AGENDA ITEM #12.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FORM

FROM: Jon Snyder, Public Works Director

Ben Beall, City Engineer

THROUGH: Gary Suiter, City Manager

DATE: September 19, 2017

ITEM: West Steamboat Annexation – Traffic Study.

_X_ DIRECTION
_X_ INFORMATION
___ ORDINANCE
___ MOTION
___ RESOLUTION

I. REQUEST/ISSUE & BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

This worksession is a follow-up to worksessions that were conducted on May 9,

2017 and July 18, 2017 related to transportation impacts stemming from a
proposed annexation located west of the City limits. During both of these
worksessions, Council encouraged the applicant (Brynn Grey Partners) to perform a
traffic impact study so that impacts to the offsite roadway infrastructure could be
assessed and mitigation measures could be discussed. On August 16, 2017 a
meeting involving staff, the applicant, and the applicant’s traffic engineer (Bill Fox
of Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group) was conducted to discuss the scope
of the applicant’s traffic impact study. That study is included as attachment 2.

Brynn Grey has presented an overall vision for the annexation in several previous
worksessions. The content of the proposal has morphed over the span of the
worksessions, and currently includes 436 residential units and 15,000 square feet
of retail space.

Two general methodologies for mitigating offsite traffic impacts were discussed
during the May 9th and July 18th worksessions. The two methodologies discussed
include an approach whereby development pays for the entire cost of infrastructure
upgrades (“no adverse impact”) and one where development pays only their
incremental increase from the base level of traffic (“incremental impact”). The
former is what was agreed to with the SB700 annexation agreement, the latter is
akin to what is expected of development proposals located within the existing city
limits.

The “no adverse impact” methodology was used to discuss mitigation measures
during the Steamboat 700 annexation review. This methodology assigns costs
based upon the concept that roadway and intersection improvements are funded
such that the level of service (aka: the functionality) of a road segment or
intersection is maintained at existing levels. In this scenario, development would
pay for the full cost of identified infrastructure improvements. Utilizing the
methodology developed for Steamboat 700, staff estimates that the applicant’s
offsite Highway 40 corridor contributions would be approximately $16.3M excluding
the identified transit costs and the cost to complete Gossard Parkway.

A version of the “incremental impact” methodology is used to assess mitigation

measures for developments already within the City limits. This methodology
assigns costs based upon the concept that a development pays a proportionate
share of estimated future construction costs based upon the proportionate share of
traffic that the development is adding to a road segment or intersection.

It appeared during the previous worksessions that Council’s desire was to study the
specific traffic impacts from the proposed WSN annexation so as to facilitate
discussion based upon an incremental impact methodology rather than a no
adverse impact methodology. Therefore, staff has focused their efforts on an
incremental impact methodology for this worksession.

There are two improvement scenarios that alter the way that traffic may flow into
and out of WSN. Those scenarios include with and without the construction of the
Gossard Parkway connection.
The following map, included as slide 2 in staff’s PowerPoint presentation, depicts
the various road segments and intersections that were analyzed in preparation for
this discussion, without the Gossard Parkway connection. The map includes total
estimated costs of the road segment/intersection improvements, WSN’s
proportionate share of traffic, and WSN’s proportionate share of the road
segment/intersection costs.
The following map, included as slide 3 in staff’s PowerPoint presentation, depicts
the various road segments and intersections that were analyzed in preparation for
this discussion, with the Gossard Parkway connection.
The following spreadsheet, included as slide 4 in staff’s PowerPoint presentation,
includes a breakdown of the WSN traffic contribution and percentage added to the
base at each segment and intersection. The spreadsheet shows the total costs for
eventual upgrades to these segments and intersections and the WSN contribution
under the two previous traffic distribution scenarios. The total overall costs of
those improvements are approximately $51-53M.

Combining the estimated construction costs of the various road segments and
intersections with the annexation’s proportionate share of traffic, an incremental
impact methodology to offsetting transportation costs would yield two scenarios
that both result in contributions of approximately $6M. There are three projects
that could potentially be looked at outside of an overall view of the necessary
improvements:
• Highway 40/West Steamboat Blvd Intersection (“Front Door”): $600,000
o Full responsibility of WSN
• Pedestrian Underpass and connection to Snow Bowl Plaza: $2.8M
o Potential grant opportunities exist that may fund this improvement
apart from and in advance of the US40 segment improvements.
Question of contribution from WSN and success of grant application.
• Gossard Parkway: $2,121,532
 o Question of timing, funding source, and who administers as serves
WSN and Overlook. (options for WSN to recuperate investment
includes late comers agreement)

Removing these projects from the identified improvement inventory yields an

“offsite” improvements list that has a total cost of approximately $48M. WSN
contribution to this strictly “offsite” improvements list based on incremental impact
would be approximately $3.9-4.7M in 2017 dollars.

This would leave approximately $48M of these “offsite” improvements to be funded

by other sources, which could include future development or annexation
contribution, grant funding, state transportation funding, city reserve funding, or
another funding source not yet available.

It is important to note that the traffic evaluation currently before you does not
include consideration for traffic generation related to a potential school site or for
the identified commercial parcel located near the “front door” of the proposed
Gateway neighborhood. The traffic contribution approach for those sites should be
clarified in an annexation agreement for future study at such time as a specific
proposal is submitted for consideration.

It is useful to note the road segment improvements and intersection improvements

are not all needed at the same time, nor are they of equal priority. Project
approach may even be broken into design phase and construction phase for further
refined prioritization. There may be any number of opinions as to the timing of the
improvements and the priority of the improvements, but for the sake of discussion,
staff believes that the priority breakdown is as follows, with number one being the
highest priority and number eight being the lowest priority. As level of service
impacts will be realized as units are built and occupied over time, it is important to
recognize that cash flow into city efforts is important to address these needs before
they reach a point of level of service failure. Once improvements are completed it
is important to still factor in the costs of completed infrastructure. This priority list
is included as slide 5 in staff’s PowerPoint presentation:
1. US 40 road segment from Elk River Road to Dream Island Plaza
2. US 40/Downhill Drive intersection
3. Elk River Road/Downhill Drive intersection
4. Downhill Drive road segment from US 40 to Elk River Road
5. Elk River Road road segment from Downhill Drive to US 40
6. US 40 road segment from Downhill Drive to Elk River Road
7. US 40 road segment from Dream Island Plaza to 13th St
8. US40 road segment from West Steamboat Blvd to Downhill Drive
This priority ranking reflects the order in which staff believes capacities will be
exceeded and levels of service will be degraded to unacceptable levels and those
directly related to the WSN neighborhood traffic generation.

