The URL can be used to link to this page

5A - Motion on the East Boulder Community Park Phase Two Concept Plan CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 27, 2008 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a motion on the East Boulder Community Park Phase Two Concept Plan. PRF,SENTER/S: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent Pen• Brooks, Parks Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Boadd (PRAB) to conduct a public hearing and consider a motion on the final Concept Plan for Phase Two of the Easi Boulder Community Park (EBCP). The final draft concept plan for Phase Two (Attachment A) is based on input from the community during four public meetings that were conducted this year. Additional EBCP planning process documents can be found at www.boulderpazks-rec.orQ. 'The draft final concept plan for Phase Two that has been developed reflects the intent of both the 1989 concept plan (Attachment C) and community input gathered in 2008. The program elements for Phase Two include two artificial turf multi-purpose fields, a restroom/picnic shelter, surface parking, pedestrian and bicycle connections, a sustainable irrigation pond, improvements to the existing handball courts, lighting two tennis courts and infrastructure improvements. A preliminary cost estimate for the development of Phase Two has been completed (Attachment B). The PRAB has approved the 2009 Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (Fund 230) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that includes funding for the development of Phase Two. At this time, $2.3 million has been accumulated for the development of Phase Two. Eazlier this year, the 2009 Permanent Parks and Recreation fund budget was approved by the PRAB. In that budget, the Board reallocated $500,000 from the EBCP budget to supplement the Valmont City Park budget. At that time, the Board asked staff to start the process of updating the concept plan for Phase Two and to concurrently creaie a cost estimate to identify shortfalls in the budget, if any. During the 2010 CIP process, the PRAB will determine whether to re-appropriate funds for the project. AGENDA ITEM # 5 - A PAGE 1 Once the EBCP Phase Two concept plan is approved by the PRAB, site planning will be completed and a more detailed site plan will be developed that includes specific engineering and landscape details. Staff will update the Board during the CIP budget process to determine the budget and the possible phasing of the project. The project will then go through the city's standard review and permitting process. Coordination with other agencies and departments will be required and has already begun for some aspects of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the PR.AB conduct the public hearing and consider a motion to approve the Phase Two concept plan. COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS: Economic: "I'he development of EBCP Phase Two will provide enhanced and diverse active recreation opportunities for the community and create a venue for local and regional events that will contribute to the economic vitality of the city of Boulder. Environmental: The development of Phase Two will incorporate low impact and sustainable design and construction practices. Some of the practices that can be implemented in the design include the following: using non-potable ditch water for irrigation; water conservation techniques in the landscape; LEER rM certified building design and sustainable maintenance practices; and encouraging and educating park users to recycle during their visits to the park. The design for Phase Two will also make provisions that will encourage park users to use alternative means of transportation. "hhis might include the design of bike facilities and creating efficient connections to the existing trail system. Social: )?BCP Yhase Two development will positively contribute to an already successful community park and will enhance the elements that create a great community place -accessibility, activity, comfort, image and sociability. The park will be connected to its surroundings, both visually and physically, and will be easy to reach through a variety of transportation options. The planned program elements are designed to keep users engaged in a wide range of active recreational activities. 't'his phase of park development will enhance the opportunities for Boulder residents and visitors to meet friends bui also allow them to feel comfortable interacting with each other in a safe and pleasant setting. O"fIIER IMPACTS: Fiscal: Based on the current program elements, the anticipated initial development costs of L-'BCP Phase Two are estimated to be in the range of $2.5-4 million dollars. Once the construction documents are completed, a more specific cost estimate will be developed. Cost estimates for the on-going maintenance and operations for the park will be developed as the plans are finalized. AGE]~D.4 ITF;:~~1 # S - A PAGE 2 Staff time: The development of the concept plan for EBCP Phase Two was part of the department's 2007/2008 work plan. The timeline for starting development has not been identified. PUBLIC FEEDBACK In the development of the concept plan for Phase Two, staff held four public meetings on June 4, August 27, October 15 and October 20 to gather input from the community to inform the program elements for the park. At those meeting, the general sentiment for the proposed program elements for the park were positive. The meeting notes and summation of those comments from the public meetings are attached (Attachment D). The main concern at all the meetings was the potential impact that the increased traffic from the pazk might have on the adjacent neighborhood. Additionally, much of the concern regarding traffic was based on the impending development directly south of the park and how those combined traffic increases would affect the neighborhood. Staff received comments regarding upgrading the handball courts and adding lights to the tennis courts and the final draft concept plan incorporates these requested upgrades. Once a cost estimate has been developed, staff will determine whether or not the remaining three tennis courts will be lighted. Additional background information on the public input process and design alternatives may be found at www.boulderparks-rec.org. BACKGROUND: In 1986, the land was purchased for the development of a community park that would serve the needs of the broader community. Based on these needs, community parks are designed primarily to provide active and structured recreation opportunities. The original concept plan for the EBCP (Attachment C) was completed in 1989. At that time, the concept plan program elements consisted of the East Boulder Community Center, infrastructure improvements such as utilities, parking, right-of--way improvements that included the development of Sioux Drive and 55`h Street, tennis courts, handball courts, basketball courts, play equipment, two large ponds and two multi-purpose grass fields. When the initial development was completed in 1991, all park amenities were built except for the two multi-purpose grass fields, that would become a future phase of development. Over time, a temporary off=leash dog park was developed adjacent to one of the ponds and utilizes some of the area where the multi-purpose fields were to be developed. Additionally, in subsequent years, two turf soccer fields were developed near the western edge of the property. "Phis updated concept plan for Phase Two is the result of a public input process that was initiated in June 2008 with the first public meeting held at the East Boulder Senior Center. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the opportunities and constraints of the site and to gather input on desired program elements from the community. Two design options were developed by the planning team, (staff and consultants) and presented to the community for input and comment at the second public meeting held in July. Based on this additional input, a final plan was developed and presented at the third AGENDA ITEM # 5 - A PAGE 3 public meeting held in September. Based on concerns presented at that meeting, staff held a third public meeting on October 13 to gather additional public comment. Finally, the neighborhood asked for a fourth and final meeting that was held on October 20. Additional background information on the public input process and design alternatives may be found at www.boulderparks-rec.org. CURRENT STATUS OF THE DRAFT CONCEPT PLAN: The final draft concept plan for Phase Two that has been developed reflects the intent of both the 1989 concept plan and community input gathered in 2008. Updated design plans and more thorough cost estimates will occur in later design development stages. The Phase Two concept plan includes the following program elements: • Two artificial turf fields (240 x 360 feet) large enough for full-size soccer, but striped for multi-purpose use for rugby, ultimate, lacrosse and flag football • Permanent dog park- reconfigured for small and large dogs with water access and other enhancements • Right-of--way improvements on Sioux Drive to improve safety in the recreation center parking lots. • New 104 surface parking lot on the south side of the site with access from 55`h Street • Additional infrastructure (sidewalks and utilities) • Sustainable (lined and aerated) irrigation pond to allow for non-potable water irrigation • A sustainable ("green") 2500 square foot restroom, storage facility and shelter building • Regional trail connection • Handball court improvements • Tennis court lighting • Petanque Courts (bocce ball) Below is a brief explanation of the park amenities included in the Phase Two draft concept plan. Artificial Turf Fields and Parking: Two multi-purpose fields will be constructed from state-of--the-art nylon "grass blades" that use a recycled rubber infill material. The fields will be designed in such a way to accommodate soccer, rugby, lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee and flag football. To achieve this, the striping of these various disciplines is integrated into the field layout and distinguished by using different colored lines, similar to a gym floor. These fields require no watering, less maintenance and have a life span of approximately 20 years. Surface parking lot: A 104 surface parking lot will be located south-east of the proposed multi-purpose fields. The parking lot was sized according the total anticipated participants for both fields and doubled for transition times between games. `T'his parking lot will be accessed from the south from 55~' St. A traffic analysis has been completed for AGE\DA ITEM # 5 - A PAGE 4 this project (Attachment E). This report concludes that the street system can handle the additional traffic volumes from the proposed park development.. Dog Park: The current, temporary.dog park has been quite successful and is seen as a valuable community benefit. In order to continue to accommodate this user group, staff is recommending creating a permanent dog park in generally the same location. This proposed dog park, reconfigured and slightly smaller to accommodate the turf fields, will be divided into small and large dog areas with both having access to the pond. Right-of--way (ROW) Improvements on Sioux Drive: At the time of development of the EBCP, neighbors were concerned with the possibility of commuters using both SSsn Street and Sioux Drive as a by-pass to avoid Foothills Parkway. To mitigate this, a portion of the road on Sioux Drive in front of the East Boulder Community Center was not built, therefore not allowing for through traffic to continue on Sioux Drive, as a way to deter commuters from using these streets as a by-pass. Since that time, other north- south transportation routes have been developed and improved such as Cherryvale Road. and Foothills Park~~ay, to accommodate higher traffic volumes. The completion of this section of Sioux Drive will include several traffic control devices to slow traffic speeds. These include narrowing the proposed road section, building a median between the east and westbound traffic lanes, and adding two "speed humps" on both the travel lanes 100 feet in either direction of the proposed traffic island. Sustainable Irrigation Pond: In an effort to strive for more sustainable long-term maintenance practices, staff is proposing creating a sustainable (lined and aerated) irrigation pond that would use ditch water from the