HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2025-11-12Informal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town
matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Town Board of Trustees Study Session
November 12, 2025 from 4:15 p.m. – 6:45 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park
Accessibility Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services.
Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or
townclerk@estes.org.
Meeting Participation
This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page. Click on
the following links for more information on Digital Accessibility, Meeting Translations.
Public comment
Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the
Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board.
Agenda
4:15 p.m. Development Code Update: Commercial Design
Guidelines
Presented by Eric Krohngold, Design Workshop
5:45 p.m. Break for Dinner
6:00 p.m. Downtown Estes Loop Traffic Study Results
Presented by Director Greear
6:30 p.m. Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Steve Careccia, Director
Kara Washam, Planner II
Department: Development Services
Date: November 12, 2025
Subject: Development Code Update: Commercial Design Guidelines
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Design Workshop is seeking direction on the adoption of design guidelines as part of
the Development Code update. Presenting will be Eric Krohngold, Senior Associate with
Design Workshop, and Jessica Garrow, Principal with Design Workshop.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Provide direction on the desired approach, extent, and applicability of design guidelines
to development activity within Town.
Present Situation:
The Development Code update kicked off in February of this year. Since then, work has
progressed on the public engagement plan, including completion of two open houses,
several pop-up events, a community-wide survey, and two public dialogues. A summary
of these public engagement activities and feedback received to date is being compiled
for distribution to the community.
The Development Code does not currently contain robust design guidelines. Rather, the
design of buildings and site aesthetics are primarily left to the property owner/developer.
While this approach offers considerable flexibility for the property owner/developer, it
may not consistently align with the community’s vision and expectation for the Town’s
appearance and functionality. Further, adoption of design guidelines has been a
recommended action within the Comprehensive Plan. As such, the adoption of a
balanced set of design guidelines has been a significant objective of the Development
Code update.
Proposal:
With the update to the Development Code, the consultant has been requested to create
a set of balanced design guidelines meeting the needs of the community while not
stifling creativity nor the eclectic, natural look of the Town.
Advantages:
Some advantages of an updated Development Code include:
• A more search- and user-friendly document;
• Modernization and incorporation of current best practices;
• Increased efficiency in the development review process;
• Incorporation of newer development concepts and standards;
• Improved aesthetics; and,
• Implementation and alignment with the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan.
Disadvantages:
There are no disadvantages to discussing this study session topic.
Finance/Resource Impact:
There are no financial impacts at this time. Financial impacts have been accounted for
with this year's budget.
Level of Public Interest:
Public interest has been and will continue to be high.
Attachments:
1. Presentation
Development Code
Update Study
Session 2
November 12, 2025
Attachment 1
Today’s Agenda- Commercial Design Guidelines
Purpose, Applicability & Impact
Community and Staff Feedback
Framework
Topics & Discussion
1
2
3
4
Housing Typologies
Code Update Priority Area Joint Study Sessions
Process & Procedures Commercial
Development Review
Regulations and Process Design Guidelines
Residential
321
September November December
Purpose, Applicability
& Impact
Purpose
•Design guidelines provide clear criteria for
building appearance, layout, signage, and
landscaping, ensuring select types of
development is visually pleasing, cohesive, and
pedestrian-friendly.
•They help preserve the unique identity of a
place, support local economic vitality, and
enhance the quality of life for residents and
visitors.
•Design guidelines are backed by zoning
regulations and municipal police powers,
giving local governments authority to require
compliance and uphold community standards.
Applicability
•Only applicable for commercial
areas, industrial areas, and
multi-family developments.
•Not applicable to single-family
residential zones.
Impact
Source: City of Durango
• Elevates Design Review Standards: Establishes a
clear review step for commercial and multi-family
projects to ensure consistency with community
character and design intent.
• Preserves Local Identity: Enables the community to
guide and limit corporate or formulaic architecture,
reinforcing eclectic, small-town character and locally
inspired design.
• Supports Predictable Outcomes: Provides both
developers and reviewers with clear, visual guidance to
streamline approvals and reduce subjectivity in design
review.
Community and Staff
Feedback
Community & Staff Feedback
Emphasis on walkability
as that would also help
with parking and traffic
congestion.
I would prefer a more
eclectic design scheme
where structures are not
all looking the same.
I feel it gives more
character to have a town
and community that has a
variety of architecture
both vintage, industrial,
and quirky.
Preserving the character
of the town and
neighborhoods is very
important.
Such a subjective element of the code; I hope it is looked at
from a 360-degree view. Perhaps leave room for creativity
and variance.
Town Character
Community & Staff Feedback
Buildings should not
ruin existing ridgelines
(keep the max number
of floors to 2 or 3).
Code should incentivize
redevelopment over
new development and
should limit high-
density housing to
highway corridors
where adequate transit
and multi-modal
transportation are
available.Do not support high-density and height
bonuses.
Building Heights
•Selective flexibility on
height, in specific
locations, and with strong
design requirements, could
help enable affordable or
workforce housing.
•Emphasis on flexibility,
focusing on roof lines,
materials, and scale rather
than prescriptive styles.
•Taller buildings (3–4+
stories) raised significant
concerns among residents.
Framework
Framework
Topic 1: Mass and Scale
Design
Guidelines
(Guidelines are
specified under 6
topics that govern
different aspects,
and contribute to the
overall character of
the town)
Topic 2: Materials & Fenestration
Topic 3: Mechanical & Service Areas
Topic 4: Lighting & Signage
Topic 5: Parking
Topic 6 : Street Level Design
Topics
Mass & Scale Mechanical & Service Areas Parking
-Neighborhood Context
-Community and Town Character
-Zoning Conformance
-Building Form
-View Sheds
Materials & Fenestration Lighting & Signage Street Level Design
-Building Façade
-Material Quality
-Detailing
-Location & Layout (Access)
-Screening
-Finishes
-Location and Access
-Screening
-Location
-Design
-Commercial Entrances
-Pedestrian Access
-Stormwater Drainage
(Topics are further specified under subtopics that articulate the detailed requirements for each)
Framework
Topic 1: Mass and Scale
Sub-topic 1: Neighborhood
Context
Visual Examples
Guidelines Example
Prescriptive Flexible
Visual Examples
Description
Range
Prescriptive vs Flexible
Prescriptive Guidelines
Pros
•Provide clear standards for staff and
applicants, ensuring consistent and
predictable review outcomes.
•Strengthen defensibility for Town Board
decisions and maintain alignment with
community expectations.
Cons
•Limit flexibility for staff and the Board to
approve creative, site-specific designs.
•Can feel overly rigid or formulaic,
discouraging design innovation.
•May add cost or complexity for applicants
to meet detailed requirements.
Flexible Guidelines
Pros
•Encourage design creativity and context-
sensitive solutions from applicants.
•Enable adaptive responses to changing
building technologies and site conditions.
Cons
•Require greater staff interpretation and
time for intent-based criteria.
•Create uncertainty for applicants on
expectations or approval outcomes.
•Risk design outcomes drifting from the
desired community character.
Mass & Scale
(20 mins)
Mass and Scale
•Mass and scale define how a
building fits within its surroundings
and contribute to the overall town
character.
•New development should respond
to neighborhood context; respect
established patterns of height and
form and align with zoning intent.
•Careful consideration of view sheds,
building proportions, and rooflines
helps preserve Estes Park’s
mountain identity while allowing
appropriately scaled growth.
Mass and Scale: Neighborhood Context
Prescriptive Flexible
•Where a commercial building abuts a
residential zone, rooflines shall step down
by a minimum of 4 feet within 30 feet of the
shared property line to create a compatible
transition in scale.
•A minimum building height variation of 2 feet
from immediately adjacent structures is
required to prevent uniform rooflines.
•Massing should transition sensitively
between residential and commercial areas
through roofline breaks and material
shifts.
•New buildings should complement
adjacent structures in height, width, and
orientation, maintaining a compatible
rhythm along the street.
Mass and Scale: Community & Town Character
Prescriptive Flexible
•At least 70% of the visible façade must use
natural or locally sourced materials such as
stone, wood, or textured masonry.
•Contemporary interpretations of
traditional mountain styles are acceptable
if proportions, materials, and scale remain
consistent with the context.
Mass and Scale: Zoning Conformance
Prescriptive Flexible
•Building setbacks, height, and lot coverage
shall conform to zoning district standards
unless a variance demonstrates measurable
improvement to public views or pedestrian
experience.
•Modest deviations from height or
coverage may be allowed if they reduce
overall visual impact, preserve open
space, or enhance neighborhood
compatibility.
Mass and Scale: Building Form
Prescriptive Flexible
•Buildings longer than 75 feet must include a
10-foot façade articulation through
projections, recesses, or roofline changes.
•Roof forms shall include at least one change
in pitch or orientation for every 40 linear
feet of building frontage.
•Larger buildings should break their mass
into smaller volumes using varied
rooflines, materials, and façade
modulation to maintain human scale.
