HomeMy WebLinkAboutEver Vail Imapacts On Transit Services 072310IMPACTS OF PROPOSED EVER VAIL DEVELOPMENT
ON TRANSIT SERVICES
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
July 23, 2010
This memo presents a review of the impact that the proposed Ever Vail
development would have on the Town of Vail's transit program.
Project Overview
The Ever Vail project site is located on the western end of Vail, adjacent to the
Lionshead area. The proposed Ever Vail project incorporates a mixed -use plan.
Major components of this plan include 357 residential units, 79,000 square feet
of retail and restaurant floor area, 33,000 square feet of office floor area, 40,000
of recreation and spa floor area, a 120 -room hotel and 48 employee housing
units. Parking is also an important component of the plan, with a total of 1,551
parking spaces proposed for skiers, shoppers, residents and hotel guests; drop -
off locations are also provided on both the west and east ends of the
development. Of the total parking supply, 400 are allocated for skier parking.
Also included in the project plan is a transit center, with a proposed location
along the I -70 Frontage Road near the eastern end of the project boundary.
Existing Transit Services
Vail Transit
The following Vail Transit routes would serve Ever Vail:
West Vail Green Route (Clockwise) and West Vail Red Route
(Counterclockwise) — Currently two runs per hour are operated in each
direction, frequently with shadow buses. At present, buses stop at the
Cascade Crossing location west of Ever Vail area and West Lionshead Plaza to
the east. Upon development, stops will be located at the Ever Vail Transit
Center and West Lionshead Plaza.
In -Town Route — This service does not operate on a set schedule, but
rather buses are dispatched to provide consistent, short headways that vary
with passenger demand. At the busiest times, buses can "bunch" due to
loading delays, resulting in two buses at the same stop in the same direction.
At present, this route continues westbound through the East Uonshead area
to West Lionshead before returning back through East Lionshead eastbound,
Ever Vail Impact on Vail Transit
Page 2
skirting the edge of the Ever Vail project area. With the new development,
the route will travel into the eastern end of Ever Vail, with a planned stop
along Market Street. At present, extra "shadow" buses are typically added to
provide additional passenger capacity during the afternoon peak end -of -day
skier period. To increase capacity on the busiest links between Golden Peak
and Lionshead, two to four westbound buses per hour are turned around at
Lionshead, with any passengers traveling on to west Lionshead transferred to
an ongoing bus.
ECO Transit
ECO Transit is the regional bus system serving Vail, making connections as far as
Gypsum and Leadville. Given the scope of the development, Ever Vail will
become an important additional stop on the ECO Transit route system. At
present service levels, it will be served by the following routes:
Edwards (Highway 6) — provides service between Edwards/
Arrowhead and Vail, with interim stops in Avon /Beaver Creek and
Eagle -Vail. Using the existing schedule, it is estimated that Ever Vail
could be served up to 4 times per hour in the peak morning and
aftemoon hours.
• Gypsum /Eagle — provides service from Gypsum and Eagle to Vail,
with stops in Edwards and Avon. An important stop along this route is
the Eagle County Airport, which generates visitors to the Vail area. Per
the existing ECO Transit schedule, service to Ever Vail is expected to
reach up to two runs per hour, during peak times.
Minturn — provides direct service between Minturn and Vail. Given the
existing schedule, Ever Vail is anticipated to be served by up to one
run every hour during peak morning and afternoon times.
Leadville — provides service from Leadville to Avon, with intermediate
stops in Minturn, Eagle -Vail and Vail. It is expected that Ever Vail will
be served by up to two runs per hour during peak afternoon times
(morning service is prior to the beginning of the peak activity period at
7:00 AM).
In addition, until the 2009 -10 winter season a Beaver Creek — Vail routes was
also operated. While this route has been cut due to budget constraints, it can be
expected that it will ultimately be reinstated.
Ever Vail Impact on Val/ Transit Page 3
Reflecting the fact that the capacity of the scheduled bus service is frequently
reached or exceeded, Vail Transit as well as ECO Transit currently employ
"shadow" buses on many routes in order to provide adequate passenger capacity
at peak load times. Also known as "piggyback" or "tripper" buses, these
additional buses are added as a second bus on a single scheduled run. The use
of shadow buses is a common occurrence in the peak winter season on the West
Vail Red, West Vail Green and East Vail Routes on the Vail Transit system as well
as on the ECO Transit Highway 6 and Gypsum /Eagle routes, provided largely
inbound in the AM peak period as well as outbound in the PM peak period.
Drivers in the AM peak period that notice their bus is reaching capacity will call
the dispatcher, who will arrange for a shadow bus to be added at the next major
stop and to serve the route into the Vail Transportation Center (VTRC). In the
outbound direction, shadow buses are dispatched from the VRTC and serve the
route until all passengers are dropped off.
Impact on Existing Transit Services
In -Town Route
The impact of Ever Vail on the In -Town Route will consist of two factors: the
need for additional capacity to accommodate peak loads, and the need to
41 operate additional services to accommodate the additional route running time
while still attaining existing headway (time between departure) standards.