Dry Creek Ditch on the park's western property line. It is anticipated that this pond would be large enough to provide non-potable water for the irrigation of both the EBCP and the adjacent Keewaydin Park. The water rights for this irrigation pond are being negotiated with the owner of the property to the south and will be donated to the city as part of their community benefit for their proposed development project. If the subdivision is not approved by the city, the developer would sell the water rights at fair market value that would then be added to the park development cost. Restroom/Picnic shelter: Included with the development of Phase Two is a new restroom building/picnic shelter with storage. The building will be located adjacent to the new multi-purpose fields and in close proximately to the existing basketball and handball courts. The design will implement appropriate sustainable building practices that are consistent with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). The program for the building includes two restrooms (men's and women's), a 300 square foot storage room for maintenance staff, an additional 300 square foot storage room (available to recreational groups such as youth soccer), and an open air picnic shelter that could be rented by the public. Regional Trail Co~neetion: The Transportation Master Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 1996, allowed for a regional trail connection through the center of the AGENDA ITEM # 5 - A PAGE 5 park that would create a direct connection from 55~' Street to the south to Sioux Street on the north. Department staff has been working with GO Boulder staff to design the trail connection that would allow commuters and park users to safely utilize the facilities. Additionally, a proposed sidewalk connection all along the south side of the pazk will allow for a loop walk desired by many in the neighborhood. Handball Court Improvements: These courts are heavily used and a very popular amenity at the pazk. The improvements to the existing handball courts will include extending the concrete back court and include new perimeter fencing. This will alleviate current safety issues on the courts and bring them to current standards for tournament play. Tennis Court Lighting: Currently, the only lighted courts within the department's inventory are those at Tom Watson Park. At a minimum, in this Phase Two plan, two of the five existing courts are proposed to be lighted and ideally, all five if the budget allows. Conduit and electrical stubs to the other three courts will be provided if the budget does not allow for lighting all five at this time. The lighting system would be designed so there would be little light trespass and would not adversely affect any neighbors. Pentaque Courts: A Pentaque court, a sport closely related to Bocce Ball, is proposed in the development of Phase Two. 1'he courts will be located close to the senior center and are made of crushed rock bordered by landscape timbers. 'T'his larger court can he divided into eight smaller courts. Wildlife Habitat Enhancements: In this phase of the development, enhancements to the existing pond edges are being proposed. "these enhancements would include revegetation with native trees and shrubs that would benefit the existing wildlife and encourage increased habitat diversity. Additionally, park benches would be placed in strategic locations along the pond edges to enable pazk users to enjoy the view of the ponds and the Flatirons. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS: A traffic study was completed for the anticipated traffic impacts associated with the development at EBCP (Attachment E). The most significant new traffic generator during peak traffic access times will be the addition of the multi-purpose fields. Traffic projections have been made for near and long term planning horizons. The addition of the traffic impacts from the potential new residential development directly south of the park has been included in the traffic projections. Observations and recommendations include: • New park uses may add approximately 100 inbound and 100 outbound vehicle trips during the p.m. afternoon peals (4:30-6 pm) hour at the time the f olds are programmed for youth soccer. • Peak weekend traffic is less than peak weekday traffic, and the background traffic on adjacent roadways is also less on weekends. • The 55`t' St. corridor will be able to easily accommodate the additional traffic generated by the park from avolume-to-capacity perspective. AGENllA 1"TF,M ~ 5 - A PA(;E: G • New traffic will likely be distributed equally from the Baseline and South Boulder Road corridors with no significant increase on Manhattan Drive. • The new 104 space parking lot should be able to accommodate the increased parking demand generated by proposed enhancements. • The missing piece of Sioux Drive should be completed to eliminate the parking lot cut-through that currently exists at the recreation center. It is not anticipated that this connection will attract any new cut-through traffic between Baseline Road and South Boulder Road. • The signalized intersection of Baseline Road and SSct, Street will be able to accommodate the increased traffic projected from all sources from now to the year 2030 with marginal increase in overall vehicle delay. • The southbound approach to the stop sign on 55~ Street at South Boulder Road will experience increased delay over time as traffic grows on South Boulder Road and the park expansion and the adjacent residential project are implemented. It is questionable whether the city's traffic signal warranting procedure would actually be met at this intersection, but it is certain that delay can be minimized with the addition of a short southbound left turn lane. 'T`his new lane could be striped in the existing roadway width with minimal disruption of on-street parking and would greatly improve the un-signalized level of service (LOS)at this location. It is recommended that this improvement be pursued. • Residents in the area have expressed concerns about pedestrian safety in the crosswalks near Ontario Place, and at the multi-use path crossing of 55~, Street just south of Sioux Drive. It is recommended that the city's transportation division staff tours these crossings to make sure that the signing and marking is appropriate or if any improvements are needed. SITE CONSTRAINTS: The proposed Phase Two development is constrained by both physical and environmental conditions. The development of the first phase for EBCP left little room in the center of the site for the development of the multi-purpose fields. However, the proposed fields are sized appropriately in the given area while achieving the desired north/south orientation. The dog park will maintain many of its current characteristics including size and proximity and access to the pond. All other amenities described previously have been designed into the site and comply with requirements for each activity. Phase Two is also constrained by several environmental factors such as the buffers associated with the existing ponds and wetlands to the east and irrigation ditches to the south and west. At this time, department staff is working with other city staff to identify the boundaries of the wetlands to ensure the compliance with new wetland ordinance. Staff is also working with the irrigation ditch companies to identify the opportunities and constraints associated with easement requirements for the two ditches. Additionally, as of summer 2008, there were approximately 13 prairie dogs inhabiting a portion of the site. In the Urban Wildlife Management Pian, the site is classified as a near term relocation area, meaning the animals can be removed upon development of the site. AGENDA ITEM # 5 - A PAGE 7 At the time of development, staff will comply with the city wildlife ordinance and will remove the animals and provide the necessary mitigation to prevent future migration onto the site. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES: The design and development of Phase Two allows for the implementation of many sustainable design elements into various aspects of the project. Many of these opportunities will be beneficial for long term cost savings and for the short term in decreasing intensive maintenance practices. Water conservation: The development of the artificial turf fields will significantly save water resources. The sustainable irrigation pond will allow for the use of ditch water to irrigate both the proposed landscape improvements and existing turf and landscape for EBCP and for Keewaydin Park. This will eliminate the use of potable water in irrigating any turf and landscape at these park sites. Green building design: The design of the restroom/picnic shelter design will implement appropriate sustainable building practices that are consistent with LEED TM standards developed by the USGBC. Some examples of these design elements might include the use of solar power for lighting, waterless urinals, composting toilets, recycled timbers for framing. As the plan for the building is finalized, more specific sustainable design practices will be identified. Sustainable site improvements: With the development of the multi-purpose fields, current parking capacities will be exceeded during peak park use. The development of the new parking lot on the south will meet the projected demand. Several sustainable design considerations such as pervious concrete or asphalt, collecting run-off in bio-swales and allowing for infiltration and low water landscape materials, will be considered. Pet waste reduction: The development of the dog park will also incorporate several sustainable design features such as collecting run-off into vegetated bio-swales to allow for cleaning of the water before entering the ponds. 'Lit also includes a proposed development of a "pooch potty" that will allow pet owners to dispose of pet waste into a holding tank, similar to aport-a- potty, that will be disposed of in a similar fashion. COST ESTIMATES: A preliminary cost estimate for Phase Two has been developed (Attachment B). Cost estimates for development projects are broken into two areas, hard costs and soft costs. Lard costs account for the contractor's costs for labor, material, equipment and services, and contractor's overhead and profit, and other direct construction costs to complete the development of the amenities proposed. Soli costs include items that are not considered direct construction costs and include architectural and engineering fees, project , contingencies, legal fees and other pre- and post-construction expenses. One of the soft cost line items is a design contingency that is calculated at 30 percent of the total for the construction costs. This is an industry standard at this phase of design that allows for flexibility in cost estimating and will eventually decrease during the refinement of the AGENDA ITE?VI # 5 - A PAGE S plans. Another soft cost line item is a ten percent contingency for "green building." This soft cost reflects the ability for consultants to design and plan for the project to be built sustainably. Similar to the design contingency costs, this percentage will likely decrease as the plans are refined. NEXT STEPS: Upon approval by the PRAB, staff and the consultant team will start on the design development and construction drawings for Phase Z'wo. This is anticipated to take until spring of 2009 and at that time an implementation phasing strategy will be developed based on the final cost estimate. Currently, there is not an estimated construction start date. As the plan develops, staff will return to the Board with a phasing strategy and review the costs and the prioritization in the C]P. Attachments• A: Draft Concept Plan- Phase One B: Cost Estimate C: 1989 Concept Plan D: Public Meeting notes/comments E: Traffic analysis AGE1~~A ITEM # 5 - A PAGE 9 ~ _ r,.M E+x... ,rv,,,,,Y,,, r.~..r c.~.n.m rousttMr ~t.r9+ r.uwr er"'eo-a^'r iwWrta, s r+rrw rw mwvw.e.. c.nw a'w ~ rc... u.~rro un~v.+ r~...r.~ r..w \ owr ~ r"' . ~ E; ~ ~ ~.,re.- ~ru r.~o.. ~f/ i ~ w..r.r-..J ~I~ F: 1- - ~ f~:.::J ~H.r~rntJ ~ „ ~ ~ J 'Jl '1`~. ~ ..y- _ ~ ~t i". r - i rQ~ ~M ~ a M+~ e a.....o r..ee.s, n."