location 2 2 . Recent Peak Hour Traffic 4 3 . Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic 5 4 . Site Plan 8 5 . Short Range (2010) Trip Distribution 13 6. Long Range (2020) Trip Distribution 14 7 . Phase 1 (2010) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic 15 8 . Phases 1 and 2 (2020) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic 16 9. Full Development (2020+) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic 17 10. Short Range (2010) Background Peak Hour Traffic 18 11 . Long Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Traffic 19 12 . Long Range (2020+) Background Peak Hour Traffic 21 13 . Short Range (2010) Total Peak Hour Traffic 22 14 . Long Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Traffic 23 15 . Long Range (2020+) Total Peak Hour Traffic 24 16. Short Range (2010) Geometry 27 17 . Long Range (2020) Geometry 32 APPENDIX A Recent Peak Hour Traffic Data B Existing Traffic Analyses/Level of Service Description C Signal Warrants D Short Range Background Traffic Analyses E Short Range Total Traffic Analyses F Long Range Background Traffic Analyses G Long Range Total Traffic Analyses I. INTRODUCTION The LifeBridge Project PUD, a mixed-use development, is proposed in the northeast quadrant of the SH119/WCR3'-2 intersection in Weld County. Hereinafter, it will be referred to as the LifeBridge PUD. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to address the traffic impacts of the proposed development. The focus of this review is the street/road network, which will serve the proposed development. This study and recommended improvements to the street/road network serve as a benchmark for the level of development considered herein. Specific improvements will be related to the actual development proposed. Significant development is expected to occur in this area. The LifeBridge PUD is in an area known as the "I-25 Mixed Use Development Area" as defined by Weld County. Data regarding short range and long range future development was obtained from Weld County traffic projections, other traffic studies in the area of the site, and CDOT traffic forecasts. The scope of the traffic impact study was discussed with the owner/ developer (LifeBridge Christian Church) , the project architect (Fentress Bradburn) , the project engineer/planner (Rocky Mountain Consultants) , Weld County Public Works Department, and the Longmont Traffic Engineer. 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 Cl) ) ) ) / /-d-,. - _] I H ti -I County yine Road WCR 1) BOULDER COUNT)/ O I * WELD COUNTY Z O Pa N c� ,-.6 ? li , 0y S 1 a ,z>_b0 WCR 3 1/2 a ',± O N a t. ir N 0 F n4/6"e M1 (D (l RN RAl(R0g0 � „0 I , (n o 171 a Coo � � 1 D I t. ()� _ 7I [-- Interstate 25 -----fc 0 Z 0 m BED LI II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The major existing streets in the vicinity of The LifeBridge PUD site are SH119, WCR3=E, Fairview Street (WCR3) , WCR26, and County Line Road (WCR1) . SH119 is a regional four-lane divided highway under CDOT control with a posted speed limit of 55 mph in the area of The LifeBridge POD site. It extends from Interstate 25 to the west, past the site, to the City of Longmont and beyond. According to CDOT, it is an classified expressway highway in the vicinity of the site. Weld County Road 3;1 extends from SH119 , north to WCR26. It is paved along the Long View residential area (0.5 miles) and is gravel for "- the remaining 0.5 miles to WCR26. Fairview Street is 0.5 miles west of WCR3 . It is paved, serving a business park which is occupied by Concepts Direct. Fairview Street does not connect to WCR26 across the Great Western Railroad tracks. Weld County Road 26 is an east/west gravel road that borders the subject property on the north. It intersects with County Line Road at a T-intersection with stop sign control on WCR26. County Line Road is a north/south paved road. It is continuous to the north and south of this study area. It currently has a two-lane cross section. It is classified as an arterial street on the Longmont Comprehensive Plan. Access to the site will be via WCR3 and WCR26 for the Phase 1 development of The LifeBridge POD. It was not expected that Fairview Street would be extended to the north, across the Great Western Railroad tracks, by/before the future year 2010. In the long range (2020) future with full development of The LifeBridge PUD, it was assumed that Fairview Street would be extended to WCR26. B. Existing Traffic Conditions Recent morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections are shown in Figure 2. Raw traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. The count data at the SH119/Fairview intersection was obtained in November 2001. The count data at the County Line Road/WCR26 and SH119/WCR31** intersections was obtained in March 2002. Since the counts were performed on different days, the traffic volumes between the SH119/Fairview and SH119/WCR3 intersections were averaged and balanced, and are shown in Figure 3. Table 1 shows the current peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. As can be seen, the key intersections operate acceptably with current controls and geometry, except for the southbound minor 3 a N N V Ln 8/12 212 I WCR26 N — a N a m C J 2' — C O U — 3 N (Ts _ rn co to 34/20 rn co 15/30 in- to co -No-- 1489/1144 � 0 co f 1246/1061 1 L. 0/1 62 SH119 1 NI) /_ V J 53/28 r r 17/106 t 841/1177 o 848/1270 �- ,� v — 1/1 a Cl 0 41/12 C o 0 1 �.- AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2 4 N N V la n 8/12 212 — t I WCR26 teza N , CC 'O N C _ C 0 O U 3 N — Z 2 m U L rn - C34/20 N L 15/30 o 0 n ---1418/1139 r o or) —1317/1066 — ,_0/1 tC 62 SH119 ‘11153/28 f 17/106 f r 872/1263 —� 817/1184 1/1 -\ n o 0 41/12 m o o -f- AM/PM BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 5 street left-turn movements during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Typically, minor street left-turn movements operate at level of service E or F during the peak hours at stop sign controlled intersections along arterial streets. The minor street legs operate acceptably at level of service C. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections is also provided in Appendix B. C. Surrounding Land Uses There is currently an existing residential development (Long View) on the west side of WCR3'-1. A commercial development (Vista Business Park) exists along WCR3'-1, south of SH119. A commercial development (Concepts Direct) exists on the west side of Fairview Street. To the east of The LifeBridge PUD site are two residential developments, Meadow Vale Farms and The Elms. TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation -- Inte Cove t 1IV 1 of Seen :. I�INF P County Line RoadNVCR26 WB LT/RT A A (stop sign) SB LT A A NB LT/T/RT A B SB LT/T E E SH119/Fairview SB RT C C (stop sign) SB APPROACH C C EB LT C B WB LT B B EB LT B A EB T B B EB RT A A EB APPROACH B B WB LT A A WBT B B WB RT A A SH119/WCR3Y WB APPROACH B B (signal) NB LT/T C C -- NB RT C C NB APPROACH C C SB LT C C SB T/RT C C SB APPROACH C C OVERALL B B _, 6 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS A. Development Assumptions The site plan of The LifeBridge PUD is shown on Figure 4. The LifeBridge PUD is expected to be built in two phases. Phase 1 is expected to be built by/before the short range future year 2010. Phase 1 will consist of Parcels 1, a portion of Parcels 2-4, Parcels 5-12, and Parcels 14-15. In Phase 1, The LifeBridge PUD would gain access to WCR34 and WCR26. Fairview Street is not likely to extend to the north, _ across the railroad tracks, by/before the short range (2010) future. Phase 2 is expected to be built by/before the long range future year 2020. Phase 2 will consist of an intermediate level of development of Parcels 2-4, and development of Parcel 13 and Parcels 16-19. In Phase 2, it is expected that Fairview Street would be extended to north the north, across the railroad tracks, to WCR26. Full development consists of development of Phases 1 and 2 plus further development of Parcels 2- - 4. Full development is at an undetermined future year. B. Site Trip Generation To estimate the traffic generated by the proposed development, standard trip generation equations/factors compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in their report entitled Trip Generation, 6th Edition were utilized. These equations/factors were applied to the appropriate land use to determine daily, and morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes expected to be generated at the site. In discussions with the owner/developer, the development on the church property would be more than the church facility itself and the administrative offices of the church. There would be activity that would be reasonably constant over the course of an average weekday. The trip activity would be similar to that of a junior or community college. _ While this would not be the specific use, for trip generation purposes this land use was used. An estimate was made of the number of students, so that this variable could be used to generate the daily and peak hour trip ends. Table 2 summarizes the results of this analysis for Phase 1 of The LifeBridge PUD development. While the medical office and retail uses in Parcel 15 will be open to the general public, they will be primarily oriented toward serving the residential area within The LifeBridge PUD. Therefore, it was assumed that half of the daily and peak hour trip ends would be external. This is also reflected in Table 2. Phase 1 of The LifeBridge PUD would generate approximately 6995 trips per day with 562 and 691 trips occurring during the morning and afternoon peak hour periods, respectively. _ Table 3 shows the trip generation for Phase 1 and Phase 2 development of The LifeBridge PUD. In addition to the development of Phase 1, Phase 2 development will increase the usage on the church campus (Parcels 2-4) , and development on Parcels 13, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Of significance, is the church campus variable used for trip generation 7 ilik __. . - --_-_._ -------- ----- I .4/� - -- -�-� ---a--a-- - _ Weld County Road e v• 41 N Union I. i 41'.i�4 'O�►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�►�Ad►��►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Sit/ Reservior 1♦♦1IV r �'#�♦♦♦♦`♦♦♦ '11 ''►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦,fra4w♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦11i�� 1♦♦♦ `♦♦400> 041 ♦1►41 Ili ♦�� Ii♦i��i!��♦ ♦ iL' ti'It:G1r`>�r�►♦ ♦♦♦1��♦♦♦�`♦.!ice♦♦U'►4�'4� ii�f►�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� too-'?.1P1II s�!!♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦♦♦%►vqi�♦��/►,i1,►iG♦i?ii��j��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦r♦'I►1'`F'1.glb♦'1j��144ItA v♦♦1v �1:�� s ♦♦♦ 9•♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� w ♦N 04.4.44.0„'♦♦♦♦r ♦♦♦♦�.♦♦♦se o 1i►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦4�� ♦�III �►�t►��.1;♦�< ta,►C ♦♦a ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��,�,♦�►��1<gn1�• �q�♦♦♦♦ 41. Attached Residential ♦�' ♦«►,♦ 8, 9 sac Acres« Or.��.♦♦4'♦♦♦♦♦♦.',►;♦ ',=♦,.�, Attached Residential88dential °aa�..croo n 7s A� 4.0-5.0 a.ulec 10, 11 ��'L•'i`r i�� r +4��-to-Do '' Assisted$7Living{��♦�„♦A#a'Va';♦;♦;1�♦♦♦�'II 12 Bla 6Mres 'i,, ;;14 ; ' •�;�;, ; Single-Family and ; Attached Rk 12 esidential 50-6.0 QUNc _lit` ''I sta I`-�♦.'1W ..t. o, ♦♦♦♦, i'►1 3.5-4.5 tl.u/ac 414 Assisted a ng Illiair;: ,,, ��1�� ♦♦♦♦♦ /N 14 em�a 0 mfl`tAil**t � . 4►� Community a:a 3�; ., : r! -��a Cater LEGEND: W U. r x. mir ll \�♦♦4►O� 31 Q=1x. rA .S.sana trap a� \`_fi. 4 04-0.6 FAR �.1 eii 16 ,.a . .. ,_ as: � �� Phase 1 Neighborhood Cente a'li; xr�--n '• ;IyII .n. tl v.., " 15, 17, ,8 Block 16 7x�. a. ee�a Mixed-Use -t} Phase 2 m020-025 FAR •1Wig en ad..x. y .jir .x �� g 90 Acres 'a LL 065-075 FAR exxiG.—Gxd—ax--Giiiiiiix�- nun i g Neighborhood Center Nal u.. Block 19 MIx x.i 6.6 Acres Ili wx 0.15-0.20 FAR '--- State Highway 119 SCALE: 1"600' I SITE PLAN Figure 4 8 • TABLE 2 Phase 1 Trip Generation AYYDTE AM Peak!fir • PM Peak Hour Cods Use Size Rate t,,a Ras in 'Raft Out . In Rate 210 Parcel 1:Single Family 176 D.U. 9.91 1744 0.19 33 0.57 100 0.65 114 0.37 65 540 Parcels 2-0: 2550 W students 1.54 3927 0.13 332 0.01 26 0.12 306 0.05 128 Church Campus 253 Parcel 5:Elderly Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 6:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 — 253 Parcel 8:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 9:Elderly Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 10:Elderly Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 — 253 Parcel 11:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 12:Elderly Attached 63 D.U. 3.48 219 0.04 3 0.03 1 0.06 4 0.04 3 220 Parcel 15:Apartment 14 D.U. 6.63 93 0.08 1 0.43 6 0.42 6 0.20 3 720 Parcel 15:Medical Office 16.33 KSF 27.73 453 1.94 32 0.49 8 0.95 16 2.56 42 Adjustment for 50%internal 227 16 4 8 21 820 Parcel 15:Retail �J 16.33 KSF 40.67 , 664 1.92 31 1.44 24 1.11 18 1.48 24 Adjustment for 50%internal 332 16 12 9 12 Total 6992 407 155 453 238 9 TABLE 3 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Development Trip Generation AM Sine • i +a�tfttkitt. Alit* In �yHour L �,y �:y�``. • •210 Parcel 1:Single Family 176 D.U. 9.91 1744 0.19 33 0.57 100 0.65 114 0.37 65 Parcels 2-4: 4500 540 Church Campus students 1.54 6930 0.13 585 0.01 45 0.12 540 0.05 225 Adjustment for 5%internal 6584 `556 43 513 214 253 Parcel 5:Elderly Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1_ 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 6:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 8:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 9:Ekierty Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 10:Elderly Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 11:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 12:Elderly Attached 63 Q.U. 3.48 219 0.04 3 0.03 1 0.06 4 0.04 3 -- 250 Parcel 13. 100 D.U. N/A 315 0.07 7 0.09 9 0.14 14 0.11 11 Retirement Community 252 Parcel 13: 200 D.U. 2.15 430 0.04 8 0.02 4 0.10 20 0.07 14 Congregate Care Center 220 Parcel 15:Apartment 14 D.U. 6.63 93 0.08 1 0.43 6 0.42 6 0.20 3 720 Parcel 15:Medical Office 16.33 KSF 27.73 453 1.94 32 0.49 8 0.95 16 2.56 42 Adjustment for 50%internal 227 16 4 8 21 820 I Parcel 15:Retail 116.33 KSF 40.67 664 1.92 31 1.44 24 1.11 18 1.48 24 Adjustment for 50%internal 332 16 12 9 12 820 Parcels 16&19:Retail 175.0 KSF 55.82 9769 0.78 137 0.50 88 2.49 436 2.70 473 220 Parcel 17:Apartment 48 D.U. 6.63 318 0.08 4 0.43 21 0.42 20 0.20 10 720 Parcel 17:Medical Office 57.67 KSF 37.16 2143 1.94 112 0.49 28 0.86 50 2.32 134 Adjustment for 50%internal 1072 56 14 25 67 814 j Parcel 17:Retail 157.67 KSF 40.67 2345 1.92 111 1.44 83 1.11 64 1.48 85 Adjustment for 50%internal 1173 56 42 32 43 220 Parcel 18:Apartment 20 D.U. 6.63 133 0.08 2 0.43 9 0.42 8 0.20 4 720 Parcel 18:Medical Office 24.33 KSF 32.06 780 1.94 47 0.49 12 0.92 22 2.48 60 Adjustment for 50%internal 390 24 6 11 30 814 1 Parcel 18:Retail 124.33 KSF 40.67 990 1.92 47 1.44 35 1.11 27 1.48 36 Adjustment for 50%internal 495 24 18 14 18~ Total 23,744 949 383 1240 994 10 will have almost a two times increase. Also, Parcel 16 and 19 will have development that is commensurate with that of a shopping center of 175, 000 square feet. These parcels (16 & 19) are close to SH119 and would have a significant amount of external traffic. Table 4 shows the trip generation for full development of The LifeBridge PUD. Full development includes an increase in usage of the church campus (Parcels 2-4) . The church campus variable almost doubled that used for the Phase 2 level of development. All other uses within The LifeBridge PUD remained the same as that shown in Table 3. C. Trip Distribution Trip distribution assumptions were derived utilizing the relationship of the site land uses to trip productions and attractions in/near Longmont. The existing and future street system also play a role in determining the trip distribution. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution for the short range future. