HomeMy WebLinkAbout03ChaptersVail Village Deliveries 1-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 1: Vail Village Deliveries
The following is a summary of the Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study, completed
October 1999 by MK Centennial. The complete draft document is available through the
Town of Vail, Public Works Department. Other additions have been included in the summary
to reflect the evolving issues in the Town since the 1999 document.
Introduction
The Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study was researched and prepared between
November 1, 1997 and November 1, 1999 for the purpose of analyzing and understanding all
the factors surrounding people and goods movement in and out of the Vail Village
Commercial Core One (to be referred to as “Commercial Core” for the remainder of this
chapter)1. The study and this summary provide options and supporting background to help
minimize or eliminate motorized vehicles (primarily delivery trucks) from the Commercial
Core for the purpose of enhancing visitor enjoyment and safety. There are several
fundamental questions that the Town of Vail must answer before determining with which of
these options to proceed. These questions include:
· What is our idea of a pedestrian village and how much are we willing to spend to get
there?
1 According to the zoning district, the Commercial Core One is a mixed-use, residential and commercial core.
The general boundaries of the Vail Village Commercial Core One are Gore Creek to the north, Mill Creek to the
east, U.S. Forest Service to the south, and Checkpoint Charlie to the west.
Vail Village Deliveries 1-2 Town of Vail
A European alpine style pedestrian village where commercial and residential uses
cohabitate to the mutual benefit of the economic and lifestyle expectations of the area’s
visitors, overnight guests, residents, businesses, and property owners. Public and
private investment should be proportional and commensurate with the importance of the
area to fund a significant portion of the Town of Vail government operations and provide
a progressive return on investment to all property and business owners. An ongoing fund
will be made available to sufficiently upgrade, embellish, and maintain the quality of the
pedestrian area.
· Where does the money come from to accomplish the goal of a pedestrian village?
Construction and maintenance funds are based on developer impact fees and public and
private finance sources. Care should be taken to avoid passing on exorbitant cost
through fees or increased operations taxes for businesses served by the facilities. The
Town will be guided by a service and facilities plan for the Vail Village service area. The
plan will specify the types of public services necessary to operate and maintain a
“destination resort community” at a high level for all streetscape, loading and delivery,
parking, mass transit, and traffic management systems in the service area. Some degree
of on-street loading and delivery will be required in the pedestrian areas of the
Commercial Core. Increased limitations will be placed upon the access and usage of on-
street loading bays.
· Who has a voice in what the Town eventually does?
The Town will be responsible for the implementation and ongoing management of the
loading & delivery system and streetscape improvements as it affects the on-street
staging of the loading and delivery function. On properties with the property owner and
their tenants will have the voice to determine the operation and management of a close-
in, decentralized (dispersed) terminal facility. The Town will establish the enforcement of
operational and management requirements for the dispersed terminal systems.
· Whose interest takes priority in the process?
In general, the interest of the resort customer, business owners, property owners, and
delivery companies in the Vail Village service area take priority in the public review,
operation, management, funding, and enforcement process.
· What is the time line to accomplish the goal?
The dispersed terminal system will be phased with the redevelopment of sites and
buildings throughout the service area. The rate of implementation is dependent upon the
rate of redevelopment. As new terminal facilities are constructed and become
operational there will also be a modification of the abandonment or usage of on-street
Vail Village Deliveries 1-3 Town of Vail
delivery bays. Over time the noise and traffic impacts of on-street delivery will be
diminished.
· Where are new loading facilities built and where are the trucks eventually going to
unload?
The dispersed loading and delivery terminal system requires that truck bays be located
inside newly constructed buildings within the Vail Village service area. The loading bays
will be used to serve businesses both on-site and in the service area. The number of
available bays to serve the service area will be incrementally increased as new buildings
are constructed and existing buildings upgraded. Different sized loading bays in each
building will be specified based upon the desired service level for the volume of delivery
traffic. In some cases, where the location of truck bays is impractical (e.g. existing
automobile parking structures), cargo van bays can be substituted in coordination with
the service plan. As dispersed terminal bays become available, on-street deliveries will
be replaced by facilities provided in the dispersed terminals system.
By answering these questions, a foundation has been provided to explore options and make
recommendations for the Vail Village loading and delivery system that is based upon a
combination of on-street delivery and dispersed delivery bays.
Currently, the most efficient way to make deliveries in Vail is to park in front of the business
and make the delivery. The distance of pushing goods and delivery truck dwell time are both
at a minimum.
This method is currently allowed during the early morning hours throughout Vail Village. In
general, this method works well because the trucks generally run silent (engines are turned
off while idle) and drivers keep noise from doors, ramps, and pushcarts to a minimum,
although they can still be heard.
Problems arise due to the sheer volume of delivery activity taking place in Vail Village, which
cannot be totally accommodated between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Further, not all
businesses participate by allowing unattended access to their businesses by drivers. Due to
conflicts with pedestrians, deliveries must be off Bridge Street by 8:30 a.m.
This leaves Gore Creek Drive to take the majority of deliveries until 11:30 a.m. Many shops
open by 10:00 a.m., and lunch begins by 11:00 a.m. The conflict of trucks blocking access
and sight access, along with the disruption of the delivery activity, takes away from the
ambience of the Village during this time.
The problem is further complicated after 11:30 a.m. The loading zones on Hanson Ranch
Road, Gore Creek Drive near Hanson Ranch Chute, and Willow Bridge Road near the
International Bridge are used in the morning hours. However, after 11:30 a.m., these are the
only remaining delivery zones open until 6:00 p.m. This puts delivery activity in the
Vail Village Deliveries 1-4 Town of Vail
residential and lodging neighborhoods. These areas feel burdened with the businesses
impacts for the longest periods. Even if the full extent of the long-term solution of dispersed
loading zones were implemented throughout the Vail Village area, there would still be loading
activity on the streets of Vail Village.
The following discussion details the range of options available to the Town and their potential
benefits. Short-term and long-term options are presented that are believed to be feasible
and cost effective in working toward the goal of a true pedestrian village.
Recommendations
Because the 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. time period is the most service efficient, it would most
likely remain in place for the Commercial Core depending upon the successes of the
dispersed terminal system. Deliveries in all the existing on-street loading zones (bays) within
the Commercial Core would be allowed. Depending on access requirements, on-street
loading bays on Bridge Street may be used to a lesser extent. This system would be
adjusted based on trial and error. The priority after 8:00 a.m. would be to allow deliveries
until 10:00 a.m. on Gore Creek Drive only. After 10:00 a.m. selected on-street loading bays
would be used in areas immediately adjacent to the Commercial Core not served by a
dispersed terminal. Use of selected on-street loading bays would also be dependent upon
the availability of loading bays in dispersed terminals.
Because the dispersed system will be phased, experience will determine how much
restriction can be placed on the current delivery operation. The goals are to balance
efficiency with being as restrictive as possible for the use of on-street bays to minimize
disruptive impacts and to generate demand for the new bays created in dispersed terminals
to ensure their maximum utilization.
The size of vehicles allowed in the existing on-street loading bays may be limited beyond a
certain time frame, such as large trucks until 10:00 a.m. and smaller trucks or cargo vans
after that time. Certain categories of large trucks may be prevented from having routine
access and may only be limited under special circumstances and conditions.
The ultimate goal is to have the loading bays in dispersed terminals utilized to their full
potential. Their design should be that when they are used to their full potential, there is
appropriate mitigation of impacts on adjacent properties and the building in which they are
located.
Dispersed terminals that serve off-site locations will need to address control, liability, and
disruptions to their own delivery operations. Agreements will need to be prepared to ensure
the owner and operator of the dispersed terminal and loading bays in conjunction with the
Town are satisfied with the operation.
Vail Village Deliveries 1-5 Town of Vail
The Town may join in an effort with the property owner to add and acquire ownership of
loading bays in a dispersed terminal. Under mutual agreement, the Town could assume
control and liability of loading bays or the terminal through an access easement and
operational agreement. Flexibility needs to be inherent as to how the dispersed terminal and
on-street system will function exactly, as it will not be known until multiple facilities are in
place and the use of on-street loading bays adjusted.
As the dispersed terminals are brought into service, the usage of on-street loading bays that
once served the area now being served by the dispersed terminal will be proportionally
reduced.
Short Term Recommendations
The following short-term solutions were presented to the Vail Town Council at the November
1998 Council meeting and are modified to adjust for the phasing in of the dispersed terminal
system.
Variable Message Signs
One key component to vehicles in the Commercial Core is lost guests. Lost guests driving
through the Village hampers the operation of Checkpoint Charlie and introduces significant
automobile traffic into the pedestrian village areas. Use of Variable Message Signs (VMS) at
key locations could direct skiers to the parking structures and inform them of appropriate
skier drop-off locations. The VMS could also be used to direct loading and delivery traffic to
available access routes, loading bays, and dispersed terminals.
Currently, VMS signs are used in the vicinity of the roundabout, on the Frontage Roads, and
adjacent to the parking structure to get the attention of out-of-town guests and direct them to
appropriate parking locations. These signs could be operated only during peak periods.
However, many guests do become lost and find their way to Checkpoint Charlie. This is the
main entry for trucks to the Village. If lost traffic to this area were minimized, more
automation and smart cards could be implemented for delivery traffic.
Change in Parking Ticket Structure
Consideration should be given to a ticketing structure that penalizes the repeat offender of
the loading zones in Vail while not affecting Village guests. This is an approach used in Park
City, Utah. First-time offenders pay the maximum hourly rate, and the rate for each
subsequent offense is increased significantly.
First-time offenders would receive a warning ticket, then the first three parking tickets a
person receives would be the standard $26. The fourth and all subsequent tickets during
that season (November to April) could then be $100 or more (Town of Vail Council has the
authority to increase parking fines in the Village).
Vail Village Deliveries 1-6 Town of Vail
Access to the Village Commercial Core
There are several access points into the Village at the present time, only one of which
(Checkpoint Charlie) is able to control the entry of delivery traffic. Most delivery vehicles
enter the Commercial Core through Checkpoint Charlie, and many other vehicles enter from
the other three access points to the Village, frequently against traffic. In reviewing traffic
patterns, traffic flow, and entry access points to the Village, it was discovered there might be
some opportunity to further limit access to the Village for all types of vehicles.
By guiding vehicle entry to enforceable access points throughout the Commercial Core, the
overall traffic volume is dispersed over several access routes. This reduces the traffic, noise,
and visual impact of delivery vehicles on the existing primary route entering at Checkpoint
Charlie. Further, the use of on-street loading bays can be better regulated. Enforcement of
access limitations could include either manning access gates or starting a system of “smart
cards” that allow access only to card holders and only during certain times of the day. The
assignment of access routes to vehicles (vendors) that make routine and scheduled delivery
can be accomplished through the operational agreement of the dispersed terminal or on-
street loading bay that is the point of destination.
System Planning and Design
The following planning and design function should be accomplished.
· An operational and technology plan should be drawn up to implement a traffic
management system based upon an electronic communication system that integrates
real time VMS, GPS tracking, smart card, internet computer camera, and dispatch
technology with operational and enforcement services.
· A long-range plan should be developed that when implemented in phases will
interconnect buildings with terminal facilities via back-of-house access routes
accommodating hand or motorized carts. The plan should be implemented in conjunction
with redevelopment of private property and streetscape improvements.
· Amend loading standard in the zoning code to require enclosed (terminal) loading and
delivery bays for a variety of truck types and sizes as part of large development and
redevelopment projects. The excess capacity of each terminal should be integrated
through developer agreements into the dispersed terminal system.
Hours of Delivery
One issue that is a significant contributor to the problem of truck numbers and dwell time in
the Commercial Core is the time some deliveries are made. While many restaurant owners
in town allow delivery personnel unsupervised access to their place of business or have
someone available in the early morning hours to receive goods, other restaurants/bars/hotels
do not permit this. This causes some vendors to remain in Vail as late as 11:00 a.m. to 1:00
p.m. to service their customers. This equates to a significant increase in dwell time and cost
as well as additional noise and visual unsightliness.
Earlier delivery of goods could remove the majority of larger delivery vehicles from the
Commercial Core before “guest hours.” This process would require cooperation and
Vail Village Deliveries 1-7 Town of Vail
coordination between vendors and restaurants. This approach would be most effective if
instituted in conjunction with improved signage and some changes in access and traffic flow
in the Village. Stricter limitations could be put on Village access if delivery personnel could
complete deliveries to all establishments before 7:00 a.m. Vendors and restaurant owners
could increase the pace of delivery by providing loading and unloading assistance to truck
drivers.
Once elements of the dispersed terminal system are in place, deliveries that cannot be
arranged within the on-street delivery periods can be made from a nearby terminal, thus
reducing the use of on-street loading bays that are currently located in residential and
lodging neighborhoods adjacent to the Commercial Core. The dispersed terminal also allows
for a greater efficiency of dwell time because the conditions under which deliveries are
staged is less affected by weather and on-street congestion.
Before any major capital expenditure is made on long-term solutions, the appropriate short-
term solutions should be implemented for at least one season. The estimated cost of
implementing these suggestions ranges from $250,000 to $1,000,000. These solutions
should reduce total traffic in the Village during visitor hours by 40 to 60 percent.
Other Factors
While delivery trucks do create sight and noise issues as well as an inconvenience in the
Village, the ancillary issues should not be minimized as contributing factors. Some of these,
which might warrant further analysis, include:
· Automobiles in the Village
· Construction (new and remodel)
· Residents
· Business owners
· Enforcement
· Snowplows
· Vans/taxis
· Small Package Delivery
· UPS
· USPS
· Federal Express
· Newspapers
· Meal Delivery
Long Term Recommendations
Over 250 scenarios were examined to determine what combination of warehousing and
delivery options might be the most feasible and productive in terms of both logistics and cost
in removing vehicle traffic from the Village. While many of the scenarios had attractive traits,
Vail Village Deliveries 1-8 Town of Vail
no one scenario was perfect. It is evident, however, that a combination of some of the
features of several of the scenarios could reduce the total vehicle volume in the Village by as
much as 95 percent. These include:
· Addition of several delivery bays as part of a dispersed terminal on the Land Exchange
site (the Vail Front Door project at the base of Vista Bahn/the Lodge at Vail). To
effectively service at least one-third to one-half of the Commercial Core, six to ten bays
for large trucks would be required. This type of expansion would include approximate
costs of $250,000 to $400,000 per bay. See Figure 1-1 below for potential delivery
quadrants for the Commercial Core (the delivery quadrants are provided for purposes of
calculating a total number of loading bays, but the actual dispersed terminal may be
located in another quadrant).
Figure 1-1: Potential Delivery Quadrants for the Commercial Core
· Include enclosed dispersed delivery terminals in large development and redevelopment
projects. The Town should also seek opportunities to require or acquire additional
delivery bays in these facilities.
· Provide strategically located, heated pedestrian walkways in the Village and adjacent
commercial areas, so that push hand carts, pallet jack size pull carts, and small
motorized carts can better function in the winter.
5 large truck bays
4 small cargo van bays
5 large truck bays
4 small cargo van bays
5 large truck bays
4 small cargo van bays
5 large truck bays
4 small cargo van bays
N
Vail
Valley
Drive
Parking structure
Checkpoint
Charlie
Vail Village Deliveries 1-9 Town of Vail
· Where practical, construction or provision for future construction of underground delivery
tunnels with street level freight elevators to facilitate loading and deliveries between
buildings and dispersed delivery terminals should be done in conjunction with large
development and redevelopment projects.
· Construction of a dispersed delivery terminal with one bay for large trucks or four to eight
bays for small cargo vans within an automobile parking structure on the P3&J site on
Hanson Ranch Road.
· Change current zoning code requiring additional on or off-site storage requirements per
retail square foot for businesses in the Village.
· Change current zoning code concerning required delivery space. The current zoning
code requires delivery space to be ten feet by 25 feet, which is not adequate. Bars,
restaurants, and hotels which require delivery of food and beverages should have one to
two or more spaces, twelve feet wide and 35 to 50 feet long. This would accommodate
most delivery vehicles. The code should allow for required loading bays to be located in
a nearby dispersed delivery tunnel.
· Design dispersed delivery terminals in appropriate locations so that cargo from a large
truck can be transferred to a small cargo van. These would access a dispersed cargo
van delivery terminal or bay located closer to the delivery destination.