^... c.»e o- w. Q NOfffll D rosartn~ouou¦o 1 ~ - r».. r'~~• fNAPllli East Boulder Communit Park- City of Boulder u~~ ~ teuam„ .r: a m ~ i0 a Attachment B East Boulder Community Park -Phase II City of Boulder Parks 8 Recreation Preferred Conceptual Plan: October 22, 2008 Estimate of Probable Costs Site Demo, Prep B Earthwork Unit D CosUUnlt Cos( Removal / Screen~n of S oils Pile CY 5.980 5 6 535.880 Eros!on Control LS 1 S 10.000 510,000 Soil Pre /Fine Gradin (Sod) SF 228.100 50.25 557.025 Soil Prep! Fine Grading (Native Seed) SF 135,100 50.15 520,265 Sete Gradin CY 21,684 55 5108,420 5231.590 Parkin 8 Tratlic Cafmin Unit Q Cost/Unlt Cost New Asphalt Parkin Area (Bourn) SF 33.600 55 5166,000 Curb 8 Gutter'New As halt Pari.in Area, Souih) LF 1,615 515 524,225 55TH St. Entry Dnve (25' Road vnth S fit Entry E Median LF 564 5150 584.600 New Sioux Road Se. ment SF 9.325 50.75 56.554 New Sioux Road Se meat Median Curbs LF 693 515 510,395 'Biaswales SF 8,244 510.00 S82C40 S eed Table EA 2 510,000 S2Q00;; Landsca a Inside M,edtan SF 2.135 53.00 56,405 5403, 059 Park Amonities Unlt Q( Cost/Unit Cost Two Artdrial Turf Fte!ds 240'x360' SF 210,600 57 51,474,200 'Concrete V~ralk - 8' wide / 6" de ih SF 2.922 540 5116.880 'Concrete Walk - 12' wide / 6" de th SF 1,161 550 558.050 Pavdion/ReslroomiSheher Budding with Com ostin Toilets) EA i 5390,000 S35g000 Pavd~on Plaza Re uiar Concrete FlatworY,) SF 2,166 SS 510,830 Pavilion Plaza Colored Conuete Flatwork) SF 9,620 59 596.580 'Small Shener Plaza SF 1.671 59 515.035 'Small Shelter (10'X10') LS 1 525,000 525.000 Outdoor Classroom LS 1 525,000 525,000 Picnic Tables EA 8 5800 56.400 BenG~es EA 9 51.000 55.000 Trash Retie iactes EA 10 5800 SS.G00 Do \NaSe Dis osal Station EA 3 5400 51,200 Bike Racks EA 2 5800 51.600 Ponalet Pad (4" De th Conuete SF 3.565 54.50 516,013 'Handball lm rovemenls LS 1 530,000.00 530,000 'Tennis Court L~ hhn .See altematlve 111 EA 2 546.060.00 580,000 Trash Enclosure LS 1 57.500 57.500 52.361.322 UU1lties (See Add Alternates 2 6 3) Unit Qt . CosVUnit Cost Pi ed Ditch Segment (Howard Su er-Phosticle) LF 300 535 510 500 Site U6hties•Sanita Sewer LF 900 540 535.000 Srte Utilities-Domestic Flow LF 900 525 522.560 569.000 Do Park Unit Q Cost/Un1t Cost Fence LF 2.089 520 541,780 Beach (3iA" Gravel) SF 15,966 51 515.966 Sod 8 Irri ahon (Lae e Oo Park) SF 48.85b S1 25 561,120 'Artd~c~al Turf (Small Doo Park) SF 14,037 57.00 598.255 Sod Pre / Fme Gradinn (Sod) SF 48.896 SO 25 512.224 Ent Gate S Paddock LS 1 55.000 SS.000 4' Ent Gate (at BeaG1) EA 2 51,000 52.000 10' Maintenance Gate EA 2 52.000 54.000 Crusher Fines cnt SF 1,503 S2 53,00v Shade Shelter (10'x10') LS 2 525.000 550.600 Drinkm Fountain with Do Bowl EA 1 57.000 57,000 Picnic Tables EA 2 5800 S 1.600 Benches EA 4 5 1.000 S 4.000 Trash Rece tacles EA 3 5400 51,200 'Bio-Sv:ales SF 8.2i6 510 S82.i5G 500-oallon in round septic s stem for doo waste dis sal EA 2 51.500 53.000 5392,315 P'etanque Courts Unit Qt . CosUUnit Cost Crusher Fines LS 2 52 54 Conuete Ede LF 704 520 S i4,08G P'etanoue Plaza (Colored Concrete) SF 6.158 59 555.422 569.506 Landscape Unit (try. CosbUnit Cost Treest25-3"Cal. EA 218 5500 St05,G'JO Sod SF 216.559 50.50 5108,280 Shrub & Perenrnal Beds Oncludin weed bamer 8 mulch) SF 35, i95 55 51?5.575 Natwe Beetled Areas SF 102`s65 50.25 525,591 'Wmdaeak LS 1 Si0.0000D Si0,OD0 Natural Pond Ed a Extst~n Ponds) LS 1 50.000 550,000 5478,846 Irrl atlon Pond" Unit 0 CosVUnlt Cost On (orcavalion, lake edge, liner, psotexlde lsbrk, sod cover, serstwo sYStem) LS 1 5100,000.00 5100,000 5100,000 Irrl atlon S stem Unlt Q CosUUnlt Cost Porn Slahon;~+~+w°!l~n!al-pipe. Intakesueen,pumDttaUOn,Rnsr.controls. LS 1 $750,000 $150,000 Dn Irri alien SF 37,329 SO 90 $33,596 Turf Irn anon iCoes Not Include Do Park SF 225.532 50 75 5769.7 a9 Native Grass Irncation SF 7x7.058 $0.75 $710.294 5463,039 SUBTOTAL f4,568,676 General Condtions 8°~ 5365,494 Mobilizatan 5% 5228,434 Estimating Contngenq 20% 5913,735 GRAND TOTAL 56,076,339 Add Alternate #1 Unit Q CosUUnit Cost '3 Addroonal Tennis Court Lighhng LS 3 540.000 5120,000 5120,000 NOteS 1. All costs are based on current construction costs as of August 2008. Numbers may need to be adjusted to reflect cost fluduationlinflatlon over time. Quantities in this cost estimate are based on conceptual level drawings. Actual quantdies will vary. The conceptual level of the plans used for this estimate may resuK in the adddion or removal of Hems from this esllmate. 2 'New kerns since previous estimate. 3. ^ Cost of irrigation pond subject to change per ongoing water capacity investigation. Pump Station Bulld'ng: Cost will depend on the type of buildinL desired. 1" i s ~ 7 ~ • ~ ai:a....~r: - ~ e.AVarwrt cawn y, ,cu~~, ~L~ \ codnrc ` *Fr+s counn gEC11EA710N CENTER COhtPLE%~ \ •Vt)LLEY{4_l •)y00p baUAPE F£ET •Cia1URF'~'. Fl4Y ~NUOf7n Ppp[ Fl~P~ ^A\'1[IO'E •a YM { LO.:KLR RU:iNb •p0."0 •MAR.TCNANCC BTGPAGC ~ .uEEV rHa nooaa C t. qM'• 9PA~.FS c _ r ~ ~.i l rl ~J~ ~k, r~ ' LAKE ARU .,I ~ . J. t ~ -~f ,i r { :iN, . ss ArPe [.uE ~ /1^l t'Y ~i... r{ ~ ~-n ~ } s. ~i: .c.FwuraA.ou.: r ` \ t ~Y ~ J~ ` i O ~ 'I ~ WEST SOCCER FIELD COIAPIE% ~ ~ ~ ~_~f ,c ift .soc q[R -~iu ~J- ~ I n J~,r yd lei ~ .FF..P OaN: r may[ t ~ 1 \ by-~ .i ' i;:~a''--c•o,,,v, ~ J ` _ 7 t~ . n•x. ; •n ()PEN T~AF AH NA , A - 1, •y g `Z",,F~ ~1,~ wETUNDS WrK;A71ON AREA ,.w.•.•.~.. •......P_^v., .rc rAR COq,!a[ _YC ~ .rurur.u .tArm~ • ~ R C 0 SPOR'by , ~ ~jl' 7y~ 4fOfl5 NUY1E$ NAT•F [wAI.FfS ~ i ' . ~ c~ rr~ ~ SOUTH PICNIC AREA MASTER PLAN .CN1-UN M1'S P~AV ` w 'I~~ R-~. fir,' R,`V.GONS l0.YJARY 'YI. "1 d' 6~ ~ • ~T $a+c,a~~ ~d Attachment ll East Boulder Community Park Phase II Synopsis of Comments Received at Public Meetings City of Boulder Parks & Recreation Date: October 22, 2008 Public Meeting #1 (6 comment sheets received) tune 4, 2008 # of sue~estions TOPIC P'etanque 3 P'etanque courts 2 Convenience for senior citizens 2 Construct p'etanque courts before other construction begins Traffic 1 Against current traffic flow through park 1 Improve management of 55th St. traffic 1 Plan may have negative impact on traffic & wildlife Public Meeting #2 (0 comments sheets received) August 27, 2008 Public Meeting #3 (18 comment sheets received) October 15, 2008 # of su~eestions To is Tennis 6 lights (2) courts 16 Lights (5) courts 1 On/off switch 1 Coin operated switch where no reservation is feasible 2 Additional courts Traffic 1 Approve addition of speed bumps and median Public Meeting #4 (0 comment sheets received) October 20, 2008 L ~1~EdVDA Ii~~~IVI ~ U , ~p~~ East Boulder Community Park Phase tt Public Meeting June 4, 2008 Flip Chart Notes • Mosquito control and new pond • What is synthetic turf made of? o Polyethylene/petroleum based o Recycled rubber crumbs • What if kids fall on ST? o Safety concerns • Padding, etc. • Price? o Many recycled materials make up a synthetic turf field • Can the rubber crumbs blow away? o Fibers diffuse • Will the spoils pale(?) go away? • Floodplain study? • Timeline for ST field? 0 1-1/2 to 2 years • Activity in south edge and wildlife o Will more activity affect wildlife -great blue heron • Add vegetation around buffer, pond edge • Parking # needed for more fields? 0 120 cars per field • Prairie dog control o PD relocation and mitigation will occur • Will this affect raptors? • PD and raptors , o Amount of open space around park • Walking in the summer • Pristine nature at site, keep peaceful evening walks -don't want to Pose this Will enhance habitat • Nesting boxes on island and no path • Youth need fields! • Maintenance of fields, synthetic turf will improve safety • P'etanque - need a small field close to senior center (20 x 40 yards?) o $5,000 - 7,000 cost • Between dog park and volleyball =big enough for 8 courts • Buffers for wildlife -balance this with fields • Parking needed. Already at capacity • Looking to eliminate loop through center? o Opposed to doing this • This is a life safety issue, traffic calming will be implemented • Blackhawk & 55tyh -very difficult to turn and the loop helps • Loop = a compromise from the earlier plans. This should not be forgotten • We will bring more info about this issue to next meeting • Increase maintenance and upkeep to ponds? Lots of junk. • Swallow nest along building -why were they destroyed? EBCP Public Meeting Notes 6/4/08 ~~~i~~A II~IWrdVI i;=., 1A~~ • Traffic is bad now - it will get worse with new developments • Youth activities - -skateboard park + o This will be at Valmont • Budget? • Competition for funding? o Valmont? • Will the project be quick or phased? • Concern about having skateboards in the park and older park patrons • What is the vegetated barrier made of? • Will all the fields be ST? • Show flood plain on maps. • Concern about fields and the flood plain. • Pedestrian path at super-phosticle ditch, what is this? EBCP Public Meeting Notes 6/4/08 I East Boulder Community Park Phase tl Public Meeting August 27, 2008 Flip Chart Notes Presentation of New Plan Alternatives A and B (Emily) Traffic Calming and New Sioux Drive Road Extension • Major public safety and welfare concern is Sioux Drive cutting through the recreation center parking area. There are better solutions for traffic calming to consider. • Over time how will traffic change? o Foothills Increase 10-20% (next 20 years) • How has the 1990 plan for 55th Street changed to date? • Concern of future office development to north • How does this plan effect the speed limit? o Possibly 15 mph o Narrow lanes "NO OUTLET" signs to remain in p?ace. • Concerns about bike crossing at 90 degree turn in NW corner of park property at bike trail entrance. There are no stop signs on north bound lane creating safety concern. • Historic master plan shows 55th at an angle NW to SE. No changes to 55th are envisioned as part of this project. • Residents constitute a majority of people using 55th Street • Transportation Master Plan still shows 55th connection to Aztec Circle cutting through undeveloped parcel north of park. • 55th Street ROW shown cutting through park. Has this been vacated? • No plans to have 55th Street cut through park. This is not going to happen. • Concern that South parking lot will cause an increase in traffic around the park. o Addition of this parking lot is expected to be a plus because people won't have to go up and around to north side of park o Will reduce congestion in the north parking lot • Projected car trips on safety and quality of life • Initial traffic analysis South Boulder Road to Base Line via: Foothills Parkway to west = 1 minute- 40 seconds average; Cherryvale Road to east = 1 minute 30 seconds average; 55th Street = 3 minutes 30 seconds average. The approximately 2 minute "penalty" traveling north-south via 55th Avenue will promote use of the other two routes • Concern about impact of additional parking of 127 stalls on neighborhood. • Team asked to look at how the traffic impacts the neighborhood • Team asked to look at 4-way stops • Team asked to look at traffic calming at Ontario and 55tH o Maybe speed bumps on Ontario? o People do not observe the speed limit • Concern that lighting the tennis courts will increase traffic at night • How much additional traffic from parking and field developments • Team asked to look at 55th and Sioux Dr. traffrc calming • Vegetative safety concerns at 55t'' and Sioux Dr. Drainage Issues EBCP Public Meeting Notes 8/27/08 ~ ~ -7 o Community along Omaha near irrigation pond o Groundwater causes flooding in homes, will need to ensure that park amenities do not cause new or increased flooding o New pond will be lined. Verify groundwater levels. o Belief that fields have helped to mitigate the flooding that occurred in the past and the desire to retain this benefit. It was explained that the artificial turf fields will likely retain this effect. o One of the next steps in the design process will be to analyze soils and water issues on site o Floodplain Impacts? Standing Water Associated with Insects • The new pond will include an aerating fountain to circulate water and minimize increase of mosquito breeding grounds. • Will new fields, trees, landscaping increase mosquitoes? • Adjacent open space contains open water and is routinely flooded (this may be the source of all the mosquitoes in the area). Location of New Irrigation Pond • Is it possible to relocate the irrigation pond away from NW corner of park? o Don't like the "pinch point"/"bottleneck" created by its proposed location o Like access between park and school Environmental Concerns • Would like to see a report from past meetings, impact on environment and wildlife (Prebble's mouse and Blue Herons), more information on traffic numbers. o Park currently shows use of bioswales in new parking lots, habitat enhancement . along pond edge o Proposed parking area on south side of park seems close to south pond. Will