Discussion Points
Staff recommends that this worksession’s discussions focus on the following issues,
included as slides 9-11 in staff’s PowerPoint presentation:
1. Should the applicant be asked to fund their proportionate share of:
• None
• Some, or
• All
of the anticipated road segment improvement and intersection improvement
costs?
2. Should an alternate impact mitigation methodology be considered? If so,
what alternative ideas does Council have?
3. Are there any offsite transportation infrastructure costs not included in the
current WSN evaluation (see slide 8) that Council believes should be
included?
4. What should the timing, or phasing, of any payments from the applicant to
the City be?
5. Should costs and/or payments be indexed according to an inflationary
factor?
6. Does Council have any thoughts on the timing of the Gossard Parkway
connection? Or the structure for administration of that project at such time
that the connection may be required?
7. Does Council want to have staff move forward with exploring potential grant
opportunities and partnerships with WSN for the multimodal improvements
near the “front door”? What should WSN minimum commitment be in this
partnership? In the event that a grant award is unsuccessful, should WSN
minimum commitment be increased?
8. What should WSN contribution be to multimodal improvements not based
on traffic generation?

II. ALTERNATIVES:

Agreements are not intended to be formalized at this time. The applicant and staff
will work together to formulate a draft pre-annexation agreement for Council
consideration, should Council elect to proceed with the negotiations.

Contribution Timing Alternatives

• Lump sum contributions at specific time from annexation date
• Lump sum contributions at specific threshold of units platted
• Per unit contribution at time of building permit application
Grant Opportunity Alternative
A compelling grant application may be available for partial funding of an underpass
and multimodal connection along US40 to the Gateway community. A partnership
opportunity may exist between multiple entities. Staff may be in a position along
with WSN to put together a strong partnership. A grant application would require a
commitment on the part of WSN and other entities for matching funds. What level
is that commitment?

Previously, the applicant has proposed approximately $667K in Highway 40 corridor

contributions, of which $300K was slated for the entryway intersection into their
neighborhood off of Highway 40. A subsequent proposal from the applicant looked
to fund $309,342 of improvements with another $1,460,000 to be collected as
$5,000 fees at time of building permit of each of the 292 market rate homes.

III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff’s role in this worksession is to provide information and to assist with the
discussion, and staff requests direction from Council on how they would like to
move forward.

Staff Recommendation:

• WSN acknowledge full responsibility for cost of West Steamboat Blvd/US40

Intersection
• WSN commit to partnership in a grant application effort including funding in
the amount of $700,000 for the construction of a pedestrian underpass and
sidewalk connection to Snow Bowl Plaza. This represents 25% of the total
project cost. A CDOT TAP grant application with a local match of 40-50%
would be a very compelling request. That would leave an additional
partnership funding need of $420,000-$700,000 to be identified from other
sources. This would be payable at time of execution of an IGA with a
granting agency. In the event that a grant application is not successful
(defined as no award by end of calendar year 2027), then WSN will
contribute $700,000 for the project less the underpass.
• WSN commit to construction of the Gossard Parkway connection in
conformance with Fire Department policy (35 unsprinklered, or 50 units
sprinklered) and enter into a late comer’s agreement with the City to
facilitate reimbursement of a proportionate share of the investment to be
collected by the City and reimbursed to WSN at time of future development
of the Overlook parcel.
• WSN commit to a funding structure that creates an “offsite” improvements
 fund within the city’s restricted reserve account specifically for addressing
the identified priorities listed using the “incremental impact” methodology.
The fund will include the following contribution structure and will be indexed
for inflation per the National CPI with 2017 costs as the base year.
o $1M at time of initial plat of Gateway community
o $12,700 per market rate home payable at building permit issuance
(this would result in collection of $3.7M from the 292 market rate
homes)

IV. FISCAL IMPACTS:

Depending upon the outcome of community discussions and City Council’s

decisions, there may be a very large range of potential fiscal impacts. To date,
millions of dollars of public funds have been spent constructing infrastructure that
would eventually support a West Steamboat annexation. However, significant
investments in infrastructure, operation, and maintenance are still necessary to
make the annexation a reality.

Traffic from any annexation would have a negative impact on the Highway 40
corridor. To help alleviate this impact, the City has invested in three major
transportation projects along the corridor that directly benefit annexation west of
City limits:
• Gloria Gossard Parkway was constructed in 2010 at a cost of $1.5M,
excluding legal fees associated with the settlement.
• The Highway 40/Elk River Road intersection is being reconstructed at a cost
of $6M, which includes approximately $870k in City money.
• A sidewalk along Highway 40 from the Community Center to Loggers Lane is
nearing the design phase. The City received a $1.4M grant for this project,
which requires a $300K local match. This money will go to the design, right-
of-way acquisition, and construction of the sidewalk, which is planned for
2020.
These three projects represent an $8.9M taxpayer investment in transportation
improvements that directly benefit west side annexation, of which $2.8M is local
money.

It is important to note that the Colorado Department of Transportation does

monitor the approach that communities take with regard to approval of
development applications. If a community requires private development to pay a
proportionate share of the impacts generated and therefore provides a source of
funding for infrastructure improvements necessary to mitigate impacts, the State is
more likely to be a funding partner for necessary improvements. If a community
approves private development without mechanisms in place, CDOT is less likely to
fund improvements. Staff has begun to see a new reticence from CDOT to provide
any additional funds for improvements in the west Steamboat area pending the
ongoing discussions relating to potential annexation.

V. LEGAL ISSUES:

None at this time, though the development process may reveal legal issues as
plans progress.

VI. CONFLICTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:

None at this time, though the development process may reveal conflicts or
environmental issues as plans progress.

VII. APPLICABLE CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND CITY POLICIES

Council Goal #4 – Develop a long-term fiscal sustainability plan for the City: Council
and the community at large will need to discuss the fiscal impacts to the City’s tax
payers that the applicant’s proposal entails.

Council Goal #6 - Define the City’s role and develop viable options for facilitating
diverse housing opportunities: the applicant has set a target 100 locals-only deed
restricted homes within the Gateway Neighborhood. This may align with Council’s
housing opportunities goal.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Brynn Grey Traffic Study memo.

Attachment 2: West Steamboat Neighborhood Traffic Study report.
Attachment 3: Brynn Grey PowerPoint Presentation.
Attachment 4: Staff PowerPoint Presentation.
 Attachment #1

September 19, 2017

President Magill and Steamboat City Council

137 10th Street
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

Re: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Roads Work Session

Dear President Magill and Steamboat Springs City Council,

Over the last 18 months we have been working with staff and Council analyzing a myriad of
issues. The next work session, our sixteenth, will be a continued discussion on traffic
impacts. At the last work session on July 18th, Council requested an updated traffic report
and specifically asked us to analyze impacts consistent with City Code for new development
located within the City.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group conducted the attached Traffic Impact Study,
with the direction and input of City of Steamboat Springs staff Jon Snyder and Ben Beall. Bill
Fox is well known to Steamboat Springs staff, having managed the Mobility and Circulation
Plan, the Sidewalk Master Plan, the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan, the 6th/Lincoln
Traffic Study, and several other projects. Bill has also worked on dozens of additional
master plans and traffic studies for clients in Steamboat such as Routt County, Steamboat
Resort, Yampa Valley Medical Center, Steamboat Springs School District, and private
developers. In addition, working with staff in 2006, Bill conducted the original traffic impact
analysis on the Steamboat 700 proposal, which involved 2,100 units.