•Building forms should use step-backs,
porches, and varied heights to reduce
perceived bulk and create visual interest.
Mass and Scale: Viewsheds
Prescriptive Flexible
•Roof heights must not obstruct more than 30% of
key view corridors identified in community plans.
•No structure shall extend above the natural
ridgeline as viewed from designated scenic
corridors.
•Site and building design should preserve
views to the surrounding mountains by
stepping upper floors or orienting rooflines
parallel to the slope.
•Development should integrate with existing
topography to minimize visual intrusion and
maintain scenic quality along major
approach roads.
Q. For each of the following Mass and Scale sub-
topics, should the code be more prescriptive, more
flexible, or should an alternative path to achieve
desired outcomes be explored?
-Neighborhood Context
-Community & Town Character
-Zoning Conformance
-Building Forms
-View Sheds
Materials &
Fenestration
(15 mins)
Materials & Fenestration
•The choice and detailing of
materials strongly influence a
building’s character and quality.
•Facades should use durable,
natural materials that reflect the
mountain environment and
craftsmanship typical of Estes Park.
•Well-proportioned windows and
thoughtful detailing help create
visual interest, break up larger
walls, and strengthen the
pedestrian experience.
Materials & Fenestration: Building Facade
Prescriptive Flexible
•Primary façades must incorporate a minimum of
three material or plane changes every 30 linear
feet to reduce visual monotony.
•Street-facing façades shall include windows and
doors covering at least 40% of the wall area
between 2 and 10 feet above grade.
•Buildings should visually engage the street
with transparency, entrances, and details
that reflect craftsmanship and local
character.
•Façade design should emphasize human
scale and rhythm through windows,
recesses, and articulation that respond to
pedestrian movement.
Materials & Fenestration: Material Quality
Prescriptive Flexible
•At least 70% of exterior wall surfaces shall consist
of natural materials such as stone, wood, or brick;
synthetic sidings are prohibited on primary
façades.
•Metal cladding shall have a matte, non-reflective
finish and be used only as an accent material not
exceeding 20% of any elevation.
•Materials should reflect the natural
mountain palette and weather gracefully
over time while ensuring durability in alpine
climates.
•Contemporary materials may be used when
compatible in color, tone, and texture with
traditional mountain materials.
Materials & Fenestration: Detailing
Prescriptive Flexible
•All building façades visible from the public right-of-
way shall include horizontal trim or belt courses at
each story level.
•Roof eaves shall project a minimum of 18 inches to
provide shadow and depth to building forms.
•Architectural details should convey a sense
of craftsmanship and authenticity
appropriate to a mountain town setting.
•Detailing should enhance architectural
hierarchy and visually reinforce entries,
windows, and rooflines.
Q. For each of the following Materials and
Fenestration sub-topics, should the code be more
prescriptive, more flexible, or should an alternative
path to achieve desired outcomes be explored?
-Building Façade
-Material Quality
-Detailing
Street Level Design
(15 mins)
Street Level Design
•Street-level design directly
contributes to the vitality, walkability,
and overall success of commercial
and mixed-use areas.
•The relationship of entrances,
storefronts, and sidewalks supports
commercial activity and pedestrian
capture, and creates the first
impression for visitors and
residents alike.
•Pedestrian-scaled elements such as
canopies, landscaping, and seating
can activate the street edge and
reinforce Estes Park’s welcoming
mountain-town character.
Street Level Design: Entrances
Prescriptive Flexible
•Primary entrances shall face the public street or
sidewalk and remain visible from the primary
approach.
•Entry doors must be recessed at least 3 feet to
provide weather protection and architectural
depth.
•Entrances should be designed to invite
pedestrian activity and visually express
public access.
•Use awnings, canopies, or porches to
define entry points and add character to
the façade.
Street Level Design: Pedestrian Experience
Prescriptive Flexible
•Continuous sidewalks at least 6 feet wide shall be
provided along all building frontages.
•Crosswalks connecting parking to building entries
must use textured or contrasting paving materials.
•Pedestrian routes should be safe, direct,
and comfortable, connecting building
entrances, parking, and public spaces.
•Incorporate seating, landscaping, and
shade to enhance the pedestrian
experience.
Street Level Design: Stormwater Drainage
Prescriptive Flexible
•All surface runoff from impervious areas must be
directed to on-site bio-swales or infiltration basins.
•Drainage grates and channels shall be integrated
into paving design and aligned with pedestrian
circulation.
•Stormwater features should serve as visible
landscape amenities, reinforcing
sustainability and site design quality.
•Use native vegetation and natural contours
to manage drainage while complementing
site aesthetics.
Q. For each of the following Street Level Design sub-
topics, should the code be more prescriptive, more
flexible, or should an alternative path to achieve
desired outcomes be explored?
-Commercial Entrances
-Pedestrian Access
-Stormwater Drainage
Mechanical and
Service Areas
(15 mins)
Mechanical & Service Areas
•Mechanical and service areas,
though necessary, should remain
unobtrusive in the built environment.
•Locating them away from public
streets and screening them with
landscaping or walls minimizes
visual impacts.
•Integrating these elements into the
overall site design supports a clean,
cohesive appearance consistent
with the town’s character.
Mechanical & Service Areas: Location & Access
Prescriptive Flexible
•Service, loading, and trash areas shall be located
at the rear or side of buildings, screened from
public streets and pedestrian areas.
•Utility meters and equipment shall not be placed
on street-facing façades unless fully enclosed in
architectural screening.
•Design service access points to minimize
conflict with pedestrian circulation and
maintain visual quality.
•Mechanical and service elements should be
integrated into the site layout so that
functional needs do not detract from
public-facing design.
Mechanical & Service Areas: Screening
Prescriptive Flexible
•Mechanical equipment visible from public areas
shall be screened with materials matching the
principal building.
•Trash enclosures must use solid walls at least 6
feet high, capped, and constructed of durable
materials consistent with the main structure.
•Screening treatments should be visually
compatible and designed as integral site
features.
•Landscape buffers may supplement built
screening where appropriate to reduce
visual impact.
Q. For each of the following Mechanical and Service
Area sub-topics, should the code be more
prescriptive, more flexible, or should an alternative
path to achieve desired outcomes be explored?
-Location and Access
-Screening
Lighting & Signage
(10 mins)
Lighting & Signage
•Lighting and signage contribute to
both safety and ambiance within
commercial areas.
•Fixtures should highlight
architectural features and
pedestrian zones without
contributing to light pollution.
•Signage should be well-integrated
with building design—legible,
appropriately scaled, and reflective
of Estes Park’s small-town charm
and dark-sky values.
Lighting & Signage: Location
Prescriptive Flexible
•Light fixtures shall not exceed 14 feet in height in
pedestrian areas and 20 feet in parking areas.
•Lighting must be fully shielded and directed
downward to comply with dark-sky standards.
•Lighting should enhance safety and
emphasize building features without
creating glare or light pollution.
•Fixture placement should create a
consistent rhythm along walkways and
highlight pedestrian routes.
Lighting & Signage: Design
Prescriptive Flexible
•Signage shall be externally lit with concealed
fixtures; internally illuminated cabinet signs are
prohibited.
•Light color temperature shall not exceed 3000K
to preserve warm night ambiance.
•Fixtures and signage should complement
the architectural style, materials, and color
palette of the building.
•Lighting design should create a welcoming
atmosphere while supporting night-sky
preservation goals.
Q. For each of the following Lighting and Signage sub-
topics, should the code be more prescriptive, more
flexible, or should an alternative path to achieve
desired outcomes be explored?
-Location
-Design
Parking
(10 mins)
Parking
•Parking areas should support
access and convenience without
dominating the streetscape.
•Thoughtful placement—typically to
the side or rear of buildings—
combined with effective screening
and high-quality paving materials,
can reduce visual impact.
•Designing parking areas with
pedestrians in mind enhances
safety, accessibility, and the overall
aesthetic quality of commercial
corridors.
Parking: Location & Layout
Prescriptive Flexible
•Parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of
buildings; no more than 50% of the front yard area
may be used for parking.
•Driveway widths shall not exceed 24 feet at the
property line to maintain pedestrian priority.
•Parking design should prioritize pedestrian
comfort and minimize visual dominance
along main streets.
Parking: Screening
Prescriptive Flexible
•A continuous landscape buffer of at least 5 feet
with a combination of shrubs and low walls shall
screen parking from public streets.
•Fences or walls used for screening shall not
exceed 3 feet in height within 10 feet of a sidewalk
to preserve visibility.
•Use landscaping and terrain features to
soften parking areas and integrate them
into the site.
•Screening should contribute to the
pedestrian realm through planting design
and coordinated materials.
Parking: Finishes
Prescriptive Flexible
•Parking surfaces shall use permeable paving
materials or light-colored asphalt to reduce heat
gain and improve drainage.
•Concrete curbs and pedestrian crossings must be
differentiated by material or texture to enhance
visibility.