this location affect the blue herons? Other wildlife? Community Involvement • Concern that there was not enough advanced notification and communication with the neighborhood during this design process. o This plan is heavily influenced by the 2006 Park Master Plan and Needs Assessments Study and a 20 year old master plan which was completed for the park • HOA in the areas would like to be contacted and notified for public meetings • Follow up emails and notifications. Desire for Additional Community Involvement • Additional community involvement of planning process o Needs Assessment, previous background information about park planning (2 multi-purpose fields etc.) • Changes to be people involved and ideas of 20 year old master plan Additional Amenities /Desires for Park Infrastructure • Handball Courts EBCP Public Meeting Notes &/27/08 r:(aE~l~A I I~F(V1 Y~ 4r `DACE ~ I) o Apron construction too shallow o Use front wall to double capacity {shared wall). Is this a viable solution? Is there space? o High demand for handball leads to long wait times o Courts are not to USHA Standards o Lighting on Handball Courts? Will increase usable time and reduce demand during early evening hours. o Unsafe Gutters-issues of fence panels and retaining walls (hazard) o Upper fence panels in disrepair o Plans for handball courts have been submitted-but never got anywhere o Issues of how money is allocated, priority vs. phasing/budgetary constraints Check Foothills Park Phasing Plans (Phase 3 may include handball courts) o PRAB approval of handball courts not implemented in past plans o Colorado Handball Association has a new kid's handball program o Add Colorado Handball Association to recreation user group list • Desire was expressed for additional benches and picnic tables adjacent to pond with trees to provide shade. o Desire to add these amenities to the "island area" was expressed • A sidewalk is needed on the north side of existing parking lot along the road connecting the bus stop. • EastIV1/est bike path through park needs buffers from soccer players who currently occupy the path. . • Soccer players prefer alternative with North-South orientation of fields (Alt. B) • The future development to the south is also planning a detention pond in the area of the new pond proposed for the park. o City has been coordinating with developer on this issue. • What is the capacity of the irrigation pond? o Calculations are currently underway to determine the capacity of the pond and a study is being prepared of the ditch capacity/rights. • Specific traffic numbers will be provided after a plan is chosen • This is a community park and the amenities within it are for the City as a whole. o Active recreation/fields will be a part of the plan o Neighbors to the north worry about balls coming into their yards. EBCP Public Meeting Notes 8/27/08 , _ , i : ~ _ East Bowlder Community Park Phase Il Public Meeting #3: October 15, 2008 Flip Chart Notes Presentation of Preferred Concept Plan (Bill Bobzien - Shapins Belt Collins) The Preferred Concept is very similar to Alternative B presented at Public Meeting #2 with the following minor revisions: - The central landscaped island in the proposed south parking !ot was removed due to maintenance concerns, resulting in reconfiguration and addition of ten parking stalls for a total of 104 spaces. A bio-swale was added adjacent to the parking lot for water quality. - A drop off area was added at the proposed parking lot to reduce unnecessary traffic within the parking lot. - A second shelter was added between the two artificial turf fields - A paved walkway was added between the two artificial turf fields - A sidewalk was added along south side of Sioux Drive to provide better access to the existing bus stop - The configuration of the eight p'etanque courts was revised - A bio-swale was added adjacent to the dog park for water quality - Seating and shade trees were added to the edges of the existing ponds - Lighting was added to two of the five existing tennis courts and conduit will be provided to the three remaining unlit courts for future lighting. - Repairs will be made to the existing handball courts and lighting wilt be added to extend hours of use due to extremely high demand. - Reconfiguration of west end of Sioux Drive has been removed from the plan. - Two speed humps and landscaped island will be included within reconfigured Sioux Drive north of Community Center parking lot. Public comments and questions/answers after presentation of Preferred Concept Plan • Will there be any improvements made to the existing children's playground? Improvements to the children's playground are not part of the Phase ll project. • It would be beneficial to add conduit (and lighting) to the third "hitting" tennis court in lieu of only two of the three noted on the plan slated for future lighting. • Adding lighting tow two of the five courts will be helpful, but there will be fierce competition for the lit courts. Boulder Tennis Association (BTA) members in the meeting asked the City to consider adding lighting to all five courts as part of this project. This will be considered as construction costs get defined better later in the design process. • Will there be a reservation system for the lighted tennis courts? The reservations will work similar to the existing system and if the courts aren't reserved, it is first come, first serve. • Wiil there be a coin operated on/off switch or timer similar to the IBM tennis courts? The details of the switch and timer have not been worked out but there will be an on/off switch to avoid the courts being lit when not in use. • BTA has two leagues totaling approximately 150 tennis players. The season starts in summer and ends in Sep#ember. • Will the pavilion restrooms be open at night and year-round? Yes. • Many of the existing pathway lighting (bollards) are not functioning presently. This will be evaluated by the City. EBCP Public Meeting #3 Notes 10/1 a/08 ~ A~FtdL7A kY FIVI # ~ _./4- o P~~~.. • Why does the plan represent two artificial turf fields? The need was defined in the Parks Needs Assessment study done in 2006. • There is a concern with irrigation and drainage of the artificial turf fields. The artificial tun` fields probably will not be irrigated but will be designed to drain adequately below ground. The City is hiring a geotechnical engineer to investigate soils and groundwater within the entire project area. • There is a serious problem with mosquitoes in the area and there is concem with the addition of the proposed irrigation pond making the situation worse. The irrigation pond will be designed with an aeration system to create water movement, discouraging conditions conducive to mosquito breeding and also algae growth. • Will there be impacts to wildlife as a result of the Phase II park improvements? The plan does not represent significant land use changes to what exists today and the edges of the existing ponds are being enhanced, so the thought is that wildlife impacts will be insignificant, if any. • Is the plan available on the City's website? Yes. Presentation of Traffic Study (Bill Fox -Fox Higgins) - Observations were made to document existing park traffic access. - Traffic counts and other information was gathered recently and present daily peak hour traffic on 55`hAvenue/Sioux Drive is approximately 2,500 trips/day. Two lane streets of this type can handle up to 10,000 trips/day. - It was also observed that approximately 100 trips/hour were going through the Community Center parking lot/Sioux Drive on peak weekdays and 60/hour on peak weekends. - The current Sioux Drive street configuration cutting through the Community Center parking lot is a safety concern and there have been complaints to staff there. - It is improbable that 55"' Avenue/Sioux Drive will become a short cut after the proposed traffic calming and roadway improvements are made in lieu of Cherryvale Drive and/or Foothills Parkway. During peak hours there is an approximately two minute penalty (or more than a doubling of time) taking the 55`~ Avenue route as compared to the other routes above. - Three traffic calming devices (two speed humps and amedian/curvilinear lane) within a very short distance will mitigate the loss of the route through the Community Center parking area, resulting in no gain in time. - A maximum of 100 additional trips/hour (half inbound, half outbound) could be seen as a result of the Phase II park improvements. Half of these to/from the north, half to/from the south. - The traffic study includes Phase II park improvements, 20 year traffic projections and addition of residential neighborhood along south side of the park. - South Boulder Road intersection level of service will go from "C" to "D", or increase from 20-25 seconds to 30-35 seconds of wait time from 55~' to South Boulder Road. This wait time may increase to one minute over time. These traffic counts may not support signalization of the intersection, but monitoring of the situation is recommended in the future. There is room to add a left hand turn lane on 55`h Avenue at this location, which would reduce wait times. Discussion of traffic related issues raised at Public Meeting #2 (Bill Cowern -City of Boulder) EBCP Public Meeting #3 Notes 10/15/08 1) Concern raised that speed limit not being observed on 55th or on neighborhood streets. Speed appeared to be acceptable. The City's Neighborhood Street Traffic Safety Program funding was lost in 2003, so no funding is available for such improvements currently. 2} The Boulder Fire Department will not allow traffic calming on 55th Avenue north of the park to Baseline. 3) Criteria is not met for traffic calming on 55th Avenue south of the park. 4) Some additional signage will be considered on Sioux Drive as a result of public's concerns and Bill's observations. Public comments and questions/answers after presentation of Traffic Study and Issues from Public Meeting #Z • Park users park on neighborhood side streets. This wasn't observed when the field studies were taking place, but is duly noted. • Safety of users of crosswalk at 55`h and Ontario will be compromised due to increased traffic. The average speed limit observed was 22 mph and the crosswalk area is narrow. The crosswalks should continue to operate safely. • Will the traffic study be available on the City's website? Yes. Next Steps - A fourth Public Meeting will be held Monday, October 20th at 6:00 p.m. - The project will be presented to PRAB on October 27`t', 2008 at a public hearing. EBCP Public Meeting #3 Notes 70/? 5/08 ~,~~N[~A 1..11=iV? 3~~~ ~ t''ACa~ East Boulder Community Park Phase II Public Meeting #4 October 21, 2008 Ffip Chart Notes • Concern about Manhattan Drive traffic, getting onto Baseline, waiting at traffic signal, children playing near the street, coming into the travel lanes and the effect this all has on 55~h Street and the neighborhood. • Concern about traffic. Speed humps are a good compromise. • Concern about future adjacent development and traffic increase. • What is being done about 55"' Street traffic south of Sioux Drive? • Wi11 stop signs be installed at the intersection of 55`" and Ontario? • Why do the multi-purpose fields need to be synthetic turf? • Will there be a plan to keep vehicles off the synthetic fields? • What is being done to mitigate mosquitoes on the new irrigation pond? • Wili the existing ditch along the south side of the property be left open or piped? • What will be done abou# the prairie dogs that have a colony on the south side of the pond? • Are there going to be lights added? The original planners mentioned there would be no lights in the park. • If tennis courts and/or handball courts are lit, there is a concern regarding noise impacts to the existing nearby residences. • Current pathway lighting near the tennis courts is not working and creating a safety concern. • Is there a way to design the landscape to keep people from gathering under trees and adjacent to existing homes due to associated noise. • What is the plan to take into account the 100 and 500 year flood? Concern with parking lot and flood impacts. • People are fishing in the existing ponds illegally and fishing line is creating a problem for wildlife. Can there be a sign added? • What will be done to stop people from sleeping overnight in their cars in the parking lot? • Residents were not asked if they wanted a Community Park. • Number of cars per hour on 55"' Street may have been misinterpreted in the traffic study. • The new parking lot will be a problem (increased traffic, safety, police patrol, etc...) EBCP Public Meeting Notes 10/21/08 ~~~ld~)~ I ~ F iVi 1~ ~ _ ~ PA~~ Z Attachment E i• • Y - ' .l ij+ Cw t.,~ a _ S~1 5'51 ?r r,. i .