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the long range future. D. Traffic Assignments and Volumes Site Generated Traffic Volumes — Utilizing the trip generation estimates and the distribution assumptions identified previously, projected vehicle trips were assigned to the existing and planned street system. The resulting short range (2010) site generated traffic at the key intersections for the morning and afternoon peak hours was determined and is shown in Figure 7. The Phases 1 and 2 (2020) site generated traffic volumes at the key intersections are shown in Figure 8. The full development (2020+) site generated link traffic volumes on the key street segments are shown in Figure 9. Link volumes were developed for the full development of The LifeBridge PUD, since the future year was not known. This is beyond 2020, and is subject to the growth of the LifeBridge Christian Church Community. Background Traffic Volumes Figure 10 shows the short range (2010) background peak hour traffic volumes (traffic on the roadways not attributed to the proposed project) at the key intersections. These were determined based upon existing traffic volumes, which were increased to account for adjacent/nearby development activity and a general increase in traffic passing through the study area. Data was obtained from the Concepts Direct and Vista Business Park traffic studies. Traffic generated from these developments was used to reflect an appropriate amount of development for the background traffic. Figure 11 shows the long range (2020) background peak hour traffic volumes at the key intersections. 11 TABLE 4 Full Development Trip Generation _. • AYUDTE Alitfleitic Hour I Pus*HOW 414.--,..•14. RNM In' Ras ;t IC' Rue 210 Parcel 1:Single Family 176 D.U. 9.91 1744 0.19 33 0.57 100 0.65 114 0.37 65 Parcels 2-4: 7500 540 05 375 Church C54 550 13 975 01 75 12 900-4.7500 1.54 11,550 0.13 975 0.01 75 0.12 900 0.05 375 students Acustment for 5%internal 10,972 926 71 855 356 253 Parcel 5:Elderly Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 6:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 8:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 9:Elderly Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 10:Warty Attached 23 D.U. 3.48 80 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 11:Elderly Attached 20 D.U. 3.48 70 0.04 1 0.03 1 0.06 1 0.04 1 253 Parcel 12:Elderly Attached 63 D.U. 3.48 219 0.04 3 0.03 1 0.06 4 0.04 3 250 Parcel 13: 100 D.U. N/A 315 0.07 7 0.09 9 0.14 14 0.11 11 Retirement Community 252 Parcel 13: 200 D.U. 2.15 430 0.04 8 0.02 4 0.10 20 0.07 14 Congregate Care Center 220 Parcel 15:Apartment 14 D.U. 6.63 93 0.08 1 0.43 6 0.42 6 0.20 3 720 Parcel 15:Medical Office 16.33 KSF 27.73 453 1.94 32 0.49 8 0.95 16 2.56 42 Alusl rent for 50%internal 227 16 4 8 21 820 I Parcel 15:Retail 1 16.33 KSF 40.67 664 1.92 31 1.44 24 1.11 18 1.48 24 Adjustment for 50%internal 332 16 12 9 12__ 820 Parcels 16&19:Retail 175.0 KSF 55.82 9769 0.78 137 0.50 88 2.49 436 2.70 473 220 Parcel 17:Apartment 48 D.U. 6.63 318 0.08 4 0.43 21 0.42 20 0.20 10 720 Parcel 17:Medical Office 57.67 KSF 37.16 2143 1.94 112 0.49 28 0.86 50 2.32 134 Adjustment for 50%internal 1072 56 14 25 67 - 814 I Parcel 17:Retail f 57.67 KSF 40.67 2345 1.92 111 1.44 83 1.11 64 1.48 85 Adjustment for 50%internal 1173 56 42 32 43 220 Parcel 18:Apartment 20 D.U. 6.63 133 0.08 2 0.43 9 0.42 8 0.20 4 720 Parcel 18: Medical Office 24.33 KSF 32.06 780 _1.94 47 0.49 12 0.92 22 2.48 60 Adjustment for 50%internal 390 24 6 11 30 814 I Parcel 18:Retail 124.33 KSF 40.67 990 1.92 47 1.44 35 1.11 27 1.48 36 Ac justment for 50%internal 495 24 18 14 18 Total 28,132 1319 411 1582 1136 12 N 5% NOM 5% WCR?6 N1OM 50% �'.. \\ JCVGwY1RI+lyw trip4rar p � N1OM +: 5% d �� asa ILL m v 50% 65% 30% Asionarares 2 SH1190% 35% 10% Residential Office/Retail Church Carnets SHORT RANGE (2010) TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 5 13 AS N 5% NOM — 15% NOM / r a) - 5% NOM 4 4,Vti: rr 5% u_ 55% 65% t 20% SH119 25% 35% 20% Residential Office/Retail rch Cam LONG RANGE (2020) TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 14 4- N 24111 - L. 17/18 WCR26 M N U N C J 2' - C 0 O O _ Z 3 (' m - 2 M O LL y n M f -76/99 osiyi53/63 SH119 — 143/170 —I► 143/170 AM/PM PHASE 1 (2010) SITE GENERATED Figure 7 - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 15 N �- AiIlk 2/6 /--84/81 29I1p6 N 6 R y 5/3—�- re WCR26 N1,-21e 255/243 N 34/98 0 10/18 �I 55 m r \\\\ ! I �/ -1 M �/ 1285 2 0 511?' u) O r M 0) V m 3 N C N J .2re Fri C U- 0 i U M O) n co N CI JCV)) m ` 20 � o L `C-s _ 6/ 483 ,J 26/O333 SH119 13/44 J 341/497 341/497 8/5 - AM/PM PHASES 1 AND 2 (2020) SITE Figure 8 _ GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 16 N 142/138 ` 4131.‘" WC // 16/58 R26 - `s 56/180 42 N in N C11) N 427/414 —20- N I N T in t) O I V CC 0 3 N C y J (7 X C LL 0 _ _ O 0 f co co 7 O) co — CO a N m CDr I M r f 219/536 -0— 186/531 -0--322/421 SH119 428/609 --1°- 423/570 -+0 120/362 -01- - AM/PM FULL DEVELOPMENT (2020+) SITE Figure 9 _ GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 17 _ 0 0 In o)ti (° `° 10/15 IIC 5/5 WCR26 o in to is v co V U) C - C 0 0 U - a) co 0: LL 0 0 _ o p o 70/30 0 0 F. 15/30 a N Z �-1525/1445 z f-1480/1275 Le1/4 30/30 / 1 1.41/4 110/80 SH119 f / / 115/45 } I 20/105 t 1025/1440 -� 0 2 0 915/1420 —1.1- o i2 o 80/60 0 110/80 \ N Z N Z N N AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles SHORT RANGE (2010) BACKGROUND Figure 10 - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 18 N - 320/205 r 165/105 33 012p5 `Lo O° N ' 515 110/375—I"- Neel WCR26 ^ T 5/10 240/195 rn L1/4 105/70 40 1 „srt ‘0135) 50115—Th1/4 40 ra •n o 0 a N D N C 0 Z c10 V O U N 00 330/95 too S`o o 35/95 v z t° C 1925/1845 N N rn 2060/1585 _ ,0i L ,-85/85 J 1L1/4 r 190/190 SH119 / 1 190/60 ' } 55/220 1290/1810 y o 2 0 1085/1905 o inco o 170/120 o z 220/200 a o 0 o r ro ro ~�— AM/PM — Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles LONG RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND Figure 11 - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 19 Figure 12 shows the 2020+ background peak hour traffic volumes on the key street segments in the area of The LifeBridge PUD site. These reflect the growth rate to the year 2030. Total Traffic The traffic volumes generated by the proposed LifeBridge PUD development were added to the background traffic to produce total traffic volume projections. The short range (2010) total peak hour traffic at the key intersections is shown in Figure 13. The long range (2020) total peak hour traffic at the key intersections is shown in Figure 14. The long range (2020+) total peak hour link volumes on the key street segments are shown in Figure 15. 20 N O 0 335121° 485/310 Co WCR26 165/565 i 0 1513g5 345/265 O + 165/400 —� I 0 1 0 CO p r O O O to I N t O O Up § to - to N o m C C (0) C 0 O U U) t p O p i1 a ;°) p p N N 2220/2470 f 2540/2190 2480/2040 SH119 1770/2150 1480/2490 i 1350/2470 -0"-- -0-- AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles LONG RANGE (2020+) BACKGROUND - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 12 21 O O N O c0 35/85 \ IC25/25 t r' WCR26 O O ro `o U) M CC C J - co _ C O U — Z 3 N a� - Z M u. U O p 70/30 zed, 0 0 "70/95 N 2 r -•"•- 1705/1545 r 2 N- 1480/1275 - / /J /-30!30 1 L1/41 F 110/80 SH119 1 1 115/45 r 165/275 -11 f 1170/1610 -0"-- 0 g O 915/1420 --4"-- o 2 o 01 0 CD— 80!60 O2 0 110!80 - � O2 in N N -NI— AM/PM — Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles SHORT RANGE (2010) TOTAL Figure 13 - PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 22 S _ N -•---325/210 r 250/185 — on in36pj310 CD la ��0110 115/380 WCR26 r 260!255 — 275/295 o in 1 115/90 r III '— o t r 3651625 55135--- \ co 0 LO N V U) 1,- .- NN O I- '7 9 Cr — a> 3 N c a? 17.i a co cc 0' a 0 J , O 0 o in N c 335/115 0 0 CO o R 280/430 00 Z r 't-2100/2330 n N a> -•*—2065/1605 - / L IC 85/85 i 1 L /- 190/190 SH119 205/105 f 395/720 --2i NI t r 1630/2310 -- to 2 0 1095/1910 ---11- 0 up 0 170/120 o Z 220/200 o 0 0 m r o m AM/PM _ Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles LONG RANGE (2020) TOTAL Figure 14 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 23 a N / oj° 627/450 vo WCR26 180/625 —� 6450 rn � t 400/445 a Min NC in 595/815 --s- Leg ao O t t N 1 oU) U) O + r O m z re C 0 O U n o t N O 4O] O N O N O CO (h O o 7 M N 2440/3005 —Ns—2725/2720 --2805/2460 SH119 2200/2760 1905/3060 i 1470/2835 - - AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles LONG RANGE (2020+) TOTAL Figure 15 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 24 ^ IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS In order to determine the impacts of future traffic volumes, the key intersections were evaluated for the short range (2010) and long range (2020) futures using capacity analysis procedures from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Findings are as stated below. Short Range Background Traffic _ Traffic volumes presented on Figure 10 were used to evaluate the short range (2010) background future traffic operation at the key intersections. Peak hour signal warrants are expected to be met in the short range future at the SH119/Fairview intersection. Peak hour signal — warrant analyses are provided in Appendix C. Table 5 presents the calculated levels of service at the key intersections in the short range (2010) future. Acceptable operation is defined as level of service "D" overall at signalized and unsignalized intersections. As shown on Table 5, acceptable operation can be expected for the short range (2010) future at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. Short Range Total Traffic Traffic volumes presented on Figure 13 were used to evaluate the short range (2010) total future traffic operations at the key intersections. Figure 16 shows the short range (2010) approach geometry at the key intersections. Dimensions of the key auxiliary lanes that are associated with The LifeBridge PUD traffic are also shown. Volumes on WCR26, between County Line Road and WCR3'2, will exceed the threshold volume that requires paving of WCR26. In the short range future (2010) , _ the daily traffic will exceed 3000 vehicles per day. The cross section of WCR26 should provide one travel lane in each direction and bike lanes. At the analyzed level of traffic, center left-turn lanes will not be required on WCR26. However, the eastbound right-turn volume on — WCR26 approaching WCR3'n will exceed 150 vehicles per hour, and as such, will require a right-turn deceleration lane, according to criteria in the State Highway Access Code, 1998. In addition to WCR26, WCR3 should provide for one travel lane in each direction and bike lanes. A center painted median lane would provide for northbound and southbound left turns at all existing accesses to Long View and access to the LifeBridge PUD. All intersections along WCR311 should allow full movements with stop sign control on the minor (east/west) streets. The functional distance (available for storage and deceleration) between SH119 and the access to Long View is 340 feet. It is recommended that this area be widened and striped to have side-by-side left-turn lanes. Design details should be addressed later in the development review process. 25 TABLE 5 Short Range(2010) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Lyre of Service AIM PM County Line Road/WCR26 WB LT/RT A B (stop sign) SB LT A A -- EB LT B B EBT B B • EBRT A A EB APPROACH B B WB LT A B WBT B B SH 119/Fairview WB RT A A (signal) WB APPROACH B B NB LT C D NB T/RT C C NB APPROACH C C SB LT C C SB T/RT C C _ SB APPROACH C C OVERALL B C EB LT B B EBT B B EB RT A A EB APPROACH B B WB LT A B WBT B B WB RT A A SH119/WCR3'/z WB APPROACH B B (signal) NB LT/T C D NB RT C C NB APPROACH C C SB LT C C SB T/RT C C SB APPROACH C C OVERALL B B 26 N WCR26 N v 0 � U m c Long LifeBridge View ( PUD fr m Z "m LL \ 800 [41/4 SH119fre 875' NCI r 11 -i _yam y (EXIs� - Denotes Lane Lane Lengths Include Taper SHORT RANGE (2010) GEOMETRY Figure 16 27 Table 6 shows the peak hour operation at the key intersections using the short range (2010) total peak hour traffic (Figure 13) . Based upon the short range traffic volumes, it is expected that all of the key intersections will operate acceptably. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. Long Range Background Traffic Traffic volumes presented on Figure 11 were used to evaluate the long range (2020) background future traffic operation at the key intersections. Peak hour signal warrants are expected to be met in the long range future at the County Line Road/WCR26 intersection. Peak hour signal warrant analyses are provided in Appendix C. Table 7 presents the calculated levels of service at the key intersections in the long range (2020) future. Acceptable operation is defined as level of service "D" overall at signalized and unsignalized intersections. As shown on Table 7, acceptable operation can be expected for the long range (2020) future at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix F. Long Range Total Traffic — " Traffic volumes presented on Figure 14 were used to evaluate the long range (2020) total future traffic operations at the key intersections. Figure 17 shows the long range (2020) approach geometry at the key intersections. Dimensions of the auxiliary lanes at the key intersections are not shown in this graphic. It is more appropriate to deal with design conditions later in the development review process. Clearly, adequate auxiliary lanes can be built given the distances between intersections. The cross section of WCR26 should provide one travel lane in each direction and bike lanes. WCR26 should have left- turn lanes at all street/street intersections. Right-turn lanes will be necessary at the WCR26/Fairview and WCR26/WCR3%1 intersections. In addition, WCR3;2 and Fairview should provide for one travel lane in each direction and bike lanes. A center painted median lane would provide for northbound and southbound left turns at all existing accesses along these streets. All intersections along WCR3%2 and Fairview should allow full movements with stop sign control on the minor (east/west) streets. As stated earlier, the functional distance (available for storage and deceleration) between SHll9 and the south access to Long View is 340 feet. It is recommended that this area be widened and striped to have side-by-side left-turn lanes. The forecasted southbound left-turn volume exceeds 300 vehicles in the afternoon peak hour. Table B shows the peak hour operation at the key intersections using the long range (2020) total peak hour traffic (Figure 14) . It is expected that the key intersections will operate acceptably with the geometry shown in Figure 17 . Calculation forms are provided in Appendix G. The forecasted volumes on SH119 indicate that three through lanes 28 TABLE 6 Short Range (2010) Total Peak Hour Operation ` on Mop ement Level of Service County Line RoadNVCR26 WB LT/RT B B (stop sign) SB LT A B EB LT C B EBT� B C EBRT A A EB APPROACH B C WB LT A _ B WBT -- WB RT A A SH119/Fairview VVB APPROACH C C (signal) NB LT NB T/RT NB APPROACH SB LT C C SB T/RT C C SB APPROACH OVERALL EB LT EBT EB RT EB APPROACH C B WB LT _ B A WBT SH119/WCR3'/2 WB RT B_ B (signal) WB APPROACH C C ` NB LT/T D C NB RT C B NB APPROACH SB LT C C SB T/RT C C _ SB APPROACH C C OVERALL 29 TABLE 7 Long Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation vs! of service Movement l PM WBLT C C WB RT B B WB APPROACH C B — — NB T B B County Line Road/WCR26 NB RT A A (signal) NB APPROACH B B - SB LT B C ----- - SB T B B -- SB APPROACH B B - OVERALL B B EB LT D C EB T ----- --- A C _ EB RT A _ A EB APPROACH A C WBLT A C -- WB T C_ D SH119/Fairview WB RT A A ___ (signal) (Dual NB & SB LT Lanes; 2 EB & WB APPROACH - C D — "' WB Through Lanes) NB LT D E NB T/RT D D NB APPROACH D E — SB LT D E SB T/RT D D SB APPROACH D E - OVERALL. C D EB LT B C EB T C B - EB RT A A EB APPROACH C B WB LT B A WBT C B SH119/Fairview (signal) WB RT A B (Single NB'& SB LT Lanes; 3 EB WB APPROACH C a &WB Through Lanes) NB LT/T D C NB RT D C NB APPROACH D C — SB LT D C SB T/RT C C SB APPROACH D C OVERALL C B Continued on next page 30 — Continued from previous page -- TABLE 7 Long Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation ri.,'. LAN`of lr+i�eibrt •::':';k- +ement. EB LT C D — — EBT A D EB RT A A _ EB APPROACH A D WB LT_— — B D WBT D C SH119/WCR3'/z _- WB RT A A (signal) WB APPROACH C C (Dual NB LT Lanes; 2 EB&WB NB LT D D — Through Lanes) NB T - D C -_ NBRT C C NB APPROACH D D SB LT D C SB T D D SB RT C C SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C D EB LT B C EBT B B - ^ EB RT A A EB APPROACH B B WBLT B D WB T B C SH 119/V1/CR3'/� WB RT A A (signal) WB APPROACH B C (Single NB & SB LT Lanes; 3 EB __ NB LT C D & WB Through Lanes) NB T C C NB RT C C NB APPROACH C — D S B LT C C SBT C D SB RT C C SB APPROACH ' C _ C OVERALL B C NB LT B B WCR26/Fairview NB RT A B (stop sign) NB APPROACH B B — WBLT A A NB LT C B WCR26/Fairview NB RT A B (stop sign) NB APPROACH B B -- WB LT A ----_—__-- A ----- 31 S N a. Lec1/4 re WCR26 PROVIDE LEFT-TURN LANES AT ALL r� fr INTERSECTIONS m C -' O To Long L1/4 LifeBridge _ View PUD L1/4 -.all SH119 qtr = r + - Denotes Lane LONG RANGE (2020) GEOMETRY Figure 17 32 — TABLE 8 Long Range(2020)Total Peak Hour Operation _ intersection Movement Level of Servroe. WB LT C C WB RT B C _ WB APPROACH C C NBT B B County Line Road/WCR26 NB RT A A (signal) NB APPROACH B B SB LT D D _ SBT A A SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C C EB LT D F EBT A E EB RT A A EB APPROACH A F WB LT A C WBT D F - SH119/Fairview WB RT A A (signal) WB APPROACH D F (Dual NB&SB LT Lanes; 2 EB& NB LT D E WB Through Lanes) NBT D D ...