The WSN proposal includes 436 homes across three neighborhoods (80% less than
Steamboat 700). The vision has been, and will remain focused on creating a real locals’
neighborhood and providing a significant supply of homes to individuals and families who
work 30 hours per week in Routt County. The development will be phased over many years,
dependent upon market conditions (25 homes per year would result in a 17 year build out).
As such, the estimated impacts to the Steamboat transportation and roads system will be
incremental, spread out over many years, as the neighborhoods build out.

We anticipate paying for all on-site roads and infrastructure, as well as the “front-door”
improvements to Highway 40 that are necessary for access. Beyond those givens, the Hwy
40 corridor has significant traffic problems and we believe we can play a significant role in
solving. It is our hope that at this work session we can drill down on the traffic impacts,


President Magill and Steamboat Springs City Council

September 19, 2017
Page 2

estimated costs to address them, and potential WSN financial contribution alternatives.
Then, at a future work session, as part of a discussion of the draft Annexation Agreement,
we would provide a specific financial proposal which could be considered in context with all
WSN contributions including locals’ housing, other capital contributions and ongoing fee
generation.

We look forward to discussing with you how our locals housing neighborhoods can be part
of the solution to important system improvements over years to come.

Thank you,

David O’Neil Melissa Sherburne

Founder/CEO Partner
Brynn Grey Partners Brynn Grey Partners

Attachment: West Steamboat Neighborhoods Traffic Impact Study Report
 Attachment #2

West Steamboat Neighborhoods

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Steamboat Springs, CO

West Steamboat 
Neighborhoods

PREPARED FOR:
Brynn Grey Partners, Ltd.
777 Pearl Street, Suite 200| Boulder | CO 80302

PREPARED BY: Bill Fox, PE

DATE: September 12, 2017
FTH PROJECT: #17027

P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, CO 80308-2768

PHONE: 303-652-3571 | FAX: 303-652-6574
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0  Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 

2.0  Project Description ......................................................................................................... 5 

3.0  EXisting conditions ......................................................................................................... 5 

3.1  Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 6 

3.2  Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................ 6 

3.3  Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis ......................................................................... 6 

4.0  Proposed Development Traffic ...................................................................................... 7 

4.1  Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 7 

4.2  Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................................. 8 

5.0  Future Traffic Conditions with Site Development ........................................................ 8 

5.1  Year 2037 Traffic Growth Projections ........................................................................... 8 

5.2  Year 2037 Intersection Capacity Analysis ..................................................................... 9 

6.0  Queuing Analysis ............................................................................................................ 9 

7.0  Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................................................... 10 

8.0  WSN contribution to the funding of roadway capital improvement projects in the
west Steamboat area ................................................................................................................ 10 

9.0  Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 11 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – WSN Concept Plan Preliminary Trip Gereration ......................................................... 13

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 2 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

Table 2 – Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary ................................................... 14

Table 3 – Peak Hour Average and 95th Percentile Queue Lengths ............................................ 15

Table 4 – WSN Contribution to Transportation Facility Costs in West Steamboat Springs ........ 16

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................... 17

Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................. 18

Figure 3 – Year 2017 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................................................ 19

Figure 4 – Directional Distribution of WSN Traffic Without Gossard Parkway ............................ 20

Figure 5 – Directional Distribution of WSN Traffic With Gossard Parkway ................................. 21

Figure 6 – Assignment of WSN Traffic Without Gossard Parkway ............................................. 22

Figure 7 – Assignment of WSN Traffic With Gossard Parkway .................................................. 23

Figure 8 – Year 2037 Traffic Without Gossard Parkway ............................................................. 24

Figure 9 – Year 2037 Traffic With Gossard Parkway .................................................................. 25

Figure 10 – Peak Hour Signal Warrant ....................................................................................... 26

Figure 11 – Capital Improvement Projects .................................................................................. 27

APPENDIX

Level of Service Definitions

Existing Traffic Data
CDOT Traffic and 20-Year Growth Data
Intersection Capacity Worksheets

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 3 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The West Steamboat Springs Area Plan (original 1999 Plan and 2006 Update) identifies the
area generally west of Steamboat Springs, east of Steamboat II and north of US 40 as the
location for future higher density residential and supporting commercial development in the
Steamboat Springs area. Transportation access to this area west of Steamboat Springs in the
US 40 corridor has always been an important consideration. The community rejected an earlier
proposal called Steamboat 700 which included plans for developing 2,100 residential units and
over 350,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor area that would have encompassed much of this
area.

The current West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) proposal includes only 436 residential units
and 15,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood supporting retail space in the eastern end of what was the
larger Steamboat 700 project area. Figure 1 includes a vicinity map for the proposed WSN
development.

The purpose of this WSN Traffic Impact Study is to:

 Quantify the anticipated off-site automobile traffic that will be generated by the WSN
project.

 Provide an overall trip generation, distribution, and assignment analysis for the WSN
project for use in the estimation of WSN financial contribution or cost sharing for needed
off-site transportation system improvements in the US 40 corridor west of downtown
Steamboat Springs.

Future amendments to this study will project and analyze on-site transportation system needs
and operation for the WSN site, along with bicycle, pedestrian and transit access improvements.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 4 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The WSN project proposes to construct 436 residential dwelling units in three neighborhoods
just north of US 40 and just west of the current city limits. The three neighborhoods combined
would include 244 single family units, 130 townhome units, 62 apartments, and 15,000 sq. ft. of
neighborhood supporting retail development. Figure 2 includes a conceptual site plan for the
project and Table 1 details the distribution of the units between the three neighborhoods.

The WSN site will have direct access onto US 40 at what is being called West Steamboat
Boulevard. At some point, it is likely that a secondary access will be provided by extending the
new Gossard Parkway (formerly referred to as New Victory Parkway) west to reach the WSN
site. This will relieve traffic loading on a portion of US 40 west of Downhill Drive and will provide
options for connecting to the local network in the “Curve” area via US 40, Downhill Drive, or Elk
River Road (CR 129).

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

This traffic study addresses the existing traffic volumes and operations at a number of locations
in the US 40 corridor west of downtown Steamboat Springs specified by City staff as follows:

 Highway 40 - West Steamboat Boulevard to Downhill Drive

 Highway 40 – Dream Island Plaza to 13th Street
 Highway 40 – 12th Street to 13th Street
 Elk River Road – Downhill Drive to Highway 40
 Intersection of US 40 and Downhill Drive
 Intersection of Downhill Drive and Elk River Road
 Intersection of US 40 and 13th Street
New traffic counts were procured, and signalized and unsignalized intersection operations were
evaluated using the procedures and methodologies set forth by the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM)1 using Synchro (version 8) software.

1 Highway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, 2010.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 5 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

3.1 Data Collection

Weekday AM and PM peak hour turning-movement volumes were collected in August 2017 at
the three study area intersections listed above. Daily or 24-hour traffic counts were also
collected on the four roadway segments listed above. City staff provided a monthly factor to
adjust these counts to reflect summer (July) conditions. The July volumes are higher by an
approximate factor of 1.08 when compared to August volumes.

The existing July traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 3. The existing intersection geometry
and traffic control are also shown on the traffic volume figure. Count data sheets are provided
in the Appendix.