~~,'j... ay_ - "-aE4~.. ~ _y5 '.t .a.5, .gym 7~ ~1.j5~ ! ~ s- 5 _ ? } 4 l5 t t ~t s: ~ 5 1 i . . 5.(~~.' i t ~ ~ Ste" 7 ~ j f%Lr, 7~ln~y~b,T9~',~~~f/'mil` y%' i!~_~~'"~~:\ T' ~1, ~°,`l tip ~i rY'~~YYY ~ fi ~ /I 'Rt ~ 7 - ~ i - - a - a o a a : • • • a ~ • : • ~ • : a- • 1 1: FOX T R A N P O R TAT I O N G R O U F • •a- 11: 1.0 Introduction The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department is developing plans to provide enhancements to the East Boulder Community Park located adjacent to the East Boulder Recreation and Senior Centers. The park location and vicinity are illustrated on Figure 1. Currently the park has a variety of outdoor court facilities, a playground, a dog park, and a large open turf area approximately the size of one and one half soccer fields. The turf area is used for programmed sports activities with the most active being youth soccer. The park is served by a 104 space parking lot (separate from the recreation center parking lot) located between the soccer field and the court area. A paved multi-use path traverses through the park in an east-west direction. 1'he park currently includes a large unimproved and unused dirt area located between the soccer field and the dog park, south of the parking lot. This traffic study estimates the additional traffic that will be generated by proposed new uses at the park and analyzes the traffic impact on area roadways. It also evaluates the impact of completing the missing section of Sioux Drive adjacent to the recreation center parking lot. 2.0 Proposed Park Expansion The proposed park improvement plan includes a number of enhancements to the existing court area, including restrooms, lighting, shelters, and new p'etanque courts. There will also be improvements made to the dog park area. A second 104 space parking lot will be added south of the dog park with access to 55`h Street. This new parking area will provide efficient access to the south end of the new turf field and the dog park. The proposed park enhancement plan is illustrated on Figure 2. The most significant expansion to the park that will impact traffic access is the addition of a new soccer/turf field south of the existing parking lot. In addition, both soccer/turf fields (new and existing) will be surfaced with artificial turf. The new turf/soccer field will allow for an expansion of the existing programmed recreational sports use on any given day, and the artificial turf will likely extend the use of the fields over a long season. 3.0 Existing Roadway and 'T'raffic Conditions All traffic accessing the park and recreation center from outside the immediate ricighborhoods must use 55`h Street from either Baseline Road on the north or Sauth Boulder Road on the south. 55`h Street is classified as a collector and has a 25 mph speed limit. Portions of 55th Street in this segment are narrow, curving, and have landscaped medians. The 55th Street alignment is not continuous across the park, and the southern portion winds to the east around the recreation center. Sioux Drive travels along the north edge of the park and connects the north and south portions of 55`}' Street but even it is not continuous adjacent to the recreation center. A short segment of Sioux Drive was not completed historically, but a connection through the recreation center parking lot is Fast Boulder Community Park Traffic Study - Drajt October 6, 2008 physically possible. The net result is a very disjointed and indirect roadway connection between Baseline Road and South Boulder Road in the 55~' Street corridor. Existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the park were documented this spring during the youth soccer season (historically the peak use period of the park), including: ¦ Weekday PM peak hour traffic in the Baseline/55~' Street intersection and the South Boulder Road/55~' Street intersection ¦ 24-hour traffic volume on 55~' Street both north and south of the park on weekdays and weekends • Parking lot utilization during weekday PM and Saturday morning peak hours when youth soccer was in session ¦ Parking occupancy on adjacent residential roadways and school parking lot during periods of youth soccer activity ¦ East-west cut-through traffic in the recreation center parking lot adjacent to the missing section of Sioux Drive. Existing traffic conditions are summarized in Figures 3 and 4. Significant observations include the following: ¦ There are approximately 2,500 vehicles per weekday using 55`h Street just north of the park and 1,200 vehicles per day just south of the park. ¦ Weekend traffic on 55`x' Street is typically 20 to 25% lower than on weekdays. ¦ Existil~g traffic on 55`h Street is well below the daily roadway capacity which is typically considered to be at least 10,000 vehicles per day on 2-lane collectors. ¦ T'he 104 space parking lot is full during the weekday PM peak hour when inbound and outbound soccer teams overlap when the fields are transitioning between the early and late afternoon programmed use periods. The parking lot utilization peaked at 82% on Saturday mornings during the soccer turnover period. • No significant park related parking was observed on any of the surrounding neighborhood streets. 'There was some park related parking in the south lot at the Manhattan School to the west of the existing turf area. Existing weekday PM peak hour traffic level of service (LOS) was calculated for the Baseline/55`t' and South Boulder Road/SSth intersections using calculation procedures detailed in the Federal Highway Association's Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS scale uses letter grades between A and F, with A representing little or no congestion, and F representing periods with significant congestion and vehicular delay. A detailed description of traffic conditions associated with each letter gxade is attached in the Appendix. The LOS is calculated for each intersection approach movement (left, through, or right as appropriate), and summarized for the entire intersection. Intersection peak hour LOS in the A-D range is typically considered acceptable, while LOS E or F may indicate the need for mitigation measures (although it should be noted that it is common for stop sign controlled side street approaches to arterial roadways to operate in the LOS E or F range at accepted levels of delay) . East Boulder Community Park Traffic Study - Druft October 6, 2008 Table 1 summarizes the LOS in each intersection and detailed calculation sheets are included in the Appendix. It can be seen that the signalized Baseline/55~' Street intersection currently operates acceptably at LOS D, with individual southbound movements experiencing congestion (using the same signal timing in~uts as programmed by City of Boulder staff in the field). The South Boulder Road/55 Street intersection currently operates well, with the southbound stop controlled movement at LOS C. 4.0 Connecting Sioux Drive to Avoid Parking Lot Cut-Through As noted above, the discontinuous segment of Sioux Drive results in through traffic cutting through the recreation center parking lot. This cut-through movement was documented during the weekday PM peak hour and the Saturday morning peak hour when there were programmed soccer activities at the park. Figure 4 illustrates the cut- through route in the parking lot. Approximately 100 vehicles were observed during the weekday PM peak with half traveling in each direction. Approximately 60 vehicles were observed on Saturday morning cutting through the lot. It is not known how much of this • traffic cutting through the parking lot ' ~ • might have been destined to/from the west parking lot and the soccer field. ~ ~ ~ Y~~~~x . • Similarly, it is also not known how ~ ~ .'a•; y t much traffic is from adjacent ~ ' ~ ~ J " neighborhoods, or how much is _ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ • ' ~y,~t.~, traveling all the way between ~ • ~ Baseline Road and South Boulder _ ~ ' Road. But what is known is that this ~i~ through traffic in a parking lot is not - _ " desirable and potentially an unsafe mix with autos and pedestrians accessing parking stalls at the recreation center. While we are not aware of a documented accident problem, it is our understanding from recreation center staff that there are numerous close calls and associated complaints. The proposed park improvement plan includes the connection of the missing piece of Sioux Drive. It is our opinion that this will be a significant safety improvement in the vicinity of the recreation center. It is understood that adjacent neighborhood residents may be concerned that this connection will "attract" traffic traveling through between Baseline Road and South Boulder Road. To address this concern, the Parks Department has proposed that a median and speed humps be constructed in Sioux Drive to add "travel impedance or friction" and discourage cut-through travel. 1t is our understanding that the Boulder Fire Department does not object to these traffic calming measures because this section of the 55~' Street corridor is not a Critical Emergency Response Route and the speed humps will be placed so as to not impede their response route to the west access of the recreation center parking lot. East Boulder Community Park "Craffic Study -Draft October 6, 2008 AGENDA fTEf1~ # U-~- ,PAGE _v~1 Finally, a serious of timed trips between Baseline Road and South Boulder Road (both directions) were conducted on Foothills Ilighway, SStt' Street, and Cherryvale Road. Results indicate that it takes more than twice as long to travel along 55th Street, with over a two minute penalty relative to either of the other two routes. On this basis we do not believe this connection on Sioux Drive wilt attract any new cut-through traffic from outside the area, and we strongly support its implementation. 5.0 Trip Generation Studies at many other parks in Boulder and other communities have indicated that each park and the traffic that they generate tends to be unique to each location and there is no established "trip generation rate" that would accurately predict what the proposed park expansions at this location will generate. Since the proposed expansion of this park is predominantly adding more of the existing park uses, we have estimated the automobile trips that will be generated based on a detailed observation of the traffic accessing the existing park. In addition to the traffic data listed above, this study has included observations of the pedestrian interaction between the existing 104 space parking lot and the adjacent recreational facilities to help with estimation of future park traffic. As noted above, the predominant new or expanded use at the park will be the addition of anew soccer/turf field. The new field will increase the available space for programmed soccer by approximately 70%. It is estimated, base on our observations of park access, that the current soccer activity generates 100 inbound and 100 outbound automobile trips during the weekday PM peak hour when youth soccer is in operation. For purposes of this study it is estimated that the new park enhancements and expansions will add an additional 100 inbound and 100 outbound automobile trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Most of this traffic will be related to the new turf field but some will also be generated by the enhancements to the rest of the park. Weekend traffic increases will likely be 70 to 80% of the weekday increases, at a time when the adjacent roadways are carrying less traffic 6.0 Trip Distribution Based on the location of the new soccer/turf f eld within the park, the addition of a new 104 space parking lot on the south side of the park, existing traffic patterns, and the general location of the park relative to the rest of the community, it is estimated that: ¦ 50% of the new park traffic will be oriented to/from Baseline Road, and 50% will be oriented to/from South Boulder Road. ¦ There will be no significant increase (and possibly a slight decrease) in traffic accessing the park from the Manhattan Drive corridor. The anticipated directional distribution of new park access traffic is illustrated in Figure 5. East Boulder Community Park Traffic Study Dtaft October 6, 2008 7.0 Traffic Assignment The anticipated new PM peak hour traffic accessing the park has been assigned to the adjacent roadways using the directional distribution assumptions discussed above. The result is illustrated in Figures 6A and 6B. It is anticipated that the location of the new parking lot will minimize the amount of park traffic that circulates around the recreation center, but will not eliminate it. S.0 Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic Conditions The new park traffic was added to the existing peak traffic during the weekday PM peak hour. The result is illustrated on Figure 7. The 55`t' Street intersections at Baseline Road and South Boulder Road were then evaluated, using the same procedures described above, to determine the impact of the additional park traffic (calculation sheets in the Appendix). It can be seen in Table 1 that the additional park traffic will add marginally (less than a second per vehicle) to the overall delay at the Baseline intersection, and none of the individual intersection approaches will drop a letter grade. The slight increase in overall delay results in the intersection LOS dropping into the E range, but just slightly. No improvements are needed to accommodate the additional park traffic at this intersection. "I'he delay for the southbound approach at the South Boulder Road/55`t' Street intersection will increase by approximately 4 seconds per vehicle, which drops this approach's LOS into the D range. This intersection will continue to operate acceptably with the existing stop sign control. 