Impact on Peak Passenger Loads
Table A presents an analysis of the impact of Ever Vail on peak passenger loads
for the Vail Transit service, focusing on the In -Town and West Vail Routes. For
the In -Town Route, this analysis is comprised of the following steps:
1. Total skiing population generated by Ever Vail is taken from the
12/4/2009 memo prepared by Mauriello Planning Group, as summarized in
Table B. This includes both residents /guests of Ever Vail, as well as skiers
parking in the 400 spaces reserved for this use in Ever Vail.
2. To evaluate proportion of skiers generated by Ever Vail that would end
their ski day at another portal (and thus would use Vail Transit services to
return to Ever Vail), LSC obtained additional details regarding the skier
transportation survey results from Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies
(attached), which identify the proportion of surveyed skiers that start their
ski day at one location but end (i.e., were surveyed) at another:
Ever Val/ Impact on Vail Transit
Page 4
• Of all skiers starting at Lionshead, 22 percent ended at another
location (16 percent at Vail Village and 6 percent at Golden Peak)
• Of all skiers starting at Vail Village, 21 percent ended at another
location (9 percent at Lionshead and 12 percent at Golden Peak)
• Of all skiers starting at Golden Peak, 7 percent ended at another
location (all at Vail Village)
Departing skiers were also asked "How are you getting from here to your
car, lodging, residence, or other means of pick -up ". Reported responses
include "In -town Bus" as well as "Town Bus" both of which presumably refer
to the Vail Transit service. By location, the results were:
• Of all skiers starting at Lionshead, 30 percent will use Vail Transit at
the end of the day.
• Of all skiers starting at Vail Village, 31 percent will use Vail Transit at
the end of the day.
• Of all skiers starting at Golden Peak, 37 percent will use Vail Transit at
the end of the day.
This second set of figures includes persons lodged at one base area who
chose to start their ski day at another, and thus is a better reflection of the
proportion of Ever Vail skiers that would impact the Vail Transit program
during the crucial end -of -ski -day period. The pattern seen at Lionshead is a
good indication of the use pattern that can be expected of Ever Vail skier.
Therefore, 30 percent of Ever Vail skiers are likely to use Vail Transit
services around the end of the ski day to return to Ever Vail. Based on the
survey results (and the relative attractiveness of the various portals
regarding skiing conditions and apres ski, a reasonable distribution of these
trips to the various other portals is that 6 percent of Ever Vail skiers would
end at Golden Peak, 16 percent at Vail Village, and 8 percent at Lionshead.
3. Multiplying the number of skiers generated by Ever Vail by these
proportions yields the number of skiers requiring transportation back to
Ever Vail. As the peak load segment on the In -Town service is between Vail
Village and Lionshead, only those skiers end their ski day at Vail Village or
Golden Peak add to the peak capacity requirements for the In -Town Route.
As shown, this is estimated to equal 422 skiers.
Ever Val/ Impact on Vail Transit
Page 5
4. The proportion of these skier trips occurring in the peak -hour varies with
weather conditions, but is generally approximately 35 percent. (This figure
is also consistent with the assumptions in the Vail Resorts'Ever Vail Traffic
Impact Study (Kim ley Horn and Associates, Inc., 2009). Applying this
figure, 148 additional skiers would need to be transported westbound to
Ever Vail.
5. Non - skiers lodged or living at Ever Vail would also generate an increase in
transit ridership. Per Table B, there will be a total of 140 employees living
on site that are not skiing on any one day, as well as 336 hotel guests and
other residents. Based on observed use of free transit services in similar
resort communities, each employee will generate 0.10 transit trips during
the PM peak -hour (such as for shopping or entertainment), while other
residents will generate 0.20 transit - trips. Not all transit trips will be
occurring in the peak westbound direction on the peak load link between
Vail Village and Lionshead. Based on the location of trip attractions and
travel patterns, it is estimated that 20 percent of employee trips will add to
this peak load, along with 40 percent of guests /residents. In total, these
non - skiers are estimated to add 30 passengers to the peak -hour In -Town
route load in the peak direction on the peak load link.
6. In total, 178 additional peak -hour passengers will need to be served by the
In -Town Route in the peak direction on the peak load. (The number of
employees added to this figure that are commuting to Ever Vail from
elsewhere would be minimal, given the time of day and the location of
employee housing areas).
7. At a crush capacity of 50 skiers, 4 additional bus trips will need to be
provided in the peak hour. Dividing this figure by the 35% of peak period
ridership occurring in the peak hour (consistent with the hourly distribution
of activity presented in the Ever Vail traffic study), an additional 11 transit
vehicle -trips will need to be operated over the 3 PM to 6 PM peak period
when additional buses are in operation.
8. With an average round -trip travel time of 30 minutes, 5.5 vehicle -hours of
service will need to be operated. Two additional buses would be required
for In -Town Route service.