3.2 Level of Service Criteria

To measure and describe the operational status of the study intersections, transportation
engineers and planners commonly use a grading system referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS)
that is defined by the HCM. LOS characterizes the operation conditions of an intersections
traffic flow, ranging from LOS A (indicating very good, free flow operations) and LOS F
(indicating congested and sometimes oversaturated conditions). These grades represent the
perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with
traveling through the intersections. The intersection LOS is represented as a delay in seconds
per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each turning movement.

The City of Steamboat Springs considers LOS A through C to be good for the overall
intersection operations with LOS D as acceptable in peak hours. For individual movements,
LOS E and F may be acceptable for left-turns or minor street approaches. Criteria contained in
the HCM were applied for these analyses in order to determine existing peak hour LOS. A more
detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference.

3.3 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis

The results of the LOS calculations for the existing intersections are summarized in Table 1.
The intersection level of service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The data in the
tables show that:

 US 40 and Downhill Drive: This unsignalized intersection is calculated to operate at

LOS F overall in the AM peak hour and LOS A in the PM peak hour. The poor AM peak
LOS is due to a high level of delay for southbound vehicles turning left onto US 40 to
head into town. This delay is caused by the heavy flow of eastbound or inbound traffic

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 6 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

on US 40 in the morning peak hour. A review of the Peak Hour Signal Warrant at this
intersection is summarized in Section 7.0 of this report.

 Elk River Road and Downhill Drive: This unsignalized intersection is calculated to
operate at LOS A overall in the AM and PM peak hours. The eastbound approach
currently operates at LOS E in the AM peak.

 US 40 and 13th Street: This signalized intersection is calculated to operate at LOS F

overall in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour using the signal timing
information that was provided by CDOT, which appears to allocate too much time to the
13th Street approach and not enough time to the approaches on US 40. For this reason,
this analysis has tested an optimized signal timing scenario where more time was
allocated to US 40. In this optimized case, the overall intersection was improved to LOS
C in the AM and B in the PM, while still maintaining LOS C/D on the 13th Street
approach. In this context, it is recommended that the City discuss adjusting the signal
timing at this location with CDOT to improve existing signalized operations.

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC

4.1 Trip Generation

A trip generation estimate was performed to determine the traffic characteristics of the planned
project. The trip rates contained in the previous Steamboat 700 traffic study were utilized for
this project, and were applied to the WSN land uses described above. Ultimately, the trip rates
are based on information in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual2.

The results of this analysis are detailed in Table 1. It is projected that the WSN development
will generate 3,331 automobile trips per day that exit the site onto area roadways, with 255 trips
off-site trips occurring in the morning peak hour and 333 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. It
is also projected that the retail development within the WSN site is truly neighborhood serving,
and does not generate additional off-site traffic.

2 Trip Generation 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 7 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment

The estimated off-site trip volumes presented in Table 1 were distributed onto the study area
roadway network based on existing traffic characteristics of the area, existing and future land
uses, and the relationship of this project to the greater Steamboat Springs community. Trip
distribution estimates were prepared for two conditions, WITHOUT, and WITH the completion of
the Gossard Parkway. The overall assumed distribution for the year 2037 WITHOUT the
Gossard Parkway is illustrated in Figure 4. The assumed trip distribution WITH the completion
of the Gossard Parkway is illustrated in Figure 5.

The off-site traffic generated by the WSN project described above was assigned to the area
roadway network using these trip distribution estimates. Figure 6 illustrates site traffic
WITHOUT Gossard Parkway, and Figure 7 illustrates site traffic WITH Gossard Parkway in
place.

5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT

This section projects the future traffic conditions in the year 2037 (20-year horizon) with the
WSN project in place, and projected additional traffic from other developments west of
downtown Steamboat Springs.

5.1 Year 2037 Traffic Growth Projections

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) maintains a database of 20-year projected

growth factors for all roadway segments that make up the state highway system in Colorado. In
theory, these growth factors should include the additional traffic for developments such as WSN
that may develop within the next 20 years. For this project, CDOT’s traffic growth factors for US
40 in this area were reviewed as a starting point. The growth projected by CDOT was
compared to the traffic growth projected on US 40 from the WSN site. It was determined that
the CDOT growth factors should be increased slightly to ensure that there was the potential for
additional development, beyond the WSN traffic, to occur in the next 20 years and be included
in the projected future traffic volumes.

The resulting 20-year traffic growth factors used for this study (that ultimately include the WSN
traffic) are:

 US 40 west of Downhill Drive: 1.30

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 8 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

 US 40 between Curve Court and 13th Street: 1.15

 US 40 east of 13th Street: 1.15

 Elk River Road north of US 40: 1.15

The resulting Year 2037 traffic volumes, without and with Gossard Parkway, are illustrated in
Figures 8 and 9 respectively. These traffic projections include the added traffic from WSN plus
additional traffic from other developments or changes along US 40 anywhere to the west of
Steamboat Springs.

5.2 Year 2037 Intersection Capacity Analysis

The projected 2037 traffic volumes in Figures 8 and 9 were evaluated using the same LOS
calculation procedure discussed above. It can be seen in Table 1 that the intersection of US 40
and Downhill Drive is projected to function at LOS F, with or without the Gossard Parkway if it
remains unsignalized.

The Downhill Drive and Elk River Road intersection will continue to function well in the LOS B/C
range overall, with or without the Gossard Parkway extension to WSN.

The signalized intersection of US40 and 13th Street will continue to function at LOS F in the AM
and PM peak hours using existing CDOT timing plans in the traffic signal controller. However, if
the signal timing is optimized, the intersection will operate at LOS D in the AM peak and LOS C
in the PM peak, with all approach movements in the LOS A-D range.

6.0 QUEUING ANALYSIS

A queuing analysis was performed at the three key intersections evaluated to determine if the
worst case 95th percentile queues would be accommodated by the existing storage length and if
any of the queues impact an upstream intersection/access. Table 3 provides the storage
lengths, distance to nearest intersection/access, and the longest 95th percentile queue for each
scenario.
It can be seen in Table 3 that the Downhill Drive and US 40 intersection will have significant
southbound left turn queues during peak hours if the existing stop sign control is maintained. If
this intersection is signalized (see next section) and the intersection is improved, a 290-foot long
left turn lane would be needed to accommodate the longest peak hour left turn queue.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 9 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

No queuing issues are anticipated at the Downhill Drive and Elk River Road intersection under
any of the scenarios modeled in this study.

The US 40 and 13th Street intersection is projected to continue to have queuing issues on US 40
if the existing CDOT signal timing is maintained. However, if the timing is optimized, the
queuing on US 40 will be significantly reduced, with only minor queuing on the 13th Street
approach.

7.0 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS

A planning level peak hour signal warrant analysis was conducted at the intersection of US 40
at Downhill Drive due to the existing and projected congestion at this intersection. The peak
hour volumes for AM and PM were compared to the peak hour warrant threshold set forth by the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, March 2009). Figure 10 illustrates the
traffic signal warrant status at this intersection during peak periods. It can be seen that a traffic
signal is currently warranted in the AM and PM peak hours at the US 40 and Downhill Drive
intersection, and in this context, it would continue to be warranted in the future. [It should be
noted that the Peak Hour Signal Warrant is only one of nine warrants in the MUTCD when
considering the installation of a traffic signal, but it is a good indicator.]