9.0 Year 2030 Background Traffic Conditions Traffic projections have been made for a long range planning horizon (Year 2030) to allow an evaluation of the additional park traffic in the future when area traffic has increased. Background traffic projections (without the addition of new park traffic) have been made by using projections on area roadways in the City's regional travel model, and by incorporating the potential traffic increase related to the residential development of the vacant parcel immediately southwest of the park. This residential development is currently in the planning process and traffic projections for that site have been incorporated into this study. That project is currently evaluating two access scenarios, with and without a local roadway connection to Kiwanne Drive and the Manhattan corridor. To be conservative relative to 55`t` Street traffic, this study has used the projections that do not include a local connection to ICiwanne Drive. The resultant Year 2030 background traffic projections are illustrated in Figure 8 at the Baseline/55`'ti and South Boulder Road/SSa' Street intersections. The LOS at the major intersections serving the park site was evaluated for this future year background condition using tl~c same procedures described above. The results are included in Table L It can be seen that the signalized Baseline/55'h intersection will Eust [3oulder Community Park'1'ruffic Study - Druft October 6, 2008 continue to operate in the LOS E range with only a marginal increase in average vehicle delay. At the South Boulder Road/55°i intersection the southbound approach drops into the LOS E range. This is due to the addition of the new residential traffic and the increases in background traffic on South Boulder Road which make it harder to turn out onto South Boulder Road from 55`h during the peak hour. The relative need for a traffic signal or other intersection improvement at this location is discussed in a following section of this report. 10.0 Year 2430 Plus Site Traffic Conditions New park traffic has been added to the Year 2030 background traffic discussed above to yield the projected Year 2030 total traffic illustrated on Figure 9. A LOS evaluation at the Baseline/55`h intersection indicates that the intersection will continue to operate in the I,OS E range with most individual traffic movements remaining at the same LOS. The northbound left turn is projected to drop into the LOS E range with the addition of both the new park and new residential traffic. The South Boulder Road intersection will experience an increase in delay on the southbound approach with the addition of the new park traffic (on top of the new. residential traffic). This approach is calculated to operate in the LOS F range (although we typically observe that the LOS software and calculation procedures tend to overestimate the delay for side streets at stop signs). The next section of this report discusses potential mitigation measures for this condition. 11.0 Traffic Control at the South Boulder Road / 55th Street Intersection The LOS analysis at the South Boulder Road/55`h Street intersection has concluded that the southbound stop sign controlled approach to this intersection currently operates acceptably at LOS D. This approach will drop to LOS E in the PM peak hour in the Year 2030 with the addition of the adjacent residential project (or the park expansion without the residential project), and it will drop to LOS F with both the park expansion and the residential project's traffic added. While this level of side street delay exists today at many other intersections in town, it does suggest that potential mitigation measures be identified. Two choices are described below: ¦ 55th Street is approximately 40 feet wide north of South Boulder Road with single northbound and southbound travel lanes. The existing pavement could be restriped to maintain a single northbound lane but add a separate short (say 40 feet plus transition) southbound left turn lane. This restriping would require prohibiting on-street parking along 55`h for some distance north of South Boulder Road in an area where the adjacent land area is vacant. This southbound left turn lane would allow the higher right turnuig southbound traffic East Boulder Community Park Traffic Study - Draft October 6, 2008 ~~~lur~~ 11"~fiP , ~c the ability to access westbound South x ' ~ ~~'F F ' Boulder Road more efficiently. In the t~, ~ ~ . Year 2030 Total traffic scenario, this I~~ improvement would allow the southbound right turns to operate at ~ ~'`y • • ~ :j ti, LOS B and the overall southbound - Y'' • f ~ ~ ~ approach would operate at LOS r _ ~ - - (calculation sheet in the Appendix). This would be a significant improvement for southbound traffic, ~ ~''r"':~~` although given the width of the , roadway, this side-by-side southbound - approach may already be occurring to ~~;~-'y~.~- some extent. ¦ Another way to minimire congestion for southbound traffic (at the expense of east-west traffic on South Boulder Road) would be to install a traffic signal. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) includes a set of traffic signal "warrants" to determine if a traffic signal may be needed, and typically a number of these warrants must be met before the City would consider installing a traffic signal. The Peak Hour Warrant is one that can be evaluated at the traffic study stage and is often used as an indicator for future traffic mitigation needs and measures. Figure l0 includes the peak hour warrant graph with plotted points for each of the traffic scenarios evaluated in this study. A review of this peak hour warrant graph indicates that: - Existing traffic does not warrant a traffic signal in the PM peak hour. - The "Existing Plus Site" and "Year 2030 Background" scenarios both may warrant a signal in the PM with the single southbound lane, and both would not warrant a signal if a second southbound lane were added. - The "Year 2030 Total" traffic scenario may warrant a signal even with the addition of a second southbound approach lane, but the City would need to confirm at the time (looking at all the warrants based on actual traffic volumes, accident history, etc.). It should be noted that not all intersections tneeting a peak hour signal warrant are actual candidates for traffic signal installation. 12.0 Conclusions and Recommendations This traffic study has evaluated the anticipated traffic impacts associated with the expansion of the East Boulder Community Park. The most significant new traffic generator during peak traffic access times will be the addition of another soccer/turf field. 'T'raffic projections have been made for near term and long term planning horizons, and the addition of traffic from the potential new residential development south of the park has been included. Significant observations and recommendations include: East Boulder Community Park 'T'raffic Study - Drajt October 6, 2008 .~I~~NDA ITEfVi # U -f'~~, l~f~~~ ~ I ¦ New park uses may add approximately 100 inbound and 100 outbound vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour when the turf fields are programmed for youth soccer. ¦ Peak weekend traffic is less than peak weekday traffic, and the background traffic on adjacent roadways is also less on weekends. ¦ The 55"1 Street corridor will be able to easily accommodate the additional traffic generated by the park from avolume-to-capacity perspective. ¦ New traffic will likely be distributed equally from the Baseline and South Boulder Road corridors, and no significant increase on Manhattan Drive is anticipated. ¦ The new 104 space parking lot should be able to accommodate the increased parking demand generated by proposed enhancements. ¦ The missing piece of Sioux Drive should be completed to eliminate the parking lot cut-through that currently exists at the recreation center. We do not anticipate that this connection will attract any new cut-through traffic between Baseline Road and South Boulder Road, but we do support the proposed traffic calming treatments on Sioux Drive to manage traffic speed in this area. ¦ The signalized intersection of Baseline Road and 55`'' Street will be able to accommodate the increased traffic projected from all sources in the Year 2030 with marginal increase in overall vehicle delay. ¦ The southbound approach to the stop sign on 55`h Street at South Boulder Road will experience increased delay over time as traffic grows on South Boulder Road and the park expansion and the adjacent residential project are implemented. It is questionable whether the City's traffic signal warranting procedure (based on the MUTCD) would actually be met at this intersection, but it is certain that delay can be minimized with the addition of a short southbound left turn lane. This new lane could be striped in the existing roadway width with minimal disruption of on-street parking and would greatly impxove the unsignalized LOS at this location. It is recommended that this improvement be pursued. ¦ Residents in the area have expressed concerns about pedestrian safety in the crosswallcs near Ontario Place; and at the multi-use path crossing of 55th Street just south of Sioux Drive. It is recommended that the City's transportation division staff tours these crossings to make sure that the signing and marking is appropriate or if any improvements are needed. y ~ ,t~Y~ I t.,.:~ t~ ..•d. . , ,Y~ .r1. r~tJ1Y ~ a.<' / East Bonider Community Park Traffic Study -Draft October 6, 2008 ~~ER1bA I~Ei1~ # ~f , 6'ACE ~ FH 08016 East Boulder Community Park Traffic Study 10/5!2008 Table 1 -Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary Existin Existin + Site 2030 Back round 2030 + Site Intersection and PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Critical Movements Delay (a LOS Delay a) LOS Delay a LOS Delay a) ' LOS STOP SIGN CONTROL South Boulder Road / 55th Street 1.5 A 2.6 A 3.2 A 6.7 A Eastbound Left 0.8 A 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.4 A Southbound Left-Right 21.2 C 25.3 D 39.1 E 68.2 F SIGNAL CONTROL Baseline / 55th Street 54.5 D 55.3 E 57.8 E 61.8 E Eastbound Left 9.2 A 9.1 A 10.9 8 10.8 B Eastbound Through 11.6 8 11.5 8 13.2 8 13.1 B Eastbound Right 10.6 8 10.8 8 9.6 A 9.8 A Westbound Left 13.1 8 13.3 B 14.2 B 14.4 8 Westbound Through-Right 13.8 B 13.8 8 15.0 8 15.0 8 Northbound Left 37.2 D 43.5 D 43.2 D 70.1 E ~ Northbound Through 33.7 C 34.0 C 34.1 C 34.4 C ~ Northbound Right 32.7 C 32.8 C 32.7 C 32.8 C ~ Southbound Left >90 F >90 F >90 F >90 F D Southbound Through 40.9 D 41.5 D 41.1 D 41.6 D Southbound Ri ht >90 F >90 F >90 F >90 F ~ (a) Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. 4 D s~ ~ C>.1 - , .._Y` ~ ~ (.sir < 1- ~ . ,~-L:..pF*'-~r^{~-}i ti. tc ~ ~ hi~± ° ice`-' rte j~ ,,.~.r~ X. _ ij' - . . +t4 - `ate j Y c-•..`-. I F ~ - • • ~i~j *I ~ y,'7'!~. ~ 1 • `-~lr, .~"'S ~ • ~ s `'y • ~ ! fit. ~(E.M r J • .t... ~ 7 r ~ r _ _ <B~' ..~i;'F CPC \ ,T{;._ ~ _ w,?. ~ 1:. f'+'a~ar ~S~:f. ~ Ir~~y V - " ~ ' ~.'~r S._ ~ ~..,JY• r.6 ,~-~Y~si ~ Ti ,x~.