· Increase the availability of close-in restricted parking spaces within controlled access
private parking structures. These would accommodate the delivery needs of residents,
maintenance and construction personnel, business owners, and parcel carriers using
small cargo vans and pick-ups. This will contribute to the reduced use of on-street
loading bays. Restricted parking spaces could be located in existing and future parking
structures built for automobiles.
The number of terminals and loading and delivery bays is dependent upon several factors:
· Number of bays required by the Town’s loading bay standards to serve a building and its
site.
· Allocation of excess capacity of required loading bays to serve the service area.
· Site limitations and available funding will determine the increase in the number of
additional on-site bays beyond standard requirements.
· Terms and conditions for bay occupancy and standard of operation for terminal facilities
and enforcement.
· Vehicular size and dwell (usage) characteristics will change with twenty-four hour, seven-
day week availability.
Environmental and planning factors must also be considered in the location, routing, and
sizing of dispersed terminal and adjacent facilities, e.g., on-site transshipment and
warehousing. These include the following:
· Truck access routes and the location and operation of on-street loading bays should
equalize impacts by distributing traffic on all available access routes and in all loading
bays, so that no one neighborhood or route is impacted more than another.
Vail Village Deliveries 1-10 Town of Vail
· Noise, lighting, and odor should have no harmful effects upon residential, lodging, and
commercial properties.
· Visual and functional impacts of trucks, cargo vans, warehousing, access portals,
delivery or maintenance activities, and terminal facilities upon residential, lodging and
commercial properties should be minimized or eliminated and its design in keeping with
the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
· The quantity of dispersed delivery terminals, bays, and specialized functions such as
transshipment and warehousing.
Operations
Standard operational and enforcement guidelines for dispersed delivery terminals should be
drafted. The purpose of the guidelines is to establish standards for operational easements
and management agreements of facilities for which the Town is a participant or is
responsible for enforcement.
Operational options could be as simple as a “first come, first served” system or as elaborate
as a reservation and monitor system.
Current technology allows for reservations and check-in by cell phone, personal digital
assistant (PDA), and/or smart cards. The majority of transportation logistic software
programs should be adaptable to the same type of use in Vail.
A joint operational agreement could integrate dispersed terminal facilities within private
developments with the same requirements as on-street loading bays. They would require a
permit to park, state a maximum time limit, and have restricted hours. Enforcement could be
carried out by the Vail Police Code Enforcement officers. To ensure the use of the loading
bays, further restrictions should also be placed on the existing on-street spaces to limit the
on-street supply and generate demand for bays in dispersed terminals.
More elaborate reservation systems could be implemented on a long-term basis as the need
arises. Initially, however, a simpler operation would be the most efficient, as the operations
need to be adjusted for both on-street and as dispersed delivery terminal and other support
facilities are added. Some examples of more elaborate reservations systems include a
centralized dispatch system or a close-in, small-vehicle or cargo van centralized or dispersed
system.
A centralized dispatch system consists of changing or scheduling deliveries via a centralized
dispatch. Dispatching the trucks into the Village could ensure that only a certain number of
trucks would be delivering to the Village at one time. This could limit the conflicts of large
trucks with guests, residents, and businesses. A centralized dispatch system would be
helpful but not necessary for a dispersed terminal system. Dispatch could be handled by
operational personnel at the terminal or the truck driver in direct communication with a
Vail Village Deliveries 1-11 Town of Vail
business owner that has his or her own cargo van. Close-in, cargo van dispersed delivery
terminals could reduce the need to regulate how many vehicles have access to on-street
delivery bays.
The close-in, small-vehicle centralized or dispersed system consists of a receiving area at
which delivery trucks would transfer products to smaller vehicles or hand-cart the goods to
their final destination. The idea is to replace larger trucks currently being used in Vail Village
with smaller vehicles, such as small, motorized carts or sedan-sized cargo vans. To
enhance the centralized or dispersed transshipment terminal, on-site warehouse facilities are
appropriate. A centralized or dispersed transshipment terminal should be within close
proximity of the Village; preferably one-quarter of a mile or less, and in no instance greater
than one-half of a mile. A centralized transshipment delivery terminal system would require a
fleet of approximately ten to fifteen small delivery vehicles. Operators of the vehicles could
either be the delivery truck driver or a third party employee. A dispersed transshipment
delivery terminal system could be serviced by a similar sized fleet or business owners could
acquire and operate their own small delivery vehicle. The small delivery vehicles can be
housed and stage their deliveries from cargo van loading bays located in close-in parking
structures sized to accommodate automobiles.
All of the recommendations outlined above could have major incremental impacts on vehicle
traffic in the Commercial Core.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 2: In-Town Shuttle Bus
System
Note: This chapter is based on information presented in the Town of Vail Evaluation of Mass
Transit Alternatives for In-Town Shuttle Bus Route (MK Centennial, September 7, 2000), in
combination with public input from focus group meetings and conversations with Town of Vail
staff.
Introduction
The Town of Vail is a relatively young community that came into being when Vail Associates,
Inc. opened Vail Mountain for alpine skiing in 1962. Since then, the local population and
visitors have increased creating traffic problems during peak hours, the most serious being
the evening peak as skiers leave the mountain. The efficient circulation of skiers and visitors
is a priority of the Town. Currently, the Town operates two major parking garages holding
2,500 cars. A free In-Town Shuttle bus serves these garages as well as the ski portals.
As the number of visitors has increased, so has demand on Vail’s transit system, including
the In-Town Shuttle. Presently, the Vail transit system is having difficulty in several areas:
· The system at times has trouble meeting peak ridership demand.
· Space is an issue as the amount of buses exceeds available bus space at stations for the
safe loading and unloading of passengers.
· Labor costs are an issue as adding buses to the system increases the need for more
drivers, and the recruitment of drivers.
· Recruitment is an issue as Vail, like other mountain and resort areas, cannot find enough
drivers to operate buses.
In response to space limitations, driver shortages, and higher costs, the Town of Vail is
evaluating replacing the In-Town Shuttle buses with an alternative transit system. Such a
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-2 Town of Vail
system would have to be capable of carrying 5,000 people per hour (the current peak
demand is approximately 4,000 people per hour) and effectively serve a route approximately
1.5 miles in length. The route would have to be similar to the current bus system route while
effectively maximizing both ridership and system operations with stops at Lionshead,
Marriott, Golden Peak, the Vail Transportation Center, and Vail Village, as well as other
popular destinations. The evaluation should determine the best options, from a range of
opportunities, for providing mass transit for the Town of Vail In-Town Shuttle bus route.
Town Bus System Overview
To better understand the existing In-Town Shuttle system and the need for improvements,
the following overview of the system is provided including route, ridership, schedule, and cost
information.
The Town of Vail operates eight free bus routes throughout the town during ski season (six
operate during the remainder of the year). Seven of the eight routes serve outlying areas of
Vail, while one, the In-Town Shuttle, serves Vail Village and Lionshead Village. The In-Town
Shuttle provides service over a very small area, yet carried 1.6 million passengers in 1999,
which accounted for more than three-quarters of the entire system ridership. During better
snow years, In-Town Shuttle ridership has actually been as high as two million.
The In-Town Shuttle operates year round along a 1.5-mile route, one way (a portion of which
is restricted to bus traffic only), that runs between Golden Peak and West Lionshead Circle.
The route serves the high-density commercial lodging and retail core of Vail. On the busiest
day in 1999 (New Years Eve), the shuttle carried 18,000 passengers. The shuttle’s primary
market consists of visitors, and destination and day skiers. These visitors travel between the
slopes, lodging, and dining and shopping attractions within Vail and Lionshead Villages
during the winter months. In addition, day visitors, residents, and employees use the shuttle
as an internal circulator after having parked in either Vail or Lionshead parking structures.
The In-Town Shuttle operates between 6:30 a.m. and 1:50 a.m. Frequency of service on the
route varies depending on the time of day, with 8 to 12 minute headways between 6:30 a.m.
and 7:45 a.m., 5 to 7 minute headways between 7:45 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., and 8 to 12
minute headways between 10:45 p.m. and 1:50 a.m. In the winter, four buses are regularly
scheduled for off-peak service, with two additional vehicles added during peak periods (on
the busiest day, New Years Eve, a total of twelve vehicles are used to provide service).
During summer months, three vehicles provide service all day. Each bus completes two
loops per hour during peak periods and three loops during off-peak periods. Passenger
loading during the peak hours slows down vehicles so they can only make two loops instead
of three each hour. The actual amount of service provided during the peak and off-peak is
the same, as six vehicles make twelve runs (six vehicles – two loops) during each peak hour,
and four vehicles make twelve runs (four vehicles – three loops) during each off-peak hour.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-3 Town of Vail
The current hourly cost to provide service is between $45 and $46. The town has ten, low-
floor 40’ buses (with three doors), which it primarily utilizes to provide the In-Town Shuttle
service. Eight of the ten vehicles are due to be replaced in 2008, while two are new.
Objectives
To provide a basis for analysis and recommendations, project objectives were established.
These objectives help to determine the needs of the In-Town Shuttle system and the best
alternatives to meet these needs. The objectives of the project are based upon the overall
goal of the project. The goal of this project is to determine the best options from the full
range of possibilities for providing mass transit for the Town of Vail In-Town Shuttle bus
route.
The following objectives have been developed from the public meeting held April 19, 2000,
other related studies, and previous conversations with Town of Vail staff. These are not
listed in any order of priority.
Project Objectives:
· Affordability and Economic Viability
· Community-Based System
· Environmentally Sound
· Flexibility
· Visitor Use Enhancement
· Safety
Under each objective, criteria were created to further define the project objectives. Each
criterion is followed by questions that should be asked to determine whether or not the
alternative could be a potential option for the In-Town Shuttle system. See Appendix B1 for
a full description of the project objectives and criteria.
Options for the Vail In-Town Shuttle System
Options for the Vail In-Town Shuttle system were assessed to determine their compatibility
with the project objectives and criteria. Options for such a system are divided into four
categories: potential technology options, potential propulsion options, potential station
locations, and potential alignment options. For this report, the potential technology options
were evaluated.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-4 Town of Vail
The screening process for these options consists of two levels – a reality check screening
and a fatal flaw screening. The reality check eliminated options that are clearly unrealistic,
inappropriate, or unreasonable by applying common knowledge. The fatal flaw screening
eliminates options that do not meet one or more of the project objectives.
After the reality check and fatal flaw screening process, there remained several technology
options to be considered for further evaluation (see Appendix B2 for a full description of the
options considered and the Technology Screening Process). Based on the screening
process detailed in Appendix B2, the remaining technology options are as follows: Power
Unit/Trailer Combination Units, Low-floor Buses, Articulated Transit Buses, Low-floor
Articulated Buses, Guided Busway, and Automated Guideway Transit (AGT). The AGT
option consists of systems by several Group Rapid Transit manufacturers: SK, Cableliner
DCC, and Aeromovel.
Analysis of Remaining Technologies
Two focus groups were held on September 21, 2000 to obtain public acceptance criteria and
public input regarding the best options for providing mass transit for the In-Town Shuttle bus
route. Discussions were based upon the remaining technology options presented in the
Town of Vail Evaluation of Mass Transit Alternatives for In-Town Shuttle Bus Route (MK
Centennial, September 7, 2000). Those present at the focus groups included Town of Vail
residents and business people. The purpose of the focus groups was to discuss issues
regarding the In-Town Shuttle system such as operations, maintenance, schedules, routes,
bus stops, bus and other alternative technologies, overall effectiveness, and methods to
improve the current system. Rail technology was also discussed as an alternative to the
current bus technology used for mass transit.
Several factors were discussed during the focus group meetings regarding the In-Town
Shuttle. The Comparative Screening Matrix, Figure 2-1, shows the issues raised concerning
the remaining technologies and whether or not the issues are positive or negative for the
Town of Vail in regard to that technology. These issues are also summarized below.
Flexibility/Alignment changes
Bus technology can easily adapt to changes in alignment. Rail/fixed guideway technology
requires additional right-of-way and track. The general consensus of the focus groups was
to maintain flexibility. Providing flexibility was also an objective of this study.
Flexible Station Locations
Bus technology can easily add stations/stops along the current alignment or a new
alignment. Rail/fixed guideway technology is restricted to stations/stops built along the
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-5 Town of Vail
alignment. The general consensus of the focus groups was to allow for flexibility in future
stop locations (i.e. Ford Park).
Noise
Bus technology would be noisier than rail as more buses would be used rather than trains.
Rail/fixed guideway technology is generally quieter than buses.
Accessibility
Both technologies are ADA accessible. Bus technology typically requires time-consuming
lifts for wheelchairs. Rail/fixed guideway technology is typically level with the station. Both
types of technologies can provide good accessibility for sporting equipment such as skis and
bikes.
Smell/Air Quality
Unless overhead power is constructed or battery power is used, bus technology will continue
to emit odors/emissions from the use of diesel. New buses using natural gas or hybrid
technologies could be used in the future to reduce this. Rail/fixed guideway technology does
not emit excessive odors as it is typically run by electric power (overhead or in-track supply).
Use of Existing Stations
Bus technology can use existing stations/stops throughout the Town in most cases.
Rail/fixed guideway technology would require new stop construction.
Employees
Bus technology requires a driver for each bus, but articulated buses and power trailer units
require less labor as one driver is needed for a much higher capacity. Rail/fixed guideway
technology can be automated, and therefore does not require high labor costs for operation.
Desirability
A strong majority of the participants in the focus group expressed a desire to modify the
current bus system. Although the existing bus system was recognized as needing
improvements, it received a passing grade from all participants. When they viewed the rail
technology, comments ranged from rail being “too urban” to “not Vail.”
Congestion at Stations
The use of articulated buses might be problematic if bus congestion becomes worse at each
stop. Currently, the Transportation Center is able to accommodate the space requirements
for articulated buses, but at some stations more than one articulated bus would not be
possible. However, since articulated buses carry higher volumes, fewer buses may be
required. Improving the loading and unloading of the buses (i.e. more or wider doors) would
reduce the time needed at a stop and reduce overall space needs. Rail/fixed guideway
technology should reduce problems for station congestion as schedules are reliable and
more than two trains or vehicles would not be in the station at the same time.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-6 Town of Vail
User Friendly
Bus technology requires a driver who typically acts as an ambassador and answers
questions or provides assistance in case of an emergency. Rail/fixed guideway technology
does not require a driver, and therefore does not provide the same feeling of personal
service.
Reliability
Bus technology can be delayed by such factors as weather conditions, traffic, and rider
conflicts. Rail/fixed guideway technology can run under any conditions and provides on-time,
reliable service.
Aesthetics
Bus technology does not detract from the aesthetic appearance of the Town of Vail because
the bus system is already a part of the fabric of the Town; rail/fixed guideway technology is
viewed as too urban and inconsistent with the character of the Town.
Size of Vehicle
Bus technology requires the use of a large vehicle, but one that most people are accustomed
to seeing and/or using (with the exception of an articulated bus). Rail/fixed guideway
technology consists of cars that would not be larger than the size of a bus, but more than one
car would not fit in with the character of Vail Village.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-7 Town of Vail
Figure 2-1: Comparative Screening Matrix
Fl
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
-
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
s
Fl
e
x
i
b
l
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
No
i
s
e
1
Ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sm
e
l
l
/
A
i
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
1
Us
e
o
f
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
De
s
i
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
a
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
Us
e
r
F
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
Re
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
Si
z
e
o
f
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Bus
Technology
Power Trailer
Unit + + - + - +/- + + + + - + -
Low-floor Bus
+ + - + - + - + - + - + +
Articulated Bus
+ + - + - + +/- + +/- + - + -
Low-floor
Articulated Bus
+ + - + - + +/- + + + - + -
Guided Busway - - + + + + + + + + + +
AGT/Rail
Technology
SK
- - + + + - + - + - + - +/-
DCC
- - + + + - + - + - + - +/-
Aeromovel - - + + + - + - + - + - +/-
1 Assumes standard diesel bus technology. New technologies (diesel and hybrid) are expected to produce less noise and emissions.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-8 Town of Vail
Station Locations
The focus groups also discussed optimal transit stop locations for the system. The locations
were rated using a full star for stops viewed as most critical or half star for stops viewed as
less critical. The following lists present: 1) those stops that received full stars from both
focus groups; 2) those stops that received at least one full star from either focus group; and
3) those stops that received at least one half star from either focus group. The transit stop
locations and ratings are as follows:
Full star (both groups):
· Golden Peak
· Covered bridge (Transportation Center)
· Medical Center
· Crossroads
Full star (one group):
· Ford Park
· Sonnenalp (could combine with Crossroads)
· Library/Dobson Ice Arena
· Lionshead parking structure
· Lionshead East
· Lionshead West
· Cascade
· Hub site
Half Star (either group):
· All major hotels
· Village Inn (Chateau)
The results of this discussion show that the current system already provides stops at all
locations identified as full stars by both groups. Two locations identified as a full star by one
group (Ford Park and Cascade) are currently served by other routes but not the In-Town
Shuttle route. For the half star group, not all major hotels are served by the existing route,
but further discussion revealed that this was not considered feasible or realistic. The
discussion of a stop at Ford Park revolved around only providing regular service if this
became a permanent parking site and providing temporary service for special events.