•Paving patterns and finishes should reflect
the character of adjacent development
while ensuring functionality and safety.
•Incorporate native landscaping and
stormwater features to blend parking areas
with the surrounding environment.
Q. For each of the following Parking sub-topics,
should the code be more prescriptive, more flexible,
or should an alternative path to achieve desired
outcomes be explored?
-Location and Layout
-Screening
-Finishes
Thank you!
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: David Greear, Public Works Director
Department: Public Works
Date: November 12, 2025
Subject: Downtown Estes Loop Traffic Study Results
Purpose of Study Session Item:
This item will present a comparison between 2016 and 2025 traffic and pedestrian
volumes, congestion, and travel times of the Estes Park Loop. Discussion items will
include references to travel time runs, level of service for intersections, vehicle and
pedestrian volumes, vehicle emissions, and future continued analysis.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Public Works is looking to provide information and data that compares traffic between
2016 and 2025 and would like direction on the need for future analysis and comparisons
moving forward.
Present Situation:
The improvements to the Estes Park Loop were completed in early 2025. Public Works
continues to make minor improvements to signage, striping, and signal operations in an
effort to minimize traffic congestion and travel times.
Proposal:
Public Works is looking for guidance and input on the need for future analysis as well as
suggestions for future improvements in an effort to reduce congestion and travel times.
Advantages:
Input from Town Board will provide staff with clear direction on how to move forward
with additional analysis as well as provide feedback on the effectiveness of the current
operations.
Disadvantages:
N/A
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
This item is anticipated to generate medium public interest.
Attachments:
1. Presentation – Estes Loop Traffic Study
2. 2025 Time Delay Report
Downtown Estes Loop Traffic Study
2016
Before design work began on the one-way couplet through the center of Estes
Park, an Environmental Assessment was conducted. This included a study of
existing traffic operations. To establish baseline conditions, the Town hired
in to conduct this initial traffic study.
To evaluate changes and compare with the 2016 baseline, the Town again hired
in to complete a follow-up traffic study.
Attachment 1
High-Level Summary
The transportation analysis evaluated travel times, traffic volumes,
pedestrian activity, congestion levels, and vehicle emissions.
The travel time study area extends from the Highway 34 at Highway 36
intersection to the Elkhorn Avenue at Moraine Avenue intersection.
Traffic and pedestrian counts were collected at key intersections along
—specifically at and .
To ensure consistent and comparable results, data collection for both
studies took place on :
July 9 and July 16
July 12 and July 19
This consistent approach helps provide an accurate, “apples-to-apples”
comparison of traffic patterns between the two study years.
Summary of Study ResultsComparing 2016 to 2025 data
Questions?
Notable Notes:
Recent results from out 2025 Estes Park Community Survey highlighted positive responses to Traffic flow on major
streets improved significantly from 29% in 2023 to 49% in 2025.
In October of this year, the American Public Works Association of Colorado announced the Downtown Estes Park Loop
Couplet as the winner for the state’s Transportation Project in the small community category and also announced Greg
Muhonen the Professional Manager of the year associated with this project.
Transit ridership on the Red Line (previously referred to as the Gold Trolley route) increased from 13,317 trips in July of
2016 to 35,832 trips in July of 2025 (that’s a 169% increase!)
LANTZ ASSOCIATES, LLC
13335 W 72nd Cir
Arvada, Co 80005
303-887-3714
FredLantz@comcast.net
August 29, 2025
David Greear
Public Works Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
RE: Estes Park Loope Study
Dear David,
In order to examine how the operation along Elkhorn Ave compares after the improvements were
made along Elkhorn Ave, Moraine Ave, and Riverside Dr traffic counts were taken and time/delay
runs were conducted to compare this data to the data collected in 2016, before the improvements
were made. Turning movement traffic counts were taken at the roundabout at Moraine Ave and
Riverside Dr., the intersection of Moraine and Elkhorn Ave, and the intersection of Riverside Dr and
Elkhorn Ave. The number of pedestrians was also counted along with the vehicles. The counts
were taken on Sat 7/12/25 between 1:45 pm and 2:45 pm and also on 7/19/25 between 2:00 pm and
3:00 pm in order to compare to the 2016 counts taken in the same time frames.
Time/Delay runs were made by driving from US 34/36 on Elkhorn Ave to the roundabout at
Moraine Ave and Riverside Dr then returning along Riverside Dr and Elkhorn to the US 34/36
intersection. The time between intersections was recorded along the route. An average was
calculated for each direction from the individual runs.
Travel Time Runs
For comparison purposes the 2016 Travel Time Runs are listed below. These runs were only made
between the US 34/36 intersection and Moraine Ave in both directions.
Attachment 2
Page 2
July 9, 2016
Summary of Travel Time Results
EASTBOUND
Begin End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
Moraine Ave Riverside Dr 612 236 336 118 228 240 232 1.8
Riverside Dr Ped Signal 756 37 45 36 41 38 39 13.2
Ped Signal US 36 619 38 34 19 19 19 26 16.2
SEGMENT TOTALS 297 4.6
WESTBOUND
Begin End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
US 36 Ped Signal 619 52 130 28 49 69 66 6.4
Ped Signal Riverside Dr 756 217 177 158 134 127 163 3.2
Riverside Dr Moraine Ave 612 181 282 284 148 277 234 1.8
SEGMENT TOTALS 463 2.9
July 16, 2016
Summary of Travel Time Results
EASTBOUND
Begin End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Time 6
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
Moraine Ave Riverside Dr 612 219 119 227 128 233 129 176 2.4
Riverside Dr Ped Signal 756 56 44 52 39 44 48 47 11.0
Ped Signal US 36 619 19 119 227 107 22 18 85 5.0
SEGMENT TOTALS 308 4.4
WESTBOUND
Begin End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Time 6
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
US 36 Ped Signal 619 53 107 100 74 29 112 79 5.3
Ped Signal Riverside Dr 756 129 160 171 222 133 146 160 3.2
Riverside Dr Moraine Ave 612 274 192 188 74 184 191 184 2.3
SEGMENT TOTALS 423 3.2
The 2025 Travel Times are shown below. This comparison allows a loose comparison of the
changes made by the improvements.
Page 3
July 12, 2025
Summary of Travel Time Results
EASTBOUND
Begin End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
Roundabout Rockwell St 1224 52 70 41 41 58 52 16.0
Rockwell St Elkhorn 567 62 80 37 49 59 57 6.8
Riverside Dr Ped Signal 731 28 37 30 58 24 35 14.2
Ped Signal US 36 619 87 80 90 82 132 94 4.5
3141 SEGMENT TOTALS 238 9.0
WESTBOUND
Begin End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
US 36 Ped Signal 619 156 173 90 100 172 138 3.1
Ped Signal Riverside Dr 756 248 236 246 232 178 228 2.3
Riverside Dr Moraine Ave 612 80 31 77 137 205 106 3.9
Elkhorn Ave Roundabout 1283 65 62 70 48 52 59 14.8
3270 SEGMENT TOTALS 531 4.2
July 19, 2025
Summary of Travel Time Results
Begin End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
Roundabout Rockwell St 1224 68 49 47 50 41 51 16.4
Rockwell St Elkhorn Dr 567 67 80 52 73 53 65 5.9
Riverside Dr Ped Signal 731 28 49 39 40 22 36 13.8
Ped Signal US 36 619 68 97 81 73 102 84 5.0
3141 SEGMENT TOTALS 236 9.1
End Distance
(ft)
Time 1
(sec)
Time 2
(sec)
Time 3
(sec)
Time 4
(sec)
Time 5
(sec)
Average
(sec)
Speed
(MPH)
US 36 Ped Signal 619 125 83 76 22 93 80 5.3
Ped Signal Riverside Dr 756 201 177 241 205 239 213 2.4
Riverside Dr Moraine Ave 612 143 89 66 122 60 96 4.4
Elkorn Dr Roundabout 1283 60 98 67 48 74 69 12.7
3270 SEGMENT TOTALS 458 7.1
The 2025 Travel Runs do show improvements in westbound travel on Elkhorn Ave from the
Riverside Dr intersection to the roundabout. There is still considerable congestion for westbound
traffic on Elkhorn Ave from US 34/36 to Riverside Dr.
The eastbound traffic from the roundabout at Moraine Ave and Riverside Dr to the US34/36
intersection had very little congestion and flowed freely along the route.
Page 4
Traffic Volumes
The traffic volumes collected in 2016 are shown below. These can be used to compare to the 2025
traffic counts at the same locations. The intersections changed with the improvements and the times
are slightly different, but the comparisons are still valid.