• .....•.. NB RT C D NB APPROACH D E SB LT D E - SBT D D SB RT C D SB APPROACH D E OVERALL C F EB LT D C EBT B C EB RT A A EB APPROACH B C WB LT B C WBT C D SH119/Fairview WB RT A A (signal) WB APPROACH B C (Single NB& SB LT Lanes; 3 EB NB LT C D &WB Through Lanes) NBT C C NB RT C C — NB APPROACH C C SB LT C D SBT C C SB RT C C SB APPROACH C D _ OVERALL B C Continued on next page - 33 — Continued from previous page TABLE 8 Long Range (2020)Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement AM PM EB LT F F :BB;T A A EB APPROACH F F WB LT B D WBT D D — SH119/WCR3% WB RT A B (signal) WB APPROACH C C (Dual NB &SB& EB LT Lanes; 2 NB LT 0 D — EB& B Through Lanes) NB T D C W NB RT C C NB APPROACH D D ,_ SB LT F F SBT D D SB RT D D _, SB APPROACH E F OVERALL E F EB LT D D EBT B B _ EB RT A A EB APPROACH C C WB LT B C WBT D C %z WB RT B B SH119NVCR3 WB APPROACH D C - (signal) (Dual NB&SB& EB LT Lanes; 3 NB LT D D EB&WB Through Lanes) NB T C D NB RT C D NB APPROACH D D SB LT 0 D SBT C D SB RT C C SB APPROACH D D - OVERALL C C NB LT B C WCR26/Fairview NB RT B B (stop sign) NB APPROACH B C WB LT A A NB LT C C WCR26/Fairview NB RT A B (stop sign) NB APPROACH B C WB LT A B 34 should be considered by the year 2020. These lanes are needed to achieve acceptable operation at the SH119/Fairview and SH119/WCR311 intersections. Long Range Traffic (2020+) The full build-out of The LifeBridge PUD will occur after the typical transportation planning horizon. Therefore, link volumes were developed for the key street segments as shown in Figure 15. Detailed intersection analyses were not performed, since the planning horizon is beyond 20 years. 35 V. CONCLUSIONS The following summarizes the significant findings as a result of this study: Phase 1 of the proposed LifeBridge PUD mixed-use development will generate 562 morning peak hour trip ends, 791 afternoon peak hour trip ends, and 6992 trip ends per day. At an intermediate level of development, the proposed LifeBridge PUD will generate 1322 morning peak hour trip ends, 2234 afternoon peak hour trip ends, and 23,744 trip ends per day. At full build-out, The LifeBridge PUD will generate 1730 morning peak hour trip ends, 2718 afternoon peak hour trip ends, and 28, 132 trip ends per day. Using the short range (2010) background peak hour traffic, peak hour signal warrants are likely to be met at the SH119/Fairview intersection. - - In the short range future with the background peak hour traffic forecasts, the key intersections will operate acceptably. - In the short range future with the total peak hour traffic forecasts, the key intersections will operate acceptably. The short range geometry is shown in Figure 16. - In the long range future (2020) with an intermediate level of development of The LifeBridge PUD as considered herein, the key intersections will operate acceptably. The long range (2020) geometry is shown in Figure 17. - The actual development may be more or less than that shown in this report in any given phase or subphase. The level of improvements to the street/road network will be tied to that specific level of development. These will be determined in subsequent traffic impact study addenda. 36 APPENDIX A MATTHEW J.DELICH,P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND,CO 80538 Phone: (970)669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 3.28.02 Observer: Michael Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Longmont R=right turnIntersection: WCRIIWCR26 S=straight L=left turn Time Northbound: WCR1 Southbound: WCR1 Total Eastbound: Westbound: WCR26 Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total north/south L S R Total L S R Total east!west All 7:15 - 68 0 68 1 129 130 198 0 0 1 1 1 199 7:30 63 0 63 0 152 152 215 0 1 2 3 3 218 7:45 84 0 84 1 138 139 223 0 1 3 4 4 227 8:00 77 1 78 3 122 125 203 0 0 2 2 2 205 8:15 90 0 90 4 92 96 186 0 0 2 2 2 188 8:30 82 0 82 1 97 98 180 0 0 1 1 1 181 7:15.8:15 0 12921 1 293 5 1 541 1 0 546 839 10 I 0 I 0 0 2 1 0 1 8 10 10 I 849 PHF 0.87 0.9 nla 0.63 4:15 122 0 122 2 82 84 206 0 1 5 6 6 212 4:30 124 1 125 3 99 102 227 0 0 4 4 4 231 4:45 133 1 134 6 107 113 247 0 1 3 4 4 251 5:00 139 1 140 3 115 118 258 0 1 3 4 4 262 5:15 125 0 125 3 103 106 231 0 0 2 2 2 233 5:30 128 1 129 2 95 97 226 0 0 2 2 2 228 4:30.5:30 0 15211 3 524 15 1424 1 0 439 963 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 112 14 14 I 977 PHF 0.94 0.93 nla 0.88 ) ) 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) ) ) MATTHEW J.DELICH,P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND,CO 80538 Phone: (970)669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 11.28.01 Observer: Michael Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Longmont R=right turn Intersection: SH119/FairviewlDriveway S=straight L=left turn Time Northbound: Driveway Southbound: Fairview Total Eastbound: SH119 Westbound: SH119 Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total northlsouth L S R Total L S R Total eastlwest All 7:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 4 15 211 0 226 0 271 8 279 505 509 7:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 8 8 21 230 1 252 0 295 6 301 553 561 7:45 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 14 207 0 221 0 317 7 324 545 548 8:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 11 11 15 229 1 245 0 385 8 393 638 649 8:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 12 207 0 219 0 411 11 422 641 642 LA 8:30 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 12 198 0 210 0 376 8 384 594 597 7:45-8:45 2 1 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 1 13 16 18 1 53 1841 1 1 895 0 114891 34 1523 2418 1 2436 PHF 0.5 0.36 0.91 0.9 4:15 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 17 17 8 301 0 309 0 199 2 201 510 527 4:30 0 0 1 1 5 0 6 11 12 12 310 0 322 0 226 4 230 552 564 4:45 1 0 0 1 11 0 29 40 41 5 311 0 316 0 294 7 301 617 658 5:00 0 0 0 0 15 0 32 47 47 5 288 0 293 1 321 6 328 621 668 5:15 0 0 0 0 7 0 16 23 23 6 268 1 275 0 303 3 306 581 604 5:30 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 13 13 4 275 0 279 0 266 2 268 547 560 4:30.5:30 1 ( 0 1 1 2 38 .1 0 183 121 123 1 28 11177( 1 1206 1 111441 20 1165 2371 1 2494 PHF 0.5 0.64 0.94 0.89 MATTHEW J.DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND,CO 80538 Phone: (970)669-2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 3-12-02 Observer: Michael Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Longmont R=right turnIntersection: SH 119NVCR 3 112 S=straight L=left turn Time Northbound: WCR 31/2 Southbound: WCR 3112 Total Eastbound: SH 119 Westbound: SH 119 Total Total Begins L S R Total L S R Total northlsouth L S R Total L S R Total eastlwest All 7:15 2 0 0 2 8 0 24 32 34 3 219 5 227 0 285 3 288 515 549 7:30 5 0 0 5 11 0 22 33 38 5 233 4 242 2 291 3 296 538 576 7:45 4 0 0 4 6 0 37 43 47 6 205 18 229 0 299 5 304 533 580 8:00 5 0 0 5 10 0 36 46 51 3 191 14 208 4 371 4 379 587 638 8:15 6 1 0 7 9 1 29 39 46 5 176 15 196 5 284 5 294 490 536 8:30 4 1 1 6 7 0 25 32 38 3 174 13 190 3 279 4 286 476 514 7:15.8:15 16 I 0 I 0 16 35 I 0 1119 154 170 117 1848141 906 6 11246115 1267 2173 1 2343 PHF 0.8 0.84 0.94 0.84 4:15 9 0 3 12 5 0 7 12 24 13 285 4 302 0 222 6 228 530 554 4:30 12 0 2 14 8 0 7 15 29 17 302 7 326 0 240 9 249 575 604 4:45 11 0 4 15 4 1 10 15 30 22 280 6 308 1 233 9 243 551 581 5:00 22 1 4 27 0 0 7 7 34 31 351 3 385 0 261 6 267 652 686 5:15 17 0 3 20 3 0 6 9 29 28 332 2 362 1 292 8 301 663 692 5:30 15 0 3 18 1 0 6 7 25 25 307 1 333 0 275 7 282 615 640 4:45-5:45 65 1 1 1 14 80 8 I I 129 38 118 .1106 112701 12 1388 2 110611 30 1093 2481 I 2599 PHF 0.74 0.63 0.9 0.91 1 i t i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i APPENDIX B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. — Date Performed: 327/02 Analysis Time Period: a pm Intersection: ounty Line Road/WCR26 Jurisdiction: Longmont — Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: recent short bkgrd total Project ID: 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 North/South Street: County Line Road (WCR1) Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R _ Volume 292 1 5 541 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 335 1 5 601 _ Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 — Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound — Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 2 8 —' Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 - Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Storage 1 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 _ Lane Config LT I LR I v (vph) 5 11 C(m) (vph) 1223 995 — v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.03 Control Delay 8.0 8.7 LOS A A — Approach Delay 8.7 Approach LOS A ., HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b _ Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. C, HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b — TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY —Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. P-re Performed: 3/27/02 lysis Time Period: am m _. Intersection: Coun y Line Road/WCR26 Jurisdiction: Longmont Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: recen short bkgrd total — Project ID: 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 North/South Street: County Line Road (WCR1) Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 — L T R I L T R Volume 521 3 15 424 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 _ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 554 3 16 455 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided _ RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R ume 2 12 reak Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 13 -- Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Yes — Storage 1 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound _ Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT I LR I v (vph) 16 15 — C(m) (vph) 1014 781 v/c 0.02 0.02 95% queue length 0.05 0.06 — Control Delay 8.6 9.7 LOS A A Approach Delay 9.7 Approach LOS A — HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. - Date Performed: 3.27/02 Analysis Time Period: `amm pm Intersection: SH119/Fairview ^ Jurisdiction: Longmont - Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: recent' short bkgrd total Project ID: 0171 East/West Street: SH119 North/South Street: Fairview Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R _ Volume 53 872 1 0 1418 34 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 58 958 1 0 1575 37 _ Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type TWLTL RT Channelized? No No Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 — Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound — Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 2 0 0 3 0 13 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 0 3 0 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 3 Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Storage 1 _ RT Channelized? No Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 — Lane Config L L I LTR I LT R v (vph) 58 0 2 3 15 C(m) (vph) 401 713 805 110 334 — v/c 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 95% queue length 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.14 Control Delay 15.5 10.0+ 9.5 38.6 16.3 LOS C B A E C — Approach Delay 9.5 20.0 Approach LOS A C HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b _ Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 't - HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b — TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY _Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. a—te Performed: 3/27,42 . lysis Time Period: am -- Intersection: SH119/Fairview Jurisdiction: Longmont Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: ecent short bkgrd total —. Project ID: 0171 East/West Street: SH119 North/South Street: Fairview Street Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 28 1263 1 1 1139 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 _ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 29 1343 1 1 1279 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type TWLTL — RT Channelized? No No Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R — ^.ume 1 0 1 38 0 83 teak Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 1 44 0 97 — Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 3 Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Storage 1 RT Channelized? No Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R — Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound - Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I LTR I LT R _ v (vph) 29 1 2 44 97 C(m) (vph) 528 509 676 162 418 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.23 95% queue length 0.17 0.01 0.01 1.04 0.89 _ Control Delay 12.2 12.1 10.3 35.3 16.2 LOS B B B E C Approach Delay 10.3 22.2 Approach LOS B C - HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. i Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/WCR3 1/2 _ Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Lo .wont Period: pm Year ecent short bkgrd total Project : 0171 _ E/W St: SH119 N/S St: WCR3 1/2 ZIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound - IL TR L T R LTRILTR I I I No. Lanes I 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 I 1 1 0 LGConfig I L T R L T R LT R I L TR - Volume 117 817 41 6 1317 15 16 0 0 135 0 119 I Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0. 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 RTOR Vol I 0 0 0 I 0 1 - Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X _ WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X _ NB Right A EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 6.0 60.0 24.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 - All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 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 219 1770 0.08 0. 66 11.8 B T 2123 3539 0.41 0. 60 11.2 B 11.1 B R 950 1583 0.05 0.60 8.3 A Westbound - L 412 1770 0.02 0.66 6.8 A T 2123 3539 0.73 0.60 16.5 B 16.3 B R 950 1583 0.02 0.60 8.1 A _ Northbound LT 341 1421 0.06 0.24 29.3 C 29.3 C R 554 1583 0.00 0.35 21.1 C _ Southbound L 333 1388 0.12 0.24 29. 9 C TR 380 1583 0.37 0.24 32.3 C 31.8 C Intersection Delay = 15.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B 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 /0 - Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/WCR3 1/2 Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Lon. ont - Period: am Year ecen short bkgrd total Project ID:'-Q171 u-44J St: SH119 N/S St: WCR3 1/2 - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R -- No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 LGConfig L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume 106 1184 12 2 1066 30 65 1 14 8 1 29 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - RTOR Vol 0 0 0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations — Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A - Peds X Peds X WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A — Peds X Peds X NB Right A EB Right SB Right WB Right _ Green 6.0 60.0 24.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs — „� Intersection Performance Summary )r/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 309 1770 0.38 0.66 9.9 A T 2123 3539 0.62 0.60 14.1 B 13.7 B - R 950 1583 0.01 0.60 8.1 A Westbound L 270 1770 0.01 0.66 8.9 A T 2123 3539 0.55 0.60 13.0 B 12. 