This shows that the current routing generally provides good service to the stations/stops
considered most important. The one addition would be to extend the current system west to
Cascade Village on a permanent basis. Ford Park would be considered on a temporary
basis unless permanent parking was provided.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-9 Town of Vail
In addition to stop locations, there was also a desire to provide express service between
Lionshead and Golden Peak. It was felt that during peak times the travel between these two
stops was very high with less demand for intermediate stations/stops.
Recommendations
Six recommendations are presented that best meet the overall objectives and criteria for the
In-Town Shuttle system, as well as issues discussed at the focus meetings. These
recommendations have been divided into short-term and long-term categories. Short-term
options are the most cost effective and practical for solving existing capacity and service
related problems. Long-term options address capacity issues associated with future growth
in the Town of Vail. It should be noted that these recommendations are based on the best
available information, technology, and/or feedback from local agencies and residents. One
or several recommendations may be used individually or in combination with others. The
Town of Vail should consider each recommendation relative to the current traffic volumes
and other traffic issues as well as looking ahead to potential traffic scenarios in the future.
Short-Term Recommendations
The following four recommendations have been identified to address existing capacity
problems, as well as other issues or problems.
Develop an Express Bus Route from Vail Village to Lionshead
Based on the comparative analysis of the five feasible bus technology options (power trailer
unit; low-floor bus; articulated bus; low-floor, articulated bus; and guided busway) and three
AGT/rail technology options (SK, DCC, Aeromovel) versus the project goal and project
objectives, it is clear that the Town of Vail should consider focusing on some type of bus
technology to improve the In-Town Shuttle system. Bus technology is more flexible than rail
technology, in terms of both alignment changes and station locations; can use existing
stations/stops in most cases; is viewed as more user-friendly by residents; does not detract
from the aesthetic appearance of the Town of Vail as would the more urban looking rail/fixed
guideway; and generates less annualized costs (including capital and operating costs) than
rail/fixed guideway technology.
The only areas that bus technology does not score as high as rail/guideway technology are
noise, as rail/fixed guideway technology runs quieter than buses, and reliability, as rail/fixed
guideway systems are not as susceptible to delays caused by traffic congestion, weather
conditions, and rider conflicts. In addition, while smell/air quality could be an issue with the use
of bus technology, new buses using natural gas or hybrid technologies could be used to reduce
this problem.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-10 Town of Vail
While the existing In-Town Shuttle generally functions well during off-peak hours in the winter
and during the summer season, problems occur during winter peaks when there is more intense
demand for service generated by skiers departing for and from the slopes. To address the
increased demand, Vail Transit typically has six buses operate during peak periods (with
additional buses pressed into service on even busier days such as New Years Eve). However,
since the shuttle system operates on short headways (7 minutes or less) during these hours, and
such a large number of passengers are trying to board/deboard buses, the frequency between
buses is often less than dwell times at major boarding points. This results in buses becoming
bunched along the route, and not being uniformly spaced. The operating efficiency of the
service in turn suffers as passenger loads on lead buses are greater than trailing buses, and
system speed is governed by the slower bus. As the system speed slows, more passengers
accumulate at stops between buses, dwell time again increases, and system speed is further
reduced.
Given the above conditions, Vail Transit should consider an In-Town Express Bus route between
Vail Village and Lionshead. This route would run along the Frontage Road to provide for a
quicker, more direct route between the two areas. The express route could also make use of a
low-floor, articulated bus. In keeping with the character and space available in the Village Core
area, the In-Town Shuttle is better suited for the use of 40-foot buses. However, an express
route on the Frontage Road could utilize a low-floor, articulated bus to increase the capacity.
The express route would alleviate congestion problems along the In-Town Shuttle route by
diverting some of the traffic (buses and people) to the Frontage Road. One or more of the buses
along the In-Town Shuttle route could be eliminated or used for another route while a low-floor,
articulated bus could be used on the express route.
The express route would initially be used for service during peak winter periods, but service
frequency could be increased in the future if necessary.
Purchase Low-Emissions Vehicles
To address the problem related to smell/air quality, Vail Transit should consider selecting
buses that run on compressed natural gas (CNG) and produce lower emissions. The Town
of Vail would need for the vehicle manufacturer to guarantee that the CNG vehicle fuel tanks
would be built to handle the higher internal pressure generated on the tanks at the high
altitude of the Town. This would be done when determining the vehicle specifications.
Modifications would need to be made to the System’s maintenance facility if compressed
natural gas vehicles are purchased instead of diesel vehicles. The typical cost to modify a
maintenance facility to handle CNG vehicles is $600,000. Also, the Town would need to
construct a CNG fueling station for the vehicles, which costs approximately $1.7 million.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-11 Town of Vail
Improve Information Technology and Information Displays
Electronic message boards which provide real time information should be placed at the
Transportation Center, as well as other key stops along the route. Real time information
along the route is extremely valuable to transit riders. Such information requires the
deployment of an automatic vehicle location system (AVL) to track buses (Vail Transit
already has such a system through NEXTbus). The AVL data can be converted into bus
arrival times, which can be transmitted to bus stops. Passengers benefit because if there is
sufficient time, they may decide to leave the bus stop and return closer to the arrival time of
their bus. Even if they decide to wait, knowing when the bus will arrive reduces the anxiety
associated with waiting.
The electronic message boards in combination with other current information technology in
place for the Vail transit system will provide for a modern, easy-to-use bus system.
Extend In-Town Shuttle Route to Cascade Village
While discussion at the two focus groups held on September 21st, 2001 indicated that the
existing In-Town Shuttle route should be extended to serve Cascade Village, Vail Transit
should conduct a survey on its West Vail Green and Red routes to determine the number of
riders who currently board or deboard at the Cascade Village stop and where they are
coming from and going to, to better determine the level of demand for a service extension. If
demand warrants, the In-Town Shuttle route should be extended west to serve Cascade
Village.
Extending the In-Town Shuttle route to Cascade Village will add approximately one-half of a
mile to each run. This additional mileage would allow vehicles to complete their loops in 50
minutes as opposed to the current 40 minutes, and would not add any substantial cost to the
service.
Long-Term Recommendations
Develop Guided Busway
If the Town of Vail continues to grow as expected, and capacity on the shuttle needs to be
increased to 5,000 pph, as indicated earlier, Vail Transit should consider the development of
a guided busway to run between Lionshead and Main Vail/Cascade Village. The use of a
guided busway would allow vehicles to run on shorter headways and therefore carry
additional passengers during peak hours.
Guided busways combine the flexibility of bus transit with the permanence of rail transit at a
lower cost than rail/fixed guideway technology. The technology consists of buses fitted with
two small wheels projecting horizontally out of the bus, which run along two vertical rails or
curbs. The main advantage of guided busways is the reduced lane width requirement, which
decreases the total amount of right-of-way required. Bus steering is automated through the
guide wheel mechanism, which provides a fixed-wheel position.
In-Town Shuttle Bus System 2-12 Town of Vail
The total capital cost of constructing the three-mile guideway (including retrofitting the bus
fleet and adding additional vehicles) would be between $15 and $20 million. The Town of
Vail would, however, need to determine if there is currently enough space to construct the
busway in the right-of-way along the existing roadway network, or if additional property would
be required. Acquiring right-of-way would drive up the cost of the project substantially.
Install Transit-Activated Signal at High Volume Intersections along Frontage Road
At intersections such as East Lionshead Circle and Frontage Road, buses have difficulty
making left-hand turns from the minor street (East Lionshead) onto the major street
(Frontage). The Town of Vail could look to install a transit-activated signal system that
involves detecting the presence of a bus and, depending on the system logic and the traffic
situation, then give the transit vehicle special treatment. The system could give a green
signal during peak periods for buses waiting to enter onto the Frontage Road. In addition,
real time control technologies can detect not only the presence of a bus, but the bus
adherence to schedule and the volume of other traffic.
Outlying Bus System 3-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 3: Outlying Bus System
The purpose of this update is to document a West Vail bus route structure review with
recommendations to streamline the current service given the proposed roadway underpass
of I-70 in the Simba Run area. The West Vail bus route currently runs along the North and
South Frontage Roads, crossing Interstate 70 (I-70) at the West Vail Interchange and the
Main Vail Interchange. The addition of the underpass in the Simba Run area has the
potential of improving the safety for users of the West Vail route.
In addition to the West Vail bus route, an update on the downvalley bus service will be
provided, as this was not in place at the time of the preparation of the 1990 Vail
Transportation Master Plan.
For the West Vail bus route, seven recommendations are presented that focus on improving
the operation of the West Vail service. For the downvalley bus system, three
recommendations are presented. These recommendations have been grouped into short-
term and long-term categories. Short-term options are the most cost effective and practical
for solving existing capacity and service problems. Long-term options address capacity
issues associated with future growth in West and East Vail.
West Vail Bus Route Overview
The West Vail bus route consists of two loops. The West Vail Red Loop runs from the
Transportation Center to North Frontage Road using the Main Vail Interchange, runs west
along North Frontage Road, crosses I-70 at the West Vail Interchange, and heads back east
along South Frontage Road to the Transportation Center. The West Vail Green Loop runs
from the Transportation Center west along South Frontage Road, crosses I-70 at the West
Vail Interchange, heads back east along North Frontage Road, crosses I-70 again at the
Outlying Bus System 3-2 Town of Vail
Main Vail Interchange, and goes back to the Transportation Center. Each route takes
approximately 40 minutes to complete.
Bus schedules for the Red and Green Loops are as follows: spring – every one to two hours
(usually every hour); summer – every 40 minutes; winter – every half hour. Buses on these
routes leave the Transportation Center on opposite schedules. In other words, during the
winter a West Vail Red Loop bus leaves the Transportation Center on every half hour
beginning at 6:00 a.m., and a West Vail Green Loop bus leaves the Transportation Center on
every half hour beginning at 5:45 a.m. This provides for a West Vail bus to leave the
Transportation Center every fifteen minutes. During the peak hours of holidays and peak
seasons, extra buses, or “piggybacks,” are sent out to accommodate increased volumes as
necessary.
Because the Red route and the Green route leave the Transportation Center at different
times, some transit users cross I-70 at-grade to access bus stops along the opposite
frontage road. This allows them to access the timeliest bus on either route. Although this
practice saves time for the transit user, it creates a serious safety issue by mixing
pedestrians and high-speed traffic on I-70.
Total ridership for September 1999 through September 2000 was 472,612. Average
ridership for the peak month of February is 82 passengers per hour. The total annual hourly
average for the year is 37 passengers. The 40-foot vehicles can accommodate
approximately 38 passengers seated with 20 people standing.
Overall costs for the current system are $38 per hour. Labor costs for the system are as
follows:
· Overall average cost of drivers = $20 per hour
· Costs for seasonal drivers (two-thirds of total drivers) = $14 to $15.50 per hour, plus a
seasonal bonus
· Costs for full-time drivers (one-third of total drivers) = Approximately $30,000 per year
($14.50 per hour) plus 28 percent benefits
As mentioned earlier, a crossing of I-70 in the Simba Run area is proposed. This crossing
could potentially affect current headways on the existing route if this crossing was used to
develop a shorter route for either the Green Loop or the Red Loop. However, using this
crossing to develop a shorter route would detrimentally affect service at some of the existing
stops. Other routing options using the Simba Run underpass create similar results.
According to transit system staff this crossing would have little or no ridership effect on the
existing system. However, an underpass would provide a route for transit users to cross I-70
to safely access the more frequent eastbound or westbound route.
Another consideration for the West Vail bus route is the incorporation of articulated buses.
Articulated buses are two buses linked together, one in front of the other, with one operator.
These buses would create room for 66 passengers seated and approximately 50 standing
Outlying Bus System 3-3 Town of Vail
rather than the current capacity of 38 passengers seated and 20 standing. These buses also
provide for a more efficient use of labor and operations, as less bus drivers are needed.
Additionally, the configuration of the Transportation Center in Vail would fit this type of bus.
In addition, several units of employee housing to accommodate approximately 620 people
were recently built near the City Market in West Vail (north of North Frontage Road).
Additional units are planned near the Post Office (Timber Ridge) and the Mountain Bell area
(Middle Creek development) to accommodate approximately 350 and 300 people,
respectively. This will create a much higher demand for increased transit service in West
Vail as the greatest amount of growth for the Town of Vail is occurring in West Vail.
Increased service and alternative routing will be necessary to accommodate this growth.
Options Considered but Eliminated
The Town of Vail has considered several ideas for the streamlining of the West Vail bus
route. One idea is to combine the East Vail route with the West Vail route. The new route
would travel from the Transportation Center through the East Vail route, back to the
Transportation Center and through the West Vail route. This route would still provide the
same amount of buses for each individual route. However, this route has not been found to
provide any real benefit to the current bus system.
The Lionsridge Loop route could also be combined with the West Vail route, creating an
extra loop on the West Vail Red Loop. However, this option is not considered feasible
because the winter access on this loop is marginal. The road is steep and curvy and winter
conditions would make this extra loop difficult, creating inconsistent headways for the main
route.
Another option is to eliminate those stops seen as inefficient on the route, but attempts to
eliminate stops in the past have created public contention from those using the stops.
Because of this, other options should be explored first.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were based on a review of the West Vail Route structure.
The West Vail route structure review focused on an examination of existing service using the
North and South Frontage roads, and the new crossing of I-70 in the Simba Run area.
The following recommendations are being made to streamline the current route:
Outlying Bus System 3-4 Town of Vail
Short-Term Recommendations
Streamline Current West Vail Schedules
Vail Transit should change the current schedules, so that buses operating on the West Vail
Green and West Vail Red routes depart at the same time. This would provide more
balanced east-west service along the North and South Frontage roads and alleviate safety
issues generated by transit users having to cross I-70 at-grade to access bus stops along the
opposite frontage road. In the winter, this would mean that buses on each route make their
first departure from the Transportation Center at 5:45 a.m. Streamlining these schedules
would also make the system easier to understand and utilize, which could generate
additional ridership.
Improve Route Identification
While each of Vail Transit’s routes have names and are color-coded, a number, letter, or
number and letter designation should also be used to help lead passengers through a trip.
The number, letter, or number and letter designation, along with the route name should be
displayed on each bus and any printed maps. Studies have found that color should not be
the only route identifier, and that passengers understand transit systems better when routes
are identified by a combination of letters, numbers, names, and colors. In addition, vehicles
should have some indication of the direction they are going (e.g. West Vail Green Red –
North Frontage) so that the new riders can better understand the system.
Any changes to the route identification system should be done in conjunction with the
recommendations to improve information technology and displays (detailed in Chapter 2: In-
Town Shuttle Bus System), as maps and schedules would all have to be changed.
Eliminate Red Sandstone School Stop on West Vail Green and Lionsridge Loop
Routes
To make the routes in the West Vail area run more efficiently, two of the routes, West Vail
Green and Lionsridge Loop, should eliminate stops at Red Sandstone School. This route
would continue to be served by the West Vail Red and Sandstone routes. The elimination of
this stop would reduce the running time of the West Vail Green route and allow vehicles
serving the Lionsridge Loop to reach their primary service area faster.
Install Trailblazer Signs
Trailblazer signs that direct riders to the nearest stop or stops should be installed on major
streets and other key strategic stops throughout West and East Vail. These signs would
satisfy the need for approach information, and thus should be compatible with route guidance
information with regard to location labels, directions, and route designations.
Metal trailblazer signs with the appropriate route guidance information can cost anywhere
between $500 and $1,000. A significant consideration is locating these signs in a cost-
effective way to ensure access to information without additional clutter.