July 2016
Date Peak
MORAINE AVE ELKHORN AVE MORAINE AVE ELKHORN AVE Vehicle
Total Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left
7/9/16 1:45-
2:45 7 90 21 13 137 387 198 30 96 51 62 13 1105
7/16/16 1:15-
2:15
10 70 19 16 130 431 212 39 95 57 78 22 1179
Date Peak
RIVERSIDE DR ELKHORN AVE RIVERSIDE DR ELKHORN AVE Vehicle
Total Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left
7/9/16 1:45-
2:45 60 81 95 74 460 209 502 47 16 20 248 14 1826
7/16/16 1:15
2:15 79 73 107 65 527 196 506 55 16 29 284 11 1948
July 2025
Date Peak
MORAINE AVE ELKHORN AVE MORAINE AVE ELKHORN AVE Vehicle
Total Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45 10 104 - 34 218 658 - - - 171 - 10 1205
7/19/25 2:00-
3:00 4 121 - 35 227 593 - - - 133 - 19 1132
Date Peak
RIVERSIDE DR ELKHORN AVE RIVERSIDE DR ELKHORN AVE Vehicle
Total Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45 120 - 82 53 629 - 707 118 165 - - - 1874
7/19/25 2:00-
3:00 124 - 86 78 589 - 728 145 161 - - - 1911
Date Peak
MORAINE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MORAINE AVE RIVERSIDE DR Vehicle
Total Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45 636 100 151 - - - 142 - 117 107 494 - 1747
7/19/25 2:00-
3:00 521 95 141 - - - 156 - 105 107 577 - 1702
Page 5
The traffic counts indicate that the traffic volumes in 2025 are very similar to the traffic volumes in
2016. Because of the improvements and the one-way streets, the direction of the traffic varies, but
the total traffic at the intersections is very similar.
Pedestrians were also counted. The pedestrian volumes indicate that the number of pedestrians in
2025 is higher than those in 2016. The pedestrian counts are shown below.
Pedestrian Counts
July 2016
Pedestrian Count Summary
Date Peak
MORAINE AVE
Southbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
MORAINE AVE
Northbound
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
Pedestrian
Total
7/9/16 1:45-2:45 301 865 258 689 2113
7/16/16 1:15-2:15 196 689 213 637 1735
Date Peak
RIVERSIDE DR
Southbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Northbound
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
Pedestrian
Total
7/9/16 1:45-2:45 358 518 310 381 1567
7/16/16 1:15-2:15 273 582 266 522 1643
July 2025
Pedestrian Count Summary
Date Peak
MORAINE AVE
Southbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
MORAINE AVE
Northbound
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
Pedestrian
Total
7/12/16 1:45-2:45 448 872 388 969 2677
7/19/16 2:00-3:00 554 996 532 1140 3222
Date Peak
RIVERSIDE DR
Southbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Northbound
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
Pedestrian
Total
7/12/16 1:45-2:45 306 551 328 640 1825
7/19/16 2:00-3:00 543 527 460 593 2123
ate Peak
MORAINE AVE
Southbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Westbound
MORAINE AVE
Northbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Eastbound
Pedestrian
Total
7/12/16 1:45-2:45 11 0 13 0 24
7/19/16 2:00-3:00 24 23 24 4 75
Page 6
These are relatively high pedestrian counts, further proof that adding the separate pedestrian phase at
the traffic signals was an aid to the pedestrian traffic.
Intersec7on Level of Service (LOS)
The traffic volumes and traffic signal timing was entered into the computer program SYNCHRO to
examine the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersections. The following tables show the LOS for
2016 traffic and 2025 traffic.
Intersection LOS
2016
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
MORAINE AVE
Northbound
MORAINE AVE
Southbound
Left T&R Left L,T&R L&T Right L,T&R
7/9/16 1:45-
2:45 D D F F D D F
7/16/16 1:15-
2:15 D D F F D E F
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Northbound
VIRGINIA DR
Southbound
Left T&R Left T&R L&T Right Left T&R
7/9/16 1:45-
2:45 D F E D E A D D
7/16/16 1:15-
2:15 D F E E F A D D
2025
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
MORAINE AVE
Southbound
Left Right Left Thru Right T&R
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45 D E D D C D
7/19/25 2:00-
3:00
D D C D C D
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Northbound
VIRGINIA DR
Southbound
Thru Right L&T Right Left T&R
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45 D C D C F D
7/19/25 2:00-
3:00
D C E C F D
Page 7
Date Peak
Riverside Dr
Eastbound
MORAINE AVE
Northbound
MORAINE AVER
Southbound
Thru Right Left Right Left T&R
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45 A A A A A A
7/19/25 2:00-
3:00
B A A A A A
The LOS at the two signalized intersections shows that LOS improved slightly in 2025 compared to
2016. LOS is not a real good measure at congested intersections as LOS is based on delay. With the
separate pedestrian phase at the two intersections, traffic is delayed at least as long as the pedestrian
phase is active. In addition to that delays due to the traffic volumes adds to the delay at each
directional approach. While the LOS is a good comparison between 2016 and 2025 it should not be
used as an absolute indication of the intersection operations.
The LOS analysis does show that the roundabout at Moraine Ave and Riverside Dr is operating at a
very low LOS which means there are minimal if any delays. That shows the roundabout was a very
good choice to handle the traffic at the intersection.
Intersec7on Emissions
Synchro also reports Emissions as part of a Measure of Effectiveness analysis. The Emissions are
reported for 2016 and 2025 at each intersection and each direction. The factors are Fuel Consumed,
CO Emissions, NOx Emissions, and VOC Emissions. These are theoretical results based on factors
in the computer program and are not actually measured.
Intersection Emissions
2016
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
MORAINE AVE
Northbound
MORAINE AVE
Southbound All
7/9/16 1:45-
2:45
Fuel Consumed (gal) 2 17 5 3 27
CO Emissions (kg) 0.16 1.16 0.38 0.21 1.91
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.03 0.23 0.07 0.04 0.37
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.04 0.27 0.09 0.05 0.44
7/16/16 1:15-
2:15
Fuel Consumed (gal) 3 22 6 2 33
CO Emissions (kg) 0.20 1.54 0.42 0.15 2.30
Nox Emissions (kg) 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.03 0.45
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.05 0.36 0.10 0.03 0.53
Page 8
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Northbound
VIRGINIA DR
Southbound All
7/9/16 1:45-
2:45
Fuel Consumed (gal) 10 17 3 4 33
CO Emissions (kg) 0.67 1.17 0.20 0.25 2.29
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.13 0.23 0.04 0.05 0.45
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.15 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.53
7/16/16 1:15-
2:15
Fuel Consumed (gal) 10 19 3 4 37
CO Emissions (kg) 0.72 1.34 0.23 0.27 2.56
Nox Emissions (kg) 0.14 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.50
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.17 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.59
Intersection Emissions
2025
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Eastbound
ELKORN AVE
Westbound
MORAINE AVE
Southbound All
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45
Fuel Consumed (gal) 4 11 2 17
CO Emissions (kg) 0.29 0.78 0.11 1.18
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.23
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.27
7/19/25 2:00-
3:00
Fuel Consumed (gal) 3 9 2 14
CO Emissions (kg) 0.21 0.65 0.13 0.98
Nox Emissions (kg) 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.19
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.05 0.15 0.03 0.23
Page 9
Date Peak
ELKHORN AVE
Westbound
RIVERSIDE DR
Northbound
VIRGINIA DR
Southbound All
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45
Fuel Consumed (gal) 12 7 5 24
CO Emissions (kg) 0.86 0.49 0.32 1.67
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.33
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.39
7/19/16 2:00-
3:00
Fuel Consumed (gal) 12 8 5 25
CO Emissions (kg) 0.81 0.56 0.36 1.72
Nox Emissions (kg) 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.33
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.40
Date Peak
RIVERSIDE DR
Eastbound
MORAINE AVE
Northbound
MORAINE AVE
Southbound All
7/12/25 1:45-
2:45
Fuel Consumed (gal) 6 2 12 20
CO Emissions (kg) 0.40 0.15 0.87 1.41
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.08 0.03 0.17 0.28
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.09 0.03 0.20 0.33
7/19/16 2:00-
3:00
Fuel Consumed (gal) 6 2 11 19
CO Emissions (kg) 0.45 0.15 0.74 1.34
Nox Emissions (kg) 0.09 0.03 0.14 0.26
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.10 0.03 0.17 0.31
As the emission tables indicate, the various emissions have reduced from 2016 to 2025. Much of the
change is due to the fact that the one-way operation removes one direction of traffic at each of the
intersections. Decrease in emissions is a positive thing and these tables show the improvements.
Page 10
Summary
Time and Delay Runs along Elkhorn Ave from US 34/36 to the roundabout at Moraine Ave and
Riverside Dr and the return route indicate that the improvements made in the corridor show
improvements to the peak traffic on Saturdays in July. Other time frames should operate even better
than the peak conditions on Saturday afternoons. The volume of traffic, the number of pedestrians
and the tourist attractions make this a difficult corridor to accommodate traffic flows.