It can also be seen in Figure 10 that the Elk River Road and Downhill Drive intersection is not
projected to meet a traffic signal warrant in the Year 2037, with or without the completion of
Gossard Parkway.

Lastly, it is likely that a traffic signal will be warranted at the intersection of US 40 and West
Steamboat Boulevard at some point during the development of the WSN project.

8.0 WSN CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUNDING OF ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS IN THE WEST STEAMBOAT AREA

The previous Steamboat 700 analysis had identified a number of roadway system capital
improvement projects in the West Steamboat area that would be needed over the course of the
that project development. That project had also developed a cost sharing model for the
Steamboat 700 project to contribute to project funding.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 10 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

Now, in the context of the current WSN proposal, City staff has identified 10 capital
improvement projects (7 roadway links or segments, and 3 intersections) for consideration in a
possible cost sharing by WSN. The 10 projects being considered are illustrated in Figure 11.

The cost sharing methodology being discussed is to treat the WSN project the same as any
other development within the City, and calculate the WSN funding percentage based on the
project’s percentage of the total Year 2037 automobile traffic that will utilize each of the 10
improvement locations. The 7 roadway link project calculations utilize daily traffic contribution,
and the 3 intersections calculations utilize the higher of the AM or PM peak hour traffic
contribution.

Table 4 includes the total traffic at each project location and the amount of traffic that will be
generated by the WSN project. The WSN percent traffic contribution to each project is then
calculated. The WSN percent contribution percentage is then applied to the total project cost
estimate to yield the potential WSN project cost contribution. Note that the project specific cost
estimates in Table 4 have been provided by City staff, and it is our understanding that they are
based on earlier cost estimates prepared as part of the Steamboat 700 annexation process.

Table 4 includes separate calculations for the WITHOUT and WITH Gossard Parkway, as this
results in differing traffic projections for some project locations.

It can be seen in Table 4 that estimated total cost of the 10 projects that have been identified
ranges between $50 million and $53 million, depending on whether the Gossard Parkway is
extended or not. Using this cost distribution model, the WSN project would potentially
contribute between $5.5 million and $6.4 million if all 10 projects were to be completed. This
analysis will help the City and WSN evaluate which off-site improvements are of highest priority,
the appropriate phasing of these improvements, and what is a reasonable expectation for WSN
to help fund these improvements.

9.0 CONCLUSION

The original West Of Steamboat Springs Area Plan (and subsequent revisions) recommended
adding residential development on the western fringe of Steamboat Springs. The WSN project
is designed to implement part of that vision with the construction of 436 residential units and
neighborhood supporting commercial development just west of the western city limits.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 11 August 31, 2017
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

Unfortunately, the existing roadway capacity in the US 40 corridor west of downtown Steamboat
is limited and congestion is already evident, particularly to the east of Downhill Drive. City staff
has identified a number of potential transportation system improvement projects in the West
Steamboat area (based on earlier work done for the Steamboat 700 proposal) that will be
needed to mitigate existing congestion and accommodate projected traffic growth in the US 40
corridor. The WSN project has the potential to meet some of the community’s housing needs
while providing a portion of the funding necessary to implement these off-site transportation
system improvements in the west Steamboat area.

This WSN Traffic study:

 projects the off-site traffic that will be added to area roadways by WSN;

 estimates additional growth in background traffic in the US 40 corridor west of downtown

Steamboat;

 includes a cost allocation model (Table 4) based on future traffic for calculating the
potential WSN contribution to transportation system improvement projects in the area.

This study and its findings should be helpful in determining the appropriate WSN contribution to
these off-site transportation system needs as part of annexation negotiations.

Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group, LLC Page 12 August 31, 2017
 FTH 17027 West Steamboat Neighborhood 8/31/2017

Table 1 WSN Concept Plan - Preliminary Trip Generation

External A.M. Peak Hour External P.M. Peak Hour
Trip Reduction Factors Average Daily Trips Trips Trips

Internal Total
Trips and External
Multi- Total Trips Trips With
ITE Purpose with No Trip Trip
Code Land Use Size Unit Multi-Modal Trips Pass-By Rate Reductions Reductions Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out

Gateway
210 Single Family Detached 74 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 9.57 708 673 0.75 53 13 40 1.01 71 45 26
230 Townhome / Condo / Duplex 58 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.86 340 323 0.44 24 4 20 0.52 29 19 10
221 Apartment 48 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 6.59 316 301 0.46 21 4 17 0.58 26 17 9
Neighborhood Serving Retail: 15 1,000 sq.ft. 0.15 1.00 0.00 44.32 665 0 0.96 0 0 0 2.71 0 0 0
Gateway Residential Subtotal: 180 2,029 1,297 98 21 77 126 81 45
Slate Creek
210 Single Family Detached 90 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 9.57 861 818 0.75 64 16 48 1.01 86 54 32
230 Townhome / Condo / Duplex 58 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.86 340 323 0.44 24 4 20 0.52 29 19 10
221 Apartment 4 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 6.59 26 25 0.46 2 0 2 0.58 2 1 1
Slate Creek Residential Subtotal: 152 1,227 1,166 90 20 70 117 74 43
Emerald
210 Single Family Detached 80 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 9.57 766 727 0.75 57 14 43 1.01 77 49 28
230 Townhome / Condo / Duplex 14 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 5.86 82 78 0.44 6 1 5 0.52 7 5 2
221 Apartment 10 Dwelling Units 0.05 0.00 0.00 6.59 66 63 0.46 4 1 3 0.58 6 4 2
Emerald Residential Subtotal: 104 914 868 67 16 51 90 58 32

Total External Off-site Trips: 436 4,170 3,331 255 57 198 333 213 120

Table 1 trip generation 8 28 17

 FTH# 17027 West Steamboat Neighborhoods 8/29/2017
Traffic Impact Study
Steamboat Springs, CO

Table 2 - Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Summary

2017 Existing + Optimized Signal 2037 Future 2037 Future without Gossard 2037 Future 2037 Future with Gossard
2017 Existing
Timing without Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements with Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements
Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Lanes Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

STOP SIGN CONTROL

US 40 at Downhill Dr. 80 F 6 A 125 F 9 A 106 F 7 A

Eastbound Left 9 A 10 A Refer to Signal Control 9 A 11 B 9 A 10 B Refer to Signal Control
Eastbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Eastbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Left 10 B 8 A 10 B 8 A 1 A 9 A
Westbound Through 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Westbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Northbound Left+Through+Right 23 C 15 C 23 C 21 C 21 C 19 C
Southbound Left >120 F 28 D >120 F 56 F >120 F 48 E
Southbound Through+Right 11 B 16 C 12 B 20 C 12 B 18 C