9 B - R 950 1583 0.03 0.60 8.2 A Northbound LT 316 1317 0.24 0.24 31.1 C 29.4 C - R 554 1583 0.03 0.35 21.4 C Southbound L 295 1229 0.03 0.24 29.1 C TR 382 1591 0.09 0.24 29.6 C 29.5 C - Intersection Delay = 14 .1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich — Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive j,,Qveland, CO 80538 — _.,one: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS - I/ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec./web A < 10 _ B > l0 and≤ 15 C > 15 and<25 25 D >25and< 35 _ S > 35 and< 50 F > 50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay _ sedveh A < l0 B > l0andc20 _ C >20and<35 D > 35and<55 & >55and<80 — F >80 12 APPENDIX C ' 5 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) a > /2 OR MORE LANES Et 2 OR TORE LANES 400 �u Q 2 OR MORE LANES Et 1 LANE CC l 300 o°� 1 LANE Er 1 LANE 0w 200 z g Rut WSZT-130 VP1 p 100PM Sg1T GS VPH = 300 4OO 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 AM MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH Air- ISVnt S $GT-lO VP4 "NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Ark _2845 VP!4 - PM - 3oso VPtf )Stf IN/FA cc) -- g6i-02t gAiuC;6 age Kg ex)/01) l?I I ,e uARP - I I 1 I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) ) PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR AB 40 MPH MAJOR STREET) n. = 400 /2 OR MORE LANES Et 2 OR MORE LANES Lw Q ,/ 2 OR MORE LANES Si (LANE CC cc 300 ! 200 1LANEEt1LANE cc r Mt idea-io i 7 z p 100 -- - — — * I *_ _ C E 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 PMw6Ct- 7O MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH "NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 4i4 ' r?(' () J it1 - 1 7% (i ---"--2 Couu7Y 1. US G�CR ZC LQAxt QAu6g6ino) 6AKG'2 cou,uD P6-4;w_ 02_ Itlqr-p« APPENDIX D HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4. 1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. ate Performed: 3127/02 ilysis Time Period: ��amm)pm — intersection: ounty Line Road/WCR26 Jurisdiction: Longmont Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: recent shor bkgrd total — Project ID: 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 North/South Street: County Line Road (WCR1) Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 — L T R I L T R Volume 345 5 5 635 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 — Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 396 5 5 705 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Lume 5 10 teak Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Storage 1 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound — Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LT I LR _ v (vph) 5 16 C(m) (vph) 1158 882 v/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 Control Delay 8.1 9.2 LOS A A Approach Delay 9.2 Approach LOS • A HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. � 7 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. — Date Performed: 3/2-&1_132 Analysis Time Period: am m Intersection: Coun y Line Road/WCR26 Jurisdiction: Longmont Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: recent .hort ,.kgr. total Project ID: 0171 _ East/West Street: WCR26 North/South Street: County Line Road (WCR1) Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R _ lume 610 5 15 500 ak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 :-sourly Flow Rate, HFR 648 5 16 537 — Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 0 1 — Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound — Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 5 15 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 17 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 _ Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Storage 1 _ RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 — Lane Config LT I LR I v (vph) 16 22 C(m) (vph) 934 665 — v/c 0.02 0.03 95% queue length 0.05 0.10 Control Delay 8.9 10.6 LOS A B — Approach Delay 10.6 Approach LOS B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b _ Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 1 % - Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/Fairview — Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Longmont Period: (2pm Year : recent shore bkgr. total — Project 1 0171 E/W St: SH119 N/S St: Fairview Street SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY — Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 — LGConfig L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume 115 1025 80 30 1525 70 15 1 10 10 1 25 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vol 0 0 0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X _ NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 8.0 60.0 22.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 — All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary - 6Qpr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach ie Group Flow Rate ,--P Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS - Eastbound L 251 1770 0.50 0. 68 18.4 B T 2123 3539 0.53 0. 60 12.7 B 13.0 B R 950 1583 0.09 0.60 8.7 A - Westbound L 357 1770 0.09 0.68 7.4 A T 2123 3539 0.80 0.60 18.6 B 17.9 B R 950 1583 0.08 0.60 8.6 A - Northbound L 302 1374 0.06 0.22 30.9 C TR 353 1605 0.04 0.22 30.7 C 30.8 C - Southbound L 307 1395 0.04 0.22 30.7 C TR 350 1593 0.09 0.22 31.1 C 31.0 C - Intersection Delay = 16.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b — Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. — 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 ----me: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 — _flail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS " Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/Fairview — Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Longmont Period: a app Year : recent short .kgr. total Project ID. •171 - E/W St: SH119 N/S St: Fairview Street ^ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 I — LGConfig L T R L T R L TR L TR I Volume 45 1440 60 30 1445 30 130 1 100 65 1 130 I Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vol 0 0 0 0 I _ Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ ES Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 8.0 58.0 24 .0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 — All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 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 251 1770 0.19 0.66 14 .5 B T 2053 3539 0.75 0.58 18.1 8 17.6 B R 918 1583 0.07 0.58 9.3 A _ Westbound L 251 1770 0.14 0.66 12.6 B T 2053 3539 0.79 0.56 19.5 B 19.2 B R 918 1583 0.04 0.58 9.1 A _ Northbound L 269 1120 0.57 0.24 36.3 D TR 381 1586 0.31 0.24 31.7 C 34.3 C Southbound L 300 1248 0.25 0.24 31.2 C TR 380 1585 0.41 0.24 32.7 C 32.2 C Intersection Delay = 20.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C 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 2O - — Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/WCR3 1/2 Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Longmont _ Period: am pm Year : recent short bkgrd total Project 0171 pW St: SH119 N/S St: WCR3 1/2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound I Northbound I Southbound L T R LTRILTRILTR I I — No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 I 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 I LGConfig L T R L T R I LT R I L TR Volume 20 915 110 110 1480 15 125 1 25 135 1 120 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 I 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 I - RTOR Vol 0 0 I 0 I 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations — Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A - Peds X Peds X WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A — Peds X Peds X NB Right A EB Right SB Right WB Right _ Green 6.0 60.0 24.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs — Intersection Performance Summary )r/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 216 1770 0.10 0.66 15.1 B T 2123 3539 0.46 0.60 11.7 B 11.5 B - R 950 1583 0.12 0.60 8.9 A Westbound L 373 1770 0.35 0.66 8.4 A T 2123 3539 0.82 0.60 19.4 B 18.6 B - R 950 1583 0.02 0.60 8.1 A Northbound LT 326 1358 0.09 0.24 29.7 C 25.7 C - R 554 1583 0.05 0.35 21. 6 C Southbound L 330 1374 0.12 0.24 29.9 C TR 380 1585 0.37 0.24 32.3 C 31.8 C - Intersection Delay = 17.0 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich - Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive llioveland, CO 80538 — ...one: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS - 2. I . Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/WCR3 1/2 — Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11 Jurisd: Longmont Period: am pm Year : recent hor 6)Tcgrd otal Project ID. 71 _ E/W St: SH119 N/S St: WCR3 1/2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY _ Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R L T R I L T R I 1 No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 I 1 1 0 I _ LGConfig L T R L T R LT R I L TR I Volume 105 1420 80 80 1275 30 200 1 200 110 1 30 I Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 I RTOR Vol 0 0 0 1 0 1 _ Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — NB Right A EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 6.0 58.0 26.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 — All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 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 238 1770 0.49 0.64 14.9 B T 2053 3539 0.77 0.58 18.8 B 18.0 B R 918 1583 0.10 0.58 9.6 A — Westbound L 216 1770 0.41 0.64 16.6 B T 2053 3539 0.68 0.58 16.5 B 16.3 B R 918 1583 0.04 0.58 9.1 A — Northbound LT 339 1305 0.70 0.26 39.6 D 31.7 C R 586 1583 0.40 0.37 23.8 C - Southbound L 182 699 0.07 0.26 28.0 C TR 414 1591 0.09 0.26 28.1 C 28.1 C Intersection Delay = 19.2 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B 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 ZZ - APPENDIX E 23 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. - Date Performed: 27/02 Analysis Time Period: am pm Intersection: ounty Line Road/WCR26 Jurisdiction: Longmont - Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: recent I ) bkgrd total Project ID: 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 _ North/South Street: County Line Road (WCR1) Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R _ Volume 345 30 175 635 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 396 34 194 705 _ Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 0 1 1 _ Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound — Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 25 35 — Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 29 41 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 — Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Yes Storage 1 _ RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 _ Lane Config L I LR I v (vph) 194 70 C(m) (vph) 1129 749 — v/c 0.17 0.09 95% queue length 0.62 0.31 Control Delay 8.8 , 10.3 LOS A B — Approach Delay 10.3 Approach LOS B HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 4 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4. 1b — TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY _ Analyst: Michael Agency/Co. : Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Pate Performed: 3/27402 lysis Time Period: am _ intersection: County Line Road/WCR26 Jurisdiction: Longmont Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: recent short bkgrd tots — Project ID: 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 North/South Street: County Line Road (WCR1) Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 — L T R I L T R Volume 610 40 180 500 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 — Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 648 42 193 537 Percent Heavy Vehicles -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? — Lanes 1 0 1 1 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R — —,.ume 25 85 L.:ak Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 96 - Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Yes — Storage 1 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound — Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L I LR I v (vph) 193 124 — C(m) (vph) 905 551 v/c 0.21 0.23 95% queue length 0.81 0.86 — Control Delay 10.1 13.4 LOS B B Approach Delay 13.4 Approach LOS B — HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1b Matthew J. Delich Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2: < n..o.:..�v: .;may.. - - •. __. -..__ _'_-. _ Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/Fairview — Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Longmont Period: am pm Year : recent shor bkgr.0 Project 0171 E/W St: SH119 N/S St: Fairview Street ....- SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound — L T R L T R L T R L T R I No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 I ._LGConfig L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume 115 1170 80 30 1705 70 15 1 10 10 1 25 I Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 I RTOR Vol 0 0 0 0 I — Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 8.0 60.0 22.0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 — All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 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 251 1770 0.50 0.68 21.5 C T 2123 3539 0.61 0.60 13.9 B 14.2 B R 950 1583 0.09 0.60 8.7 A _ Westbound L 313 1770 0.11 0.68 8.5 A T 2123 3539 0.89 0.60 23.4 C 22.6 C R 950 1583 0.08 0.60 8.6 A _ Northbound L 302 1374 0.06 0.22 30.9 C TR 353 1605 0.04 0.22 30.7 C 30.8 C - Southbound L 307 1395 0.04 0.22 30.7 C TR . 350 1593' 0.09 0.22 31.1 C 31.0 C Intersection Delay = 19.3 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B 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 Z (D - Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/Fairview Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11L02 Jurisd: Longmont ,_ Period: am Year : recent _hor: bkgrd otal Project ID: 0171 F.aW St: SH119 N/S St: Fairview Street — SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I L T R L T R L T R L T R I -- No. Lanes I 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 LGConfig I L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume 145 1610 60 30 1545 30 130 1 100 65 1 130 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - RTOR Vol I 0 0 0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations —' Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A — Peds X Peds X WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A — Peds X Peds X NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right _ Green 8.0 58.0 24 .0 Yellow 0.0 3.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs — _ Intersection Performance Summary )r/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach uane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 251 1770 0.19 0.66 16.5 B T 2053 3539 0.83 0.58 21.3 C 20.7 C - R 918 1583 0.07 0.58 9.3 A Westbound L 251 1770 0.14 0.66 15.6 B T 2053 3539 0.85 0.58 21.8 C 21.5 C - R 918 1583 0.04 0.58 9.1 A Northbound L 269 1120 0.57 0.24 36.3 D TR 381 1586 0.31 0.24 31.7 C 34.3 C — Southbound L 300 1248 0.25 0.24 31.2 C TR 380 1585 0.41 0.24 32.7 C 32.2 C - Intersection Delay = 22.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 .1b Matthew J. Delich — Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 — _ _.one: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS — z7 Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/WCR3 1/2 - Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Longmont Period: am pm Year : recent shor bkgrd total Project D: 0171 - E/W St: SH119 N/S St: WCR3 1/2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound I - L T R L T R L T R L T R I No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 LGConfig L T R L T R LT R L TR _ Volume 165 915 110 110 1480 70 25 1 25 70 1 195 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RTOR Vol 0 0 0 0 I _ Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ EB Left A P NB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X _ WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A Peds X Peds X — NB Right A EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 8.0 53.0 26.0 Yellow 3.0 3.0 3.0 — All Red 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 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 252 1770 0.70 0.64 33.7 C T 1876 3539 0.52 0.53 16.3 B 18.3 B R 839 1583 0.14 0.53 12.3 B _ Westbound L 371 1770 0.35 0.64 9.8 A T 1876 3539 0.93 0.53 31.3 C 29.1 C R 839 1583 0.10 0.53 11.9 B _ Northbound LT 337 1296 0.09 0.26 28.1 C 23. 6 C R 617 1583 0.05 0.39 19.0 B _ Southbound L 357 1374 0.23 0.26 29.4 C TR 412 1585 0.56 0.26 33.7 C 32.6 C Intersection Delay = 25.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C 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 zg - n..a..