}'t ~ •i`''"'~1-~'--,~~ ~ y ,'M1~ - "SS~~~r. *~y~ > ~tr, ry- 1 I,{~ r t ,<r~~ ` ~tiM~~~ iFlh~~~~~~'''r•. .crdlt~~ ,'lr ~ ~Pt'P y ' t ~I t .r ~~~,.i~ 'r v ..~i•,r r"~'r~~~j~,'..~~ .fir ~ w;- - ,~..~,T r`.sS+1i CIS ~ te~- ~1a1~ !S]7,,' ~~L~~~; r J~ e v.+ s7 ~ ~ ~ T :f 7 *Y~ lMt+6 "A7~ N ~ s MS'•r f _ f L a; ~ ` y5`i7,\~~'~i .-fir _r~r~a~~~~ ~,~~r F _ ~ i-t.G. C •di "'gym { ~+r_ ° L t.~ r l.. 'J}]~~ ~ _'s:.,.-s.' ~ ~4~^:~ _=i ~ ~»-~,~.y _ , , , ~ ; s ..l = EAST N 'v: ~r. ~ ~ BOULDER ~ t _1 f.., .~,b, Q-a° a~z' r ,~~"xyP~r' ~~aK',~ 1-. Ji ~e f''1'~ -~»htr..^~+- ~~j~ ..-ra~~~ ,(YY -~.A rte- e--~, !C z,x . ~~~~'u,~~-~ < , - . y r~.~ ~ COMMUNITY -a ~ sit! ~ ~,1..>r ti. ~ci":'~ ~r~yr. h. f-'~ 97i r f. is ~:a •T - ~ =i _ -.~~~`J •-;aft- r n: • Y(I~r t. 7;:, ~ '1 ~•r. ,,,_S ii v:'~.•'~'`.,,, C~ rr: ,•.'~r . y~:" _ - s'~f3d, ? tl;t• ~ ~ ~J -:1'` ,.xtr _ h _ `l alt, ~ . r~ (~'yamy. _ ~ " L:.L111J.:17. ~ ~ ~ , l J~...~ -1~~5'i.~il.C(1:J':. ~1r..l:A.l~ll F~,~/LL]~ _ _ tALI'A-11I1L1J Illllilllll U: l'.•Zyr _ ¦ ~ J\ j~1 r rz n N~ r o :z T n T i o r., G R ~ LI P EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY J.1 VICINITY MAP FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 09-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 1 fk.v TlnMr Enoos,wa a.,uorv IyTN Ek$v~q Rvumwn5~.orngc Tnnrrs Corul: r2? T08ASEUNE a.~,.,-s ugnf F'¢wanue~ E.aary tln~Sm:Ct Nm. aooo nNgn~•.oM PnmNM Pno Ev,,:mg N.,,dwN Courts(81 F. ~Mmo tiro DnLS08s5ncdonB ~ krr EvrMa CpxH (AI Wit Pa•4 LMIOfeOjy Bulgr :1 Shrxr f 12 T:Cr1 RatnNNn VVUfn =1 / (7151226.) 1 c - MANHATTAN _ ~ ~ /~1 - MIDW.ESLH000 / , J ~~'7~~i1-~j " - 1 \ YyC7~ v' ! a KEEYWAYDIN A _ / / ~ " MEADOWSPARK ~ 1 A..'MOnr .k.~..v / / / I • • ~ ~ -7 ~ Y Naw ln~ga[m FOnU / ~ "ell ! ~ Nalr AeroLrg FouMnin - ~ 1~ _ 1y~G' i, , ~ Habc~oEego ti ~ ~ ~ly~~r ' LooP'~1`a1k ~ ~:rl'. 11 ~ ~'i P.opn-,nf P~pd ` ~ - - r;~7? + / ' ~ ' Pontl Etlgo ~M• Dik•74 SC.J+wrd ~/.'.:'~j~ _ ' Yr - _ . ErdltneemCM9 - - Eaquq ' _ _ '~n 1; Cowl SlnrGhfrO ~ s ~ ~ i , _ ~ L.n•~ ! lip. f'I: ~MR. . ~ _ Ho.vrPnrking lot - - r ~ ~ ~ ~ . • ~ ~ P..r... I•r ~ . _ GrAV4N Bnn.lt B16•b:nl'p/1 _ - 12 ACr.. f~t~l $fOrrm~Jtor Rclanlbn Aroa Ew,lirn On~Slroot 1 I~ PanllerPUkmg, - _ _ _ - - - t.. . TO SOUTH BOUlOER RO TrsGe End :wrc r ¦ T R A N 9 P O R T A T I O N G R O u P EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY ~ SITE PLAN (f~ FH Project# 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 09-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 2 c. r - l ram„ L 1 •Y.~:.~ Is ~ ~ . ' ~ i ~ ~ - wt ~ 0.4 n sr N AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC • ~ •'~~i-~ 1.. va ~ APR. 08 WEEKDAY - 2550 s _ 1 WEEKEND = 2030 ~ q ~ ~l ~ ' - 71 ~ i ~ _ fit, 192 ~ . i 1 M~Z~:~. 'rr ` 406 F 264 ~~~Y is ~ ` 132 42 1 x.c..~• ~ - • • ~c= ~ PM PEAK WEST LOT PARKING UTlUZATION ~'~o-, ~ x` ' ~ c~' ~ ~ ' = -~ouR m ~ Q PM • 104 SPACES AVAILABLE ~ ' T" , ~p • ~ ~ . ~ _ ' ' t • 100% OCCUPIED 5:00 TO 6:00 PM WEEKDAY 3yj~',-y~ ~ ~ • . ~„r • • ~ • 8296 PEAK OCCUPANCY 9:00 AM SATURDAY' ' - r ~3' ~ ~ .L „ T•?`~ ' r ~ ~ - , ~I (86 VEHICLES) ' ~ t e- ` _ `a• ~ f _ APR. OB n NII _ ~ Y- AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC _c~ ` ~ : 02 17 f~ • ti atis,;' ~ r m~ 1064 F 465 WEEKDAY = ii90 ~ii ~.t _ c~:iL?':..: e - , PM PEAK , xi - -R ~ ~ HOUR r~Prt ~~;a o Vii: ~ o _1/ .fit 3e t ;'T-'7F ~ ~c- r pr r" ~ 'r ~ 4. - - - 1-_.. . ,D• ~ ~ X 7 Z1i t a n a a o u -r n r~ o lv c r~ o u r EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY ~"h EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 3 ~ ~,,j a ~ ~ ~.i1 ~ ~ t ~r , z `r~'-~"'~. t~.1 , s S~ Y,y.'h * ~ i .~}ice--~~ • b x '..i'~ ~c 7 . ~ - . ~ ~r~ y _ .fir ' - -IL.1 ~ 'La ~ i - ~ ~ • t Jf • J r • ' ~ ~ _ , ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ - T,_` _ Y N~ ~ ~ l ~ mot' ~1~ ' , * PARKING LOT CUT-THROUGH ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - WEEKDAY * SATURDAY ,e i ~ ~ - 5:00 - 6:00 PM 9:30 -10:30 AM ~ EB: 48 39 ~ ' - : ~ WB: 50 23 ~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL: 98 02 ' ~ ~ * includes vehicles accessing west bl which may not be _ ~ ~ _cut-throughs" q U~'fls~'~'1 aQi2 ~ l~Gtt3 Fite °_1- ~s Fox T a A 1V V o R TAT 1 0 n G rt o u v EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY PARKING LOT CUT-THROUGH FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 4 1 t. ,`~~.r,~ 1~~1a 1l jd`O ~.~r/' _ '~F (~'.~~Y' y~"~I~F' _ t . .vim - ~7.t_ ~.2~1" ! ~ il4_ _ LR _ 56 ' 7-~ S-. - y Eby a +.T - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ .fit . ~'Q' ~ 'Y~ t ] - ~1 >~ta{.{ fT T-. ~ - ~ J l~7 ~ t ~tiR; ~t f~ ivy ¢ _ ' -'~.r, rt3 X46. ~5 _ `~ti i3}~ jj• t'G'' ~~jr. _ O ,~C T~ `:Y <JiL~.- ?e ~ r•_~~~)b3~-~~`. > • 'fy- ~ '2 + _ a~ t Irv 9i o i, irk ~ ~ lit t~~.+I {~'G `i~'4'^, ,6. _ Y7 - ~sr=::~~ fir, ~~•R jr.,: ~ -'mss 1.~.J'. _ ~t ~1. ~~.Nt•* -..1 ~ 4 ~ ~„ZM` ls;' r,.:1 ~ ry~^+~,-'~Y~ ~y.r^p!`- - 1 r - Kl ~~~~~~i•:tpyr~ r ~ J. ~'a fT/. i , i '~ns~ .'~~yy~•~1 ~ :•i ~1~+~` 'r'+*'?~ ~;4~fL~ ~V t~~ ~t Y ~ ~ ~ (:r2J,lL-u SX,`~t-~~, -~k{.it_'li:''-9JE~t~~Of'~*I (3tS ~S~'?it Q)~i7"1TiF: ll1:lIII® LC)~'' t / Y (~~Cfu t ~ G yyy~~~jj~mJyJyJ~''' F O X T R A N o P o R T A T i o N G R O U P EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY ~.1 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF NEW PARK TRAFFIC P FN Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Daie 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 5 e _ iY a ur ~ ,t I'~~% ~ ,~A ` ^ / i ~ . - - _ ~ ~ • - WEEKDAY - _ ' ~ PM PEAK v. ~ _ - %Z?:~ HOUR o 0 Q DAILY TRAFFIC ~ ''l+~'.~+~ d„~.='-" - WEEKDAY - 2(10 - ~ ~ l,~', ~ _ ~ ~ r ~ ts,~ a ]r 1~ .s SATURDAY = i~ ~ 1 • ~ ~ ~ ~ - 4 DAILY TRAFFIC x~ .r 10 10 r SATURDAY 750_ - _~v='?•1_.,~•'a ~ WEEKDAY ~ " A . . } / - 2:.`~ ~ PM PEAK 7 t~'.'.t a~ ' .1?~ _ ~~__1 HOUR - i ~^~t x~ ~ _ ~ I ~ - • ~-x,11 1 f6 ~ . ~ ~ t' - s ~I~,+' j ' I Y ~ its ,f ~ q i y~',~~, - .~yti. lam. ` ,'4. ~ - > FOX *I T R A N 9 P O R TAT 1 O N G R o u P EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY Il~`'J. NEW PARK USER TRAFFIC AT SITE ACCESSES FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 6A `-~"'~~~~1~~~~c~•'~.-~.:~\i_ ~ r -'gyp . is 56 ~ ~ - ~s _ - d`+~o0.~ ; 'j ~ 'fir a C~ e _ ~ ~hkt~3' 1 ~:j~y`.~~i"?2 ~~s L,. E3 '"44~j ~ ~l ayryM~l ~J;~~~~ . ~ •d' fi ~"~I }~~.~taF-i o ~ t 'r.. APR. 08 ~t: ~ '1';' _ ~ ~a y WEEKDAY ~+I~~ . ;a'~.: ' ~ ~ Mt >M PEAT( ~s i ' ~ rt ~ ~ ~ ~ v in ~ r~ arcs. oe pis t ~ - ~ ~ - ` ` `77^` ~ R . ~ ~'~li WEEKDAY 0.4'9 ~~~"'`~'~'~,6, ~+cY>~~~~• PMPF_AfC PM _ ` ~ HOUk ~ i;:r ! ~ ~ ~ , ' D fx1t~? 9L~"~PC~7 Qty ~~fd_ _ t3>~tu-t f{ftiEItITI-U'L'r. - _ -n;_- ..L.: j_ , y'~ ~Q jl FOX ("t T R A N 5 ~ o a T A -r ~ o N G H o U r~ EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY 7 NEW PARK USER TRAFFIC FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 6B Y}` s • - .::r..~' Ya i. . . _`S 1' t. 1' ~ c y' _ L 4 ~ ~ay~~ ; ~ ~`31 192 71 .e^~ ; 1 ~~a<< • Q ,~i~ = ' Via' _ 406 C~CIE F 264 : , , ~ ~ ~.~1 ~ 162 ~ ~ 47 awl;. ~ ~ . ~ '~i'!i ~?i. . s~• _a f ~ \ ~ PM PEAK ~ f :Y ' ' w~l~' ate. p' J[. ~p ~i~._ti•''~ 'r~ ° 0°1~ M ~ ' t• ' ~ t '~i ~ ~ ~ 147 22 fr -a~ ' 1064 E- 465 r ~ F ~ ~j~ PM PEAK s ~ ~ HOUR P~.4 ~ J6 ~ Pik .~T'~y T ~ if~..;~ i -.r - ' 'zj'~ _ r L' F O X T R A N 9 P O R T A T I O N G R O !J P EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY ~ EXISTING PLUS SITE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 7 ~gr_ - E~J.:al ~ ia~r_ ~ ~ f . ~ w. Vic- ~ ~ 55 L ~ ~ - ;sue ~ r,~, l` • ' 1``~ ~ M .1 gig. - - t 1, r'`r ,,,.3t; -':~=`1 245 85 y,~' ~ CS7 ~ 500 ~ CIC/E F 330 ~t ! ~ r"~ IR.F"~ ~ • ~1~f ~ •s _ 170 45 ~ • y ~1~~]y1 ; 'x i, , •i +[t' ~~A PEAK ~ J ) F+11 'i ~r J _ ~ ~ ~`x~~ N 1150 ~ E- 520 s~~ i~ ~ r' y , r ''~,J / PM PEAK ~~Y t~'t~~.~.• fi r ti. ~ ~ ' / HOUR PM ~r I, ~ o ~ ~ ~ .C y _ ~ S_ ^ , tip:.. ~_-~,r^~r.. ..~p. , - ©C~l~.L7T~:~:•~:~t,.s_.._ FOX ~ T R A N e v o R T n T i o N G R O U P EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY J FUTURE YEAR 2030 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 8 r ° I - ~~y s ~Y4ll re.. ~C~/ :ft ~ w. 1 !t :~i~~..?...c:~ ~ ~ Te. r~~t Ni ~~~Yf"` s~-~ K4 ~'~I r~ ~ ~ mot- r e - ~ N v O -i r_--~`- ~ t, _ ~ 4. _ ~s.~~'~~'1~~~~ :r ~1-~`• - r.~{ 245 ~ 85 .a-~ ; 1 i~.f~.i~'.is;. ~ ~ ~1~}'; `r~ ~ _ 2000 CICIE F 330 s~ ,~i s~ ~ t~ , ~ MY- PM PEAK . ~ J+t.. ~ ' 1. ` r.S;,- _ l~ ` 4 ~ =.+..7.:. vr,.~~ ' l~ ~ " ~ . • i , may,. - . - N ` , . ~ 1150 F- 520 ~I~~~ ~ . 1T ` ..,~r0~c - ~ PM PEAK ~ ~ ~ star .~+1 { ~ P ~ HOUR PNI 3 - _ f . ` ~ may- _ 't ~ _ qtr' ~ ~ - ~ -s x ~ J// _ , ~ 11 r .r ~ (rCtL]Cl? QC1i-~,.~7' Q._____ _~Ik7~'' [ITSIIdIL.~-c _ _ _•r.- u r ~X (Ti S r a A N S P O R 7 A T 1 ~ N ~ R o ~ P EAST BOULDER COMMUNITY PARK TRAFFIC STUDY FUTURE YEAR 2030 TOTAL TRAFFIC FH Project # 08016 Original Scale NONE Date 9-26-2008 Drawn by WCF Figure # 9 S E w PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 700 w D Z i '.'t'~1 r<r"~A NTED c Q o ~ - ~ ~ - I,, • ~-'ti (c z ~o m~ D ~ T T z ~ ~ ' (175!1905) 200 Total PD.~ G m ~ m (125118551 20311 6ackyrc)unci F'M n T . _ t~. UN6NARRANTED ' ~ • i t ~ (13311698) Existing Plus Site PM 4C~„ Sti~ 600 ',:I~ ~'u~) ~~(~t: iG~•:0 I~VU I:l l +3U!` 1 ~U0 1500 1600 17U~) 1F30U MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACl~ES (vph-vehirfN~ per hour) f "E Vnhl A I ~ t. t R K)l v' rC.f-: P '-T•;F['T : Ri A~ ai TH ~.,~a (7~~ „ORF (A~:(-~ >H^- :E P t )1 JI . ' P - o ° 9+:( i. •,•.:r;: - •.:~p.. ~ ~~iPa ':.ITI I pNE I AF:'r X a a o + a ~ o G n .i . Eas! 6~~L:Wer CC;>>~runif~, t'a:-. T'. _~:uU. SOUTH 60ULDER ROAD and 5`>TH S I RELT r. r-: ~ in Appendix ¦ Level of Service Definitions ¦ Intersection LOS Calculation Sheets Fast Boulder Community Park Traffic Study -Draft October 6, 2008 i1 1 ` pox TRANSPOrtTATlON GROUP LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS I n rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traft'ic volumes, "Levels of Service" (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference. Level Delay in seconds per vehicle of (a) Service Rating Signalized Unsignalized Definition Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is low A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction of B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0 operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are not subject to appreciable tension. Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longervehicle queues cause delays along the corridor. Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion. Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable. Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free flow speed. E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridorsignal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at signalized corridors. Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays at F > 80.0 > 50.0 critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. (aJ Delay ranges based on 2000 Highway Capacity Manual criteria. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 109: Baseline Rd. 8~ 55th St. 10/5/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3420 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 813 1863 1583 861 3420 1159 1863 1583 1324 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 192 406 132 42 264 71 82 62 45 248 101 409 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.75 0.84 0.79 0.76 0.70 0.58 0.87 0.67 0.68 0.81 0.88 AdJ. Flow (vph) 211 541 157 53 347 101 141 71 67 365 125 465 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 40 0 22 0 0 0 49 0 0 341 Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 541 117 53 426 0 141 71 18 365 125 124 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 78.4 78.4 78.4 64.9 64.9 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 80.1 80.1 80.1 66.6 66.6 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 618 1244 1057 478 1898 308 495 421 352 495 421 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.29 0.12 0.04 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.01 c0.28 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.43 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.46 0.14 0.04 1.04 0.25 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 9.3 7.2 12.7 13.6 36.8 33.6 32.7 44.0 34.7 35.1 Progression Factor 1.15 1.12 1.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.18 4.70 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 44.6 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 9.2 11.6 10.6 13.1 13.8 37.2 33.7 32.7 97.6 40.9 165.1 Level of Service A B B B B D C C F D F Approach Delay (s) 10.9 13.8 35.2 123.0 Approach LOS B B D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Deiay 54.