Elk River Rd. at Downhill Dr. 9 A 8 A 10 A 9 A 15 C 10 A

Eastbound Left+Through+Right 36 E 23 C 38 E 27 D 53 F 27 D
Westbound Left+Through+Right 25 D 31 D 25 D 34 D 30 D 36 E
Northbound Left+Through 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 A
Northbound Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A
Southbound Left+Through+Right 0 A 0 A 1 A 0 A 1 A 0 A
SIGNAL CONTROL
US 40 at 13th Street 154 F 80 E 29 C 20 B 195 F 119 F 36 D 25 C
Eastbound Left 30 C 0 A 15 B 0 A 31 C 0 A 16 B 0 A Same as 2037 without Gossard Same as 2037 without Gossard
Eastbound Through+Right >120 F >120 F 33 C 24 C >120 F >120 F 48 D 30 C
Westbound Left 46 D 57 E 49 D 18 B 61 E 89 F 54 D 41 D
Westbound Through+Right 28 C 35 D 12 B 13 B 31 C 45 D 12 B 14 B
Northbound Left+Through 15 B 14 B 30 C 30 C 15 B 14 B 30 C 30 C
Northbound Right 19 B 16 B 41 D 32 C 19 B 17 B 39 D 33 C
Southbound Left+Through+Right 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A 0 A

US 40 at Downhill Dr. 34 C 21 C 33 C 21 C 29 C 19 B
Eastbound Left Refer to Stop Sign Control 9 A 12 B Refer to Stop Sign Control 9 A 10 B Refer to Stop Sign Control 9 A 9 A
Eastbound Through 44 D 14 B 39 D 11 B 31 C 11 B
Eastbound Right 10 B 11 B 10 B 8 A 10 B 10 B
Westbound Left 24 C 10 B 24 C 7 A 20 B 7 A
Westbound Through 17 B 21 C 16 B 17 B 16 B 16 B
Westbound Right 14 B 13 B 14 B 10 A 14 B 10 A
Northbound Left+Through+Right 43 D 43 D 49 D 57 E 49 D 57 E
Southbound Left 39 D 34 C 53 D 52 D 53 D 52 D
Southbound Through+Right 30 C 31 C 35 C 40 D 35 C 40 D

Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle.

Page 1 of 1 17027_LOS
 FTH# 17027 West Steamboat Neighborhoods 8/29/2017
Traffic Impact Study
Steamboat Springs, CO

Table 3 - Peak Hour Average and 95th Percentile Queue Lengths

Storage or 2017 Existing + 2037 Future 2037 Future without Gossard 2037 Future 2037 Future with Gossard
2017 Existing
Adjacent Improvements without Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements with Gossard Parkway Parkway + Improvements
Intersection and Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Lanes Groups Distance Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th Avg. 95th

STOP SIGN CONTROL

US 40 at Downhill Dr.
Eastbound Left 800' - 12' - 5' Refer to Signal Control - 13' - 7' Refer to Signal Control - 13' - 7' Refer to Signal Control
Eastbound Through 800' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Eastbound Right 800' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Westbound Left 550' - 2' - 3' - 2' - 4' - 2' - 5'
Westbound Through 550' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Westbound Right 275' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Northbound Left+Through+Right 240' - 24' - 7' - 22' - 10' - 20' - 8'
Southbound Left 60' - 502' - 78' - 643' - 153' - 607' - 138'
Southbound Through+Right 125' - 8' - 30' - 13' - 45' - 12' - 40'
Elk River Rd. at Downhill Dr.
Eastbound Left+Through+Right 240' - 112' - 57' - 122' - 73' - 187' - 82'
Westbound Left+Through+Right 115' - 20' - 62' - 20' - 65' - 25' - 68'
Northbound Left+Through 1100' - 6' - 6' - 6' - 7' - 7' - 7'
Northbound Right 200' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0' - 0'
Southbound Left+Through+Right 400' - 1' - 1' - 1' - 1' - 1' - 1'

SIGNAL CONTROL
US 40 at 13th Street
Eastbound Left 1050' 1' 5' 0' 0' 0' 3' 0' 0' 3' 15' 0' 0' 2' 10' 0' 0' Same as 2037 without Gossard Same as 2037 without Gossard
Eastbound Through+Right 1050' 777' 861' 497' 633' 483' 555' 286' 411' 892' 1032' 628' 766' 635' 776' 389' 509'
Westbound Left 275' 96' 207' 102' 234' 93' 187' 59' 111' 112' 259' 123' 291' 110' 228' 106' 193'
Westbound Through+Right 275' 271' 330' 362' 451' 165' 201' 214' 266' 321' 400' 448' 595' 195' 244' 264' 326'
Northbound Left+Through 65' 12' 26' 7' 21' 18' 37' 11' 31' 12' 29' 8' 21' 17' 42' 12' 32'
Northbound Right 155' 43' 65' 0' 43' 116' 160' 0' 65' 42' 113' 14' 62' 103' 223' 15' 92'
Southbound Left+Through+Right 80' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0'
US 40 at Downhill Dr.
Eastbound Left 800' Refer to Stop Sign Control 40' 54' 13' 27' Refer to Stop Sign Control 42' 68' 14' 28' Refer to Stop Sign Control 42' 68' 14' 28'
Eastbound Through 800' 546' 670' 123' 188' 715' 1047' 149' 219' 618' 938' 149' 219'
Eastbound Right 800' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' 39'
Westbound Left 550' 3' 9' 10' 23' 5' 14' 12' 25' 5' 14' 12' 25'
Westbound Through 550' 121' 159' 313' 455' 131' 198' 406' 581' 123' 187' 343' 490'
Westbound Right 275' 0' 21' 15' 48' 0' 31' 27' 62' 0' 31' 27' 62'
Northbound Left+Through+Right 240' 7' 24' 6' 20' 8' 50' 9' 40' 8' 50' 9' 40'
Southbound Left 60' 131' 200' 102' 158' 179' 289' 142' 220' 179' 289' 142' 220'
Southbound Through+Right 125' 1' 33' 3' 44' 4' 44' 4' 58' 4' 44' 4' 58'

Note: Queue represented in feet.

Queues highlighted in blue font exceed the exisitng or proposed storage length or reach the upstream intersection.

