HomeMy WebLinkAbout982038.tiff RECEIVED
OCT 0 71998
A FELSBURG VVFLDC COUNTY
ri HOLT c�1 PUBLIC S DEPT
ULLEVIG
engineering paths to transportation solutions
October 2, 1998
Mr. Frank Hempen, Jr.
Director, Weld County Public Works Department
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758
RE: Sherwood Park Traffic Review
FHU Reference No. 98-208
Dear Mr. Hempen:
We have completed our traffic engineering review of the proposed Sherwood project
traffic study for the development to be located on the southeast corner of W R 2050 and
WCR 1 , east of Longmont. This letter provides our comments on the traffic s udy (prepare
by Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. in June 1998).
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
In general, the traffic study prepared for the Sherwood Park project is complete and was
prepared using the most recent trip generation and intersection capacity techniques. We do
offer the following comments:
• The trip generation calculations are shown in Table 1 of the report. We offer the
following comments regarding these calculations:
• A reduction in trips due to internal bike/ped trips between the residential and
commercial/employment and an opportunity for transit usage within the region
was considered in calculations. It is likely that some of this trip reduction will
occur, however, the estimated reduction in trips generated by the residential
units may be high. (1130 trips for residential versus 645 trips for non-
residential; the reduction for these two components should be roughly the
same.)
• The calculated number of daily trips projected for the residential land use is
slightly low (3 percent) when applying the indicated trip generation rates.
303.7?1.1440
I1az 303.721.0832
Ihorthueng.unn
//�� Greenwood( urpur.ve Plaza
(ACM 1i-.y,-_� �� - nCI�L� 7951 F. d,pl'(wo„ Ave-Ste-200
r Englewood, C()8011
982038
/L42/18/
October 2, 1998
Mr. Frank Hempen, Jr.
Page 2
• The larger-lot single family residence trip generation rates are approximately 10
percent higher than the small/medium lot rates. These rates are not
documented by ITE, but seem to be a reasonable, conservative estimate.
The comments offered regarding the trip generation calculations are minor points.
Additionally, several conservative estimates were used, and the overall estimated trip
generation is reasonable.
• The roadway functional classification on site and adjacent to the site is not clearly
explained either on the site plan or in the study. We offer the following comments:
• Within the site, the northernmost east/west access roadway is projected to
carry approximately 2,530 vehicles per day (vpd), according to Figure 7 of the
report. The site shows four homes fronting this roadway before an opportunity
for vehicles to turn off this roadway is provided. Some vehicles are expected
to turn off this primary access roadway at the first intersection provided. As
this primary roadway continues to the east, just before the second intersection,
trip from 55 homes, at most, will have turned off the primary roadway. This
equates to approximately 550 vpd, leaving approximately 2,000 vpd on the
primary roadway just before the second intersection. These traffic volumes
suggest that this primary roadway be an arterial according to County standards,
and that homes not front this roadway. The road is shown as a collector road
on the plan, which is an acceptable classification for a residential road, but the
County should consider restricting homes fronting onto roadways which are
expected to carry 2000 vpd or more.
• Also within the site, the second intersection off of the northernmost east/west
access, which leads to the center traffic circle, is projected to carry
approximately 1,580 vpd, according to Figure 7 of the report. The volumes on
this roadway would suggest at least a collector status, according to County
standards. However, the plan indicates this roadway is only planned to be a
residential/local street.
• The plan provided shows proposed residential and collector street cross-
sections. The residential street cross-section illustrated on the plan shows a
right-of-way (ROW) width of 45 feet. According to the County standards a
local/residential roadway should have a ROW width of at least 60 feet, and a
roadway width of 40 feet, to include two 12-foot driving lanes and two 8-foot
parking lanes. The plan shows a 28-foot wide street, which is a bit narrow to
accommodate two-way traffic and on-street parking along both sides. Similarly,
the plan shows the proposed collector ROW width to be 50 feet, while the
County standards indicate a ROW width of at least 80 feet.
Ti r)
J`:xC�
j ,<
October 2, 1998
Mr. Frank Hempen, Jr.
Page 3
• The study mentions that the intersection of WCR 1/WCR 2050 may warrant
signalization in the future. This may be true in the long range future, but most likely
not before the year 2015. This intersection is also identified on the 1-25 MUD Area
Structural Transportation Network map (found in MUD Plan Development Standards,
Ordinance 191 , February 1997) as a possible future signal location. It may be
reasonable for the County to request a financial contribution from the applicant towards
a future signal installation. Although, this money would probably sit in escrow for
many years until a signal is warranted.
• Field observation revealed that site distance along both WCR 1 and WCR 2050 should
not be an issue as both roadways are basically straight and flat. The following
comments are offered regarding the development access points:
• The development plan shows five access points to the project area along a
stretch of WCR 2050 which is just over one mile in length. However, the plan
also proposes to provide a center left turn lane along WCR 2050 at all of the
access points, so left turns into the site will not impede eastbound through
traffic.
• The study is also recommending a center left turn lane along WCR 1 at the
access points with WCR 1 being a four-lane roadway. Double left turn lanes are'
recommended on the northbound WCR 1 approach to SH 119.
• On the west side of WCR 1 , there is an existing fire station access
approximately 500 feet north of the intersection of WCR 2050/WCR 1 . This
access may be located across WCR 1 from the proposed commercial access for
the project. The alignment of these accesses should be checked so as to not
create an awkward "offset" intersection.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG
L Foul-AL
Debra L. Zermuehlen, E.I. Christopher J. Fasching, P.E.
Transportation Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer
cc: Mr. Don Carroll
'r
Hello