Outlying Bus System 3-5 Town of Vail
Long-Term Recommendations
Purchase Additional Low-floor, Articulated Buses
If West Vail continues to grow over the next few years as expected, Vail Transit should
consider purchasing two additional low-floor, articulated buses to handle the expected
increase in demand. These vehicles should be used on the West Vail Green and Red
routes. Low-floor, articulated buses have a 33 percent greater capacity than regular low-floor
vehicles, which could better handle the high volume of passengers that occur during the
peak periods in the winter ski season (December through March). These buses should have
three doors (with each door 32 inches in width) to allow easier access/egress for
passengers, which can help reduce dwell time. The use of higher capacity, low-floor
articulated buses might also save Vail Transit operating expenses, as the number of vehicles
it currently utilizes during peak periods could be reduced.
In purchasing low-floor vehicles, the Town of Vail should look to vehicles with the
specifications shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Low-Floor Vehicle Specifications
Vehicle Characteristic Specification
Length 60 feet
Width 8 feet
Height 9 feet
Weight 41,000 lbs
Seating (max. capacity) 133 with skis, 160 without skis (seating
configuration to be determined with manufacturer)
Turning radius 42.5 feet
Doors 3 doors each with a width of at least 32”
Motive Power · Compressed Natural Gas
· ABS Braking Control
· Automatic Traction Control
· Deep Mud and Snow Traction Control
· Pusher type design where the rear axle
provides the tractive effort
Articulated Joint Maximum bending angle of the bus is 49 degrees
The cost of these types of buses ranges between $400,000 and $500,000. The cost of
purchasing two low-floor, articulated buses for Vail’s outlying bus route would be $800,000 to
$1,000,000.
Outlying Bus System 3-6 Town of Vail
In addition, to address the problem related to smell/air quality, Vail Transit should consider
selecting low-floor articulated buses, which run on compressed natural gas (CNG) and
produce lower emissions. The Town of Vail would need for the vehicle manufacturer to
guarantee that the CNG vehicle fuel tanks would be built to handle the higher internal
pressure generated on the tanks at the high altitude of the Town. This would be done when
determining the vehicle specifications.
Modifications would need to be made to the System’s maintenance facility if compressed
natural gas vehicles are purchased instead of diesel vehicles. The typical cost to modify a
maintenance facility to handle CNG vehicles is $600,000. Also, the Town would need to
construct a CNG fueling station for the vehicles, which costs approximately $1.7 million.
Potential disadvantages of purchasing articulated buses exist. The 60-foot buses could
affect residents of local neighborhoods, as they generate a considerable amount of noise,
and the overall size would not fit in with the character of the Town. Also, the modifications to
some bus stops and bus storage bays mentioned earlier would be necessary to
accommodate the longer buses. Bus stop locations along the route would have to be
lengthened due to the increased size of the vehicle. The cost to modify a garage to handle
articulated buses can range between $700,000 to $1,000,000 per bus bay.
If the Town decided not to use articulated buses for service, it would most likely be
necessary to purchase additional 40-foot buses at some point to handle future capacities.
Incorporate Bus Stops at Simba Run Underpass
While the use of the Simba Run underpass to restructure the West Vail Red and/or West Vail
Green routes will not provide any service enhancement or increase in ridership, additional
bus stops should be located at each end of the proposed Simba Run underpass along North
and South Frontage Roads to improve passenger access to the system and increase safety.
These additional stops would serve the West Vail Red and West Vail Green routes, as well
as the Lionsridge Loop in the winter.
Incorporate Stops at Lionshead Intermodal Facility
Following completion of the Lionshead Intermodal Facility, Vail Transit should add this
location as a stop on the West Vail Green, West Vail Red, and In-Town Shuttle routes. The
facility will include significant parking and should become a key transfer point for transit
service, which will increase system ridership.
Outlying Bus System 3-7 Town of Vail
Downvalley Bus System
The downvalley bus system (the ECO system) has gone through substantial expansion since
1990. Although a limited service was available in 1990, the service was not capable of
accommodating the increasing demand for transit service by employees that travel upvalley
to work in Vail. This update describes the current downvalley bus system that was not in
place at the time of the 1990 Transportation Master Plan; provides information concerning
routes, schedules, and ridership; and provides recommendations for improvement of the
system. Currently, seven routes run from Vail to areas downvalley. Some of these routes
vary slightly from the morning hours to the evening hours and may also differ from season to
season.
ECO Routes
Vail to Edwards
The Vail to Edwards route runs between the Vail Transportation Center and the Lake Creek
Apartments in Edwards. The route runs every 22 to 23 minutes from 5:00 a.m. until 1:47
a.m. However, from 9:17 a.m. to 3:17 p.m. the route runs every 45 minutes. The route takes
approximately 50 minutes one way.
Yearly ridership for this route (based on January 2001 through December 2001, both
directions) is 570,000 passengers. The peak month is January with 73,400 passengers.
Vail to Beaver Creek
This route runs between Lionshead in Vail and the Beaver Creek Upper Village Plaza. The
route runs approximately every 15 minutes from 7:55 a.m. until 11:25 a.m. and 2:55 p.m. to
6:55 p.m. The route runs approximately every 30 minutes from 11:25 a.m. until 2:55 p.m.
and 6:55 p.m. to 10:25 p.m. The route takes approximately 35 minutes one way.
Yearly ridership for this route (based on January 2001 through December 2001, both
directions) is 125,600 passengers. The peak month is March with 29,500 passengers.
Vail to Dotsero (including towns in between)
The Vail to Dotsero route begins in Vail, with the Transportation Center being the eastern-
most connection, and ends in Dotsero in the afternoons and runs from Dotsero to Vail in the
mornings. Routes from Vail to Dotsero run at 4:50 p.m. and 5:20 p.m., and a one-way trip
takes approximately 70 minutes. Routes from Dotsero to Vail run at 5:55 a.m. and 6:25 a.m.,
and a one-way trip takes approximately 65 minutes.
Annual ridership for this route (based on January 2001 through December 2001, both
directions) is 45,900 passengers. The peak month is December with 6,700 passengers.
Outlying Bus System 3-8 Town of Vail
Vail and Avon to Leadville/Red Cliff/Minturn
This route runs between the Vail Transportation Center and 5th and Letter in Leadville. The
route runs at 4:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. and is scheduled to take 94 minutes one way. The
route runs in the opposite direction at 5:40 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Annual ridership for this route (based on January 2001 through December 2001, both
directions) is 32,600 passengers. The peak month is March with 4,900 passengers.
Vail to Minturn/Minturn to Vail
This loop runs from the Vail Transportation Center to Two Elk Estates in Minturn and back.
The route runs every 90 minutes from 6:48 a.m. to 9:48 p.m. A full loop takes approximately
45 minutes.
Annual ridership for this route from January 2001 through December 2001 is 13,700
passengers. The peak month is March with 2,900 passengers.
Express Routes
Two express routes were added to the ECO Transit system in January of 2002. These
include the Vail Express and the Avon Express. The Vail Express runs from Dotsero to Vail
in the morning and from Vail to Dotsero in the afternoon. The Avon Express runs from
Gypsum (Eagle Valley High School) to Avon in the morning and from Avon to Gypsum in the
afternoon.
Because these routes were added recently, annual ridership numbers are not yet available.
Park-n-Ride Locations
In addition to the routes described above, park-n-ride lots are also available for users of the
ECO transit system to park their vehicles and continue to their final destination by transit.
Park-n-ride lots are available at the following locations:
· Eagle (5th and Chambers)
· Gypsum (lot under construction at Eagle Valley High School)
· Wolcott (an unofficial lot at the I-70 exit)
A park-n-ride lot is also proposed in Edwards at the Berry Creek subdivision that will likely be
a partnership between ECO transit, Colorado Mountain College, and another public entity.
Two additional locations that should be considered for future locations include Avon, near I-
70 and Nottingham Road; and Minturn, at Dowd Junction.
Outlying Bus System 3-9 Town of Vail
Other Considerations
The addition of the InterMountain Connection (IMC) to the Eagle Valley transportation
system, as described in Chapter 6: Connecting Fixed Guideway Systems, would include a
local rail system that would run from Vail to the Eagle County Airport. If the IMC were to be
implemented, this might change or eliminate the need for some downvalley routes. The
proposed rail system would reduce emissions from diesel-engine buses and other vehicles
while accommodating higher volumes of commuters within the Valley. Any future changes
planned for the downvalley bus system should consider the potential influence that the IMC
system could have on the bus system.
A consideration that may or may not affect future operations of the ECO regional transit
service is the upcoming move of the bus barn facilities to Gypsum. As these facilities are
farther away from many of the routes, the system could anticipate an increase in costs due to
higher mileage and repairs on the vehicles and more driver hours.
Another consideration of the downvalley bus system is that some of the routes take too long
in relation to the distance traveled and the amount of time it would take to drive the same
route in a private vehicle. This decreases the incentive for people to use the transit service.
One of these routes includes the Vail to Edwards route (50 minutes, one way). The time it
takes for a vehicle to drive directly from Vail to Edwards is approximately ten to fifteen
minutes, a savings of about 35 to 40 minutes over transit.
The capacity of the transit decks at the Transportation Center is also a consideration for the
transit system. Currently, there are six lanes; five lanes accommodate Vail services and one
lane accommodates all ECO routes. Most routes arrive and leave at the same times as
many services leave on the hour, half-hour, etc. This is an area where changes could be
considered to maximize efficiency at the Transportation Center.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were based on a review of the downvalley bus service. This
review primarily examined the running time of existing Eagle Valley Transportation routes
and the impact of the Intermountain Connection (IMC) on the Eagle Valley Transportation
System.
Short-Term Recommendations
Establish a Variable Lane System and GPS at Transportation Center
The transit plaza should be changed to a variable lane system rather than the current
assigned lanes for each route. This would include a variable message system to direct
buses into certain decks when they arrive. This would allow for staggered bus arrivals, and
Outlying Bus System 3-10 Town of Vail
therefore add more capacity. The variable message system could be incorporated with a
Global Positioning System (GPS), a system that allows a central control system to track the
location of all buses at all times. This type of system would allow for greater capacities of
buses from downvalley routes rather than the current single lane that is assigned for ECO
routes.
Add Express Service on Vail to Edwards Route
To reduce the travel time for commuters and other passengers traveling from downvalley
locations to Vail and generate additional ridership, express service should be provided on the
Vail to Edwards route in addition to the other express routes recently implemented. This can
be done by making some of the existing runs into express runs with limited stops, or by
adding express runs, which may require additional vehicles.
Providing express service would reduce the travel time on the Vail to Edwards (which is
currently 50 minutes) to something that is similar to the driving time associated with a private
vehicle – 10 to 15 minutes for Vail to Edwards. However, one disadvantage of this route is
that park-and-ride locations may need to be added (such as those mentioned above) or
existing locations expanded to handle potential increases in demand. More people in
outlying areas may be inclined to drive to a park-and-ride facility to board the express
service.
Long-term Recommendations
Plan for the Impact of the IMC on the Eagle Valley Transportation System
If the IMC rail line is constructed between Vail and the Eagle County Airport, two of the
existing Eagle Valley Transportation routes – the Vail to Edwards and Vail to Dotsero routes
(including all towns in between) – would essentially be providing redundant service. To
eliminate this service redundancy and make the system function better, these routes should
be converted into a feeder service, which would serve new rail stations in Edwards and
Dotsero. Feeder routes would be designed to serve residential and business areas in each
town, with runs scheduled to meet arriving and departing trains.
Trail System Interface 4-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 4: Trail System Interface
The original Town of Vail Transportation Master Plan includes discussion about the then
current (1990) Town of Vail trail system with recommendations for new trails to be
constructed. These new trails would enhance the existing system by creating better mobility
for bicyclists and pedestrians.
This update documents trails that have been constructed since the original Master Plan was
undertaken in 1990. Figure 4-1 on pages 4-3 and 4-4 illustrate the trails constructed since
1990. Also included in this update are pedestrian opportunities that have been considered
since 1990.
Appendix C1 includes for reference portions of the Eagle County Trails Master Plan that are
relevant to the Town of Vail.
Recreation Trails Constructed Since 1990
(See Vail Transportation Master Plan, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, 1990, for trails constructed
before 1990.)
Bighorn Road Bike Path
The Bighorn Road Bike Path is approximately one and three-quarter miles long. Bighorn
Road was widened to add a six-foot wide path on both sides of the road. A parking lot was
also constructed at the western end of the path to provide parking for bikers riding up Vail
Pass. The western end of the path begins at the south side of the East Vail Exit (I-70 Mile
Trail System Interface 4-2 Town of Vail
Post 181). The eastern end of the path connects to the Vail Pass Recreation Path at Main
Gore Drive. The trail has an asphalt surface and was constructed in 1990.
West Vail Bike Path South
The West Vail Bike Path South is approximately one-half mile in length. The path begins at
the West Vail Interchange and extends east parallel to the South Frontage Road. The trail
connects to a previously constructed bike path at Matterhorn Drive. The surface is asphalt,
and the trail was constructed in 1996.
West Vail Bike Path North
The West Vail Bike Path North is approximately one-half mile in length. The path begins at
the West Vail Interchange and extends east parallel to the North Frontage Road. It connects
to the previously constructed North Frontage Road Bike Path. The path has a concrete
surface and was constructed in 1997.
Dowd Junction Bike Path
The Dowd Junction Bike Path is approximately one mile long. The western trailhead is at the
interchange of Highway 6 and I-70. The eastern trailhead is located at Vail Intermountain at
the west end of South Frontage Road West. The trail runs parallel to and south of I-70 until it
crosses under I-70 at Dowd Junction. The trail has an asphalt surface and was constructed
in 1997.
Vail North Trail
The Vail North Trail is approximately seven miles in length. This is a single-track hiking and
mountain biking trail that winds through the hills and runs along the north side of the Vail
Valley. Work is continuing to extend the trail further east towards Spraddle Creek. The
western trailhead is at the western end of Arosa Drive in West Vail. The eastern trailhead is
on Buffehr Creek Drive approximately one-half mile north of the North Frontage Road. The
trail has a dirt surface and was constructed in 1998-1999.
Pedestrian I-70 Undercrossings Constructed Since 1990
Since 1990, no new pedestrian I-70 undercrossings have been constructed. However,
conceptual designs are being completed for a crossing at Simba Run, to be completed in
conjunction with a two-lane underpass.
Trail System Interface 4-3 Town of Vail
Recommendations
The original Master Plan identified eight trail links to complement the trail system then in
place. Only one of these (Study Link 2) has since been constructed. Those that have not
been constructed have now been identified by the Town as priority implementation items.
See Appendix C2 for copies of the mapping of these trails as presented in the original Master
Plan document.
The Town has also identified additional trail links that it considers to be of high priority.
These include:
Lionshead Bypass – from the skier bridge in Lionshead, bypassing Lionshead, and
connecting to existing trail system behind Tree Tops Condominiums
Vail Village Bypass – from Vail Road near Checkpoint Charlie, to Vista Bahn
Sunburst Road Bypass – from the golf course clubhouse to the west end of Katsos Ranch
Path
Trail System Interface 4-4 Town of Vail
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
-1
Trail System Interface 4-5 Town of Vail
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
-1
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
Level of Service Analysis 5-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 5: Level of Service Analysis
Introduction
To update the intersection Level of Service (LOS) information provided in the 1990
Transportation Master Plan, traffic volume counts for the same intersections were conducted
in 2000. These were completed in March and July for p.m. peak hour volumes. The p.m.
peak hour typically represents the most congested period of the day in Vail. Eight
intersections in Vail have been reconstructed as roundabouts (now four roundabouts total)
since the 1990 counts. These roundabouts were included in the 2000 traffic counts but were
counted for entering volumes only. Both entering and exiting volumes are required for
roundabout LOS analysis. For the roundabouts, the counted 2000 entering volumes and
previously counted exiting volumes factored for traffic growth were used in the analysis.
In addition to the intersections included in the original Plan, traffic counts were also
conducted in 2002 for the Vail Village Parking structure and the Lionshead Parking structure.
A LOS analysis for the two parking structures is included in this chapter as well.
Intersection Level of Service
Table 5-1 shows the LOS criteria for two-way, stop-controlled intersections, the most
prevalent intersection type in Vail. The LOS is based on the average delay per vehicle. The
same LOS criteria are also applicable to the roundabout analysis.