Page 1 of 1 17027_LOS
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN) Traffic Study Updated: 9/13/2017
Table 4
WSN Contribution to Transportation Facility Capital Costs in West Steamboat Springs ‐ WITHOUT and WITH the Extension of Gossard Parkway
WSN 
WSN Daily  WSN AM Peak  WSN PM Peak  Capital Project  Contribution to 
Year 2037  Year 2037       Year 2037      Traffic  Hour Traffic  Hour Traffic  WSN Daily  WSN AM  WSN PM  Improvement  Capital Cost 
Daily Traffic  AM Peak Hour  PM Peak Hour  Contribution  Contribution  Contribution  Traffic        Peak Hour  Peak Hour  Cost             Based on Traffic 
Capital Project ‐ WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY (vpd) Traffic (vph) Traffic (vph) (vpd) (vph) (vph) % % % ($$$)(2) ($$$)
Roadway Segments
A Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive
A.1 West Steamboat Blvd. Intersection n/a n/a 100.0% $600,000 $600,000
A.2 Pedestrian Underpass and connection to Snow Bowl Plaza 19,800 2,830 14.3% $2,800,000 $400,202
A.3 Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive ‐ widen to 4 lanes 19,800 2,830 14.3% $15,268,820 $2,182,362
B Highway 40 ‐ Downhill Drive to Elk River Road 25,500 2,730 10.7% $2,560,540 $274,128
C Highway 40 ‐ Elk River Road to Dream Island Plaza 34,700 2,165 6.2% $17,946,405 $1,119,711
D Highway 40 ‐ Dream Island Plaza to 13th Street 34,700 2,165 6.2% $3,697,960 $230,723
E Elk River Road ‐ Downhill Drive to Highway 40 12,000 70 0.6% $620,000 $3,617
F Downhill Drive ‐ Highway 40 to Elk River Road 6,000 100 1.7% $864,000 $14,400
G Gossard Parkway ‐ WSN to west end of existing road 0 0 0.0% $0 $0
Intersections
1 Highway 40 and Downhill Drive 1865 1740 216 285 11.6% 16.4% $5,036,220 $824,898
2 Highway 40 and 13th Street 3015 2890 167 220 5.5% 7.6% $0 $0
3 Elk River Road and Downhill Drive 980 985 13 16 1.3% 1.6% $1,800,000 $29,239
Total: $51,193,945 $5,679,279

WSN 
WSN Daily  WSN AM Peak  WSN PM Peak  Capital Project  Contribution to 
Year 2037  Year 2037       Year 2037      Traffic  Hour Traffic  Hour Traffic  WSN Daily  WSN AM  WSN PM  Improvement  Capital Cost 
Daily Traffic  AM Peak Hour  PM Peak Hour  Contribution  Contribution  Contribution  Traffic        Peak Hour  Peak Hour  Cost             Based on Traffic 
Capital Project ‐ WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY (vpd) Traffic (vph) Traffic (vph) (vpd) (vph) (vph) % % % ($$$) ($$$)
Roadway Segments
A Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive
A.1 West Steamboat Blvd. Intersection n/a n/a 100.0% $600,000 $600,000
A.2 Pedestrian Underpass and connection to Snow Bowl Plaza 18,650 1,665 8.9% $2,800,000 $249,973
A.3 Highway 40 ‐ West Steamboat Blvd. to Downhill Drive ‐ widen to 4 lanes 18,650 1,665 8.9% $15,268,820 $1,363,141
B Highway 40 ‐ Downhill Drive to Elk River Road 24,650 1,830 7.4% $2,560,540 $190,093
C Highway 40 ‐ Elk River Road to Dream Island Plaza 34,700 2,165 6.2% $17,946,405 $1,119,711
D Highway 40 ‐ Dream Island Plaza to 13th Street 34,700 2,165 6.2% $3,697,960 $230,723
E Elk River Road ‐ Downhill Drive to Highway 40 12,800 835 6.5% $620,000 $40,445
F Downhill Drive ‐ Highway 40 to Elk River Road 6,500 1,000 15.4% $864,000 $132,923
(1)
G Gossard Parkway ‐ WSN to west end of existing road 1,456 1,165 80.0% $2,121,532 $1,697,517
Intersections
1 Highway 40 and Downhill Drive 1795 1635 135 201 7.5% 12.3% $5,036,220 $619,132
2 Highway 40 and 13th Street ‐ cost included in D above 3015 2890 167 220 5.5% 7.6% $0 $0
3 Elk River Road and Downhill Drive 1045 1040 77 99 7.4% 9.5% $1,800,000 $171,346
Total: $53,315,477 $6,415,004
1 Assume some other development in the area along Gossard Parkway such that WSN traffic is 80% of the total.
2 Cost estimates provide by City of Steamboat Springs staff.
 Steamboat
Airport

West Steamboat
Neighborhoods

Old Town
(Downtown)

T ra n s p o r ta t i o n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
VICINITY MAP
Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 1
 New Gossard
Parkway

Access onto
US 40

T ra n s p o r ta t i o n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 2
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2017 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 3
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WSN TRAFFIC WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 4
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WSN TRAFFIC WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 5
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
ASSIGNMENT OF WSN TRAFFIC WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 6
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
ASSIGNMENT OF WSN TRAFFIC WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 7
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2037 TRAFFIC WITHOUT GOSSARD PARKWAY

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 8
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
YEAR 2037 TRAFFIC WITH GOSSARD PARKWAY

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 9
T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 10
 CR
24

T ra n s p o r ta t io n G rou p
WEST STEAMBOAT NEIGHBORHOODS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

FTH Project # 17027 Original Scale NTS Date 9/12/17 Drawn by CRS Figure # 11
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

Appendix:
 
Level of Service Definitions 

Existing Traffic Data 

CDOT Traffic and 20‐Year Growth Data 

Intersection Capacity Worksheets 
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (FTH#17027) Traffic Impact Study

 
Level of Service Definitions 
 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS 
 
 
In  rating  roadway  and  intersection  operating  conditions  with  existing  or  future  traffic 
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 (a)   
 of Service      Definition 
 Rating  Signalized  Unsignalized 

      Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations.  Density is 
A  0.0 to 10.0  0.0 to 10.0  low 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 operating speeds due to traffic conditions.  Vehicle maneuvering is 
B  10.1 to 20.0  10.1 to 15.0 
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 
      more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes.  Relatively satisfactory 
C  20.1 to 35.0  15.1 to 25.0 
operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer 
vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor. 

Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in 
      volume could cause substantial delays.  Most drivers are restricted in 
D  35.1 to 55.0  25.1 to 35.0 
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.  
      Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief 
E  55.1 to 80.0  35.1 to 50.0 
duration.  High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor 
signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at 
signalized corridors. 

Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays 
      at critical intersections.  Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and 
F  > 80.0  > 50.0 
stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of 
downstream congestion. 

(a)  Delay ranges based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual criteria. 
 
Attachment #3

W E S T S T E A M B O AT N E I G H B O R H O O D S

Council Worksession
September 19, 2017
R o a d s : Tr a f f i c I m p a c t S t u d y
 INTRODUCTION

Tonight we will cover:

Existing Conditions / Key Findings
•  Current Traffic Problems
•  Cost Estimates
•  WSN as Part of the Solution

Next Steps
•  Specific financial proposal which could be considered in context with
all WSN contributions including locals’ housing, other capital
contributions and ongoing fee generation
 INTRODUCTION

Bill Fox, Fox Tuttle Hernandez Transportation Group

•  Managed the following City of Steamboat Springs plans:
•  Mobility and Circulation Plan (Transportation Master Plan)
•  Sidewalk Master Plan
•  West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan
•  Community Center Traffic Access and Parking Study
•  6th/Lincoln Traffic Study
•  Bus Barn Access Study for SST (Craig)
•  Traffic Signal Design at 11th/Lincoln
•  Traffic Engineer on Steamboat 700 (2,100 units) – WSN 80% reduction from that
REAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR LOCALS
 W S N T R A F F I C I M PA C T S T U D Y
KEY FINDINGS

•  Traffic congestion exists today in the US 40 corridor

west of downtown Steamboat Springs - worst between
Elk River Road and 13th Street