� ,- ..may.. .. ._.. .. _ . " — Analyst: Michael Inter. : SH119/WCR3 1/2 Agency: Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type: All other areas Date: 4/11/02 Jurisd: Longmont — Period: am,lSm/ Year : recent6hor� bkgrd total Project ID: 171 Ed.W St: SH119 N/S St: WCR3 1/2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R I — No. Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 LGConfig L T R L T R LT R L TR Volume 275 1420 80 80 1275 95 200 1 200 50 1 130 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - RTOR Vol 0 0 0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations — Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A A P NB Left A Thru A P Thru A Right A P Right A Peds X Peds X WB Left A P SB Left A Thru P Thru A Right P Right A — Peds X Peds X NB Right A EB Right SB Right WB Right — Green 8.0 4.0 48.0 27.0 Yellow 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Cycle Length: 100.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary :r/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach .....me Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 376 1770 0.81 0.63 40.7 D T 1840 3539 0.86 0.52 25.1 C 26.9 C - R 823 1583 0.11 0.52 12.3 B Westbound L 304 1770 0.29 0.56 15.8 B T 1699 3539 0.82 0.48 27.1 C 25.7 C - R 760 1583 0.14 0.48 14 .8 B Northbound LT 290 1074 0.81 0.27 50.3 D 35.9 D - R 633 1583 0.37 0.40 21.5 C Southbound L 196 725 0.30 0.27 29. 9 C TR 428 1585 0.36 0.27 30.0 C 30.0 C - Intersection Delay = 27.6 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C — HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4 .1b Matthew J. Delich — Matthew J. Delich, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 — .one: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 E-Mail: mdelich@frii.com OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS z7 APPENDIX F 30 Short Report r agc i us , ._ SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information — Analyst Michael Intersection County Line Rd./WCR26 — Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Longm.at Time Period Opm Analysis Year sho o r j.k. . otal Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 Lane group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 105 240 420 40 125 775 — % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 — Unit Extension 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 10 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N N N 0 N NH) N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ Unit Extension 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 G = 34.0 G = G = G = G = 6.0 G = 50.0 G = G = — liming Y = 5 Y = Y= Y= Y = 0 Y = 5 Y= Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs)= 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 117 267 467 44 139 861 Lane group cap. 602 712 1770 1409 503 1982 v/c ratio 0.19 0.38 0.26 0.03 0.28 0.43 - Green ratio 0.34 0.45 0.50 0.89 0.56 0.56 Unit delay dl 213 18.2 14.4 0.6 10.9 12.8 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 - Increm. delay d2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 - Control delay 23.5 18.5 14.5 0.6 11.2 12.9 Lane group LOS C B B A B B Apprch. delay 20.0+ 113 12.7 — Approach LOS C B B Intersec.delay 14.3 Intersection LOS B ticsz000rm Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P"%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 3( Short Report ragc , SHORT REPORT _ General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection County LineRd.NVCR26 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas _ Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Longmont Time Period an Analysis Year sho o •. • gr• otal Volume and Timing Input — EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 — Lane group L R T R L T Volume(vph) 70 195 745 120 280 605 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 — PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 — Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N NN ONNO N N 0 N — Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ — Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only NS Perm 07 08 G = 32.0 G = G = G = G = 8.0 G = 50.0 G = G = Timing Y = 5 Y = Y = Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = — Duration of Analysis.(hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 78 217 828 133 311 672 Lane group cap. 566 712 1770 1377 380 2053 - v/c ratio 0.14 0.30 0.47 0.10 0.82 0.33 Green ratio 0.32 0.45 0.50 0.87 0.58 0.58 _ Unif. delay dl 24.2 17.5 16.3 0.9 13.2 10.9 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.11 Increm. delay d2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 13.2 0.1 - PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 24.3 17.8 16.5 1.0 26.4 11.0 - Lane group LOS C B B A C B Apprch. delay 19.5 14.4 15.9 Approach LOS B B B Intersec. delay 15.7 Intersection LOS B imsz000m" Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 32- Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Longmont Time Period arm Analysis Year sho on• .kgr• otal Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 Lane group LT R LT R L TR L TR _ Volume (vph) 190 1290 170 85 1925 330 60 1 15 60 1 40 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A P PA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 r 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 10 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN ONNO NNON Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ _ Unit Extension 10 10 10 10 10 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left Thr &&RT r 07 r 08 G = 6.0 G = 4.0 G = 60.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 14.0 G = G = — Timing Y = 0 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 _ Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 209 1418 187 94 2139 367 67 18 67 45 Lane group cap. 286 2265 1187 372 2123 1124 206 224 206 223 v/c ratio 0.73 0.63 0.16 0.25 1.01 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.33 0.20 - Green ratio 0.70 0.64 0.75 0.66 0.60 0.71 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.14 Unif. delay d1 29.2 10.8 15 6.2 20.0 5.5 45.1 37.4 451 38.1 Delay factor k 0.29 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 all 0.11 all Increm. delay d2 9.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 21.4 0.2 0.9 0.2 a9 a4 PF factor 1.000 0.469 1.000 1.000 0.575 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 38.4 56 3.6 6.6 32.9 5.6 46.0 37.6 46.0 38.5 Lane group LOS DA A A C A DD D D _ Apprch.delay 9.2 28.1 44.2 43.0 Approach LOS A C D D Intersec. delay 21.3 Intersection LOS C HCS2000rm Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b _ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 33 Short Report SHORT REPORT _ General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction L. gmont Time Period a .CP Analysis Year sho •n• •kg • total Volume and Timing Input — EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 _ Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume (vph) 60 1810 120 85 1845 95 240 1 180 335 1 220 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 — PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) APP APPA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 _ Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 10 10 10 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN ONNO NNON _ Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 4,3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 — — Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru & RT 08 G = 6.0 G = 61.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 10.0 G = 3.0 G = 20.0 G = 0.0 Timing Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = 0 Y= Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 ycle Length,C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB - Adj. flow rate 64 1926 128 94 2050 106 267 201 372 245 Lane group cap. 197 1963 1094 197 1963 1137 312 288 406 331 _ v/c ratio 0.32 0.98 0.12 0.48 1.04 0.09 0.86 0.70 0.92 0.74 Green ratio 0.61 a55 0.69 0.61 0.55 0.72 0.09 0.18 0.12 a21 Unif. delay d1 23.0 23.9 5.7 214 24.5 4.7 49.3 42.2 48.0 40.7 Delay factor k 0.11 0.50 0.11 all 0.50 0.11 0.39 0.26 0.43 0.30 Increm.delay d2 1.0 16.3 0.0 1.8 310 0.0 20.2 7.2 25.3 8.6 - PF factor 1.000 0.673 1.000 1.000 0.673 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 23.9 32.4 5.8 25.2 49.5 4.7 69.5 49.4 73.2 49.3 _ Lane group LOS CCACD A E D E D Apprch. delay 30.6 46.4 60.9 63.7 Approach LOS C D E E Intersec. delay 43.4 Intersection LOS D XCS2000T M Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P"/o20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/29/2002 -7721- Snort Report SHORT REPORT _ General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview — Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11102 Jurisdiction Longm•. Time Period am pm Analysis Year sho 4.I.kgr• otal — Volume and Timing Input EB WB NIB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT — Num. of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR I.. TR Volume (vph) 60 1810 120 85 1845 95 240 , 1 180 335 1 220 _ % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A PP A P PA A A A A A — Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN ONNO NNON Parking/hr _ _ Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 3.0 10 3.0 10 10 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only INS Perm r 08 — Timing G = 6.0 G = 47.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 6.0 G = 9.0 G = 22.0 G = 0.0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y= 0 Y = Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 _ Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 64 1926 128 94 2050 106 267 201 372 245 Lane group cap. 217 2390 918 217 2390 1061 387 349 421 491 v/c ratio 0.29 0.81 a 14 0.43 0.86 0.10 0.69 0.58 0.88 0.50 — Green ratio 0.53 0.47 0.58 0.53 0.47 0.67 0.28 0.22 0.37 0.31 Unif. delay dl 19.1 22.6 9.6 18.4 23.5 5.8 32.5 34.8 25.8 28.2 Delay factor k 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.26 0.17 0.41 0.11 Increm. delay d2 0.8 3.0 a.1 1.4 4.3 0.0 5.2 2.3 19.4 0.8 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 - Control delay 19.9 25.6 9.7 19.8 27.8 5.9 37.6 37.2 45.2 29.0 Lane group LOS BCABC A DD D C _ Apprch. delay 24.5 26.4 37.4 38.8 Approach LOS C C D D — Intersec. delay 28.0 Intersection LOS C HCS1000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 35 Snort Keport SHORT REPORT _ General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas _ Date Performed 4✓11 2 Jurisdiction Longmont Time Period an + Analysis Year sho lon f tal Volume and Timing Input — EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 _ Lane group LT R LT R L TR L TR Volume (vph) 190 1290 170 85 1925 330 60 1 15 60 1 40 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 — PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A APP A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 — Ext. eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N — Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 10 3.0 10 10 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 — — Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 4.0 G = 56.0 G = G = 24.0 G = G = G = Timing — Y = 0 Y= 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = 5 Y = Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrss= 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 _ Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 209 1418 187 94 2139 367 67 18 67 45 Lane group cap. 287 3051 950 339 2848 886 325 384 333 382 - v/c ratio 0.73 0.46 0.20 0.28 0.75 0.41 0.21 0.05 0.20 0.12 Green ratio 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.56 0.56 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 - Unif. delay dl 24.9 11.1 9.1 8.0 16.7 12.6 30.4 29.2 30.3 29.7 Delay factor k 0.29 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 9.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.9 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 - PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 33.9 11.2 9.2 8.4 18.6 14.0 30.7 29.3 30.6 29.9 - Lane group LOS CBA A B B C C C C Apprch. delay 13.6 17.6 30.4 30.3 Approach LOS B B C C Intersec.delay 16.6 Intersection LOS B acs2ooOTM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 — 3 ( Short Report a' _ SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119NVCR31/2 — Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Lo g •nt Time Period am m Analysis Year sho on• bkgr• total Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Lane group LT R LT PL. T R L T R Volume (vph) 55 1085 220 190 2060 35 60 10 60 90 20 215 _ % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A PP A PP A A A411 A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 107 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN 0NN0 NN0N Parking/hr _ Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 10 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 10 10 3.0 10 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm - 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 65.0 G = G = G = 6.0 G = 13.0 G = G = — Timing Y = 0 Y . 5 Y = Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y= Duration of Analysis (yrs) = 0.25 Cycle Lensth C= _100.0_ _ _ Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 59 1154 234 211 2289 39 67 11 33 100 22 120 — Lane group cap. 216 2300 1203 349 2300 1203 206 242 380 226 242 380 v/c ratio 0.27 0.50 0.19 0.60 1.00 0.03 0.33 0.05 0.09 0.44 0.09 0.32 Green ratio 0.71 0.65 0.76 0.71 0.65 0.76 0.06 0.13 0.24 0.19 0.13 0.24 Unit delay d1 22.3 9.1 3.4 7.7 17.3 3.0 45.1 38.1 29.5 34.9 38.3 31.2 Delay factor k 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.19 0.50 all 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 a l l 0.11 Increm. delay d2 0.7 0.8 0.1 3.0 17.7 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.5 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 — Control delay 23.0 9.9 3.5 10.7 35.0+ 3.0 46.0 38.1 29.6 36.3 38.5 31.7 Lane group LOS C A A B D A DDCDDC _ Apprch.delay 9.4 32.5 40.3 342 Approach LOS A C D C — Intersec. delay 25.1 Intersection LOS C HCS2(xOTM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Resented Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 -2..,—) Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/WCR31i2 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/1142 Jurisdiction Longs •.t Time Period a •m Analysis Year sho on •kg a otal Volume and Timing Input - EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 220 1905 200 190 1585 95 350 25 350 45 10 95 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A PP A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 — Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 10 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 0 47 Lane Width 120 12.0 120 12.0 120 120 120 12.0 120 120 120 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN 0 N N 0 NN0N — Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 — — Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 G = 6.0 G = 6.0 G = 52.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 8.0 G = 12.0 G = Timing Y= 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = 0 Y . 0 Y . 5 Y = Duration of Analysis Shrs) = 0.25 _ Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 244 2117 222 209 1742 104 389 28 194 50 11 53 Lane group cap. 323 2053 1219 270 1840 997 481 373 491 291 224 459 — v/c ratio 0.76 1.03 0.18 0.77 0.95 0.10 0.81 0.08 0.40 0.17 0.05 0.12 Green ratio 0.64 0.58 0.77 0.58 0.52 0.63 0.14 0.20 0.31 0.18 0.12 0.29 Unif. delay di 27.8 21.0 11 25.8 227 7.3 41.7 32.5 27.1 34.6 38.9 26.1 Delay factor k 0.31 0.50 0.11 0.32 0.50 0.11 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 9.8 28.4 0.1 111 11.7 0.0 10.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 — PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 37.6 49.4 3.1 38.9 34.4 7.4 51.7 32.6 27.7 34.9 39.0 26.2 Lane group LOS D D A D C A DCCCDC Apprch. delay 44.3 33.5 412 31.2 Approach LOS D C D C lntersec.delay 39.7 Intersection LOS D HCSXZJoT1i1 Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\L.ocal%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 36 Short Report �b SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/WCR3 1/2 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Deitch, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Lon• .