9. The presence of Ever Vail would also impact the current pattern of "short
turns" on the In -town Route during the PM peak period. At present, 2 to 4
westbound In -Town buses per hour are turned around at East Lionshead in
order to provide more capacity between Golden Peak and Lionshead. Any
passengers onboard that are destined to the Concert Hall Plaza area are
Ever Vail Impact on Vail Transit
Page 6
asked to transfer to another bus not making the short turn. This strategy is
possible because the number of passengers needing to make this transfer is
a relatively small proportion of the passengers westbound into Lionshead.
With Ever Vail, this proportion will be significantly higher, and a larger
proportion of buses will need to continue on past East Lionshead. It is
estimated that 6 existing short-turn buses will need to be operated to Ever
Vail each day, adding 10 minutes of running time to each. This will
effectively require 1 additional bus -hour of service per day to offset the loss
of capacity. In total, 6.5 additional vehicle -hours of In -Town service would
be required per winter day.
10.Town staff indicates that the need for additional peak service occurs over
the course of the ski season. Figure A presents ridership by day over the
last ski season. Based on this data, it is estimated that the additional
service to address Ever Vail impacts would be required between roughly
December 20 and April 10 (or 111 days). Over the course of a season,
this additional service will total 722 vehicle -hours of service.
Impact on Running Time
The In -town Route is not operated on a set schedule. Rather, buses are
provided in order to attain a desired headway (average time between successive
buses at each stop). An increase in the running time of the overall route can
require that an additional bus be put into operation to maintain this desired
headway.
The increase in In -town Route running time associated with Ever Vail is
calculated as follows:
Average travel speed was based upon a review of existing In -Town Route
running speeds. As shown in Table C, data was reviewed for two busy
winter day PM peak periods. Not surprisingly, operating speeds (including
boarding /deboarding time) are relatively low in the Village area and higher
along the loop west of East Lionshead Circle. In this area, the average
speed is 16.4 miles per hour, with the slowest observed speed of 11.9 mph.
Based on this data, a reasonable planning speed (exclusive of additional
loading /unloading time and intersection delay) is 15 mph. The extension in
route length to serve Ever Vail will add approximately 930 feet to the
current route length. At this speed, this corresponds to an increase in
running time of 42 seconds.
Ever Vail Impact on Val/ Transit
Page 7
• Boarding /deboarding activity at Ever Vail is expected to be relatively heavy,
compared with existing stops on this loop west of East Lionshead Circle. An
additional 15 seconds is included.
The revised route will pass through the South Frontage Road / Forest Road
roundabout twice. Per the Kimley -Horn traffic study, this will add 16
seconds of delay.
In total, serving Ever Vail will increase the running time by 73 seconds. A review
of a sample of peak winter NextBus data indicates an average running time for
the In -Town Route of 30.46 minutes. This indicates that serving Ever Vail will
increase the route's running time by an average of 4.0 percent.
NextBus data was also evaluated to identify route running times in for the other
two operating seasons (Spring and Summer). Due to lower traffic levels and
passenger activity, the average route travel time equals 23.45 minutes and 29.13
minutes in the Spring and Summer seasons, respectively. As the incremental
time required to serve Ever Vail would also be reduced by these same factors, it
is assumed that the 4 percent impact of Ever Vail service would remain constant
in these other seasons.
This 4 percent factor can be applied to the existing vehicle -hours of In -Town
1 0 service to estimate the additional hours required to address the running time
needed to serve Ever Vail while resulting in no reduction in service to the existing
In -Town Route service area. As shown in Table D. the Town currently operates
a total of 71,806 round -trip runs of the In -Town Route over the course of a full
year. Factored by the average running time by season, a total of 35,562 in-
service vehicle -hours are operated each year. Expanding these hours by 4
percent to accommodate Ever Vail would require 1,422 annual vehicle -hours of
service.
overall Impact on Annual Vehicle -Hours of In -Town Route Service
As some of the vehicle -hours needed to address running time would occur during
the winter PM peak period when vehicle -hours would be added to address load
capacity, it is necessary to adjust the running time impact figure to avoid double -
counting. NextBus data for all In -Town runs over a busy winter day was
reviewed to identify the proportion of running time problems occurring in the PM
peak 3 -hour period. Of the 34 runs over the course of the day that arrived 2
minutes or more late, 31 were outside of the peak PM 3 -hour period. This
indicates that 91.2 percent of the existing service that will require additional runs
for running -time purposes occur outside of the period when additional service is
needed for peak -load purposes. Given that the additional service to address load
Ever Vail Impact on Vail Transit
Page 8
impacts would also improve on -time performance during the winter PM period, it
is appropriate to reduce the vehicle -hours required for running time by 8.8
percent. As also shown in Table D, the resulting total annual hours of additional
In -Town Route service needed to address both running time and load capacity
impacts of Ever Vail is 2,059 per year.
Excluding fixed costs (such as facility and administrative costs) that would not
vary with the quantity of service, the marginal cost of Vail Transit service is
reported by Town Transit to currently be $50 per vehicle -hour. Multiplying by
the annual vehicle -hours of service, the impact of Ever Vail would be to increase
the cost of In -Town Route service by $102,950 per year.