Level of Service Analysis 5-2 Town of Vail
Table 5-1: Level of Service Criteria for a Two-Way, Stop-Controlled Intersection
Level of Service Delay Range (sec/veh)
A £10
B ³10 and £15
C ³15 and £25
D ³25 and £35
E ³35 and £50
F >50
The LOS calculations for each intersection and roundabout are summarized in Table 5-2.
Guidelines for intersection LOS in the Town of Vail call for a minimum LOS C. All
intersections and roundabouts counted in March and July fall within the range of LOS C, with
the exceptions of the Frontage Road intersections with Vail Valley Drive West (LOS D),
Matterhorn Circle (LOS E), and Westhaven Drive (LOS F). Because there are stop signs on
the minor streets, the delay period is elevated for traffic entering the Frontage Road from the
minor streets when high volumes exist on the Frontage Road.
Based on traffic forecasts provided by the traffic model (see Chapter 9. Traffic Model) other
intersections may have poor LOS in the future. These include the Frontage Road
intersections with Gore Creek Drive and West Lionshead Circle (LOS E.).
Level of Service Analysis 5-3 Town of Vail
Table 5-2: Town of Vail Existing LOS Analysis
PM Peak Hour
March 2000 July 2000
Intersection LOS Stop-Controlled
Approach Delay
(seconds)
LOS Delay
(seconds)
Bighorn Rd. and Main Gore Drive North A 9.8
Bighorn Rd. and Streamside Circle West B 10.3
Bighorn Rd. and Lupine Drive B 11.6
Bighorn Rd. and Bridge Rd. B 11.2
E. Vail I-70 EB Ramps and Bighorn Rd. B 11.0 B 10.5
E. Vail I-70 WB Ramps and Bighorn Rd. B 12.9 B 12.8
Frontage and Booth Falls Rd. A 9.5
Frontage and Bald Mountain Rd. A 9.6
Frontage and Vail Valley Drive East B 11.4
Frontage and Vail Valley Drive West D 32.3
Frontage and Village Center Rd. C 20.5
Main Vail South Roundabout C 20.8 B 9.5
Main Vail North Roundabout B 6.7 A 2.4
Frontage and Red Sandstone Rd. B 13.1
Frontage and Lionsridge Loop B 12.9
Frontage and Buffehr Creek Rd. C 15.9
West Vail North Roundabout B 9.2 A 4.0
West Vail South Roundabout A 4.4 A 3.6
Frontage and Gore Creek Drive C 22.6
Frontage and Matterhorn Circle E 44.5
Frontage and Westhaven Drive F 88.9
Frontage and West Lionshead Circle (w.) D 30.9
Frontage and West Lionshead Circle (e.) C 23.7
Level of Service Analysis 5-4 Town of Vail
Possible Solutions
Possible solutions exist to minimize intersection delay, especially for the intersections with
LOS D or poorer (below the standard LOS C) or intersections with projected LOS of D or
poorer.
· Traffic Signals
One solution is to install traffic signals at the intersections. Traffic signals would create an
allotted time period for side street traffic to pass through the intersection uninhibited by
Frontage Road traffic. This solution is not likely to be implemented, however, because the
Town of Vail avoids the use of traffic signals to preserve the character of the Town.
· Traffic Directors
Another possible solution is the use of traffic directors. Traffic directors could be used during
peak periods of traffic such as when the Vail ski area closes for the day on busy weekends or
when special summertime activities are taking place in Vail.
· Roundabouts
Roundabouts are also used to minimize delay. However, the intersections functioning at
LOS D or poorer might be not capable of supporting a roundabout because of the space
requirements necessary. This possibility could be analyzed further with additional planning
and engineering studies.
· All-way Stops
In some cases, three- or four-way stops (depending on the number of approaches at the
intersection) may also minimize delay when balanced traffic volumes flow from all directions
or when traffic volumes warrant the all-way stop. However, for the intersections studied for
this report, all-way stops are not warranted based on Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices criteria. Despite this, Highway Capacity Software (HCS) calculations indicate that
installing all-way stops at the intersections with LOS D or poorer would improve the LOS on
all three intersections. For this reason, the Town of Vail might want to give further
consideration to these intersections.
The worksheets prepared for the analysis discussed in this chapter are included in Appendix
D1 and D2. Appendix D1 includes HCS worksheets for the unsignalized intersections and
Appendix D2 includes Rodel worksheets for the roundabout analyses.
Level of Service Analysis 5-5 Town of Vail
Parking Structure Level of Service
Traffic counts and LOS analysis were also conducted for the two major parking structures in
Vail in the winter of 2002. These include the Vail Village Parking structure and the
Lionshead Parking structure. Table 5-3 shows the parking structure LOS calculations for the
a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are included in this analysis
because the a.m. peak hour for the Vail Village Parking structure has a lower LOS than the
p.m. peak hour. These intersections fall within the minimum LOS C. Appendix D3 includes
worksheets for the parking structure LOS analysis.
Table 5-3: Town of Vail Existing Parking Structure LOS Analysis
Winter 2002
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection LOS Parking Garage
Approach Delay
(seconds)
LOS Parking Garage
Approach Delay
(seconds)
Vail Village Parking and Frontage Road C 17.0 B 10.3
Lionshead Parking and Frontage Road A 7.8 A 7.1
Connecting Fixed Guideways 6-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 6: Connecting Fixed
Guideways
Introduction
As transportation systems in Colorado are being pushed beyond their capacities, solutions to
decrease congestion are being proposed by public, private, and special interest groups and
individuals. One solution to the problem of overcrowded roadways is the concept of rail
transit, or fixed guideways. Fixed guideways have the potential to reduce traffic volumes on
roadways, utilize railroad tracks that are long since out of service, and reduce emissions of
air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and ozone from automobiles.
Two separate rail systems have been proposed to intersect in the Town of Vail. Both of
these fixed guideway systems were originally proposed in the I-70 Mountain Corridor Major
Investment Study (MIS), CH2MHILL, December 1998, as a means to connect Denver
International Airport (DIA) with Glenwood Springs. One of these is the InterMountain
Connection (IMC), a local commuter rail and trail system designed to link communities of the
Vail and Eagle Valleys. Another rail system is an elevated guideway that would run from DIA
to the Eagle County Regional Airport along I-70. The proposed rail system from DIA to the
Eagle County Airport is under the authority of the Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway
Authority (CIFGA). CIFGA was created in 1998 by the Colorado Legislature as the authority
responsible for resolving issues surrounding a high-speed transit service to communities
along the I-70 Corridor, such as technical, financial, and public/government jurisdictional
issues.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe both rail transit systems in regards to their
relationship with the Town of Vail. Land and geographic limitations within the Town of Vail
create a need for cooperation between these two entities – particularly for the building of rail
transit stations.
Connecting Fixed Guideways 6-2 Town of Vail
I-70 Mountain Corridor Major Investment Study
The I-70 Mountain Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) references both rail systems
described above, with a brief reference to the IMC rail system and the most attention given to
the DIA to Eagle Valley Airport segments. The document proposes a rail station for Vail to
be located in the median of I-70, near the existing Vail parking decks, just east of Exit 176.
This is also adjacent to the Vail Transportation Center. This center is serviced by all Vail bus
routes, one Avon/Beaver Creek transit bus route, and all Eagle County Regional
Transportation Authority bus routes, suggesting somewhat of a “transportation hub” for the
Town of Vail.
As a result of the MIS, CIFGA was formed. Although the MIS document provides
recommendations for a rail station location, CIFGA has adopted a policy of allowing the
towns, local citizens, and local agencies to decide upon rail station locations and designs.
Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority
After CIFGA acquired responsibility for the DIA to Eagle County Airport fixed guideway
system, the agency created more detailed information regarding these systems. As
mentioned previously, local citizens and agencies would ultimately decide upon the station
locations and logistics for the Town of Vail. All plans for these stations would also integrate
current and future transportation plans of the Town of Vail.
The system includes high-speed monorail technology, which incorporates a linear induction
motor. This type of system could move a volume of travelers equivalent to as many as eight
to ten additional lanes of traffic on I-70. Design speeds for this system are 125 mph for
straight sections of rail line, with an average of 70 mph with stops. Annual ridership of this
fixed guideway system is projected to be 125 million people.
The Vail area would be particularly difficult for determining station locations due to its
limitations of land availability. A rail station would require feeder road access as well as
significant parking requirements, making the task of finding available land even more difficult.
Cost considerations are also a factor as costs of real estate in the area are considerably
higher than many other towns along the route.
CIFGA station requirements for a basic station design in a small town would be three to five
acres at a minimum. This figure includes parking, bus systems, and any facilities determined
as standard for a rail station. For a town the size of Vail (a medium-sized town), station
requirements would be ten to twelve acres for a basic station design – once again all-
inclusive. Should the Town of Vail decide that other amenities or facilities are desirable for a
Connecting Fixed Guideways 6-3 Town of Vail
rail station, such as larger stations, special facilities, etc., the Town of Vail would fund these
extras.
CIFGA funding goals are as follows: one-third public funding (state/local grants); one-third
private funding (equity/capital/franchising); and one-third Federal loans. As mentioned
previously, the town where the station is located provides any extra spending beyond basic
station requirements.
Because of the limitations of available land in the Town of Vail, CIFGA has also considered
other options for a rail station to service the Town. A station could be located in a
neighboring town where land availability is less of a concern. In this case, a shuttle service
would be provided to service the Town of Vail.
Another possibility would be to “cap,” or build a tunnel, through the Town of Vail (see
Chapter 8: I-70 Capping). A station could be located within this cap if the CIFGA alignment
were to be located within the cap as well. This option would actually create more land
available for use within the Town.
The goals and objectives of CIFGA are to look beyond transportation when planning rail
systems. CIFGA sees the opportunity to integrate retail businesses, employee housing, car
rental services, and other amenities when planning station locations. Although the Town of
Vail may be too space-limited to consider extras such as these, they are still considerations
for the future that CIFGA hopes to integrate as part of the process.
InterMountain Connection
The IMC is a concept that was created to make use of the Union Pacific Railroad corridor for
clean-burning diesel light rail vehicles and a trail system. The proposed project is a public-
private venture sponsored by Eagle County that has partnered with CDOT to create a
practical solution to the transportation problems in the Eagle Valley.
The system would be built along the existing railroad corridor. This system includes the use
of diesel multiple unit (DMU) technology. Design speeds will vary from 45 to 65 mph, with an
overall average speed of 57 mph between Avon and the Eagle County Airport.
Start-up stations for this system would be built at the Eagle County Airport, Eagle, Edwards,
and the confluence in Avon. Expansion Phases would include extensions to Vail and
Leadville. Projections for the Vail Expansion Phase show that the IMC would result in a
decrease of automobiles on I-70 of approximately 19,000 vehicles per day (vpd). MIS
projections for a full connection from Glenwood Springs to Vail indicate an increase in annual
ridership of at least 400,000.
Connecting Fixed Guideways 6-4 Town of Vail
Proposed station locations for this project in the Vail area include West Vail (possibly in the
vicinity of the West Vail interchange), Lionshead (west of Lionshead Circle, in between
Frontage Road and I-70), and an intermodal center at the Vail Village Transportation Center
(in between Frontage Road and I-70, just northeast of the Transportation Center).
While CIFGA and the IMC might appear to be in conflict with each other, as they are
controlled by separate agencies with separate interests, they view each other as compatible
services. Both have the goal of decreasing the overall number of cars on the road. The two
systems would interface at Vail, creating the need for cooperation regarding station locations
and rail lines.
Recommendations
Recommendations for a potential alignment of the fixed guideway system through the Town
of Vail are provided on the map in Appendix E. These are schematic drawings to be used as
a starting point for discussion of the alignment. These could be used as a reference for
CIFGA and IMC projects. Potential alignments are also discussed below.
CIFGA
· Dowd Junction
The CIFGA alignment could enter Vail by way of Dowd Canyon on the existing Union Pacific
(U.P.) Railroad tracks. Just before the crossing of I-70 over Highway 6 (Dowd Junction), the
alignment would curve to the east, paralleling the existing bike path. At the point where the
bike path crosses under I-70, the alignment could follow one of two options. Option 1 would
be a tunnel cut through the slope of the mountain north of I-70. This option would parallel I-
70 until the entrance to West Vail, at which point the median opens up and the alignment
would cross over to the median. This option would be most beneficial if I-70 was not capped.
Option 2 would bring the alignment into the median under the proposed capping of I-70
through Dowd Canyon, in between the eastbound and westbound lanes.
Two other options exist for the alignment in the Dowd Canyon area. Option 3 through this
area involves the diversion of the alignment before Dowd Canyon. As I-70 curves to the east
and back before Dowd Canyon, the alignment could continue south (instead of curving back
west and into Dowd Canyon) and tunnel through into Dowd Canyon just west of West Vail.
At this point the alignment could cross into the median and continue into West Vail.
Option 4 for the Dowd Junction area includes following the existing rail line into Minturn and
then tunneling back north to I-70. This option would be considered because of potential
Connecting Fixed Guideways 6-5 Town of Vail
grade problems at Dowd Junction. Options 1 and 2 might face difficulties in creating a rail
line that could negotiate the steep grade at the intersection of I-70 and Highway 6.
· West Vail
For either option discussed above, the alignment would be in the median as CIFGA enters
West Vail. The CIFGA alignment would remain in the median, whether or not the capping
was to be constructed. A station location could also be constructed in the median for West
Vail access at a location determined to be the most practical. This station would include
pedestrian crossings to access areas north and/or south of I-70 and the Frontage Roads in
West Vail.
· Main Vail
The CIFGA alignment would remain in the median through Main Vail as well, with potential
station locations at the proposed North Day Lot Transportation Center in Lionshead and the
Vail Transportation Center for pick-up and drop-off of riders. These stations could be
constructed in the median of I-70 with pedestrian crossings to access areas north and/or
south of I-70 and the Frontage Roads.
· East Vail
The CIFGA alignment could also remain in the median through East Vail and continue east
outside of the Vail city limits.
IMC
As the IMC is proposed as an interim solution until completion of the CIFGA project, all
alignment recommendations might be temporary. These sections could be removed as
sections of the CIFGA project are completed. However, the IMC could also remain useful as
a local service, providing more frequent stops in Vail for downvalley commuters. Any
decisions regarding the temporary or permanent use of the IMC would be decided by the
Town of Vail upon further studies and public involvement.
· Dowd Junction and West Vail
The IMC alignment would parallel the CIFGA alignment entering Dowd Canyon and traveling
through West Vail (using Option 1 or 2). Shortly after passing by the West Vail Roundabouts
and the potential station location in West Vail, the IMC alignment would leave the median,
crossing over to the area between I-70 eastbound and South Frontage Road. The alignment
would continue to parallel the CIFGA alignment.
· Main Vail
The alignment would continue to use the space between I-70 eastbound and South Frontage
Road, while sharing the potential station locations at Lionshead and the Vail Transportation
Center with the CIFGA for pick-up and drop-off. The IMC is proposed to end at the Vail
Connecting Fixed Guideways 6-6 Town of Vail
Transportation Center, at which point the line would go back downvalley along the same
route.
Noise 7-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 7: Noise
As a measure of the Town of Vail Critical Strategies, a noise study was conducted to identify
noise impacts created by the traffic on Interstate Highway 70 (I-70) in the Town of Vail. The
study included the following tasks:
· Analyzing existing noise levels
· Determining noise impacts
· Determining future noise levels based on projected future traffic volumes
· Performing sensitivity analysis to differences in speed, variations of receiver locations,
increases in truck traffic, and increases in overall traffic volume
· Determining the affect of noise barriers in various locations
The noise impacts were analyzed in accordance with the Colorado Department of
Transportation’s (CDOT) noise policy (CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines,
February 1, 1995, See Appendix F1). Traffic noise level predictions were made for two
conditions: existing 2000 and year 2020. Site conditions, including horizontal and vertical
layout as well as topographical and traffic information, were used as input to the STAMINA
2.0 model. This is the approved noise model used by CDOT. General results of the traffic
noise modeling effort are reported below.
The results of the noise study indicate that receivers will experience traffic noise levels in
excess of CDOT’s noise abatement criteria under both the existing 2000 and year 2020
traffic levels. Currently, approximately 25 percent of all the tax assessor’s parcels in the
Town of Vail exceed a 66-decibel noise level. This percentage represents only residential
parcels that exceed the 66-decibel noise level out of the total number of parcels in the Town
Noise 7-2 Town of Vail
of Vail. Other types of land use including schools, hospitals, parks and hotels are not
included in the 25 percent (these other uses represent a small percent of the total number of
parcels in the Town of Vail). A description of common noise terminology, a summary of
CDOT’s noise policy, a description of the noise modeling process, results of the sensitivity
analysis, and noise mitigation analysis are discussed below.