Westbound traffic flows considerably better on Elkhorn Ave from Riverside Dr to the roundabout at
Moraine Ave and Riverside Dr. There are still considerable delays along Elkhorn Ave from US
34/36 to Riverside Dr. Part of that is due to the popularity of Estes Park and the amount of traffic
entering Elkorn Ave from all directions at the Elkhorn Ave and US 34/36 intersection.
The Time Delay Runs show improvements in traffic flow while the traffic counts and pedestrian
counts show that traffic volumes and pedestrian volumes have increased between 2016 and 2025.
The LOS analysis also documents improvements from 2016 to 2025. The emissions reports also
show decreased emissions from 2016 to 2025. All of this indicates the improvements improved
traffic flow in Estes Park.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Lantz, PE
Traffic Engineer
Appendix
Area Map
Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes
LOS Calculations
Emissions Calculations
1
2
3
1
4
2
3
4
MORAINE AVE MORAINE AVEELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:1 MORAINE AVE & ELKHORN AVE Noon
Saturday, July 09, 2016Date and Start Time:
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Peak Hour:01:45 PM - 02:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:02:00 PM - 02:15 PM
118 56
537
281
324528
126
240
0.94
N
S
EW
0.86
0.95
0.94
0.84
(110)(242)
(1,042)
(559)
(464)
(240)
(629)(1,020)
7 021
13
137
387
51
62
13
0
0
90
96 30 19
8
0
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
MORAINE AVE
MORAINE AVE
846
26
9
708
29
0
N
S
EW
12
8
14
1
317391
474 372
16
0
13
0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
1:00 PM 0 23 5 0 7 23021509433 271 46 24 139 1541,059111525
1:15 PM 0 14 7 0 5 23001807839 237 74 63 165 2081,08291421
1:30 PM 0 27 8 0 8 20051309232 285 81 96 185 1721,104176525
1:45 PM 0 22 7 0 3 18021709633 266 75 71 211 2141,105133493
2:00 PM 0 25 10 0 6 27012109642 294 58 58 164 2161,094184440
2:15 PM 0 25 7 0 7 16011209528 259 96 86 192 25093524
2:30 PM 0 24 6 0 5 290912010034 286 61 54 141 166113530
2:45 PM 0 17 7 0 3 23071209727 255 93 97 211 26455511
Count Total 193952693 2,1531794405717702687480120270 1,6441,408584549
Peak Hour 0 13 62 0 387 137 0 96 30 0 21 90 1,10551131987 290 269 708 846
RIVERSIDE DR RIVERSIDE DRELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:2 RIVERSIDE DR & ELKHORN AVE Noon
Saturday, July 09, 2016Date and Start Time:
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Peak Hour:01:00 PM - 02:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:01:45 PM - 02:00 PM
236 135
743
845
565310
282
536
0.94
N
S
EW
0.89
0.95
0.94
0.97
(254)(461)
(1,478)
(1,611)
(1,086)
(573)
(1,056)(617)
60 095
74
460
209
20
248
14
0
0
81
16 47 50
2
0
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
RIVERSIDE DR
344
17
5
555
49
3
N
S
EW
95
80
262293
225 119
27
8
21
5
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
1:00 PM 0 3 14 0 25 240552056111 459 108 47 153 601,82672312217
1:15 PM 0 4 9 0 23 200364048108 448 111 44 121 781,78641912620
1:30 PM 0 6 9 0 17 170462051118 432 152 58 147 1151,7747111219
1:45 PM 0 3 15 0 30 200270054123 487 122 26 134 901,77022113314
2:00 PM 0 2 13 0 24 180557057114 419 174 21 162 991,7429159015
2:15 PM 0 6 12 0 17 190665042117 436 130 29 127 12751611417
2:30 PM 0 3 6 0 23 140361058120 428 148 57 112 12891810013
2:45 PM 0 2 14 0 24 240162044124 459 135 25 102 7181012917
Count Total 12293513351 3,5681561830922909354100493290 7681,0581,080 307
Peak Hour 0 14 248 0 209 460 0 16 47 0 95 81 1,826207450260 493 175 555 343
MORAINE AVE MORAINE AVEELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:1 MORAINE AVE & ELKHORN AVE Noon
Saturday, July 16, 2016Date and Start Time:
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Peak Hour:01:15 PM - 02:15 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:01:30 PM - 01:45 PM
99 77
577
309
346558
157
235
0.98
N
S
EW
0.83
0.96
0.96
0.89
(141)(214)
(1,181)
(619)
(466)
(267)
(670)(1,106)
10 019
16
130
431
57
78
22
0
0
70
95 39 21
2
0
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
MORAINE AVE
MORAINE AVE
691
21
2
635
19
7
N
S
EW
11
9
93
290345
344 347
10
3
94
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
1:00 PM 0 18 6 0 5 230217011032 280 67 23 123 1381,165107491
1:15 PM 0 22 11 0 6 17051809930 286 72 51 169 1731,1791810482
1:30 PM 0 29 10 0 5 140725010634 302 61 60 180 1491,175124515
1:45 PM 0 30 8 0 1 200421012126 297 27 46 135 1621,168111522
2:00 PM 0 14 10 0 7 190614010540 294 37 55 151 2061,167161611
2:15 PM 0 24 3 0 4 160614010146 282 41 56 177 21982553
2:30 PM 0 20 8 0 5 230113011638 295 59 74 170 22652631
2:45 PM 0 12 9 0 3 250425010630 296 87 37 204 229514576
Count Total 214364185 2,3321573606516902768640147350 1,5021,309451402
Peak Hour 0 22 78 0 431 130 0 95 39 0 19 70 1,179571621210 197 212 635 690
RIVERSIDE DR RIVERSIDE DRELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:2 RIVERSIDE DR & ELKHORN AVE Noon
Saturday, July 16, 2016Date and Start Time:
Peak Hour - All Vehicles
Traffic Counts
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk
Peak Hour:02:00 PM - 03:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:02:30 PM - 02:45 PM
259 131
788
897
577298
324
622
0.96
N
S
EW
0.95
0.99
0.92
0.96
(254)(502)
(1,588)
(1,672)
(1,232)
(629)
(1,062)(623)
79 0
10
7
65
527
196
29
284
11
0
0
73
16 55 50
6
0
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
RIVERSIDE DR
476
15
7
628
38
2
N
S
EW
80
77
308320
262 214
19
6
18
6
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrain Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
1:00 PM 0 0 11 0 28 110265049136 453 105 48 164 691,833101410819
1:15 PM 0 4 11 0 16 160468061124 437 63 15 128 1121,8538158921
1:30 PM 0 3 10 0 27 220366057129 477 95 29 97 971,89191711717
1:45 PM 0 5 17 0 20 210261054127 466 120 55 176 951,92271711025
2:00 PM 0 2 15 0 28 150470047120 473 116 40 187 1251,9488614018
2:15 PM 0 3 10 0 18 200270051139 475 81 30 134 12161212024
2:30 PM 0 7 16 0 28 210372052140 508 82 46 124 9092311819
2:45 PM 0 4 14 0 33 170272046128 492 103 41 179 13962412818
Count Total 16193012863 3,78114319801042801,0434170544220 8481,189765304
Peak Hour 0 11 284 0 196 527 0 16 55 0 107 73 1,948296550679 382 157 624 475
MORAINE AVE MORAINE AVEELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:1 MORAINE AVE & ELKHORN AVE Noon
Saturday, July 12, 2025Date:
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour:01:45 PM - 02:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:01:45 PM - 02:00 PM
114 44
910
0
0933
181
228
0.96
N
S
EW
0.84
0.94
0.00
0.91
(44)(114)
(910)
()
(228)
(181)
()(933)
10 00
34
218
658
171
0
10
0
0
10
4
0 0 00
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
MORAINE AVE
MORAINE AVE
776
41
7
1065
41
9
N
S
EW
20
3
21
4
573492
380 396
23
4
18
5
1
0 0 0
1
1
6
9
000
2
0
0
0
0
N
S
EW
1 0
1 1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
1:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 310 3 0 0 161 60 315 96 103 274 2101,20545 12 0 3
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 310 1 0 0 166 44 300 117 115 284 18649 6 0 3
2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 160 3 0 0 157 57 281 113 105 253 18742 5 0 1
2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 260 3 0 0 174 57 309 93 94 254 19335 11 0 3
Count Total 10034171 1,2051040000021865800100 7761,065419 417
Peak Hour 0 10 0 0 658 218 0 0 0 0 0 104 1,205171 34 0 10 419 417 1,065 776
RIVERSIDE DR RIVERSIDE DRELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:2 RIVERSIDE DR & ELKHORN AVE Noon
Saturday, July 12, 2025Date:
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour:01:45 PM - 02:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:02:30 PM - 02:45 PM
202 171
682
789
9900
0
914
0.95
N
S
EW
0.92
0.89
0.98
0.00
(171)(202)
(682)
(789)
(914)
()
(990)()
12
0
082
53
629
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
5
11
8
70
7
0
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
RIVERSIDE DR
544
15
7
647
47
7
N
S
EW
82
75
334313
238 306
23
1
24
6
6
0 0 0
3
0
7
0
431
2
0
0
0
0
N
S
EW
6 0
0 2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
1:45 PM 0 46 33 0 21 00 0 0 0 0 152 457 125 39 210 1361,8740 12 162 31
2:00 PM 0 48 25 0 11 00 0 0 0 0 141 447 130 29 157 1730 18 172 32
2:15 PM 0 36 31 0 23 00 0 0 0 0 154 475 117 60 153 1290 13 186 32
2:30 PM 0 35 29 0 27 00 0 0 0 0 182 495 105 29 127 1060 10 187 25
Count Total 120707530 1,8740820118165062900000 544647477 157
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 629 0 165 118 0 82 0 1,8740 53 707 120 477 157 647 544
MORAINE AVE MORAINE AVEIVY STIVY ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:3 MORAINE AVE & IVY ST Noon
Saturday, July 12, 2025Date:
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour:01:45 PM - 02:45 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:02:30 PM - 02:45 PM