West Route
A similar analysis was conducted for the West Route, as shown in Table E. Given
that the Ever Vail transit center is directly along the route as well as the longer
length of the route, it is assumed that the additional stop can be served within
the existing available running time. Rather than skiers, the key increase in
demand is expected to come from employees commuting to Ever Vail:
1. The net increase in employees on the Ever Vail site (over those already
employed on the site) is expected to be 375. Subtracting those housed
onsite, the total number of persons commuting to Ever Vail will increase
by 235.
2. US Census data presented in the Longitudinal Employment Housing
Dataset was reviewed to identify the proportion of employees that would
be living along the West Vail route. As shown in Table F, 37 percent of
persons employed in Vail in 2008 also lived in Vail. Based on the relative
location of employee housing, it is estimated that two- thirds of these
commuters would live along the West Vail Route. Factored by the
proportion working on any one day (5 days of 7) and an estimated 66
percent employed during the day shift (and assuming that none arrive in
winter by other modes), a total of 29 commuters would be added to the
peak period peak directional West Vail transit load.
3. Ever Vail residents and guests (including employees housed on -site)
would also use the West Vail route. While the use rates by employees
would be relatively high (given the preponderance of local- serving land
uses to the west of Ever Vail) the use rates by guests would be relatively
low. Overall, 19 additional peak - direction peak - period passengers are
estimated.
Ever Val/ Impact on Vail Transit
Page 9
4. Rounding the total peak period peak direction demand (48) divided by the
crush capacity of a Vail Transit Bus (50), one additional round trip would
be required in both the AM and the PM peak periods. With a 45- minute
round trip running time, 1.5 hours of additional service would be needed
per winter day. Multiplied by 111 winter days of additional service per
year, 167 vehicle -hours would need to be added annually. At a marginal
cost of $50 per hour, this equates to $8,350 in additional annual operating
costs. One additional bus would also be needed at peak times.
Total of Both Routes
In total, Ever Vail would increase the annual operating cost of Vail Transit by
$111,300. It would also require three additional peak transit vehicles in the Vail
Transit fleet (two for the In -Town Route and one for the West Vail Route).
These hybrid buses current cost $600,000 per unit. Annualized over the 13 year
useful life, each unit incurs $46,154 per year in capital costs.
Other Considerations
The methodology presented in Table E regarding the impacts of commuting
employees on the West Route can also be used to assess the impact on ECO
40 Transit commute ridership. As shown in Table F, 23 percent of persons
employed in Vail live in the ECO Transit service area to the west of Vail.
Multiplied by the 235 net new employees, 54 additional employees would be
housed along the ECO Transit routes. Assuming employees are prohibited from
driving, each employee works 5 days per week, and 2 /3rds work during the day
shift, ECO Transit will need to accommodate an additional 25 transit passengers
(or a half bus load) in both the AM and the PM commute periods.
It should be noted that this analysis does not include the effects of any charter
bus parking at Ever Vail. If this were to occur in the future, it can be expected
that persons arriving by charter bus would use local transit services to /from Ever
Vail, such as to access the Village or to complete a ski trip that ends at a
different portal. This demand in particular would add to the peak - period peak -
direction load on the In -Town Route on the peak load segment, to the degree
that charter bus skiers would choose to end their ski day at Vail Village or Golden
Peak.
Another expected effect of Ever Vail is to shift the existing pattern of transit rider
access to the ski area. The walk distance from the Town transit stop to a ski
gondola is approximately 800 feet at Lionshead, and about 1,200 feet in the
Village. In comparison, the walk distance at Ever Vail will be roughly 600 feet.
It will also be the closest major ski portal for persons living or lodged west of
Ever Val/ Impact on Vail Transit
Page 10
Ever Vail along the south side of I -70. Some skiers using the West Vail Green
Route to access the ski area and the West Vail Red Route to return at the end of
the day will shift from using Lionshead or Vail Village to instead using Ever Vail.
As the peak load point on the West Vail Route is west of Ever Vail, however, this
shift will not materially change the service level required on the West Vail Route.
Finally, the In -Town Route serves as backup transportation capacity in case a
change in weather or a mechanical issue requires a mid -day closure of the Ever
Vail Gondola and the requirement that all Ever Vail skiers exit at a different portal
and shuttle back to Ever Vail. The methodology presented in Table A was
applied to assess this impact, as shown in Table G. It was assumed that 2/3 of
the additional skiers would choose to end at Lionshead and the remaining 1/3 at
Vail Village, and that all "short turn" runs would be extended to Ever Vail to
accommodate the change in passenger loads. As indicated, this would require
20 additional full round -trips over the course of the PM peak period. Two
additional buses would be needed, and the daily cost of additional service would
be $405 over and above the previously stated additional operating costs.
Ever Vail Impact on Vail Transit Page 11
APPENDIX:
Skier Survey Crosstabs of Ski Day Start Location versus Ski Day End
(Survey) Location
0
C7
co
to
op
M
b
M
N
O
O
O
O
U
ai
'S
N
7
O
J
O
O
M
m
N
U)
m
a _
0
0
m
o
o
0
N
m
(,� LL ' '-
O)
CD
(A W
M O M O
vo
S
UQ
I o 0
�
U
C8
CIL
ZO
O 6
I •to vc!