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 _ Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline and 55th Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group .AGENDA I rt=e ~ ~~~t~T , ~'AG~ - I HCM Signalized tntersectidn Capacity Analysis 109: Baseline Rd. & 55th St. 10/5/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3420 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 813 1863 1583 861 3420 1100 1863 1583 1279 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 192 406 162 47 264 71 112 77 50 248 116 409 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.75 0.84 0.79 0.76 0.70 0.58 0.87 0.67 0.68 0.81 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 211 541 193 59 347 101 193 89 75 365 143 465 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 49 0 22 0 0 0 55 0 0 341 Lane Group Flow (vph) 211 541 144 59 426 0 193 89 20 365 143 124 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 78.4 78.4 78.4 64.9 64.9 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 80.1 80.1 80.1 66.6 66.6 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 618 1244 1057 478 1898 292 495 421 340 495 421 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.29 0.12 0.05 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.09 0.07 0.18 0.01 c0.29 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.43 0.14 0.12 0.22 0.66 0.18 0.05 1.07 0.29 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 9.3 7.3 12.8 13.6 39.2 34.0 32.8 44.0 35.0 35.1 Progression Factor 1.14 1.11 1.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.18 4.70 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 4.3 0.1 0.0 56.6 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 9.1 11.5 10.8 13.3 13.8 43.5 34.0 32.8 109.7 41.5 165.1 Level of Service A B B B B D C C F D F Approach Delay (s) 10.8 13.8 38.9 126.1 Approach LOS B B D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 55.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1 % !CU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline and 55th Existing Plus Site PM 10/5/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group A~~I~DA ITEt1>~ ~ I,f ~~c , i~A~~ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 109: Baseline Rd. & 55th St. 10/5/2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ 1 ~ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3423 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 702 1863 1583 708 3423 1045 1863 1583 1269 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 245 500 170 45 330 85 105 80 45 300 130 520 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.75 0.84 0.79 0.76 0.70 0.58 0.87 0.67 0.68 0.81 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 269 667 202 57 434 121 181 92 67 441 160 591 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 21 0 0 0 49 0 0 357 Lane Group Flow (vph) 269 667 160 57 534 0 181 92 18 441 160 234 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 78.4 78.4 78.4 63.9 63.9 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 80.1 80.1 80.1 65.6 65.6 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 562 1244 1057 387 1871 278 495 421 337 495 421 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.36 0.16 0.05 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.01 c0.35 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.54 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.65 0.19 0.04 1.31 0.32 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 8.5 10.3 7.4 13.4 14.6 39.1 34.0 32.7 44.0 35.4 38.0 Progression Factor 1.26 1.12 1.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.16 2.50 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.8 0.4 4.1 0.1 0.0 153.0 0.2 0.9 Delay (s) 10.9 13.2 9.6 14.2 15.0 43.2 34.1 32.7 204.9 41.1 95.9 Level of Service B B A B B D C C F D F Approach Delay (s) 12.0 14.9 38.7 128.9 Approach LOS B B D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 57.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group _ Baseline and 55th Year 2030 Background PM 10/5/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group ~,GENDA ITEM t~ U ~ ; 'AGF~ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 109: Baseline Rd. ~ 55th St. 10/5/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 3423 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 0,53 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 702 1863 1583 708 3423 985 1863 1583 1212 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 245 500 200 50 330 85 135 95 50 300 145 520 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.75 0.84 0.79 0.76 0.70 0.58 0.87 0.67 0.68 0.81 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 269 667 238 63 434 121 233 109 75 441 179 591 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 49 0 21 0 0 0 55 0 0 357 Lane Group Flow (vph) 269 667 189 63 534 0 233 109 20 441 179 234 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 1 6 2 4 8 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 4 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 78.4 78.4 78.4 63.9 63.9 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 80.1 80.1 80.1 65.6 65.6 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 31.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.55 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 562 1244 1057 387 1871 262 495 421 322 495 421 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.36 0.16 0.06 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.12 0.09 0.24 0.01 c0.36 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.54 0.18 0.16 0.29 0.89 0.22 0.05 1.37 0.36 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 8.5 10.3 7.5 13.5 14.6 42.4 34.4 32.8 44.0 35.8 38.0 Progression Factor 1.24 1.11 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.16 2.47 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.9 0.4 27.8 0.1 0.0 179.7 0.2 0.9 Delay (s) 10.8 13.1 9.8 14.4 15.0 70.1 34.4 32.8 231.5 41.6 94.8 Level of Service B B A B B E C C F D F Approach Delay (s) 11.9 14.9 ,4 54.1 136.7 Approach LOS B B D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 61.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% fCU Level of Service C Analysis' Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group _ Baseline and 55th Year 2030 Total PM 10/5/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group ' A~~~iIJA 171=fU1 # 1~-~ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: South Boulder Road & 55th Street 10/5/2008 J ~ 4-- ~ ~ ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 102 1064 465 17 25 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 111 1157 505 18 27 63 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft)~ - _ _ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 524 1315 262 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 524 1315 262 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 89 80 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 1039 134 737 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 111 578 578 337 187 90 Volume Left 111 0 0 0 0 27 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 18 63 ~ ' cSH 1039 1700 1700 1700 1700 312 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.11 0.29 _ _ _ Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 0 0 0 29 Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 Lane LOS A C Approach Delay (s) 0.8 0.0 21.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 South Boulder Road and 55th Existing PM Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group AGBNC~A ITEM V ~ , (FACIE ~ HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 4: South Boulder Road & 55th Street l 10/5/2008 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ T'~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/hj 147 1064 465 22 30 103 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 160 1157 505 24 33 112 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 529 ~ 1415 265 vC1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 529 1415 265 tC, single (s) 4.1 ~ 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 ~ 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 85 70 85 cM capacity (vehlh) 1034 109 734 - - Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 160 578 578 337 192 145 Volume Left 160 0 0 0 0 33 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 24 112 cSH 1034 1700 1700 1700 1700 319 Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.11 0.45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 0 0 0 0 56 Control Delay (s) 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 Lane LOS A D Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 25.3 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 1_.:.1.1 South Boulder Road and 55th Existing Plus Site PM 10/5/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group ~G~N~A lT~M , wAC~ ~ ~ HCM Unsignaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: South Boulder Road & 55th Street i o/5/2008 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 155 1150 520 30 35 90 - Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 168 1250 565 33 38 98 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) _ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 598 1543 299 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vo! vCu, unblocked vol 598 1543 299 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 83 56 86 cM capacity (veh/h) 975 87 697 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 168 625 625 377 221 136 Volume Left 168 0 0 0 0 38 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 33 98 cSH 975 1700 1700 1700 1700 236 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.13 0.58 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 0 0 0 81 Control Delay (s) 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.1 Lane LOS A E Approach Delay (s) 1.1 0.0 39.1 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 South Boulder Road and 55th 2030 Background PM 10/5/2008 Synchro 6 Reaort Fox Higgins Transportation Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: South Boulder Road & 55th Street 10/5/2008 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 200 1150 520 35 40 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 217 1250 565 38 43 147 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 603 1644 302 vC1, stage 1 confvol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked voi 603 1644 302 tC, single (s) 4.1 ~ 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 ~ 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 78 38 79 cM capacity (veh/h) 970 70 694 - - Direction, Lane # E8 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 217 625 625 377 226 190 Volume Left 217 0 0 0 0 43 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 38 147 - cSH 970 1700 1700 1700 1700 229 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.13 0.83 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 0 0 0 0 159 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.2 Lane LOS A F Approach Delay (s) 1.4 ~ 0.0 68.2 Approach LOS F Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 - - -,.,J•r, - South Boulder Road and 55th 2030 Tota! PM 10!5/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group ~~©A i'TEfVI 3,~ t% _ ~ SAGE J `i HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: South Boulder Road & 55th Street 10/6/2oos ~ ~ ` ~ Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ~ Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 200 1150 520 35 40 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 217 1250 565 38 43 147 Pedestrians Lane Wldth (ft) _ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 603 1644 302 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 603 1644 302 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 78 38 79 _ cM capacity (veh/h) 970 70 694 Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 EB 3 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 217 625 625 377 226 43 147 Volume Left 217 0 0 0 0 43 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 38 0 147 cSH 970 1700 1700 1700 1700 70 694 Volume to Capacity 0.22 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.13 0.62 0.21 Queue Length 95th (ft) 21 0 0 0 0 67 20 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 117.7 11.6 Lane LOS A F B Approach Delay (s) 1.4 0.0 35.8 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 South Boulder Road and 55th 2030 Total PM 10/5/2008 Synchro 6 Report Fox Higgins Transportation Group ,~E~l~.f`~l~A !•I~Bh/i ~ ~ -r~ . i~A~~~~" ~