887 0
0
786
259209
601
752
0.97
N
S
EW
0.96
0.00
0.94
0.90
()(887)
()
(786)
(752)
(601)
(259)(209)
63
6
0
15
1
0
0
0
107
493
0
0
1
10
0
11
5
0 14
2
2
IVY ST
IVY ST
MORAINE AVE
MORAINE AVE
0
2
0
22
N
S
EW
0
2
00
0 0
9
13
0
0 1 1
0
0
0
0
300
0
0
5
1
7
N
S
EW
0 0
0 0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
1:45 PM 1 32 0 0 36 220 0 117 0 0 0 432 15 0 0 01,74718 0 33 173
2:00 PM 0 29 0 0 39 340 0 113 0 0 0 431 3 0 0 025 0 32 159
2:15 PM 1 26 0 0 31 221 0 139 0 0 0 436 0 0 0 027 0 42 147
2:30 PM 0 28 0 0 45 220 0 124 0 0 0 448 4 2 0 037 0 35 157
Count Total 6361420107 1,74710015100115200049301 0022 2
Peak Hour 1 0 493 0 0 0 2 115 0 0 151 100 1,747107 0 142 636 22 2 0 0
MORAINE AVE MORAINE AVEELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:1 MORAINE AVE & ELKHORN AVE PM
Saturday, July 19, 2025Date:
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour:02:00 PM - 03:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:02:15 PM - 02:30 PM
125 54
855
0
0847
152
231
0.90
N
S
EW
0.78
0.88
0.00
0.81
(54)(125)
(855)
()
(231)
(152)
()(847)
4 00
35
227
593
133
0
19
0
0
12
1
0 0 00
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
MORAINE AVE
MORAINE AVE
942
53
5
1194
55
1
N
S
EW
29
6
23
9
650544
452 490
31
5
23
6
1
0 1 0
0
0
5
2
000
0
0
0
1
0
N
S
EW
1 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 320 9 0 0 163 51 300 137 119 272 2451,13238 5 0 2
2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 310 4 0 0 158 72 313 167 132 312 19133 14 0 1
2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 180 3 0 0 127 49 246 156 170 299 24239 9 0 1
2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 400 3 0 0 145 55 273 91 114 311 26423 7 0 0
Count Total 4035133 1,1321210000022759300190 9421,194551 535
Peak Hour 0 19 0 0 593 227 0 0 0 0 0 121 1,132133 35 0 4 551 535 1,194 942
RIVERSIDE DR RIVERSIDE DRELKHORN AVEELKHORN AVE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:2 RIVERSIDE DR & ELKHORN AVE PM
Saturday, July 19, 2025Date:
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour:02:00 PM - 03:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:02:00 PM - 02:15 PM
210 223
667
814
1,0340
0
874
0.93
N
S
EW
0.75
0.96
0.91
0.00
(223)(210)
(667)
(814)
(874)
()
(1,034)()
12
4
086
78
589
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
1
14
5
72
8
0
ELKHORN AVE
ELKHORN AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
RIVERSIDE DR
495
40
0
625
60
3
N
S
EW
16
9
23
1
334291
236 259
31
2
29
1
2
2 0 0
0
0
3
0
412
0
0
0
0
2
N
S
EW
1 1
0 0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
2:00 PM 0 43 37 0 26 00 0 0 0 0 144 512 189 81 163 721,9110 24 194 44
2:15 PM 0 38 36 0 14 00 0 0 0 0 160 456 119 141 114 1590 14 156 38
2:30 PM 0 39 41 0 27 00 0 0 0 0 138 487 108 95 152 1680 19 203 20
2:45 PM 0 41 31 0 19 00 0 0 0 0 147 456 187 83 196 960 21 175 22
Count Total 124728780 1,9110860145161058900000 495625603 400
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 589 0 161 145 0 86 0 1,9110 78 728 124 603 400 625 495
MORAINE AVE MORAINE AVEIVY STIVY ST
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:3 MORAINE AVE & IVY ST PM
Saturday, July 19, 2025Date:
Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians
Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.
Peak Hour:02:00 PM - 03:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes:02:00 PM - 02:15 PM
757 0
0
869
261203
684
630
0.96
N
S
EW
0.95
0.00
0.85
0.93
()(757)
()
(869)
(630)
(684)
(261)(203)
52
1
0
14
1
0
0
0
107
572
0
0
5
95
10
4
0 15
6
1
IVY ST
IVY ST
MORAINE AVE
MORAINE AVE
25
1
2
47
N
S
EW
0
1
20
23 2
23
24
0
2 0 0
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
2
0
0
N
S
EW
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn
2:00 PM 0 30 0 0 36 292 0 138 0 0 0 444 7 0 0 01,70227 0 47 135
2:15 PM 1 29 0 0 40 182 0 135 0 0 0 425 17 0 0 2032 0 38 130
2:30 PM 0 24 0 0 38 231 0 160 0 0 0 436 15 0 2 123 0 33 134
2:45 PM 0 21 0 0 27 250 0 139 0 0 0 397 8 1 0 425 0 38 122
Count Total 5211560107 1,7029514100104100057205 25247 1
Peak Hour 5 0 572 0 0 0 1 104 0 0 141 95 1,702107 0 156 521 47 1 2 25
!"#$%&''&()*+$)*%&,-./)&*$0.*$1#$%&2*3$)*$/"#$4)+"(.5$6.7.0)/5$8.*2.'9$!,.*:7&,/./)&*$;#:#.,0"$
<&.,39$=>>>?$$6".7/#,$@>$A$B,1.*$C/,##/:$6&*0#7/:$C)+*.')D#3$E*/#,:#0/)&*:$.*3$6".7/#,$@F$A$
B*:)+*.')D#3$E*/#,:#0/)&*:G$
$
!"#"$%&'%(")#*+"%,!&(-%'.)%(*/01$*2"3%405")6"+5*.06%
$
H#I#':$&%$:#,I)0#$.,#$3#%)*#3$/&$,#7,#:#*/$,#.:&*.1'#$,.*+#:$)*$0&*/,&'$3#'.5G$
%
!&(%7%
$ J#:0,)1#:$&7#,./)&*:$()/"$'&($0&*/,&'$3#'.59$27$/&$@>$:KI#"G$$!"):$HLC$&002,:$("#*$7,&+,#::)&*$):$
#M/,#-#'5$%.I&,.1'#$.*3$-&:/$I#")0'#:$.,,)I#$32,)*+$/"#$+,##*$7".:#G$$8.*5$I#")0'#:$3&$*&/$:/&7$./$.''G$$
C"&,/$050'#$'#*+/":$-.5$/#*3$/&$0&*/,)12/#$/&$'&($3#'.5$I.'2#:G$
$
!&(%8$
$ J#:0,)1#:$&7#,./)&*:$()/"$0&*/,&'$3#'.5$+,#./#,$/"#*$@>$.*3$27$/&$=>$:KI#"G$$!"):$'#I#'$+#*#,.''5$
&002,:$()/"$+&&3$7,&+,#::)&*:9$:"&,/$050'#$'#*+/":9$&,$1&/"G$$8&,#$I#")0'#:$:/&7$/".*$()/"$HLC$N9$
0.2:)*+$")+"#,$'#I#':$&%$3#'.5G$
$
!&(%9$
$ J#:0,)1#:$&7#,./)&*:$()/"$0&*/,&'$3#'.5$+,#./#,$/".*$=>$.*3$27$/&$OP$:KI#"G$$!"#:#$")+"#,$3#'.5:$-.5$
,#:2'/$%,&-$&*'5$%.),$7,&+,#::)&*9$'&*+#,$050'#$'#*+/":9$&,$1&/"G$$E*3)I)32.'$050'#$%.)'2,#:$-.5$1#+)*$/&$
.77#.,$./$/"#$'#I#'G$$650'#$%.)'2,#$&002,:$("#*$.$+)I#*$+,##*$7".:#$3&#:$*&/$:#,I#$Q2#2#3$I#")0'#:9$.*3$
&I#,%'&(:$&002,G$$!"#$*2-1#,$&%$I#")0'#:$:/&77)*+$):$:)+*)%)0.*/$./$/"):$'#I#'9$/"&2+"$-.*5$:/)''$7.::$
/",&2+"$/"#$)*/#,:#0/)&*$()/"&2/$:/&77)*+G$
%
!&(%:$
$ J#:0,)1#:$&7#,./)&*:$()/"$0&*/,&'$3#'.5$+,#./#,$/".*$OP$.*3$27$/&$PP$:KI#"G$$N/$HLC$J9$/"#$)*%'2#*0#$
&%$0&*+#:/)&*$1#0&-#:$-&,#$*&/)0#.1'#G$$H&*+#,$3#'.5:$-.5$,#:2'/$%,&-$:&-#$0&-1)*./)&*$&%$
2*%.I&,.1'#$7,&+,#::)&*9$'&*+$050'#$'#*+/":9$.*3$")+"$IK0$,./)&:G$$E*3)I)32.'$050'#$%.)'2,#:$.,#$%,#Q2#*/G$
$
!&(%;%
$ J#:0,)1#:$&7#,./)&*:$()/"$0&*/,&'$3#'.5$+,#./#,$/".*$PP$.*3$27$/&$R>$:KI#"G$$!"#:#$")+"$3#'.5$I.'2#:$
+#*#,.''5$)*3)0./#$7&&,$7,&+,#::)&*9$'&*+$050'#$'#*+/":9$.*3$")+"$IK0$,./)&:G$$E*3)I)32.'$050'#$%.)'2,#:$.,#$
%,#Q2#*/G$
%
!&(%<%
$J#:0,)1#:$&7#,./)&*:$()/"$0&*/,&'$3#'.5$)*$#M0#::$&%$R>$:KI#"G$$!"):$'#I#'9$0&*:)3#,#3$2*.00#7/.1'#$/&$
-&:/$3,)I#,:9$&%/#*$&002,:$()/"$&I#,$:./2,./)&*9$/"./$):9$("#*$.,,)I.'$%'&($,./#:$#M0##3$/"#$0.7.0)/5$&%$'.*#$
+,&27:G$$E/$-.5$.':&$&002,$./$")+"$IK0$,./)&:$()/"$-.*5$)*3)I)32.'$050'#$%.)'2,#:G$$S&&,$7,&+,#::)&*$.*3$
'&*+$050'#$'#*+/":$-.5$.':&$0&*/,)12/#$:)+*)%)0.*/'5$/&$")+"$3#'.5$'#I#':G$$
$
!"#"$%.'%(")#*+"%,!&(-%'.)%=06*/01$*2"3%>?(9%405")6"+5*.06%
$
!"#"$%&'%(")#*+"% ,#")-."%/&01)&$%2"$-3%456#"78%
,%9%:%;9%
<%=%;9%:%;>%
/%=%;>%:%?>%
2%=%?>%:%@>%
A%=%@>%:%>9%
B%=%>9%
2016 Sat 1 - 7/9/16 2016 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 13 62 51 387 137 13 96 30 198 21 90 7
Future Volume (vph) 13 62 51 387 137 13 96 30 198 21 90 7
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1737 1681 1718 1795 1583 1831
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.68 0.79 0.96 1.00 0.90
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1737 1201 1394 1795 1583 1671
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 14 67 55 421 149 14 104 33 215 23 98 8
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 14 122 0 282 302 0 0 137 215 0 129 0
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Split NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 6 6 2 3 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 3 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 23.0 10.0
Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 23.0 10.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 299 248 288 355 313 144
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.07 0.08
v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.22 c0.14 c0.08
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.41 1.14 1.05 0.39 0.69 0.90
Uniform Delay, d1 40.0 42.7 46.0 46.0 40.4 43.2 52.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 4.1 85.6 52.7 3.2 11.7 51.3
Delay (s) 40.3 46.8 136.5 103.6 43.5 54.8 103.8
Level of Service D D F F D D F
Approach Delay (s) 46.1 119.5 50.4 103.8
Approach LOS D F D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 89.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 22.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2016 Sat 1 - 7/9/16 2016 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 14 248 20 209 460 74 16 47 502 95 81 60
Future Volume (vph) 14 248 20 209 460 74 16 47 502 95 81 60
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1842 1770 3466 1840 1583 1770 1744
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1842 1770 3466 641 1583 1770 1744
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 15 270 22 227 500 80 17 51 546 103 88 65
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 23 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 290 0 227 569 0 0 68 546 103 130 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Free Split NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 3 3