•. Time Period re93m Analysis Year sho on bkgr. otal Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane group LT R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 55 1085 220 190 2060 35 60 10 60 90 20 215 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A P P A P PA A A A ,4 A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 107 Lane Width 120 12.0 120 12.0 120 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 NN0N Parking/hr _ Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 10 3.0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left NS Perm 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 58.0 G = G = G = 6.0 G = 20.0 G = G = Timing Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C=100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 59 1154 234 211 2289 39 67 11 33 100 22 120 Lane group cap. 216 2949 1092 330 2949 1092 322 373 491 324 373 491 v/c ratio 0.27 0.39 0.21 0.64 0.78 0.04 0.21 0.03 0.07 0.31 0.06 0.24 Green ratio 0.64 0.58 0.69 0.64 0.58 0.69 0.26 0.20 0.31 0.26 0.20 0.31 Unif. delay d1 146 11.4 5.6 9.0 16.0 4.9 28.6 32.2 24.3 29.2 324 25.8 Delay factor k 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.22 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 0.7 0.4 0.1 4.1 21 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 0A 0.3 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 L000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 15.3 11.8 5.7 13.1 18.1 4.9 28.9 32.2 4 24.4 29.7 32.4 26.0 Lane group LOS B BA B B A COCCCC _ Apprch. delay 11.0 17.5 27.9 28.1 Approach LOS B B C C Intersec. delay 16.2 Intersection LOS B HCS2000 Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb _ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 l 1 snort tceport SHORT REPORT _ General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/WCR31/2 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas — Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Lou . a •. Time Period a m Analysis Year sho •n•.•kg • otal Volume and Timing Input — EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ Lane group L T R L T RI.. TRL T R Volume (vph) 220 1905 200 190 1585 95 350 25 350 45 10 95 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A P PA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 20 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 _ Ext. eff.green 20 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 0 47 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 120 120 120 12.0 120 120 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 NNON _ Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 — — Phasing Excl. Left EB Only I EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NB Only NS Perm 08 G = 6.0 G = 6.0 G = 48.0 G = G = 8.0 G = 10.0 G = 120 G = Timing Y= 0 Y= 0 Y = 5 Y = Y= 0 Y= 0 Y = 5 Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 244 2117 222 209 1742 104 389 28 194 50 11 53 Lane group cap. 323 2746 1219 269 2441 966 429 410 522 326 224 459 _ v/c ratio 0.76 0.77 0.18 0.78 0.71 0.11 0.91 0.07 0.37 0.15 0.05 0.12 Green ratio 0.60 0.54 0.77 0.54 0.48 0.61 0.30 0.22 0.33 0.20 0.12 0.29 Unif. delay d1 24.6 18.1 11 21.7 20.6 8.1 31.6 30.9 25.6 329 38.9 26.1 Delay factor k 0.31 0.32 0.11 0.33 0.50 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Increm.delay d2 9.8 1.4 0.1 114 1.8 0.0 226 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 - PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 34.3 19.5 3.1 35.1 224 8.2 54.2 31.0 26.0 33.2 39.0 26.2 _ Lane group LOS CB B ADC A DCCCDC Apprch. delay 19.5 210 44.2 30.5 — Approach LOS B C D C lntersec. delay 23.9 Intersection LOS C licsmoon4 Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 4-O Two-Way Stop Lontrol rage 1 tit -. - TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY "' General Information ite Information _ Analyst Michael Intersection WCR26/Fairview Agency/Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Jurisdiction ongmont Date Performed 3/27/02 Analysis Year ho(1oon ikgrr7�total Analysis Time Period �am)pm _ Project Description 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 orih/South Street: Fairview Intersection Orientation: East-West tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 110 50 5 330 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 122 55 5 366 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 2 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane , RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ '^ L T R L T R Volume 10 345 5 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 — Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 — Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 5 11 5 C (m) (vph) 1399 587 929 — v/c 0.00 0.02 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.06 0.02 _ Control Delay 7.6 11.2 8.9 LOS A B A -- Approach Delay — — 10.5 — Approach LOS — — B Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 _ 4-I Two-Way Stop Control ragc s Us TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY _ General Information ite Information Analyst Michael ntersection WCR26/Fairview Agency/Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. urisdiction ongmont - Date Performed 327/72 nalysis Year hortaanOignpotal Analysis Time Period anf� Project Description 0171 - East/West Street: WCR26 Worth/South Street: Fairview Intersection Orientation: East-West tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R - Volume 0 380 15 5 205 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 422 16 5 227 0 - Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 - - Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 - Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 - Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R — — Volume 55 345 5 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 61 0 5 0 0 0 — Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N — Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R _ v (vph) 5 61 5 C (m) (vph) 1122 521 ' 632 v/c 0.00 0.12 0.01 — 95% queue length 0.01 0.40 0.02 Control Delay 8.2 12.8 10.7 LOS A B B — Approach Delay — — 12.7 ,_ Approach LOS - - B _ Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,MI Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 d2 Iwo-Way Stop Control rage t of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information Analyst Michael Intersection WCR26/WCR3.5 Agency/Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Jurisdiction ongmont Date Performed 327/72 Analysis Year hor(7onkgfdJotal Analysis Time Period drt3pm Project Description 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 North/South Street: WCR3.5 Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 110 5 165 320 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 122 5 183 355 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 2 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T — Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 — L T R L T R Volume 15 345 55 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 0 61 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 — Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 183 16 61 C (m) (vph) 1459 364 929 v/c 0.13 0.04 0.07 95% queue length 0.43 0.14 0.21 _ Control Delay 7.8 15.3 9.1 LOS A C _ A -- Approach Delay — — 10.4 — Approach LOS — — B Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reamed Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 4- 3 Iwo-Way Stop Lontrol rage i of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY - General Information ite Information Analyst Michael Intersection WCR26NVCR3.5 Agency/Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Jurisdiction Longmt Date Performed 3/27/02 Analysis Year shorj'"Ton lairditotal Analysis Time Period anrpm) Project Description 0171 — East/West Street: WCR26 orth/South Street: WCR3.5 Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 375 10 105 205 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 416 11 116 227 0 — Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 — Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 — Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R — Volume 5 345 190 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 211 0 0 0 - Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N — Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R _ v (vph) 116 5 211 C (m) (vph) 1132 410 637 vlc 0.10 0.01 0.33 — 95% queue length 0.34 0.04 a 1.45 Control Delay 8.5 13.9 13.4 LOS A B B Approach Delay — — 13.4 _ Approach LOS - - B Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 ¢4— APPENDIX G snort tceporn SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection County Line Rd./WCR26 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas _ Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction L ont Time Period t�pm Analysis Year shorkg total Volume and Timing Input — EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 _ Lane group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 115 275 420 70 355 775 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 — PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 _ Ext. eff. green 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 , 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 10 — Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N NN 0 N N 0 N N 0 N _ Parking/hr , Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 — Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru & RT 07 08 G = 26.0 G = G = G = G = 14.0 G = 50.0 G = G = Timing Y = 5 Y = Y = Y= Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y= - Duration of Analysis (hrs),= 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB - Adj.flow rate 128 306 467 78 394 861 Lane group cap. 460 712 1770 1282 481 2265 _ v/c ratio 0.28 0.43 0.26 0.06 0.82 0.38 Green ratio 0.26 0.45 0.50 0.81 0.14 0.64 Unit delay dl 29.5 18.8 14.4 1.9 41.8 8.6 Delay factor k 0.11 all 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.11 Increm.delay d2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 10.7 0.1 - PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 29.8 19.2 14.5 1.9 52.5 8.7 _ Lane group LOS C B B A D A Apprch. delay 22.3 12.7 22.4 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersec. delay 20.0 Intersection LOS C — HCS2000174 Copyright C 2000 University cot Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 46 — snort tceport - SHORT REPORT — General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection County Line Rd./WCR26 — Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11 . Jurisdiction ..,. ont Time Period a 0 Analysis Year sho Ion. •k total Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT , LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 Lane group L R T R L T Volume (vph) 90 295 745 155 505 605 _ % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 — Unit Extension 4 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N NN ONNO NN 0 N Parking/hr — Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - Phasing WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only Thru & RT 07 08 G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 19.0 G = 51.0 G = G = Timing Y = 5 Y = Y = Y = Y = 0 Y= 5 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrst= 0.25 _ ycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 100 328 828 172 561 672 Lane group cap. 354 697 1805 1203 652 2477 v/c ratio 0.28 0.47 0.46 0.14 0.86 0.27 - Green ratio 0.20 0.44 0.51 0.76 0.19 0.70 Unif. delay dl 33.9 19.8 15.7 3.2 39.2 5.6 Delay factor k 0.11 0.11 a.11 0.11 0.39 0.11 lncrem. delay d2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 11.3 0.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 - Control delay 34.4 20.3 159 13 50.5 5.6 Lane group LOS C C B A D A Apprch.delay 23.6 13.7 26.0 Approach LOS C B C Intersec. delay 21.0 . Intersection LOS C HCS2000 Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1b _ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 4- 1 snort Report . us%. s Los A SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas - Date Performed 4/ 1/02 Jurisdiction Longmont Time Period am •m Analysis Year sho kg r ot: Volume and Timing Input - EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 - Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume(vph) 205 1630 170 85 2100 335 60 1 15 70 1 80 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 ` 2 2 - PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A P PA A A AAA Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 — Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 10 3.0 3.0 10 _ 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 10 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 40 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 120 120 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN ONNO NNON — Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 3.0 10 10 10 10 10 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 — Phasinq Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 4.0 G = 62.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 12.0 G = G = Timing Y= 0 Y= 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis s.(hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 225 1791 187 94 2333 372 67 1 9 78 1 44 Lane group cap. 286 2336 1219 303 2194 1156 206 224 364 206 224 427 - v/c ratio 0.79 0.77 0.15 0.31 1.06 0.32 0.33 0.00 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.10 Green ratio 0.72 0.66 0.77 0.68 0.62 0.73 0.06 0.12 0.23 0.06 0.12 0.27 Unif. delay dl 31.0 11.7 10 6.6 19.0 4.8 45.1 38.7 29.8 45.2 38.7 27.4 Delay factor k 0.33 0.32 0.11 a.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 all a.11 0.11 0.11 all Increm. delay d2 13.6 1.6 0.1 0.6 38.7 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 - PF factor 1.000 0.406 1.000 1.000 0.525 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 44.6 6.3 11 7.1 48.6 4.9 46.0 38.7 29.8 46.4 38.7 27.5 - Lane group LOS D A " A A D A D D C D D C Apprch. delay 10.0- 41.4 44.0 39.6 Approach LOS A D D D Intersec. delay 28.1 Intersection LOS C Hcsmoorm Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 Short Report *�s� �• SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview Agency or Co. Matthew J. Deitch, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11 r Jurisdiction L m moot Time Period e;,•m Analysis Year sho on kg otal Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 105 2310 120 85 2330 115 240 1 180 340 1 245 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) APP AP PA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 10 3.0 10 10 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 122 Lane Width 12.0 120 12.0 120 120 120 120 120 12.0 120 12.0 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N , 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 3.0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only Thru & RT 08 G = 6.0 G = 69.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 _G = 10.0 G = 3.0 G = 12.0 G = 0.0 Timing Y = 0 Y= 5 Y = 0 Y = Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = (125 Cycle Length C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 112 2457 128 94 2589 128 267 1 100 378 1 137 Lane group cap. 2220 1209 197 2220 1252 312 203 331 406 254 374 v/c ratio 1.11 0.11 0.48 1.17 0.10 0.86 0.00 0.30 0.93 0.00 0.37 Green ratio 0.68 0.63 0.76 0.68 0.63 0.79 0.09 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.14 0.24 Unit.delay d1 20.5 3.3 24.9 20.5 2.6 49.3 417 36.7 48.1 41.0 35.1 Delay factor k 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.39 0.11 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 553 0.0 1.8 80.1 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.5 28.1 0.0 0.6 PF factor 1.000 0.505 1.000 1.000 0.572 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 65.7 14 26.7 91.8 27 69.5 43.7 37.2 76.1 41.1 357 Lane group LOS EACF A EDDEDD Apprch. delay 856 60.7 65.3 Approach LOS F E E Intersec. delay Intersection LOS acszoodrm Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb fi1e://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 49 Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas _ Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Longmont Time Period Spin Analysis Year sho ong kgr• total Volume and Timing Input — EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ Lane group LT R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 205 1630 170 85 2100 335 60 1 15 70 1 80 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 — PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A AP PA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 _ Ext. eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 _ Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 40 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN 0NN0 NN0N — Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 10 10 3.0 10 3.0 — Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 Excl. Left NS Perm r 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 4.0 G = 56.