•  US 40/Downhill Drive intersection already meets a

traffic signal warrant
 W S N T R A F F I C I M PA C T S T U D Y
KEY FINDINGS

•  Traffic is projected to increase in the future

•  Any development west of Steamboat Springs adds to
this existing problem
•  Where should the growth be located and how should it
be managed to meet the City’s needs while minimizing
its impacts
•  WSN will add marginally to area traffic (accounts for 6%
to 14% of Year 2037 projected traffic depending on
location)
 W S N T R A F F I C I M PA C T S T U D Y
KEY FINDINGS

•  WSN will provide some funding to put toward the worst

case traffic capacity deficiencies
•  Potential to leverage these funds as part of City’s
contribution to CDOT capacity enhancement projects
along US 40
•  Developments farther west (Hayden, Craig) will likely bring
the same traffic impacts without any potential funding
source for improvements in this area – all of the impacts,
none of the benefits
 W S N T R A F F I C I M PA C T S T U D Y
KEY FINDINGS

•  See Table 4 and Figure 11 in report

•  Work from east to west for highest priority projects
•  A tool to help determine how WSN can help solve
existing traffic problems
•  Widening US 40 west of Downhill Drive not needed to
accommodate WSN
W S N T R A F F I C I M PA C T S T U D Y
KEY FINDINGS
W S N T R A F F I C I M PA C T S T U D Y
KEY FINDINGS
THANK YOU
 Attachment #4

West Steamboat Annexation – Traffic Study

September 19, 2017
 Intersections & Road Segments without Gossard Parkway

Segment G Segment F
Tota l Cost: $0 Tota l Cost: $864k
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 0% WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 1.7%
WSN Proporti on: $0 WSN Proporti on: $14.4k Intersection 3
Tota l Cost: $1.8M
WSN Pea k Hour: 1.6%
WSN Proporti on: $29.2k

Segment E
Tota l Cost: $620k
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 0.6%
WSN Proporti on: $3.6k
Segment A.2
Tota l Cost: $2.8M

Segment A.3
Tota l Cost: $15.3M
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 14.3%
WSN Proporti on: $2.2M
Segment B
Tota l Cost: $2.6M
Intersection 1 WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 10.7%
Tota l Cost: $5M WSN Proporti on: $274.1k Segment D
WSN Pea k Hour: 16.4% Tota l Cost: $3.7M
WSN Proporti on: $824.9k WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 6.2%
Segment C WSN Proporti on: $230.7k
Tota l Cost: $17.9M
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 6.2%
WSN Proporti on: $1.1M

Intersection 2
Total of all Projects: $51,193,945 Tota l Cost: $0
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN): $5,679,279 WSN Pea k Hour: 7.6%
WSN Proporti on: $0
 Intersections & Road Segments with Gossard Parkway

Segment G
Tota l Cost: $2.1M
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 80%
WSN Proporti on: $1.7M
Segment F
Tota l Cost: $864k
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 15.4%
WSN Proporti on: $132.9k Intersection 3
Tota l Cost: $1.8M
WSN Pea k Hour: 9.5%
WSN Proporti on: $171.4k

Segment E
Tota l Cost: $620k
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 6.5%
WSN Proporti on: $40.5k
Segment A.2
Tota l Cost: $2.8M

Segment A.3
Tota l Cost: $15.3M
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 8.9%
WSN Proporti on: $1.4M
Segment B
Tota l Cost: $2.6M
Intersection 1 WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 7.4%
Tota l Cost: $5M WSN Proporti on: $190.1k Segment D
WSN Pea k Hour: 12.3% Tota l Cost: $3.7M
WSN Proporti on: $619k WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 6.2%
Segment C WSN Proporti on: $230.7k
Tota l Cost: $17.9M
WSN Da ily Tra ffic: 6.2%
WSN Proporti on: $1.1M

Intersection 2
Total of all Projects: $53,315,477 Tota l Cost: $0
West Steamboat Neighborhoods (WSN): $6,415,004 WSN Pea k Hour: 7.6%
WSN Proporti on: $0
WSN Traffic Contribution
Offsite Infrastructure Prioritization (included in WSN evaluation)
#3
#4
#8 #5

#6
#2

#1

#7

1. US 40 segment from Elk River Rd to Dream Island Plaza

2. US 40/Downhill Dr intersection
3. Elk River Rd/Downhill Dr intersection
4. Downhill Dr segment from US 40 to Elk River Rd
5. Elk River Rd segment from Downhill Dr to US 40
6. US 40 segment from Downhill Dr to Elk River Rd
7. US 40 segment from Dream Island Plaza to 13th St
8. US40 segment from West Steamboat Blvd to Downhill Dr
 Administration Responsibility
• WSN
West Steamboat Blvd Intersection (A.1) – “Front Door”
Gossard Parkway Connection (or other private entity)
• Partnership Grant Opportunity
Pedestrian Underpass and Connection to Snow Bowl
Plaza (A.2)
– potential partners include Routt County, Steamboat II Metro
District, KOA Campground, City
– potential grants include CDOT TAP, federal TIGER, GOCO, Special
Initiative, State Trails
 Administration Responsibility
• City
Elk River and Downhill Drive Improvements

• City and/or CDOT

Highway 40 Corridor Improvements
 Omitted Offsite Transportation
Related Infrastructure
The following offsite improvements are not included in this evaluation:
• Bottleneck ($17.4M)
• Slate Creek Connector ($4.3M)
• Transportation improvements to the west of WSN (i.e. CR42 and
US40 corridor segments west of “front door”)
• Site and funds for PW/Parks Shop, Scoria Shed, maintenance
equipment ($2.9M)
• Transit equipment and improvements ($5.3M)

*The total costs for these improvements as identified during the SB700 process are in
parenthesis – adjusted for inflation
 Points of Discussion
• Should the applicant be asked to fund their proportionate
share of none, some, or all anticipated road segment
improvement and intersection improvement costs?
• Should an alternate impact mitigation methodology be
considered? If so, what alternative ideas does Council
have?
• Are there any offsite transportation infrastructure costs not
included in the current WSN evaluation that Council
believes should be included?
• What should the timing, or phasing, of any payments from
the applicant to the City be?
• Should costs and/or payments be indexed according to an
inflationary factor?
 Points of Discussion
• Does Council have any thoughts on the timing of the
Gossard Parkway connection? Or the structure for
administration of that project at such time that the
connection may be required?
• Does Council want to have staff move forward with
exploring potential grant opportunities and
partnerships with WSN for the multimodal
improvements near the “front door”? What should
WSN minimum commitment be in this partnership? In
the event that a grant award is unsuccessful, should
WSN minimum commitment be increased?
 Points of Discussion
• Percent contribution to multimodal related
improvements?
– Pedestrian Underpass and connection to Snow
Bowl Plaza
– Elk River Road and Downhill Drive segment
improvements
 Point of Clarification
• Traffic study does not include
– School site
– Identified commercial parcel located near the
“front door” of the proposed Gateway
neighborhood
• The traffic contribution approach for those
sites should be clarified in the annexation
agreement for future study