Permitted Phases 8 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 22.0 19.0 22.0 19.0 116.0 20.0 20.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 22.0 19.0 22.0 19.0 116.0 20.0 20.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.16 1.00 0.17 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 349 289 657 104 1583 305 300
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.16 c0.13 c0.16 0.06 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 c0.34
v/c Ratio 0.05 0.83 0.79 0.87 0.65 0.34 0.34 0.43
Uniform Delay, d1 40.9 45.2 46.5 45.6 45.4 0.0 42.2 42.9
Progression Factor 1.16 1.76 1.13 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 16.0 18.4 13.8 27.7 0.6 3.0 4.5
Delay (s) 47.6 95.5 71.0 50.6 73.2 0.6 45.2 47.4
Level of Service D F E D E A D D
Approach Delay (s) 93.1 56.3 8.6 46.5
Approach LOS F E A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2025 Sat 1 7/12/25 2025 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 10 0 171 658 218 34 0 0 0 0 104 10
Future Volume (vph) 10 0 171 658 218 34 0 0 0 0 104 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1681 1726 1583 1840
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1681 1726 1583 1840
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 11 0 186 715 237 37 0 0 0 0 113 11
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 349 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 0 186 123 432 37 0 0 0 0 124 0
Turn Type Prot Perm Split NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 6 6 7
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 14.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 13.0
Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 14.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 13.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 221 437 448 411 239
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.07 c0.25 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.84 0.28 0.96 0.09 0.52
Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 41.9 29.5 36.5 28.0 40.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.56 0.80 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 30.4 1.1 27.7 0.3 7.8
Delay (s) 37.6 72.3 36.6 48.3 22.8 48.4
Level of Service D E D D C D
Approach Delay (s) 70.3 41.8 0.0 48.4
Approach LOS E D A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2025 Sat 1 7/12/25 2025 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 629 53 165 118 707 82 0 120
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 629 53 165 118 707 82 0 120
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1810 1583 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.29 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1810 1583 532 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 684 58 179 128 768 89 0 130
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 71 430 0 0 112
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 684 15 0 236 338 89 0 18
Turn Type NA Perm Split NAcustom Perm Perm
Protected Phases 6 8 8 8
Permitted Phases 6 6 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.0 26.0 18.0 44.0 14.0 14.0
Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 26.0 18.0 44.0 14.0 14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.44 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 920 411 325 696 74 221
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.13 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.13 c0.17 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.04 0.73 0.49 1.20 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 33.9 27.6 38.7 19.9 43.0 37.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 0.2 13.2 2.4 169.1 0.7
Delay (s) 39.4 27.8 51.9 22.4 212.1 38.1
Level of Service D C D C F D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 38.5 30.8 108.8
Approach LOS A D C F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2025 Sat 1 7/12/25 2025 Data
HCM 6th Roundabout 5: Moraine Ave & Ivy St
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.9
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 2 0 3 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 653 0 0 964
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 666 0 0 983
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 278 130 715 130
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 130 872 111 0
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.5 0.0 0.0 1.4
Approach LOS A - - A
Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass
Designated Moves T R LT R
Assumed Moves T R LT R
RT Channelized Free Free
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.535 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.544 118 4.976 705
Entry Flow, veh/h 548 1938 278 1938
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1103 0.980 1209 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 116 0.981 691
Flow Entry, veh/h 537 1900 273 1900
Cap Entry, veh/h 1081 0.061 1186 0.364
V/C Ratio 0.497 0.0 0.230 0.0
Control Delay, s/veh 9.1 A 5.1 A
LOS A 0 A 2
95th %tile Queue, veh 3 1
2016 Sat 2 7/16/16 2016 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 22 78 57 431 130 16 95 39 212 19 70 10
Future Volume (vph) 22 78 57 431 130 16 95 39 212 19 70 10
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.99
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1745 1681 1712 1799 1583 1819
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.66 0.76 0.97 1.00 0.90
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1745 1174 1341 1799 1583 1646
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 24 85 62 468 141 17 103 42 230 21 76 11
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 147 0 304 322 0 0 145 230 0 108 0
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Split NA Perm Perm NA
Protected Phases 6 6 2 3 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 3 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 23.0 10.0
Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 23.0 10.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 300 242 277 356 313 141
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.08 0.08
v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.24 c0.15 c0.07
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.49 1.26 1.16 0.41 0.73 0.77
Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 43.4 46.0 46.0 40.6 43.6 51.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 5.6 128.9 89.0 3.4 14.2 32.0
Delay (s) 40.8 49.0 179.4 139.5 44.0 57.9 83.9
Level of Service D D F F D E F
Approach Delay (s) 47.9 158.9 52.5 83.9
Approach LOS D F D F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 106.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service F
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 22.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2016 Sat 2 7/16/16 2016 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 11 284 29 196 527 65 16 55 506 107 73 79
Future Volume (vph) 11 284 29 196 527 65 16 55 506 107 73 79
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1837 1770 3481 1842 1583 1770 1717
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1837 1770 3481 641 1583 1770 1717
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 12 309 32 213 573 71 17 60 550 116 79 86
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 34 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 12 338 0 213 636 0 0 77 550 116 131 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Free Split NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 3 3
Permitted Phases 8 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 22.0 19.0 22.0 19.0 116.0 20.0 20.0
Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 22.0 19.0 22.0 19.0 116.0 20.0 20.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.16 1.00 0.17 0.17
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 348 289 660 104 1583 305 296
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.18 c0.12 0.18 0.07 c0.08
v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 c0.35
v/c Ratio 0.04 0.97 0.74 0.96 0.74 0.35 0.38 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 46.7 46.1 46.6 46.2 0.0 42.5 43.0
Progression Factor 1.14 1.69 1.13 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 35.5 14.9 26.5 37.4 0.6 3.6 4.7
Delay (s) 46.6 114.5 67.0 64.3 83.5 0.6 46.1 47.8
Level of Service D F E E F A D D
Approach Delay (s) 112.2 65.0 10.8 47.1
Approach LOS F E B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2025 Sat 2 7/19/25 2025 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 19 0 133 593 227 35 0 0 0 0 121 4
Future Volume (vph) 19 0 133 593 227 35 0 0 0 0 121 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1681 1730 1583 1855