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 18.0 G = G = Timing Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = — Duration of Analysis (hrs1= 0.25 ycie Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 225 1791 187 94 2333 372 67 1 9 78 1 44 Lane group cap. 287 3051 1124 277 2848 1061 297 335 459 297 335 522 _ v/c ratio 0.78 0.59 0.17 0.34 0.82 0.35 0.23 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.08 Green ratio 0.66 0.60 0.71 0.62 0.56 0.67 0.24 0.18 0.29 0.24 0.18 0.33 Unit delay dl 27.3 12.3 4.8 9.3 17.9 7.1 30.1 33.6 25.3 30.3 33.6 211 Delay factor k 0.33 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 13.3 a3 0.1 0.7 2.8 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 — PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 40.6 12.6 4.8 10.0+ 20.7 7.3 30.5 33.6 25.4 30.8 316 212 _ Lane group LOS D B A B C A CC C C C C Apprch.delay 14.8 18.5 30.0 28.1 Approach LOS 8 8 C C Intersec. delay 17.4 Intersection LOS B HCs2000 Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 .50 - Short Report `"s` - SHORT REPORT General Information 1Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/Fairview — Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11 2 Jurisdiction Lon. ont Time Period a pm Analysis Year sho on bkg total Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane group LT R LT R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 105 2310 120 85 2330 115 240 , 1 180 340 1 245 — % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) APP A P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 — Unit Extension 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 122 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr — Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 10 10 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 10 10 3.0 - Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left SB Only NS Perm 08 Timing G = 6.0 G = 52.0 G = 0.0 G = 0.0 G = 6.0 G = 6.0 G = 20.0 G = 0.0 Y= 0 Y = 5 Y = 0 Y = Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 112 fl457 128 94 2589 128 267 1 100 378 1 137 �' Lane group cap. 217 2644 997 217 2644 1092 407 373 491 431 484 586 v/c ratio 0.52 0.93 0.13 0.43 0.98 0.12 0.66 0.00 0.20 0.88 0.00 0.23 _ Green ratio 0.58 0.52 0.63 0.58 0.52 0.69 0.26 0.20 0.31 0.32 0.26 0.37 Unif. delay dl 20.7 22.3 7.4 20.5 215 5.2 33.0 320 25.4 32.5 27.4 21.7 Delay factor k 0.12 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 2.1 7.3 0.1 1.4 113 0.0 18 0.0 0.2 18.1 0.0 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 - Control delay 22.8 29.6 7.5 21.8 36.7 5.3 36.8 32.0 25.6 50.7 27.4 21.9 Lane group LOS C C A C D A DC CDCC — Apprch.delay 28.2 34.8 33.7 43.0 Approach LOS C C C D Intersec.delay 32.6 Intersection LOS C FICS2000 Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 51 Snore.tceport SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/WCR312 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4111/02 Jurisdiction L ngmon: Time Period am m Analysis Year shor(long kg total 'Volume and Timing Input - EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 - Lane group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 395 1095 220 190 2065 280 60 10 60 195 20 390 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A PP A P PA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 _ Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 195 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 - — Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 65.0 G = G = G = 6.0 G = 13.0 G = G = Timing Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y= Y = — Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB — Adj.flow rate 420 1165 234 211 2294 311 67 11 33 217 22 217 Lane group cap. 206 2300 1203 345 2300 1203 206 242 380 206 242 380 _ v/c ratio 2.04 0.51 0.19 0.61 1.00 0.26 0.33 0.05 0.09 1.05 0.09 0.57 Green ratio 0.06 0.65 0.76 0.71 0.65 0.76 0.06 0.13 0.24 0.06 0.13 0.24 Unif. delay dl 47.0 9.1 14 7.8 17.4 16 45.1 38.1 29.5 47.0 38.3 315 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.20 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 all 0.50 0.11 0.17 increm.delay d2 484.0 0.8 0.1 12 18.2 0.1 a9 0.1 0.1 77.5 0.2 2.1 — PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 531.0 9.9 a5 11.0 35.6 3.7 46.0 38.1 29.6 124.5 38.5 35.5 — Lane group LOS F A A BD A DDCFDD Apprch.delay 129.4 30.2 40.3 78.0 Approach LOS F C D E Intersec. delay 69.3 Intersection LOS E HCS2000T M Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ib file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P"%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 5Z Short Report ragc . v. A SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/WCR31/2 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Deitch, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11t! Jurisdiction Longmont Time Period a pm Analysis Year short i- kg Iota) • Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane group LT R LT R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 720 1910 200 190 1605 430 350 25 350 375 10 580 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A P PA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 0 290 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 NN ONNO N N 0 N Parking/hr _ Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm 04 -Excl. Left NB Only Thru 8 RT 08 G = 6.0 G = 6.0 G = 52.0 G = G = 6.0 G = 8.0 G = 12.0 G = Timing Y = 0 Y= 0 Y = 5 Y= Y = 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y= Duration of Analysis (Firs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C= 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 800 2122 222 209 1764 473 389 28 194 417 11 322 Lane group cap. 412 2053 1219 270 1840 997 481 373 491 206 224 459 v/c ratio 1.94 1.03 0.18 0.77 0.96 0.47 0.81 0.08 0.40 2.02 0.05 0.70 Green ratio 0.12 0.58 0.77 0.58 0.52 0.63 0.14 0.20 0.31 0.06 0.12 0.29 Unit. delay d1 44.0 21.0 3.1 25.8 23.0 9.8 41.7 32.5 27.1 47.0 38.9 31.6 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.32 0.50 0.11 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.27 Increm. delay d2 432.6 29.1 0.1 13.1 13.3 0.4 10.0 0.1 0.5 477.6 0.1 4.8 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 476.6 50.1 3.1 38.9 36.2 10.1 51.7 32.6 27.7 524.6 39.0 36.4 Lane group LOSFDADDBDCCFDD Apprch. delay 155.3 31.4 43.2 307.9 Approach LOS F C D F Intersec. delay 118.3 Intersection LOS F HCS2000Tm Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb _ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 53 Snort Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/WCR31/2 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas _ Date Performed 4/ 1/02 Jurisdiction ngmont Time Period -n,wt •m Analysis Year sho lonnbkgr Iota 'Volume and Timing InputtrW' — EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT _Num. of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 _ Lane group LT R LIR L T R l T R Volume (vph) 395 1095 220 190 2065 280 60 10 60 195 20 390 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A AP PA A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 _ Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 195 Lane Width 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 NN 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 — — Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm ! 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 9.0 G = 46.0 G = G = 9.0 G = 20.0 G = G = Timing Y= 0 Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 _ Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 420 1165 234 211 2294 311 67 11 33 217 22 217 Lane group cap. 515 2797 1092 371 2339 950 309 373 491 309 373 633 _ v/c ratio 0.82 0.42 0.21 0.57 0.98 0.33 0.22 0.03 0.07 0.70 0.06 0.34 Green ratio 0.15 0.55 0.69 0.52 0.46 0.60 0.09 0.20 0.31 0.09 0.20 0.40 Unif. delay dl 41.2 13.1 5.6 13.1 26.6 10.0 422 322 24.3 44.2 32.4 20.9 Delay factor k 0.36 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.11 Increm. delay d2 9.8 0.1 0.1 2.1 14.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 7.0 0.1 0.3 - PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 51.0 13.2 5.7 15.2 41.2 10.2 426 32.2 24.4 51.2 324 21.2 _ Lane group LOS D B A BD BDCCDCC Apprch. delay 21.0 35.8 36.1 36.0 Approach LOS C D D D Intersec. delay 30.6 Intersection LOS C — HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb — file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection SH119/WCR31i2 Agency or Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 4/11/02 Jurisdiction Lon. ont Time Period a ca Analysis Year sho Ion. •kg total Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L T R 1. T R _ Volume (vph) 720 1910 200 190 1605 430 350 25 350 375 10 580 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) A A A A P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 20 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 10 10 10 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 10 10 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 0 0 290 Lane Width 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N NJ) N N 0 N Parking/hr _ Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left EB Only EW Perm se- 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 G = 6.0 G = 19.0 G = 40.0 G = G = 16.0 G = 9.0 G = G = Timing Y = 0 Y= 0 Y= 5 Y = Y = 0 Y = 5 Y = Y = Duration of Analysis (hrs.). 0.25 ycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 800 2122 222 209 1764 473 389 28 194 417 11 322 Lane group cap. 858 3000 1266 270 2034 966 549 168 317 549 168 617 v/c ratio 0.93 0.71 0.18 0.77 0.87 0.49 0.71 0.17 0.61 0.76 0.07 0.52 Green ratio 0.25 0.59 0.80 0.46 0.40 0.61 0.16 0.09 0.20 0.16 0.09 0.39 Unif.delay d1 36.7 14.4 2.3 17.7 27.6 10.8 39.8 42.0 36.5 40.2 41.7 214 Delay factor k 0.45 0.27 0.11 0.32 0.50 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.20 0.31 0.11 0.13 lncrem. delay d2 16.7 0.8 0.1 111 5.3 0.4 4.2 a5 a5 6.1 0.2 0.8 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 514 15.2 24 30.8 32.9 11.2 44.0 42.5 39.9 46.3 41.8 24.2 Lane group LOS D B ACC B DDDDDC Apprch. delay 24.0 28.5 426 36.7 Approach LOS C C D D Intersec. delay 28.6 Intersection LOS C HCS2000 Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%210P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 J J Iwo-Way Stop Lontroi TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY _ General Information Site Information Analyst Michael Intersection WCR26/Fairview Agency/Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Jurisdiction Longmont - Date Performed 3/27/02 Analysis Year shortfo k tota/- Analysis Time Period ..4pm Project Description 0171 - East/West Street: WCR26 orth/South Street: Fairview Intersection Orientation: East-West tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 . - Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R - Volume 0 365 55 10 360 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 405 61 11 400 0 - Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 - - Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 - Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 — Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R — — Volume 25 345 10 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 0 11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N — Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 — Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service _ Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 _ 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration I. L R _ v (vph) 11 27 11 C (m) (vph) 1095 457 646 vlc 0.01 0.06 0.02 — 95%queue length i 0.03 0.19 0.05 Control Delay 8.3 114 10.7 LOS A B B Approach Delay — — 12.6 _ Approach LOS — — B _ Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 Two-Way Stop control - TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information _ Analyst Michael Intersection WCR26/Fairview Agency/Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Jurisdiction ongmont Date Performed 3/27/02 Analysis Year hort~kligbkgr(totep Analysis Time Period Ernie) Project Description 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 orth/South Street: Fairview Intersection Orientation: East-West 'Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 - L T R L T R Volume 0 625 35 10 310 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 694 38 11 344 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — ' 2 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 — "' L T R L T R Volume 65 345 10 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 72 0 11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 _ Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R — Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 — Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 11 72 11 C (m) (vph) 873 370 443 v/c 0.01 0.19 0.02 95% queue length 0.04 0.71 0.08 Control Delay 9.2 17.1 13.3 _ LOS A C 8 Approach Delay — — 16.6 — Approach LOS — — C Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version d.lb _ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 c1J two-way stop Lontrot a _ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY _ General Information ite Information Analyst Michael Intersection WCR26/WCR3.5 Agency/Co. Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Jurisdiction ongmont - Date Performed 327/02 Analysis Year hori!forybk otal Analysis Time Period €arrPpm Project Description 0171 - East/West Street: WCR26 orth/South Street: WCR3.5 intersection Orientation: East-West tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments - Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R - Volume 0 115 260 250 325 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 127 288 277 361 0 - Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 2 - - Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 - Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 — Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R — — Volume 45 345 65 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 50 0 72 0 0 0 — Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 _ 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N — Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 - Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R _ v (vph) 277 50 72 C (m) (vph) 1144 258 923 v/c 0.24 0.19 0.08 — 95%queue length a95 0.70 0.25 Control Delay 9.1 22.3 9.2 LOS A C A Approach Delay — — 14.6 _ Approach LOS - - B - Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 Iwo-Way Stop t.ontrot rub•. . — TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ite Information _ Analyst Michael Intersection WCR26/WCR3.5 Agency/Co. Matthew I Delich, P.E. Jurisdiction ongmont Date Performed 327/02 Analysis Year horrkesp' bkg otgl) Analysis Time Period We]) - Project Description 0171 East/West Street: WCR26 orth/South Street: WCR3.5 Intersection Orientation: East-West tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ L T R L T R Volume 0 380 255 185 210 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 - Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 422 283 205 233 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 2 — — Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 Configuration T R L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 • 8 9 10 11 12 — L T R L T R Volume 110 345 225 5 635 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 — Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 122 0 250 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R — Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 — Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 205 122 250 C(m) (vph) 893 307 632 v/c 0.23 0.40 0.40 95% queue length 0.88 1.83 1.89 Control Delay 10.2 24.3 14.4 LOS B C B -- Approach Delay — — 17.6 — Approach LOS — — C Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lb file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Michael%20P.%20Delich\Local%20Settings\Te... 5/30/2002 59 �F'4 MEMORANDUM 1. , .