Noise Terminology
Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, which is often the source of much confusion.
What humans hear are pressure fluctuations in the air that are created when something
vibrates, such as an engine or the cone of a loudspeaker. The range of pressure fluctuations
the human ear can detect is extremely large (20 to 20,000,000 Pascals, the metric unit of
pressure). This range is unwieldy to discuss, so the decibel (dB) scale is used to compress
the numbers to a more manageable form. On this scale the range of human hearing is
approximately 0 dB (threshold of hearing) to 140 dB (threshold of pain). Some typical noise
levels are shown in Table 7-1. Note that these levels are in dB(A), not dB. The “A” denotes
that the noise levels have been adjusted according to the A-weighting network. The A-
weighting network adjusts noise levels to reflect the fact that the human ear is more sensitive
to high frequencies than to low frequencies. A-weighted decibels are most often discussed
in reference to outdoor noise situations and are used exclusively in this analysis.
Noise 7-3 Town of Vail
Table 7-1: Typical Noise Levels
Noise Source Noise Level (dB(A))
Amplified rock band 120
Commercial jet takeoff at 61 meters (200 ft) 110
Community warning siren at 31 meters (100 ft) 100
Busy urban street 90
Construction equipment at 15 meters (50 ft) 80
Freeway traffic at 15 meters (50 ft) 70
Normal conversation at 2 meters (6 ft) 60
Typical office interior 50
Soft radio music 40
Typical residential interior 30
Typical whisper at 2 meters (6 ft) 20
Human breathing 10
Threshold of hearing 0
Outdoor noise levels are almost constantly fluctuating, particularly near a highway. The unit
called the equivalent average sound level (Leq) is used to quantify the fluctuating noise level
into a single number.
The Leq has the same sound energy as the time-varying noise level over a stated time
period (essentially the average noise level). The time period used in highway noise analysis
is one hour. All noise levels discussed in this report are A-weighted, hourly Leqs
representing the loudest hour of traffic. The loudest hour of traffic is usually represented
when traffic volumes on the roadway reach Level of Service C. Levels of Service C traffic
volumes are defined as traffic running at stable operations, however, the ability to maneuver
and change lanes in mid-block locations may be restricted. Longer queues, adverse signal
coordination or both, may contribute to lower travel speeds.
Noise 7-4 Town of Vail
CDOT’s Noise Policy
The CDOT has adopted the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) policy and guidance
for highway traffic noise analysis and abatement (see Appendix F1). This guidance sets a
standard to determine when federal and/or state funds can be used for noise mitigation
related to highway traffic noise. The guidance establishes standards for noise abatement on
both new construction projects (Type I projects) and for noise abatement on an existing
highway (Type II projects). This noise analysis uses the noise abatement guidance for a
Type II project. The standards used by FHWA and CDOT are used as representative criteria
so the Town of Vail has a recognized basis for considering noise impacts.
The FHWA policy on noise mitigation states that noise mitigation must be considered for any
receptor (e.g. a residence) or group of receptors (e.g. a neighborhood) where predicted
traffic noise levels, using traffic volumes and roadway conditions projected 20 years into the
future, approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC). The NAC establish the
criteria to determine noise impacts on receivers. Relevant NAC are shown in Table 7-2. The
CDOT NAC assume traffic noise is considered to “approach” a criterion at a level 1 dB(A)
less than the criterion (e.g. 66 dB(A) for Category B).
Table 7-2: CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria
Activity Category Leq* (dB(A)) Description of Activity Category
B
67 (Exterior)
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C
72 (Exterior)
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in the
category above (this includes retail businesses).
* Hourly A-weighted equivalent level for the noisiest hour of the day in the design year
In 1996, the FHWA released an interim final rule that revised the FHWA regulation that
allows federal participation for Type II projects. The interim final rule states that for Type II
projects, noise abatement measures will only be approved for projects that were approved by
the state Department of Transportation (DOT) before November 28, 1995, or are proposed
along lands where land development or substantial construction predated the existence of
any highway. The FHWA stated that the implementation of Type II projects is a strictly
voluntary decision made by a DOT and there are no special or separate federal funds to
provide highway traffic noise abatement.
Noise 7-5 Town of Vail
Currently in Colorado, the use of state transportation funds for noise abatement is only
considered for highway construction on a new location or the physical alteration of an
existing highway, Type I projects. However, until 1999, CDOT had a Type II project program
in place. Appendix F1 shows the priority listing of projects falling under the previous Type II
program. The Town of Vail had four projects on the list. One of those projects was second
on the list for funding, before the Type II program was cancelled.
During the previous Type II program in Colorado, Type II projects were funded by both
federal dollars as well as state transportation dollars. The amount of federal and state
dollars a project was eligible for was based on the roadway classification. While FHWA
dollars are no longer available for Type II noise abatement projects, the FHWA currently
states that some state highway associations allow a third party to pay the difference between
the actual cost of a traffic noise barrier and the cost that is deemed to be reasonable. The
FHWA recognizes that this is a method that may provide abatement for traffic noise problems
that might otherwise go unmitigated.
Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis along I-70 through the Town of Vail was conducted using the FHWA’s
computerized noise prediction model, STAMINA 2.0 (using Colorado emission data). This
program evaluates the noise energy produced by traffic in a segment of roadway based on
the traffic volume, speed, and types of vehicles using the roadway. Site-specific horizontal
and vertical conditions are also input to STAMINA in addition to traffic volume and speed
data.
Using existing mapping of the I-70 corridor through Vail, an XYZ-coordinate system was
created. The alignment of the roadway (I-70) was translated into the XYZ-coordinate
system. By inputting the alignment as XYZ-coordinates to the STAMINA noise model, the
model recreates the alignment of the roadway.
Noise readings were also taken along the I-70 corridor though Vail. A total of 50 readings
were selected to serve as a representative receiver sample. Each reading location
(representative receiver site) was translated to the XYZ-coordinate system based on the
existing mapping. The representative receiver site coordinates were also input to the
STAMINA model.
The STAMINA model created an electronic schematic of the I-70 corridor through Vail,
including the representative receiver site locations. By inputting the traffic volume, speed,
and types of vehicles using the I-70 corridor, the model predicts the noise levels at each
representative receiver site based on the receiver position from the roadway.
Since the model does not take into account any obstacles between the receiver and the
roadway which may prevent sound energy from reaching the receivers (e.g., buildings,
vegetation, and partial barriers), the representative receiver readings served as validation
Noise 7-6 Town of Vail
measurements to determine the amount of sound energy blocked at each representative
receiver location. The amount of sound energy that is blocked by obstacles is called the
shielding factor. This shielding factor was used to calibrate the noise model.
The model also does not take into account sound energy that may be reflected off
surrounding terrain or structures that may increase the amount of sound energy experienced
at a receiver location. The validation measurements account for this reflection.
Two noise models were created. One model produces the existing year 2000 noise levels
and the other model predicts the future year 2020 noise levels, based on predicted traffic
growth. Both of the models use average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes. Analysis of
the model’s sensitivity to differences in speed, variations of receiver locations, and increases
in truck traffic were also performed.
Noise Receptors Studied
The study area defined for the noise analysis is shown in Figure 7-1. A total of 50
representative receiver sites were selected to serve as a representative sample within the
project area. The receivers are identified as receiver 1 (R1) though receiver 50 (R50).
The receivers were modeled at five feet above ground elevation (representing a standing
adult) and were measured at an area of outdoor activity associated with each location.
Figure 7-1 shows the approximate location of the noise receivers analyzed in the study.
Based on the modeling, a noise contour map was prepared and then the total number of
affected receptors was determined using the Town of Vail Geographic Information System
(GIS). The noise contour map for the existing condition is shown in Appendix F2.
Traffic Characteristics
In order to determine the traffic noise impacts associated with I-70, existing and predicted
noise levels were modeled for both the 2000 existing condition and the year 2020 predicted
condition.
Existing 2000 traffic volumes were determined by assuming a straight-line growth pattern
between 1997 AADT counts (collected by CDOT) and 2020 predicted AADT counts (for 2020
traffic predictions, see Chapter 9: Traffic Model). Using hourly traffic counts collected by
CDOT a peak hour factor of eight percent was determined. The hourly traffic counts collected
by CDOT also provided an average of four percent medium trucks and seven percent heavy
trucks on the roadway. The average speed used in the model was 70 miles per hour (mph),
as validated with a speed study.
Noise 7-7 Town of Vail
The I-70 corridor through Vail is divided into four separate segments. The segment divisions
are determined by different traffic characteristics. Table 7-3 illustrates the traffic volumes,
type of traffic, and average speeds that each of the four segments carries. The categories of
traffic volume, type of traffic, and average speed were used as input to the STAMINA model
in order to predict noise levels along the I-70 corridor through Vail.
Table 7-3: I-70 Segment Characteristics
Segment
Location
in Vail
I-70 Segment
Number
(Milepost)
2000
AADT
(2-Way
Traffic)
2020
AADT
(2-Way
Traffic)
%
Medium
Trucks
%
Heavy
Trucks
%
Passenger
Cars
Average
Speed
(mph)
W. Vail 1 (171.43–173.32) 44178 68700 4.6 4.1 91.3 70
Central Vail 2 (173.32-176.03) 31048 49700 4.2 6.0 89.9 70
Central 3 (176.03-179.87) 24474 38300 4.2 7.6 88.1 70
E. Vail 4 (179.87-181.98) 20209 31600 4.0 9.0 87.0 70
Modeling Results
A total of 50 representative receiver sites were analyzed to determine the level of noise
impacts associated with the different locations along the I-70 corridor. The approximate
location of each receiver is illustrated schematically in Figure 7-1.
Existing noise levels were computed to be in a range from 47.2 dB(A) at a representative
receiver site 1,125 feet from I-70 to 75.4 dB(A) at a representative receiver site 150 feet from
I-70. Future conditions were computed to be in a range from 49.1 dB(A) at a representative
receiver site 1,125 feet to 77.5 dB(A) at a representative receiver site 150 feet from I-70.
Table 7-4 shows the predicted noise level reading and the difference between the existing
noise level and the 2020 predicted noise level.
Noise 7-8 Town of Vail
Re
c
e
i
v
e
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
i
n
ex
c
e
ss
o
f
6
6
d
B
(
A
)
a
r
e
b
o
l
d
e
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
-1:
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Noise 7-9 Town of Vail
Table 7-4: Noise Model Results
Receiver
Receiver Distance
from Roadway
(feet)
Existing 2000
Noise Energy
Levels (dB(A))
2020 Noise Energy
Levels (dB(A))
Difference in
dB(A)
(2020-existing)
R1 150 70.0 72.0 2.0
R2 530 60.1 62.0 1.9
R3 1275 59.1 61.0 1.9
R4 1150 54.5 56.4 1.9
R5 540 57.1 59.0 1.9
R6 275 61.4 63.3 1.9
R7 320 61.0 63.0 2.0
R8 625 63.3 65.4 2.1
R9 1000 61.5 63.6 2.1
R10 2100 58.9 61.0 2.1
R11 925 60.1 62.1 2.0
R12 300 61.3 63.3 2.0
R13 310 57.8 59.8 2.0
R14 670 61.1 63.1 2.0
R15 1475 60.3 62.4 2.1
R16 1430 59.3 61.3 2.0
R17 925 65.4 67.4 2.0
R18 150 75.4 77.5 2.1
R19 1900 56.0 58.0 2.0
R20 1550 52.5 54.5 2.0
R21 300 69.2 71.2 2.0
R22 1930 58.1 60.2 2.1
R23 170 61.9 63.9 2.0
R24 750 58.3 60.3 2.0
R25 1200 54.5 56.6 2.1
R26 1450 52.4 54.4 2.0
R27 650 62.9 64.9 2.0
R28 120 68.8 70.7 1.9
R29 680 55.4 57.3 1.9
R30 1080 54.7 56.6 1.9
Noise 7-10 Town of Vail
Receiver
Receiver Distance
from Roadway
(feet)
Existing 2000
Noise Energy
Levels (dB(A))
2020 Noise Energy
Levels (dB(A))
Difference in
dB(A)
(2020-existing)
R31 1470 53.5 55.4 1.9
R32 1000 66.3 68.2 1.9
R33 750 53.2 55.2 2.0
R34 860 55.9 57.8 1.9
R35 250 57.6 59.5 1.9
R36 550 61.0 62.9 1.9
R37 900 61.5 63.5 2.0
R38 1100 59.7 61.6 1.9
R39 730 53.7 55.6 1.9
R40 770 56.3 58.3 2.0
R41 175 55.2 57.1 1.9
R42 1125 47.2 49.1 1.9
R43 580 56.1 58.0 1.9
R44 180 54.8 56.8 2.0
R45 540 54.6 56.6 2.0
R46 1050 58.3 60.3 2.0
R47 1650 51.0 52.7 1.7
R48 628 55.3 57.3 2.0
R49 600 52.7 54.7 2.0
R50 450 61.3 63.2 1.9
*Shaded rows represent receivers that exceed the 66-dB(A) approach threshold in the year 2020.
Five of the representative receiver sites are found to have noise levels in excess of the noise
impact criteria. These receivers, R1, R18, R21, R28, and R32 are currently above the 66-
dB(A) noise level, noise abatement criteria for activity category B. Figure 7-1 shows these
affected receivers in bold-faced type.
For the year 2020, six of the representative receiver sites were predicted to have noise levels
in excess of the noise impact criteria. These receivers, R1, R17, R18, R21, R28, and R32
are predicted to have noise levels above 66 dB(A) in the year 2020, based on projected
traffic increases.
The largest noise levels will occur for receivers located closest to I-70 or with the best line of
sight of I-70. However, an increase in the distance from I-70 does not always reflect a
decrease in noise level. Each receiver may have a different shielding effect based on
obstacles between the receiver and the roadway, which may prevent sound energy from
Noise 7-11 Town of Vail
reaching a receiver site (e.g., buildings, vegetation, and partial barriers). Table 7-5 defines a
range of noise levels for the distance from I-70 through the Vail area for both the existing and
the predicted 2020 conditions. In all cases the difference between the existing noise levels
and the predicted 2020 noise levels should not be detectable to the human ear (i.e., less than
3 dB(A), studies have shown a 3-dB(A) increase is barely detectable by the human ear).
Table 7-5: Noise Level Ranges Based on Distance from I-70
Distance
From I-70 (ft)
Existing
Noise Level Range (dB(A))
2020
Noise Level Range
(dB(A))
200 53-76 57-78
400 57-70 59-72
600 53-62 55-64
800 53-64 55-66
1000 56-67 58-69
1200 47-60 49-62
1400 59* 61*
1600 52-60 54-62
1800 51* 53*
2000 56-60 58-61
*only one representative receiver located within this distance from I-70
Appendix F2 shows noise contour maps developed to estimate noise levels at any location in
the Vail area. Contour maps of the existing 2000 condition as well as the predicted 2020
condition have been produced. These should be used as a guide only, due to the variability
of noise levels in the Vail area caused by shielding and reflection. The maps help to identify
the actual number of receiver sites in the Vail area that are affected by noise levels. Actual
noise measurements should be taken in order to determine the exact noise levels at any
specific location. Receiver sites may vary from single-unit structures to structures housing
multiple units. The actual number of affected receivers is based on the number of units per
structure.
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed based on differences in speed, variations of receiver
locations, increases in truck traffic, and increases in overall traffic volume. For the categories
Noise 7-12 Town of Vail
of speed, receiver locations, and truck traffic, two sensitivity runs were performed. Overall
traffic volume sensitivity is displayed as a table.
While noise levels are predicted to increase based on the sensitivity analyses, the average
increases represent levels that are not normally perceptible to the human ear. Studies have
shown a 3-dB(A) increase in noise level is barely detectable by the human ear.
Speed
The existing year 2000 noise model was altered to model the existing traffic volumes at 60
mph and 55 mph. The analysis showed that on average, an increase of 0.7 dB(A) occurs
with every five mph increase in speed. Noise level increases would be barely detectable
over a 20 mph range (<3 dB(A)).