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1681 1730 1583 1855
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 21 0 145 645 247 38 0 0 0 0 132 4
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 325 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 0 145 114 405 38 0 0 0 0 136 0
Turn Type Prot Perm Split NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 2 6 6 7
Permitted Phases 2 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 14.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 13.0
Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 14.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 13.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 221 437 449 411 241
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.07 c0.23 c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.09 0.66 0.26 0.90 0.09 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 37.4 40.7 29.4 35.8 28.1 40.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.51 0.74 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 14.2 1.1 18.7 0.3 9.2
Delay (s) 38.1 55.0 25.5 37.1 21.1 50.1
Level of Service D D C D C D
Approach Delay (s) 52.8 31.0 0.0 50.1
Approach LOS D C A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2025 Sat 2 7/19/25 2025 Data
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 589 78 161 145 728 86 0 124
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 589 78 161 145 728 86 0 124
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1815 1583 1770 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.29 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1815 1583 532 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 640 85 175 158 791 93 0 135
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 71 443 0 0 116
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 640 22 0 262 348 93 0 19
Turn Type NA Perm Split NAcustom Perm Perm
Protected Phases 6 8 8 8
Permitted Phases 6 6 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.0 26.0 18.0 44.0 14.0 14.0
Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 26.0 18.0 44.0 14.0 14.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.44 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 920 411 326 696 74 221
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.14 0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.13 c0.17 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.05 0.80 0.50 1.26 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 33.4 27.8 39.3 20.1 43.0 37.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.2 18.6 2.6 188.5 0.8
Delay (s) 37.8 28.0 57.9 22.7 231.5 38.2
Level of Service D C E C F D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 36.6 33.1 117.0
Approach LOS A D C F
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2025 Sat 2 7/19/25 2025 Data
HCM 6th Roundabout 5: Moraine Ave & Ivy St
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 5.0
Intersection LOS A
Approach EB WB NB SB
Entry Lanes 2 0 3 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 743 0 0 822
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 758 0 0 838
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 261 116 796 116
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 116 969 105 0
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 0 0
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 0.0 0.0 1.5
Approach LOS A - - A
Lane Left Bypass Left Bypass
Designated Moves T R LT R
Assumed Moves T R LT R
RT Channelized Free Free
Lane Util 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.535 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.544 118 4.976 577
Entry Flow, veh/h 640 1938 261 1938
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1120 0.980 1226 0.980
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 116 0.981 566
Flow Entry, veh/h 627 1900 256 1900
Cap Entry, veh/h 1098 0.061 1202 0.298
V/C Ratio 0.572 0.0 0.213 0.0
Control Delay, s/veh 10.4 A 4.9 A
LOS B 0 A 1
95th %tile Queue, veh 4 1
2016 Sat 1 - 7/9/16 2016 Data
Measures of Effectiveness
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction EB WB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 125 537 324 119 1105
Fuel Consumed (gal) 2 17 5 3 27
Fuel Economy (mpg) 7.2 3.7 5.6 2.0 4.2
CO Emissions (kg) 0.16 1.16 0.38 0.21 1.91
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.03 0.23 0.07 0.04 0.37
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.04 0.27 0.09 0.05 0.44
4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction EB WB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 283 743 565 236 1827
Fuel Consumed (gal) 10 17 3 4 33
Fuel Economy (mpg) 3.4 6.3 13.1 3.4 5.7
CO Emissions (kg) 0.67 1.17 0.20 0.25 2.29
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.13 0.23 0.04 0.05 0.45
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.15 0.27 0.05 0.06 0.53
2025 Sat 1 7/12/25 2025 Data
Measures of Effectiveness
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction EB WB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 181 910 114 1205
Fuel Consumed (gal) 4 11 2 17
Fuel Economy (mpg) 5.6 9.4 3.6 7.9
CO Emissions (kg) 0.29 0.78 0.11 1.18
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.23
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.27
4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction WB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 682 989 202 1873
Fuel Consumed (gal) 12 7 5 24
Fuel Economy (mpg) 7.9 9.5 2.3 7.3
CO Emissions (kg) 0.86 0.49 0.32 1.67
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.33
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.39
2025 Sat 1 7/12/25 2025 Data
Measures of Effectiveness
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
5: Moraine Ave & Ivy St
Direction EB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 601 259 887 1747
Fuel Consumed (gal) 6 2 12 20
Fuel Economy (mpg) 10.1 7.8 14.7 12.7
CO Emissions (kg) 0.40 0.15 0.87 1.41
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.08 0.03 0.17 0.28
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.09 0.03 0.20 0.33
2016 Sat 2 7/16/16 2016 Data
Measures of Effectiveness
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction EB WB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 157 576 345 99 1177
Fuel Consumed (gal) 3 22 6 2 33
Fuel Economy (mpg) 7.1 3.0 5.5 2.4 3.8
CO Emissions (kg) 0.20 1.54 0.42 0.15 2.30
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.03 0.45
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.05 0.36 0.10 0.03 0.53
4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction EB WB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 325 788 577 259 1949
Fuel Consumed (gal) 10 19 3 4 37
Fuel Economy (mpg) 3.6 5.8 12.0 3.5 5.5
CO Emissions (kg) 0.72 1.34 0.23 0.27 2.56
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.14 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.50
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.17 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.59
2025 Sat 2 7/19/25 2025 Data
Measures of Effectiveness
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
2: Moraine Ave/Big Horn Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction EB WB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 152 856 125 1133
Fuel Consumed (gal) 3 9 2 14
Fuel Economy (mpg) 6.7 10.5 3.5 8.8
CO Emissions (kg) 0.21 0.65 0.13 0.98
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.19
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.05 0.15 0.03 0.23
4: Riverside Dr/Virginia Dr & Elkhorn Ave
Direction WB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 667 1034 210 1911
Fuel Consumed (gal) 12 8 5 25
Fuel Economy (mpg) 8.2 8.8 2.1 7.1
CO Emissions (kg) 0.81 0.56 0.36 1.72
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.33
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.40
2025 Sat 2 7/19/25 2025 Data
Measures of Effectiveness
LANTZ ASSOCIATES August 2025
5: Moraine Ave & Ivy St
Direction EB NB SB All
Future Volume (vph) 684 261 757 1702
Fuel Consumed (gal) 6 2 11 19
Fuel Economy (mpg) 10.1 7.8 14.7 12.4
CO Emissions (kg) 0.45 0.15 0.74 1.34
NOx Emissions (kg) 0.09 0.03 0.14 0.26
VOC Emissions (kg) 0.10 0.03 0.17 0.31
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Future Study Session Items
November 25, 2025
• Commercial Loading Permit Post-Season Assessment
• Guiding Philosophy for Events
• Town Focus Groups
December 9, 2025
• Parking and Transit Year-End Review
• Development Code Update: Residential Housing Typologies
Items Approved - Unscheduled
• Police Department Facility Financing
• Plaque Honoring Civic Service/Art in Public Places
• Liquor License Process
• Addressing Housing Needs for Town Employees
• Vendor Fee Rate for Sales Tax Collection
Items for Town Board Consideration
• Nothing