„. TO: Kim Ogle, Planner �' DATE: 12-Jun-2003 O F FROM: Peter Schei, P.E.,Civil , lie Works Department. U SUBJECT: PZ-1004 Life Bridge ChrW an Church PUD(Memo).doc Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this development request. Comments made in this response may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise. Comments ❑ The Public Works Department is submitting to Planning today the following items: o Matt Delich Memo dated March 10, 2003,Traffic estimate. o Matt Delich, P.E. Memo dated February 17, 2003,Traffic analysis. (Szt tfrpheati.,,,)) o Tetra Tech RMC Drawing dated April 10, 2003, Ultimate Layout of Intersections. ❑ The Public Works Department submitted to Planning yesterday the following items: o Felsburg Holt&Ullevig Traffic Study Review dated July 10, 2002. o Matt Delich,P.E. The LifeBridge Project PUD Traffic Impact Study dated June 2002. ❑ Kim, these are the transportation items for the LifeBridge PUD, some of which you asked for on 11-June-2003, regarding an inquiry by the Town of Mead. We hope these will assist the development review process. If you need anything else,please do not hesitate to call. The Planning Department may proceed with Public Works' comments on this case • PC:PZ-1004 Life Bridge Christian Church PUD(Memo).doc Email&Original:Planner Page 1 of 1 ,.,_., ........_ ....v._.,......_ WM re."- drib LDHSYEW FUTURE E AUL CDAMHiCIAL 44 56 ki 11 illa a- bsoviEwIICED. -$ he PAIIttr Il 9 p aPIETtotnNe l aarrawa „---------rosona�r I1MLaR FUTURE UFEBHDSE / CDMAHiCULL S P jL Ott 15 u rt riouGal ro nsaanwa'.a1Ga ro EDGE aR«pUUpa1roa rfaLwM. MroEDGE STATE HIGHWAY 119 4,• am. +E. oarGa11G1u1arwa __ mnaGaauaxwa ♦� __tan 031110114101131.11M— a�IGOllauaNwa .N� FC _, lla` 7 Ar a 1 aarwnawlal ala t nwriea1a11wa aar� mi. -a► r exen na iummea aalEanG a.♦ STATE IIGKWAY 119 nil oRa10111Ga1roaIHTCR ar,EDGEroED®E a FTSOUBIroaartaww+.eaeTOfl tit( it( VVISTACDMIaWLWIIER VISTA COMMERICAL CENTER %,T' it tore nantido a imourwasoncawmaaM MI Y R a1 RGQOW MT 1NEar MLMpa.NOna11MMEMa areTt n. n a m.3Wl �� _ _b._ 5 TETRA TECH RMC oana1m RLInq NM ant nsna MEMORANDUM u) CD CO r; TO: Bruce Grinnell, LifeBridge Christian Community L1-; Barb Brunk, Tetra Tech RMC QDrew Scheltinga P.E. , Weld County Public Works o 6 FROM: Matt Delich i5� � O r-- • x DATE: March 10, 2003 o L.L. z SUBJECT: LifeBridge PUD - Traffic estimate utilizing connection oto/through the Elms at Meadowvale and Meadowvale Farms (File: 0171ME05) • c_o w CD N E C) In a memorandum dated February 21, 2003, Drew Scheltinga, Weld CI CD County Public Works Department requested information with regard to w o an estimate of the traffic that would occur on selected roads near o the proposed LifeBridge PUD. Specifically, if connectivity of the = roadway systems between neighborhoods occurred, there would likely z Y g Y LLJ z be some traffic on those streets. These streets are Pearl Howlett C7 2 Road in the Elms at Meadowvale and Blue Mountain Road in Meadowvale ti a Farms. The subject streets are shown to have potential connections to the LifeBridge PUD property. These connections are shown as cv access easements on the site plans for the respective developments. The Weld County Code (Comprehensive Plan). addresses and encourages interconnectivity between neighborhoods. Interconnectivity of neighborhoods reduces travel time and distance for selected trips, and helps to reduce traffic congestion. In the latest development plan for the LifeBridge PUD, the subject connections are not shown, however Weld County may require these connections to be made in the future. This memorandum provides an estimate of the traffic on these streets if the connections were made. The Elms at Meadowvale and Meadowvale Farms are residential • LU developments that access WCR5%-1. WCR54_s intersects with SH119 approximately 0.75 miles east of the SH119/WCR3 intersection. The Q. z SH119/WCR5'1 intersection has stop sign control and would not be signalized unless signal warrants were met in the future. 2 z U The access (if connected) via Blue Mountain Road in Meadowvale ..., Z Farms would likely be used by residents of Meadowvale Farms to get to/from selected land uses within the proposed LifeBridge PUD and to W O "cut through" the LifeBridge PUD to get to WCR3 . It is not likely that there would be much/any external traffic utilizing the Blue Mountain Road connection due to the circuitous nature of the street o 55 system within Meadowvale Farms. Therefore, it could reasonably be concluded that the Blue Mountain Road connection would be more a convenience for the Meadowvale Farms residents rather than any other W purpose. The access (if connected) via Pearl Howlett Road in the Elms at " QLI Meadowvale would be used by the residents of the Elms at Meadowvale H to get to/from selected land uses within the proposed LifeBridge PUD and to "cut through" the LifeBridge PUD to get to WCR3 . Because of r-� the alignment of Pearl Howlett Road, it may also be used by some LifeBridge PUB generated trips as a "cut through" in the other direction. Overall, full development site plans show a direct connection to WCR26 near the east side of the LifeBridge property. This will be a convenient route for LifeBridge generated trips that are to/from the northeast direction. However, some small percentage could choose to utilize Pearl Howlett Road. North of the existing dairy to the east of the Elms at Meadowvale is a large parcel that could possibly be developed as residential. This area, if developed, could potentially have 200-300 dwelling units. The route to the LifeBridge PUD via Pearl Howlett Road would be reasonably convenient for these future residents. The analyses and conclusions contained in this memorandum assume that this development would occur. It was assumed that there would be 250 dwelling units in this area. The LifeBridge PUD, Filings 1 and 2 show no connections to either Blue Mountain Road or Pearl Howlett Road. Therefore, a short range traffic estimate is not relevant. Rather the trip generation at completion of Phases 1 and 2, as reflected in Table 3 in "The LifeBridge Project PUD Traffic Impact Study, " June 2002, was used to estimate the amount of traffic that could be on the subject streets. There are three major components of the traffic that would utilize the subject streets : 1) traffic generated by the LifeBridge church campus land use; 2) traffic generated by the LifeBridge retail/office land uses; and 3) "cut through" traffic from the LifeBridge residential land uses and the Meadowvale Farms/Elms at Meadowvale residential land uses. The "cut through" component has no destination within the adjacent land use. It is likely to be less than 5% of the generated traffic in each area. It is estimated that the amount of traffic on the Blue Mountain Road connection, if it were made, would be approximately 130 daily trips, 6 morning peak hour trips, and 12 afternoon peak hour trips. The largest component of these trips (70-75%) would be by residents of Meadowvale Farms utilizing the future commercial land uses in the south portion of the LifeBridge PUD. This traffic volume is commensurate with that of a typical local street classification (<1000 vehicles per day) . It is estimated that the amount of traffic on the Pearl Howlett Road - connection, if it were made, would be approximately 380 daily trips, 18 morning peak hour trips, and 36 afternoon peak hour trips. The largest component of these trips (60-65%) would be by residents of the Elms at Meadowvale utilizing the future commercial land uses in the south portion of the LifeBridge PUD. This traffic volume is commensurate with that of a typical local street classification (<1000 vehicles per day) . It is concluded that if the subject street connections were made to either/both Meadowvale Farms and the Elms at Meadowvale, the volumes would be at local street levels. The primary beneficiary of the connections would be the residents of the respective residential subdivisions to the east of the LifeBridge PUD. From: "LORI MILLER" <loriminc@msn.com> - To: <CHARDING@CO.WELD.CO.US> Date: 6/12/03 11:05AM , - ',i1 ": P2 Subject: LIFEBRIDGE CHURCH REZONING _ re: Docket#2003-35 Lifebridge Christian Church Zone Change Request ` _a 6/12/03 Dear County Commissioners, I am finding it harder and harder to trust anything than I am hearing about the Lifebridge Christian Church rezoning. Recently, Weld County trucks placed traffic"Counters" in our neighborhood. I can only presume that they are still working on forcing the connectivity issue between our neighborhood and the new Lifebridge Mega Plex. These traffic counters were placed during one of the busiest times of the year, graduation. There were several graduation parties, hundreds of additional cars, and several trips from each household for the end of year trips to schools. There were final school parties that the parents were invited to attend, and trips to stores to purchase graduation supplies, etc. The timing of these "counters"was not a typical, or reasonable, actual accounting for a normal time span. It seems that Weld County is attempting to force the connectivity issue, when the planners, along with the residents of the area, and Lifebridge, believe this to be a detriment to the area. I have attended every meeting that I have been aware of, including the open house at the existing church in Longmont, the planning meeting, and your 12 hour hearing in your Greeley office. I feel that our presence at these meetings has been met with little belief that we really are concerned for our community. It seems the issue has already been decided, and the only concerns are the setbacks, and the building height issues. To me, I believe the issue should not be decided until all the evidence pro and con has been heard. It appears, for all intensive purposes that Lifebridge is going to be allowed to build their mega plex in our community regardless of how the existing residents feel. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the July 9th meeting in Greeley, as I will be physically unable to attend at that time. This really concerns me, as I feel that if the residents do not show strong support against the connectivity issue that the commissioners may give in to Weld County, and allow our quiet roads, which are much too narrow for the traffic flow, to be opened up for excessive overflow traffic from the Lifebridge community. We have worked hard to defend the issues that are important to us as current residents of Weld county. We moved out here to escape the traffic and noise of the city, and now the city is being forced onto us. I realize we will have no time to speak on our behalf during the July 9th meeting, as you have heard all you need to hear from the citizens. The only issues you want to hear about now are the few unresolved questions not addressed at the last meeting. My concern is that since you will not be hearing our pleas for help from the Commissioners office, that our cries will go unheard. My children ride their bikes on our cul-de-sac, they roller skate around the neighborhood, and the narrow streets will not afford the safety to open our area up to further traffic from an additional huge mega plex like Lifebridge is proposing. The delivery trucks, cars, UPS drivers, teenagers, should I go on?? I thought not. I know you are hearing our concerns. Please act on those concerns, and keep the connectivity from going thru our neighborhood. My concern is not as self motivated as it may seem. I lived 3 blocks away from Lifebridge in Longmont prior to moving to Meadowvale Farms 5 years ago, and they are not the great neighbors they proclaim to be. This traffic is a mess, and to ease this, they hired a state patrol officer to assist with traffic control on Sundays. Many of the other high traffic events they had were unassisted by police, and the traffic raced through the neighborhoods. The cars that left the parking lot took every conceivable road out of the Church to reduce the waiting time, and much of the traffic went through the quiet neighborhoods to the i i EXHIBIT / J *Jowl south of their campus at increased speeds to get ahead of the onslaught of traffic leaving the Church lot. I welcome a community church to our neighborhood. This is much more than a church, and I feel that what they are asking is enormous for our community to absorb. They claim they will be absorbing our community into their flock, but we are not asking them to absorb us, and we do not wish to be absorbed. Most of the residents of Meadowvale have a church home they attend, and will not change to attend Lifebridge just because it is closer. The congregation they currently have should be polled to find out how many of them will continue to attend when they have to drive the additional 20 minutes to reach a church. The traffic on Sundays on 119 is heavy now, I can only imagine what it will be like when they start pulling thousands of additional cars out this way. If they have not driven this area before, they will find that the fog can be dense, and the light at WCR 3.5 can not be seen until you are about 30 yards away. There have been several accidents at this light already, and the cost of lives should be considered. I beg, plead, and implore you to carefully consider the actions of the office you hold, and rethink the zoning that is being asked for the Lifebridge. Our children's very lives are at stake, and if the connectivity issue goes through, this will be a huge detriment to the lives of the current Weld county residents. The peaceful existence the church is trying to attain with the existing neighbors will be destroyed, and our children's lives will become the"city dwellers"that we move out to Weld county to escape. Thank you for your time in considering my concerns. I know the burden is great on you during these rezoning issue debates. I only ask that you consider those who currently reside in Weld county prior to considering those who are now asking for so many changes. We placed our trust in Weld county, have paid our taxes, and love the country living pace that it has afforded us for these years. Please do not take this away from us. Keep the city in the city, and let the country remain quiet and safe for our children. Sincerely, Lori E. Miller 1896 Blue Mountain Road Meadowvale Farms Longmont, CO 80504 Weld County, Colorado Please forward a copy of this e-mail to each of the commissioners. Thank you for your time. Lori SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, April 1, 2003 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, in the Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin James Rohn Fred Walker John Folsom Stephan Mokray Bernard Ruesgen _� Bruce Fitzgerald 7 Also Present: Char Davis, Wendi Inloes, Pam Smith, Peter Schei, Kim Ogle, Don Carroll, CASE: PZ-1004 PLANNER: Kim Ogle APPLICANT: LifeBridge Christian Church REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to PUD with (E) Estate; (R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial LEGAL: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of& adjacent to Weld County Road 26; north of & adjacent to Hwy 119; west of and adjacent to Fairview Street Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter in the record requesting a continuance to a specific date of April 22 at 9:00am at the Southwest Weld Office. The applicant has asked for a pre advertisement with the Board of County Commissioners hearing to be May 7, 2003 John Folsom questioned the ability of the Planning Commission to render a decision by 8:00 pm. Mr.Morrison indicated that was the goal and it would cause a problem if the decision is not made. If a decision could not be made then the Board hearing would be continued to a different date due to notification procedures. Mr. Morrison added it would be beneficial if a decision was made and a schedule was set in an attempt to adhere to. If a decision cannot be reached adequately at that time then it is the Planning Commission decision rather to continue. A decision must be reached based on the evidence presented if this is adequate. CASE NUMBER: USR-1418 APPLICANT: Hall Irwin PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2 Section 12, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource Development facilities, including open pit mining and materials processing, a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant and a concrete recycling plant in the A(Agricultural) Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to East 18th Street Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance indefinitely to amend the land use application to include more land. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1007 APPLICANT: Lance and Julee Meiners PLANNER: Sheri Lockman EXHIBIT Page -1- oO PZ #/O041 Hello