CL
c
a. f
C y
A Y
J W
QC7
M b M O
I moo �
2' >O
m
p Y O O
C'. OW �oo
N O N O
�
(,� LL ' '-
l0
g
Z �vo o
vo
S
Z
Go
O o
lO N
N
Q Z O O
w
O W
co
m 10 N( D
'*m of
c
a. f
2' >O
p Y O O
C'. OW �oo
N O N O
(O O
m m
g
�^
o
00
/0 NO
a O
0
Ma Oci
�O O (V
� V M
v et M.-
-6 r
N
C
O
Y
N
=
(�
o
C O
�
r
C �
lO N
H �
�
w
0
N
4 x
m m
g
a
w
z
a
=
(�
o
0
Lo
}
R
Gi
I
\
2
#
ID
2
�
�k
/
|k§��\
E
.
o § |w
�$
#
�§
- LD
~%
2
/
|uLLJ
k |
k
�
|�]
0
�02 |��
��
��
C4
�0
/
| \2|
\
OD
<0 6
°
° w
~ A
"\
\ e �
\
§
�
f
&|! LLI
R
�»
�m
§
§! >] |�k
#
|$§
Im
2
2§
I ?
%
C O N �
~N
~�
\ 7�
��
�
��
��
°�
/
����
o
z
CL 0
LLI
z
o
uj
/
o
J
z
§
b
CL
0 (
/
ƒ
U�
k&\
z
in
Z
/ k/
e
/
)
k
]
\
7 k
G
2
a
3
LO
co
to
0
M
Of
N
Co
O
W
0
U
ti
'S
4l
O
J
O
O
M
m
M
N
m
m
X
O
p
4)
W
tD
N
m
0) CO W
C4
r O
O
�
I
U
C z
00
W V
Wr
�'P
W V'
rV'
W'-
NW
N01
O q
's
l
N
t
W
.-
r-
N
n%
i _, to
N
I
N
l C Y Q p
co ! > � II
O
CO
W
W
(D
M
N
r
p
p
0
O)O0
N
N
4) f�
N
1� OD
M M
M M
i
N J 10
V
NN
C4
NM
W
N
M
M
a.
m
� F�
T
�O
NO
N
N
Q Y
O
4
co
N C
z
MO
W
W W
N�
e-W
r 'N
V 47
r-- C
N W
W
CQ�
J u
OO
A
M
=1
= OR !
a
o W
1 9
C �
Q
Wv
N
�rn
U�
'- N
tO
P o
a e
vv
W !
O
m
N
W
4)
W
M
M
E 3
O
Z
t Z
L
O 7 p Y (
O O
W O
N O
b O
O O
O O
M O
M O
q
C
N N
M "
O
W
M
Cl)
0 a.
E
E
Z Q(
M O
r 0
O tD
0 47
W M
W 4,
M N
M
W W
N O
47 4)
4 7
D) M
W O)
W
> F
N O
M
N
M
N
N
� O
o OL F
N
$_
p e
F L
N
C >
>
12
j- 10
N
O
N
LL
j
Cl)
7
Y
a
2
m
J
�F
ui
U m
O
Q
¢
OF
O
v
i
LU
ri
UFF
F
U
Ti
t
p
F-
W
c
U
0 O
C7
LO
to
LO
m
0
N
O
O
O
O
U
m
'S
N
J
O
J
O
O
M
m
r
O
V
ID
X
O
m
O
O
cD
O
O
C
Q
ca
V
c
to
m
D
W
Z
N
T
N
v
A
a
m
N ti
O G
r
0
N
C
m o
� o
0 O
In
12— o
U
m
J m
UHF
Q I
N
Y
N ,
J
F
a
Z
6 0
V
Z Q Q MR N� w h
` W N O O N a p
J x
�W W n7
> n V c0
]Y N O M fO aD ao
1L N O
O a0
�a
]
Y
ZD co O fo f� m r rcD
Cl)
J N Q O N O
x
J L UM o am
:c I d OO C � � ci
>
] 00 O m r,� N '— O
O p O N O a0O tDO
F O O v N N Co N N
0
O
O
W
Z
Q O
W Z H
O f 0 O W
LL LLD
W F W ?
J ZO F
>N J O M Oa
Lo
Go
to
0
O
Cl)
r-
04
O
U
m
N
.
s
0
O
m
m
z
J
m
'O
m
X
O
m
2
tp
N
!D
m M w
m
m
M
— M
2
m
m U Q
o
m
M
c
n
� U
C Z O
a O
to r-
cD M
M tp
V a
0 n0
v 'C
—
m
n H O
rg
N
�N
��
to
to
to
r
v
O. uJ
J
c
m H
'p
QY QO I
M
N Oi
a
NM
NCO
O
t0 v:
Lo
Mto
st
NCO
t
�''..g
Ifl
N
C O Y
m
0 0
O'It
co (P
O f O
O
N N
m m
m m
C q
O
to
v V
N N
O
N
t7
ai
!° E ( Wa
O
00
`m
N
o Z
O
cD
Lo
O 0 O Z
to
N
N
Y
N to
C `
t0
' Z O
O W
t0 0
to
t0
N a
to �-
m
m N
�N
N tD
of
C
r- qp
.-
N t0
cn
oo
z and
J w
tAO
tD
v N
O v
�N
to c4
tom
MM
mtn
J �c ,
I 'd
c3
NN
to
t0
N
N
r , >
O Z
r 1 DY
TO
my
Os
to.
m7
m0
NO
m0
N ¢
to
S
`�r c)
N
N
to
m
N
M
OW
0a
tD J
Co
'O'
r O
tO
to to
w
to N
r t0
to N
F
N 00
N
N to
sf
M
N
N
L O
O
C O
8 O
N C
C
� 0
H tT
?