Receiver Locations
The existing year 2000 noise model was altered to model differing heights at the
representative receiver sites. This shows how noise energy changes by level within multi-
level structures. All receivers were modeled at ten feet higher than initial elevation and 20
feet higher than the initial elevation. The analysis showed that on average, an increase of
0.04 dB(A) occurred for the first ten-foot increase in elevation and an increase of 0.002 dB(A)
occurred for the second ten-foot increase in elevation.
This analysis assumed that each level of a multi-level structure has the same shielding
factor. In other words, each level of a multi-level structure has the same amount of sound
energy blocked by obstacles (e.g., buildings, vegetation, and partial barriers). This
assumption may not hold true in all cases. As the height increases for the receiver, the
shielding effects realized at a lower level may have no effect on a receiver at a higher level.
In areas of heavier vegetation, noise levels are often lower at ground level due to these
shielding effects.
Truck Traffic Increases
The predicted year 2020 noise model was altered to model different percentages of truck
traffic increase. The model analyzed an overall increase of two percent and an overall
increase of four percent of trucks in the traffic mix. The analysis showed that on average, an
increase of 0.3 dB(A) occurred for a two percent increase in truck traffic and an increase of
0.6 dB(A) occurred for a four percent increase in truck traffic. Noise level increases would be
barely detectable up to 3 dB(A).
Noise 7-13 Town of Vail
Traffic Volume Increases
The predicted year 2020 noise model uses an AADT volume of between 31,600 vehicles and
68,700 vehicles, depending on the segment of I-70. This AADT is an estimated increase
from existing AADT. A sensitivity analysis of the relative noise level increase based on
increased traffic volumes was performed. Table 7-6 demonstrates the relative noise level
increase based on traffic volumes.
Table 7-6: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes
Traffic Volumes
(Average Daily Traffic)
Relative Noise Level
(dB(A))
Noise Level Increase
(per 5000 Vehicles per day)
40000 46.0 N/A
45000 46.5 0.5
50000 46.9 0.4
55000 47.4 0.4
60000 47.7 0.3
65000 48.1 0.3
70000 48.5 0.3
75000 48.8 0.3
80000 49.0 0.2
Future traffic volumes will also have an additive effect on the existing noise contour lines.
The 2020 traffic predictions show the average traffic on I-70 is to increase by 57 percent of
the existing traffic on I-70. This increased traffic produces an average increase of 2 dB(A) to
the existing contour lines for the 2020 condition. Again, noise level increases would be barely
detectable up to 3 dB(A).
Short Duration Point Source Noise
The noise produced from engine “jake” brakes and rumble strips were measured and
analyzed to determine the effect of short duration point source noise on the overall noise
levels produced by the general I-70 traffic. The average increase in noise based on short
duration point source noise generated from “jake” brakes and rumble strips is shown in the
tables below. The tables reflect the average dB(A) increase to be added to each of the
existing contour lines to reflect the presence of short duration point sources. In general,
“jake” brakes add 6 dB(A) at the source and rumble strips add 9 dB(A) at the source. This
incremental increase in noise becomes smaller as the distance from I-70 increases. Table
7-7 shows the effect of jake brake noise and Table 7-8 shows the effect of rumble strip noise.
Noise 7-14 Town of Vail
Table 7-7: Decibel Increases Based on “Jake” Brake Noise
Existing Noise Contour (dB(A)) Relative Decibel Increase (dB(A))
70 2.0
66 1.0
60 0.5
Table 7-8: Decibel Increases Based on Rumble Strip Noise
Existing Noise Contour (dB(A)) Relative Decibel Increase (dB(A))
70 4.0
66 3.0
60 1.0
Noise 7-15 Town of Vail
Noise Abatement
Identifying Noise Mitigation
Currently, representative receiver locations R1, R18, R21, R28, and R32 (representing
approximately 540 receivers) were recognized as having noise levels above 66 dB(A). This
is the level at which noise abatement is considered. In the year 2020, representative receiver
locations R1, R17, R18, R21, R28, and R32 (representing approximately 600 receivers) were
recognized as having noise levels above 66 dB(A).
While these numbers reflect the number of receivers accounted for by the representative
receiver locations, the numbers do not reflect the total number of affected receivers (those
receivers that experience noise levels exceeding the 66-dB(A) approach criteria) located in
the Town of Vail. In order to determine the total number of affected receivers, refer to the
noise contour maps presented in Appendix F1.
Mitigation Strategies
There are many possible ways to reduce the noise levels produced by the traffic on I-70.
Below is a list of possible mitigation strategies.
Long Term Strategies (require construction)
Barriers
Berms
Concrete walls (with and without form liners)
Wood walls
Glass walls
Metal walls
Absorptive walls
Masonry walls
Jersey Barriers
Bury or cap I-70
White noise
Noise Cancellation
Pavement type
Insulation
Short Term Strategies (no construction)
Enforcement
Lower speed limits
No passing for trucks
Noise 7-16 Town of Vail
Reduce volumes
Noise Ordinances
Noise Ordinances by time of day
Engine Brake ordinances
Variable message speed sign (VMS)
Static truck warning sign
In order to better understand the strategies listed above, pictures and descriptions are listed
below.
Long Term Strategies (requires construction)
Barriers
Noise abatement barriers are the most common type of highway noise mitigation. The
CDOT currently considers barriers only for new construction, widening, or major realignment
of highways. CDOT considers noise abatement of less than 5 dB(A) unreasonable due to
the negligible human perception. Barrier effectiveness is usually limited to 10 to 12 dB(A),
although some special techniques can improve barrier performance by 3 to 5 dB(A).
In the Vail area, barriers are expected to be more effective on the south side of I-70 as most
land use is lower than the roadway and the line of sight is easier to block. Noise barriers on
the north side may not be effective for land uses located significantly above the roadway.
Barrier cost varies depending upon type, style, and height. Berms may be constructed for as
little as $0.5 million per mile, while structural barriers may average around $2.0 million per
mile for the Vail area.
There are several different
types of barriers as presented
below:
· Berms. Noise attenuation
berms have the advantage
of being less expensive to
construct and have the
potential for landscaping. A
disadvantage is that they
require more space to
construct. A typical noise
berm in Vail is estimated to
be approximately 60 feet
wide.
Berm in Vail
Noise 7-17 Town of Vail
· Concrete walls.
Concrete noise
abatement walls are
becoming more common
because of their longer
life and ease of
maintenance. Concrete
walls can be simple
walls or can be
constructed with form
liners that allow various
designs (shown below).
Form liners can be used
on concrete walls to create
various types of designs.
Concrete Wall
Form Liners
Noise 7-18 Town of Vail
· Wood walls. Previously a
common type of construction in
Colorado and other states, this
type of noise abatement wall
has fallen out of favor due to the
shorter life span and higher
maintenance cost.
· Glass walls. Most of the research
for glass walls has been done in
Canada and Europe. Glass walls
are currently not approved for use
by CDOT due to concerns of
highway glare, scratching, and
cleaning maintenance.
Glass Noise Wall, France
Glass Noise Wall, France
Plywood Noise Wall
Noise 7-19 Town of Vail
· Metal walls. Several manufacturers produce metal walls. These are typically metal
panels that are supported by posts.
· Absorptive walls. Absorptive noise
abatement walls provide voids within the
wall to “trap” noise. Absorptive walls
have higher capital and maintenance
costs, but can provide additional noise
attenuation particularly when parallel
barriers are constructed.
· Masonry walls. CDOT’s
current focus appears to be
masonry walls. These can
be built on site or pre-
manufactured and installed
as panels. Recent variations
create a masonry feel with a
concrete form liner.
Absorptive Noise Wall (post and panel)
Masonry Form Liner Wall
Liner Wall
Masonry Form Liner Wall
I-25, Colorado Springs, (neighborhood side)
Noise 7-20 Town of Vail
· Jersey Barriers. Also known as a Type 4 guardrail, these 32-inch high concrete
guardrails are common along state highways. In recent noise measurements conducted
along State Highway 82, these barriers were found to reduce noise levels by
approximately 2.5 dB(A) for receivers located at the same elevation as the roadway.
These barriers would appear to provide similar noise abatement for many receivers
located on the south side of I-70 within Vail and some receivers located on the north side
of I-70 within Vail.
Bury or cap I-70
Totally enclosing I-70 would prevent any highway noise from leaving the highway. However,
both ends of the enclosure (tunnel entrances if a cut-and-cover tunnel was constructed) will
produce higher levels of noise. These higher levels of noise would need to be mitigated.
White noise
This type of noise abatement is not used for highway noise. It is typically an indoor
background noise generated to mask other noise.
Noise Cancellation
This is accomplished by creating an opposite and equal sound pressure wave to a known
noise generator. It can be effective on very specific pieces of machinery or also equipment
that is enclosed. This cannot be used for pavement noise and could only be used for engine
and stack noise if each individual vehicle has a noise cancellation device installed. These
devices are very specific and are not currently available for vehicles.
Pavement type
Open graded asphalt is generally considered to reduce tire noise by 2 to 4 dB (A) over dense
graded asphalt. Noise reduction is due to the voids in the pavements caused by open (or
uniform) grading. However, since there is no hard data or research on the subject, the
FHWA’s official position is that they will not allow any adjustments in noise analysis or noise
abatement (or allow states to do so) until additional research is done. It is thought that the
noise abatement benefits are lost as the voids get filled up with dust, sand, and other
material.
Other benefits of open-graded asphalt are that it provides better drainage and therefore
better traction in wet conditions. Europeans have been known to wash and vacuum their
open-graded asphalt for these reasons.
Asphalt is generally considered quieter than concrete pavement although studies by the
State of Washington indicate that after seven years, concrete pavement becomes quieter
due to wear.
Noise 7-21 Town of Vail
Insulation
A form of noise mitigation that is very uncommon for highway traffic noise and is somewhat
common for airport noise abatement is insulation. This technique only works for enclosed
buildings and its effectiveness depends greatly on the insulating materials used. This is
generally considered the most expensive form of mitigation. Since Vail is in a cold climate,
most buildings are typically already well insulated.
Short Term Strategies (no construction)
Enforcement
Recent speed data by the Vail Police Department indicated that average speeds on I-70 are
approximately 70 mph. It is unknown if the presence of the radar trailer caused drivers to
slow down. If better enforcement of speeds along I-70 resulted in a five mph reduction of
average speeds, the expected noise reduction would be 0.7 dB(A). This noise level decrease
is not normally perceptible to the human ear. Studies have shown a 3-dB(A) difference in
noise level is barely detectable by the human ear.
Lower Speed Limits
Traffic speeds directly affect highway noise. This is primarily due to tire noise and is affected
more by cars. In general, a ten mph reduction in average highway speed will reduce noise
by 1.5 dB(A). If the average speed for trucks only was reduced by ten mph, the average
noise would drop by about 0.7 dB(A). This noise level decrease is not normally perceptible to
the human ear. Studies have shown a 3-dB(A) difference in noise level is barely detectable
by the human ear.
No passing for trucks
This mitigation was suggested by a focus group of Vail property owners and residents. If
restrictions on passing reduced overall speeds for trucks, noise could be reduced. This is not
expected to result in any significant noise reduction.
Reduce volumes
This mitigation option was also raised by the focus group. The discussion considered that
restrictions be placed on trucks such that a greater majority would take alternative east –
west routes such as I-80 through Wyoming. A ten percent reduction in truck traffic is
estimated to reduce noise by approximately 1.5 dB(A). This noise level decrease is not
normally perceptible to the human ear. Studies have shown a 3-dB(A) difference in noise
level is barely detectable by the human ear.
Noise 7-22 Town of Vail
Noise Ordinances
Although the Town of Vail already has noise ordinances in place, additional ordinances or
better enforcement could provide additional noise abatement. The current noise ordinance is
90 dB(A) at 25 feet for gross vehicle weight over 10,000 pounds. A truck conforming to the
State Muffler Law traveling at 65 mph produces 86 dB(A) which conforms to the current
noise ordinance. For I-70 truck traffic, noise ordinances could include reduced speeds,
restrictions on engine “jake” brakes, and time restrictions. These would have to be
coordinated and potentially approved by CDOT and FHWA.
Noise Ordinances by time of day
In general, most people are affected more by noise during nighttime hours than daytime
hours. Federal agencies that recognize this typically penalize nighttime noise by 10 dB(A)
when analyzing noise impacts. This could be recognized by incorporating restrictions on
nighttime traffic.
Engine Brake Ordinances
Commonly called “jake” brakes, these compression brakes on trucks generate higher levels
of noise. In general, “jake” brakes add 6 dB(A) at their source. However, since this is a point
source, it dissipates more rapidly than a continuous line of traffic. At most receivers close to
I-70 (at the 70 dB(A) contour), a jake brake adds about 2 dB(A) of noise. This noise
generated from a jake brake has a distinctly different sound than typical traffic noise and is
therefore more noticeable. At receivers farther away, the relative increase is less, 1.0 dB(A),
at the 66-dB(A) contour, and 0.5 dB(A) at the 60-dB(A) contour. If engine brakes were
prohibited in Vail, these point source noises could be eliminated.
Variable Message Speed Sign (VMS)
The VMS would provide a speed measurement for passing traffic, similar to the VMS in
Glenwood Canyon.
Static Truck Warning Sign
A static truck warning sign would provide a warning for truckers that grades continue ahead
and to maintain low speeds to prevent the necessity for using engine brakes, similar to truck
warning signs at Mt. Vernon Canyon.
Modeling Mitigation
A third noise model was developed based on the results of the existing and future conditions
modeled. The third model incorporates future conditions (worst case) with noise mitigation
measures in place. Noise walls were modeled as abatement in various locations along the I-
70 corridor through Vail. The walls were modeled per CDOT maintenance standards. The
walls were positioned 20 feet from the outside lane line along I-70. This distance from the
lane line provides a full twelve-foot shoulder, as well as eight feet for snow storage. The
Noise 7-23 Town of Vail
distance also prevents the wall casting shadows in the travel lanes of I-70. Typical sections
for noise walls on the north and south side of I-70 are shown in Appendix F1.
The optimized height used to model the noise walls was determined by using the predicted
attenuation provided by barrier nomographs. Based on variations in the height of the wall
and the location of receivers through the I-70 corridor, attenuation was maximized. An Excel
spreadsheet and figures representing the varying heights of noise walls and the amount of
attenuation produced based on the barrier nomographs are included in Appendix F1. Table
7-9 describes the noise walls modeled.
Table 7-9: Noise Wall Descriptions
Wall Representative Receiver Sites Protected Approximate Length
(feet)
Barrier Height
(feet)
A R1, R2, R3 4700 12
B N/A* 1200 12
C R4, R5, R6 2500 16
D R7, R8, R9 3650 12
E R10, R11, R12 3650 16
F R13, R14, R15 2450 12
G R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21 6700 16
H N/A* 900 16
I R23, R24 4050 12
J R22, R25, R26, R27, R28 2750 12
K R31,R32,R33 7000 12
L N/A* 950 16
N R35 2300 12
M R36, R37, R38 550 16
O N/A* 1400 16
*Receiver sites were not modeled at these locations. Noise walls were modeled here based on the
actual land use at these locations. See Appendix F1 for more detail.
The top elevation of the walls located on the north side of I-70 was modeled at sixteen feet
above the edge of pavement. The top elevation of the walls located on the south side of I-70
was modeled at twelve feet above the edge of pavement. In some instances the walls
located on the south side of I-70 may actually be taller than twelve feet if the noise wall must
be built on a retaining wall. The bottom elevation of the wall may be below the elevation of
the edge of pavement. The difference in the height of the barriers is due to the difference in
the topography of the I-70 corridor and the maximization of attenuation. The north side of I-
Noise 7-24 Town of Vail
70 is a steep upward slope, while the south side of I-70 is a valley. Barriers were not
modeled on any bridge structure. This caused for some gaps in the walls, which reduces the
effectiveness of the barrier attenuation. Figure 7-2 shows the approximate locations of the
noise walls modeled. While a particular wall may not show protection of a representative
receiver site, actual receivers exist behind the wall. Walls have been modeled in locations
that protect impacted receivers based on the predicted contour lines for the 2020 condition.
Noise contour maps reflecting the affect of the modeled noise walls is included in Appendix
F2.
The year 2020 noise levels, at the modeled representative receiver sites with and without
mitigation, are presented in Table 7-10. The noise levels shown in Table 7-10 do not reflect
the affect of having parallel barriers in place. The STAMINA model does not produce results
reflecting this condition. By having parallel barriers, especially when the heights of the
parallel walls vary, the potential of noise reflecting off of the walls and back to the receivers is
very likely. This parallel barrier effect could potentially increase the noise levels of certain
receivers above levels currently experienced. If a more detailed analysis of the proposed
noise abatement shows potential for reflection, absorptive materials should be used on the
top of the wall face to reduce the parallel barrier effect.