M
M
m
m
M
a
m
m
W
N O
J
Q
M
m
J
I
¢
O
Q
O
~
¢
O
Y
U
V
2
w Q �
¢
O m tri
U F F
H
?
U
f
E
W
M
0 U
.1
LO
co
U)
cn
a
N
O
O
O
O
U
m
N
O
J
O
O
Cl)
.
Cn
M
m
a
m
X
O
CD
O
OD
U1
IA
C
CL
cc
to
a
C
N
R
Q
C
O)
.o
2
Go
N
CL
a
L
t r
U
m
N
z �
7
CL
O
C N
O
o
a 3
C a
F N
0 o
N T
a
[OL
� m
ugo
0 W � M Nn .-M
U Q O W C.)
O� Mm NN to
11 = LL
J W _M O O
C M N m N N h M fh
Q ][ O) O D1 t0 0 7 M {O W q O) '- t- O) r
W � NM NN LL7 O '-
(V'7 a
F 3 v 0 O N O r O
8 0 O N to N
2
Y
Z Q CO O LQ b r t O r CO CO r 00
O W 8 N m N M A �-- •- •-
S
- O O O M W aO rN aD A M Uq M W
(r) I C," R m M N N N 0 7 t O N N
Q SJ Y I W O N M t- M O N M O co M O
J mo M N �� M m M
0
J O) O M M O r M V' M N O N N M OD O)
O 00 O N OO N "t N C O N h '- N
F
L O
W W U _Z
Z to W m
a � w
F- ~ i w W
z O O X Y =
Z Z Q Z Z J a . D W
J W D W J H H W
Q
O w 3m 2 a m w�
H
to
J
H
Ir
a,,
W
H
Z
TABLE A: IncreageYn In -Town
Passenger Loads
IMPACT ON TRANSIT DEMAND -- In -Town Shuttle
W
Service to Address Ever
SKIERS
Number of Skiers Starting at Ever Vail
Lodging Guests /Residents (See Table B)
Parking at Ever Vail 400 Spaces X
Total
2.6 Skiers/Space =
Percent Skiers Starting the Day at Ever Vail and Ending at Other Portals
Lionshead
Vail Village
Golden Peak
Total
Number Westbound on Peak Load Segment between Lionshead and Vail Village
Percent of Skiers Returning to Ever Vail in Peak PM Hour
Impact on Peak Hour Load on Peak Load Segment
NON - SKIERS
Number of Non -Skier Guests /Residents at Ever Vail
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
Other Residents/Guests
Proportion Making In -Town Transit Trips in Peak Hour
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
Other Residents/Guests
8%
16%
6%
30%
35%
Additional
877 Skie
10 iers
1917 Skiers
153
307
115
575
422
148 Passengers
140 Persons
336 Persons
10%
/o
2
Proportion of Transit Trips on Peak Load Link in Peak Load Direction (WB Between Village and Lionshead)
Employees Housed at Ever Vail 20%
Other Residents /Guests 40%
Passengers Westbound Between Vail Village and Lionshead
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
Other Residents/Guests
Total
Total Impact on # Passengers Westbound Between Vail Village and Lionshead in Pk Hr
Peak Crush Capacity per Transit Vehicle
Required Additional In -Town Transit Trips per Peak Hour
Proportion of 3 -Hour Peak Period Ridership in Peak Hour
Additional Round Trips Required per Day
Average Round -Trip Running Time 30 Minutes or
Additional Daily Hours of Service
Existing Short -Turn Buses Extended to Ever Vail
Round -Trips per Day
Additional Running Time 10 Minutes or
Additional Daily Hours of Service
Total Additional Daily Hours of Service
Days per Ski Season
Annual Additional Hours of Service
3 Passengers
27 Passengers
30 Passengers
178 Passengers
50 Passengers
4 Trips
35%
11 Trips
0.5 Hours
5.5 Hours
6
0.17 Hours
1.00 Hours
6.5
111 Days
722 Hours
TABLE B: Ever Vail Population
Employee Hotel
Housing Rooms
Residential
Dwelling Units
Total
Units
--
120
358
Bedrooms
--
1
2.5
Pillows per Room
--
2.5
2
Total Pillows
215
300
1790
2305
• Rented
0.95
0.74
0.74
• Occupied
0.95
0.75
0.75
• Skiing
0.28
0.71
0.71
Skier Population
54
118
705
877
Non-Skier Population
140
48
288
476
Source: Mauriello Planning Group memo dated 12/4/9, email dated 6115/10
1 7��
0 M I- r O r M O r O LA It 0 N r r eZr r r r
N r't Ln LLB to U) d r r In It It to r It r It N 0) Cr) U') ` P-
rttOqt qt000tnOO 23 L N ` - O
M CM M M m M qt C') C') N N M M MqT M M CM co co 00
O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O r O
O t '
N C
U CU
`= U
U
-
C
o O
rNLprCAOOInCMMrCMMLACOe CA CM 00 M
N It '9t Cl) N It M N N O N M o I r MI;t Lo LO M r M O
(u
0O 0) ci
00000000(P 0000000000 - aj O
o) O
000000 a 000C)00000000 O
CL
O =
.J t6
W f-
U
CU
C W V
C ' L_
C
U
-p
'q' 0 It CA U) '4' LM M O 00 r O Ln N 00 MLO to
LnNrIt Cl) O;tr0NrM0 V)MN LO MO M CO T O 0
E3: N
O O O O O O O O O o o O r 0 0 Cl Cl 0 0 r r
r r
O y
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
CU
0) 0 O
J
m
V
E
> C
0rWoNOpI-COMOT- � rr�t�MM CA
N O N
M'd:�r0Or OMMMNNrNOt M N p r
C ~
0 O pe n 00 r
lo,-
r Or - v , r-
'+ O
C
00000000000000000a 6 O
N J
� c W
O
Q C
�
oU
j C
Cp O
Lnr- N0NOO1- fl- O Itvt -r- LnON ti
M N CO r 0 In C) r r N r r r r r N M O r
It CO N
0
O T L6
rr00000�T7�00T
CL
00�77�77 �0O'
0 0 0
OCj OOC)C)C)00000 CjOCj0000 O
� J �
C
O
E
I-- OMNp�04 v) tPcor- - tOOr001`
C
~
MN 7 " L R " 1 p 9 N9 �q9 7t M !trMCM
C
04 O0) CO0 r- V) 700r V 0 W U
�.
Or rM�d U)0r NN rrr C7 Lo C)
CL
3
V? 2
O
W
w a N
E E_
m
V
mrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn0)rnrnrn0)rnrnrn_. -.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ U) CL
z
W 4?
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 0 O O E
W
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \\\\ a) CU m E
J D
aoa0ao0o0oao0o0o0000000000000 U p_ ,CL :
U
N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M E
N NNNNNNNN C�NC� (�CC i CD N 0)
Cc
0
Q r
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r C
C
Q i5 Q Q
V}
E-1
El-
O
c m
•,�
Q�W
OO ^ tiN
o
MNLp
C � a)
p � j �j�d_
M1,OtnN
a
0=
00
NCO
Q
'p V_ C/)
•�
Q L O
m
C E
'
cu
N C
`7
'C
00
y
U C
(L
=
C
of
a
0
3
a
a
cc
Q
> O
to N O co
t
>
r..
cc w
0) - 1 L
O
O O)
C = t �
N�O(�
N
`
C
Q
di
°cj
d
4)
4)
Q
w'
ly F -
CL
>
cO�NN
C
Q >
0
Q
uJ
E
O N w
� o Z
3
Ou,
:6
a
a ?m
E a� w
;_r
C (/ 7
co CO
'a3 � U O
V
Q X�
W
IT N t--
E
a) O O'
tl
C
F
_C J
O U)
C Y r%
C v7 f0 m '►-
C
3
y O `0 0 CL
•
O
Q 2 a
7
p
`O O O � CL
~
O O C7
O 3 = C
T- CV)
an d 0 O O
L
_ C U
7 (d 7 V t~
E
m 0. m
Cr O Cr ._ d C
aj 0 �>
C
0)
C
>
U-
� O,
. N� Q O
w
_
2: ° `
W
C
w
O
° =
00 C
-J
C
CI N
E
C
C C fa
W
C `
CL E o
O
O O Q C iv
— 7
Q N
�i
�
c C~
4)
- 0 N "C O O C
d
Qw< <
TABLE E: Analysis of Impact on Vail Transit West Vail Route
EMPLOYEES COMMUTING TO EVER VAIL
Total Increase in Persons Employed at Ever Vail Site
375 Employees
Employees Housed On Site
140 Residents
Increase in Employees Commuting to Ever Vail Site
235 Commuters
Proportion Living in Vail Along West Vail Route
26%
Proportion Working on Any Given Day
71%
Proportion With Commute Times In Peak West Route Activity Periods
66%
Total Increase in West Vail Ridership per Commute Period
29 2 -Way Psgrs
EVER VAIL RESIDENTS AND GUESTS
Number of Non -Skier Guests/Residents at Ever Vail
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
140 Persons
Other Residents /Guests
336 Persons
Proportion Making West Vail Transit Trips in Peak Period
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
25%
Other Residents /Guests
10%
Proportion of Transit Trips on Peak Load Link in Peak Load Direction
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
25%
Other Residents /Guests
30%
Passengers on Peak Load Link in Peak Load Direction
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
9 Passengers
Other Residents/Guests
10 Passengers
Total
19 Passengers
Total Impact on # Passengers Westbound Between Vail Village and Lionshead in Pk Hr
48
Peak Crush Capacity per Transit Vehicle
50 Passengers
Required Additional In -Town Transit Trips per Peak Hour
1 Trips
Proportion of 3 -Hour Peak Period Ridership in Peak Hour
35%
Additional Round Trips Required per Day (Both Commute Periods)
2 Trips
Average Round -Trip Running Time 45 Minutes or
0.75 Hours
Additional Daily Hours of Service
1.5 Hours
Days per Ski Season
111 Days
Annual Additional Hours of Service
167 Hours
Marginal Cost per Vehicle -Hour of Service $
50.00
Annual Increase in In -Town Operating Costs $
8,350
Total Annual Impact on Vail Transit Operating Costs $
111,300
, r rU p
�11
TABLE F: Residential Location of Vail Employees
2008
Residential Location Count Share
Vail town, CO 2,707 39.7%
Edwards CDP, CO
269
3.9%
Avon town, CO
151
2.2%
Eagle town, CO
111
1.6%
Gypsum town, CO
94
1.4%
Other Eagle County, CO
570
8.4%
Leadville city, CO
234
3.4%
Leadville North CDP, CO
128
1.9%
Other Lake County, CO
136
2.0%
Garfield County, CO
247
3.6%
Summit County, CO
119
1.7%
Denver city, CO
270
4.0%
Aurora city, CO
127
1.9%
Lakewood city, CO
101
1.5%
All Other Locations
1,554
38.5%
Total Primary Jobs
6,818
100.0%
Total West of Vail in ECO Transit Service Area
1,565
23.0%
Source: US Census Bureau, LEHD OnTheMap Origin -
Destination Database
�11
TABLE G: Analysis of Impact on Vail Transit In -Town Service
Assuming Mid -Day Closure of Ever Vail Gondola
IMPACT ON TRANSIT DEMAND — In -Town Shuttle
SKIERS
Number of Skiers Starting at Ever Vail
Lodging Guests /Residents (See Table B) 877 Skiers
Parking at Ever Vail 400 Spaces X 2.6 Skiers/Space = 1040 Skiers
Total 1917 Skiers
Percent Skiers Starting the Day at Ever Vail and Ending at Other Portals
Lionshead (2/3 of Additional Skiers Assumed to Shift Here) 55% 1048
Vail Village (1/3 of Additional Skiers Assumed to Shift Here) 39% 754
Golden Peak 6% 115
Total 100% 1917
Number Westbound on Peak Load Segment between Lionshead and Vail Village 869
Percent of Skiers Returning to Ever Vail in Peak PM Hour 35%
Impact on Peak Hour load on Peak Load Segment 304 Passengers
NON - SKIERS
Number of Non -Skier Guests/Residents at Ever Vail
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
140 Persons
Other Residents/Guests
336 Persons
Proportion Making In -Town Transit Trips in Peak Hour
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
10%
Other Residents/Guests
20%
Proportion of Transit Trips on Peak Load Link in Peak Load Direction (WB Between Village and Lionshead)
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
20%
Other Residents/Guests
40%
Passengers Westbound Between Vail Village and Lionshead
Employees Housed at Ever Vail
Other Residents/Guests
Total
Total Impact on # Passengers Westbound Between Vail Village and Lionshead in Pk Hr
Peak Crush Capacity per Transit Vehicle
Required Additional In -Town Transit Trips per Peak Hour
Proportion of 3 -Hour Peak Period Ridership in Peak Hour
Additional Round Trips Required per Day
Average Round -Trip Running Time 20 Minutes or
Additional Daily Hours of Service
Existing Short-Turn Buses Extended to Ever Vail
Round -Trips per Day
Additional Running Time 10 Minutes or
Additional Daily Hours of Service
Total Additional Daily Hours of Service
Days per Ski Season
Annual Additional Hours of Service
Marginal Cost per Vehicle -Hour of Service
Daily Cost in In -Town Operating Costs
Annual Increase in In -Town Operating Costs
3 Passengers
27 Passengers
30 Passengers
334 Passengers
50 Passengers
7 Trips
35%
20 Trips
0.33 Hours
6.6 Hours
9
0.17 Hours
1.50 Hours
8.1
111 Days
899 Hours
$ 50.00
$ 405.00
$ 44,950.00
:7
v
.OLOZIZNN
n
O LOZ/B/b
rte:_
O LOZJ6Z/C
0 LOZ/ZZ/£
c
O LOZ/B NS
0
C
0 LOZ/8/fi
N
A
O
7
OLOZ/L/£
N
o
C
O LOZ/ZZ/Z
m
OLOZ/BL2 W
L
}
d
{L
C
OLOZ/L/Z
L
(p
OLOZAM
Q
m
L
OLOML/L
_p
O LOZ/L L/L
01OM
600Z/8Z/Z1
600ZILZIZL
_...
600Z V VZ L
0 0 o
07 f0 < N
O GO C6
N
df4amP!a