Noise 7-25 Town of Vail
Re
c
e
i
v
e
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
i
n
ex
c
e
s
s
o
f
6
6
d
B
(
A
)
a
r
e
b
o
l
d
e
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
-2:
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
N
o
i
s
e
W
a
l
l
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Noise 7-26 Town of Vail
Table 7-10: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place
Receiver
Receiver Distance
from Roadway
(FT)
2020 Noise
Energy Levels
(dB(A))
2020 Noise
Energy Levels
(dB(A))
Attenuation from
noise barriers
modeled (dB(A))
R1 150 72.0 59.1 12.9
R2 530 62.0 51.9 10.1
R3 1275 61.0 55.4 5.6
R4 1150 56.4 52.4 4.0
R5 540 59.0 52.6 6.4
R6 275 63.3 53.0 10.3
R7 320 63.0 50.5 12.5
R8 625 65.4 56.8 8.6
R9 1000 63.6 59.4 4.2
R10 2100 61.0 55.4 5.6
R11 925 62.1 55.5 6.6
R12 300 63.3 51.9 11.4
R13 310 59.8 48.1 11.7
R14 670 63.1 55.4 7.7
R15 1475 62.4 56.2 6.2
R16 1430 61.3 57.4 3.9
R17 925 67.4 64.2 3.2
R18 150 77.5 61.0 16.5
R19 1900 58.0 50.4 7.6
R20 1550 54.5 50.8 3.7
R21 300 71.2 49.8 21.4
R22 1930 60.2 56.2 4.0
R23 170 63.9 62.0 1.9
R24 750 60.3 55.6 4.7
R25 1200 56.6 51.9 4.7
R26 1450 54.4 48.5 5.9
R27 650 64.9 56.9 8.0
R28 120 70.7 55.3 15.4
R29 680 57.3 56.0 1.3
R30 1080 56.6 55.2 1.4
Noise 7-27 Town of Vail
Receiver
Receiver Distance
from Roadway
(FT)
2020 Noise
Energy Levels
(dB(A))
2020 Noise
Energy Levels
(dB(A))
Attenuation from
noise barriers
modeled (dB(A))
R31 1470 55.4 49.6 5.8
R32 1000 68.2 61.3 6.9
R33 750 55.2 47.6 7.6
R34 860 57.8 56.7 1.1
R35 250 59.5 58.0 1.5
R36 550 62.9 55.4 7.5
R37 900 63.5 58.5 5.0
R38 1100 61.6 56.5 5.1
R39 730 55.6 54.2 1.4
R40 770 58.3 56.8 1.5
R41 175 57.1 55.7 1.4
R42 1125 49.1 47.6 1.5
R43 580 58.0 56.5 1.5
R44 180 56.8 55.3 1.5
R45 540 56.6 55.1 1.5
R46 1050 60.3 58.8 1.5
R47 1650 52.7 51.3 1.4
R48 628 57.3 55.8 1.5
R49 600 54.7 53.2 1.5
R50 450 63.2 61.7 1.5
Cost of Mitigation
Each of the walls modeled affect different numbers of receivers. The CDOT Noise
Abatement Guidelines provide a cost allowance reflecting the effectiveness of the barrier.
The NAC lists a cost ceiling of $3000/decibel reduction/receiver as being a reasonable cost.
The CDOT NAC realizes attenuation only for those receivers experiencing at least a 3-dB(A)
reduction in noise levels. The receivers included in the cost/benefit ratio are usually limited to
the first row of buildings. In built-up residential or commercial areas, the first row of buildings
along a highway may provide some reduction of highway noise to areas beyond that row of
buildings. In turn, additional rows of buildings may provide additional noise reduction to
areas still farther beyond. The row of buildings closest to the roadway present a worst case
scenario for noise levels in the area because shielding effects due to buildings are not
Noise 7-28 Town of Vail
provided for the first row of homes. However, in the area through Vail, the topography of the
area allows for direct lines of sight of I-70 to not only the first row of buildings, but also to
buildings further away that may be located at a higher elevation.
The walls modeled as mitigation can be constructed in various ways. Table 7-11 through
Table 7-13 present the cost associated with different wall materials as well as the cost for the
wall foundation based on the height of the wall.
Table 7-11: Masonry (Concrete Block) Noise Wall Cost
Noise Wall Height (FT) Cost of Wall
($/SF)
Cost of Foundation
($/LF)
Total Cost
($/LF)
12 24-35 190 478
16 24-35 190 574
Table 7-12: Concrete Pre-Cast Panel Noise Wall Cost
Noise Wall Height (FT) Cost of Wall
($/SF)
Cost of Foundation
($/LF)
Total Cost
($/LF)
12 20-50 190 430-690
16 20-50 190 510-990
Table 7-13: Concrete Cast in Place Noise Wall Cost
Noise Wall Height (FT) Cost of Wall
($/SF)
Cost of Foundation
($/LF)
Total Cost
($/LF)
12 30-40 190 550-670
16 30-40 190 670-830
Additional costs may include removing/replacing traffic signs, drainage design work,
absorptive noise wall paneling, retaining walls, and the potential cost for de-icing.
The cost of each of the walls modeled has been determined. The cost of the walls assumes
$30 per square foot for the wall plus $190 per linear foot for the foundation. Based on the
number of receivers that realize at least a 3-dB(A) decibel reduction behind each of the walls,
the cost per decibel reduction was approximated. An average decibel reduction of 7 dB(A)
Noise 7-29 Town of Vail
for first row receivers (within 300 feet of I-70) was used to determine the cost per decibel
reduction. The 7-dB(A) reduction is based on the average dB(A) reduction experienced by
representative receiver sites modeled within 300 feet of I-70, with mitigation measures in
place. The density information to determine the number of receivers realizing attenuation
was provided by the Town of Vail Geographical Information System (GIS). The cost details
for each wall modeled are listed in Table 7-14 below.
Table 7-14: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place
Wall Representative Receiver
Sites Protected
Approxi-
mate
Length
(feet)
Barrier
Height
(feet)
Unit
Cost
($/LF)
Segment
Cost
($/LF)
Cost per
Decibel
Reduction
($/dB(A))
A R1, R2, R3 4700 12 550 2,585,000 3929
B N/A 900 12 550 660,000 7857
C R4, R5, R6 1800 16 670 1,675,000 12,594
D R7, R8, R9 2700 12 550 2,007,500 2987
E R10, R11, R12 3700 16 670 2,445,500 12,047
F R13, R14, R15 1800 12 550 1,347,500 5833
G R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21 6700 16 670 4,489,000 2096
H N/A 900 16 670 603,000 86,143
I R23, R24 4100 12 550 1,417,500 862
J R22, R25, R26, R27, R28 2800 12 550 962,500 893
K R31,R32,R33 7000 12 550 3,850,000 13,095
L N/A 1000 16 670 636,500 5683
M R36, R37, R38 2300 16 670 1,541,000 22,014
N R35 600 12 550 82,500 2357
O N/A 1400 16 670 210,000 1034
*Shaded rows represent walls that are reasonable under the cost/benefit ratio determined in the NAC.
Based on the cost benefit of the walls, six walls are economically reasonable according to
the NAC. The NAC realizes a reasonable cost of $3,000/decibel reduction/receiver.
A more detailed model of the proposed walls, analyzing the cost/benefit ratio for each wall
including all receivers in the Town of Vail that receive a minimum 3-dB(A) reduction in noise
level due to noise abatement measures, may result in more of the proposed walls being
economically reasonable under the NAC. Also, where space allows, walls may be built as
berms to reduce costs.
Noise 7-30 Town of Vail
Feasibility and Reasonableness of Mitigation
As part of the noise analysis and abatement guidelines set by the FHWA as well as the
CDOT, the feasibility and reasonableness of mitigation must be determined. FHWA has
established vague standards to perform this determination. The CDOT has used these
standards and created a more concise procedure to determine the feasibility and
reasonableness of proposed mitigation measures. The following questions have been
answered in order to perform the feasibility and reasonableness analysis as described in the
instructions for completion of the noise abatement worksheet in the CDOT Noise Analysis
and Abatement Guidelines (see Appendix F1).
Feasibility
· Can a continuous noise barrier or berm be constructed?
Noise barriers or berms are most effective when they are continuous and do not have
any breaks for driveways, sidewalks, streets, roads, utilities, drainage facilities, irrigation
ditches, etc. In the Town of Vail, continuous noise barriers can be built to achieve
desired noise reduction.
· Can a 5-dB(A) noise reduction be achieved by constructing a noise barrier or
berm?
The noise model shows that the majority of first row receivers will realize a noise
reduction of at least 5 dB(A) with the proposed mitigation measures in place.
· Can a 5-dB(A) noise reduction be achieved by insulation of the receiver?
(Normally limited to public and non-profit buildings.)
This question is not considered since a 5-dB(A) reduction of noise can be achieved by
constructing a continuous barrier.
· Are there any “fatal flaw” safety or maintenance issues involving the proposed
noise barrier or berm?
Under the current proposed mitigation, no fatal flaws are apparent. However, a more
detailed analysis of each of the proposed walls, should analyze details such as excessive
restriction of sight distance, continuous shadows causing icing of driving lanes during the
winter months, excessive glare or reflection of headlights or sunlight off the noise barrier,
directing large volumes of water across the driving lanes or other severe drainage
situations, to ensure no fatal flaws exist.
Noise 7-31 Town of Vail
Reasonableness
Cost per impacted receiver per decibel. In consideration of each potential barrier or berm
segment, the cost should be less than $3,000 per receiver per decibel reduction for a
reasonable project, and less than $3,500 per receiver for a marginally reasonable project.
This noise analysis only took into account the front row receivers to determine the cost per
decibel reduction per receiver. A more detailed analysis may prove a minimum 3-dB(A)
noise reduction for more receivers and therefore warrant more noise abatement reasonable
based on cost. Of the fifteen proposed noise walls, six are considered reasonable or
marginally reasonable based on cost.
Impacted persons’ desires. At least 60 percent of impacted people, both property owners
and renters, should want the proposed noise mitigation measure for the project to be
considered reasonable. An in-depth public involvement program would be necessary to
determine the majority of public opinion. This public involvement would be performed during
a more detailed study.
Development type. The mixture of development types plays a major part in determining the
reasonableness of noise mitigation. For a project to be considered reasonable, at least 45
percent of the development should consist of Category B receivers (see Table 7-2). The
Town of Vail has approximately 93 percent of the development consisting of Category B
receivers. Under the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria that makes noise mitigation within the
Town of Vail very reasonable.
Development vs. Highway timing. This item compares the date of the residential or
commercial development of the impacted receivers to the date of construction of the roadway
improvement that contributes transportation generated noise levels. For a project to be
considered reasonable, at least 50 percent of the impacted receivers should have
development dates that predate the initial highway construction or last through lane addition
project. The Town of Vail has approximately twelve percent of the development predating
the initial interstate construction of 1969, and 53 percent predating the last phase of
interstate construction in 1976 from Booth Creek east over Vail Pass. Under the CDOT Noise
Abatement Criteria that makes noise mitigation within the Town of Vail reasonable.
Development existence. This item addresses the length of time impacted receivers have
been exposed to transportation related noise impacts. For a project to be considered
reasonable, at least 50 percent of the impacted commercial and residential receivers in a
development should have been in existence for more than fifteen years. Approximately 89
percent of the residential receivers have been in existence for more than fifteen years in the
Town of Vail. Under the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria that makes noise mitigation within
the Town of Vail very reasonable.
Noise 7-32 Town of Vail
Land use controls. This item addresses the degree of land use planning which occurs in an
area that attempts to minimize transportation related noise impacts on new development. For
a project to be considered reasonable, local officials must either routinely coordinate new
subdivision proposals with CDOT or have local land use restrictions in place that control
incompatible land use adjacent to highway corridors. The Town of Vail has the following
issues:
· Very stringent zoning controls.
· Very stringent design review guidelines.
· A town-wide noise ordinance. This includes the use of engine “jake” brakes.
· The use of berms for most residential areas abutting the interstate. Commercial zoning
(as a buffer) on most portions of West Vail adjacent to I-70.
· Most of the land away from I-70 is constrained by geologic hazards (snow avalanche,
rock fall, debris flow, 100-year floodplain). Approximately 40 percent of Vail's land area
lies within a rock fall hazard zone, while no portion of the I-70 corridor through Vail lies
within a rock fall zone. Therefore, there is minimal choice but to locate development
adjacent to the interstate.
· The Town of Vail is constrained by the national forest.
· With very tight topographical and political boundaries, Vail averages ½ mile wide with I-
70 splitting this difference. This leaves minimal space for development.
· Many parts of the residential development that lies adjacent to I-70 (Matterhorn and West
Vail) that has no buffer, was developed in Eagle County and then annexed from Eagle
County. Therefore, the Town of Vail did not have the benefit of reviewing development of
these areas.
Under the CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria these issues make noise mitigation measures
within the Town of Vail reasonable.
Summary
The following are the results of the traffic noise impacts analysis conducted for the I-70
corridor through the Town of Vail:
· FHWA/CDOT criteria were used as a guide for considering noise impacts.
Noise 7-33 Town of Vail
· Currently, five representative receiver sites, representing a total of approximately 540
receivers, are found to have noise levels in excess of the noise impact criteria. These
representative receivers, R1, R18, R21, R28, and R32 are currently above the 66-
dB(A) noise level. While these numbers reflect the number of receivers accounted for
by the representative receiver locations, the numbers do not reflect the total number
of affected receivers (those receivers that experience noise levels exceeding the 66-
dB(A) approach criteria) located in the Town of Vail. In order to determine the total
number of affected receivers refer to the noise contour maps presented in Appendix
F2.
· For the year 2020, six representative receiver sites, representing a total of 600
receivers, were predicted to have noise levels in excess of the noise impact criteria.
These receivers, R1, R17, R18, R21, R28, and R32 are predicted to have noise
levels above 66 dB(A) in the year 2020 based on projected traffic increases. While
these numbers reflect the number of receivers accounted for by the representative
receiver locations, the numbers do not reflect the total number of affected receivers
(those receivers that experience noise levels exceeding the 66-dB(A) approach
criteria) located in the Town of Vail. In order to determine the total number of affected
receivers refer to the noise contour maps presented in Appendix F2.
· The largest noise levels will occur for receivers located closest to I-70 or with the best
line of sight of I-70. However, an increase in the distance from I-70 does not always
reflect a decrease in noise level. Each receiver may have a different shielding effect
based on obstacles (e.g., buildings, vegetation, and partial barriers) between the
receiver and the roadway, which may prevent sound energy from reaching the
receivers.
· An average increase of 0.7 dB(A) in noise level occurs with every five mph increase
in speed along I-70.
· An average increase of 0.04 dB(A) in noise level occurred for a ten-foot increase in
elevation for each receiver and an increase of 0.002 dB(A) in noise level occurred for
a 20-foot increase in elevation for each receiver.
· An average increase of 0.3 dB(A) in noise level occurred for an overall increase of
two percent trucks in the traffic mix along I-70 and an increase of 0.6 dB(A) in noise
level occurred for an overall increase of four percent trucks in the traffic mix along I-
70.
· Table 7-15 below represents the average dB(A) increase based on increasing traffic
volumes.
Noise 7-34 Town of Vail
Table 7-15: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes
Traffic Volumes
(Average Daily Traffic)
Relative Noise Level
(dB(A))
Noise Level Increase
(per 5000 Vehicles per day)
40000
46.0 N/A
45000 46.5 0.5
50000
46.9 0.4
55000 47.4 0.4
60000
47.7 0.3
65000 48.1 0.3
70000
7500
48.5 0.3
75000
48.8 0.3
80000 49.0 0.2
· Noise produced by short duration point sources including jake brakes and rumble
strips add to the overall existing noise levels. An average additive increase to the
noise levels represented by the contour lines can be expected. The additive increase
to the existing 60-dB(A), 66-dB(A), and 70-dB(A) contour lines due to jake brakes is
0.5 dB(A), 1.0 dB(A), and 2.0 dB(A), respectively. The additive increase to 60-dB(A),
66-dB(A), and 70-dB(A) contour lines due to rumble strips is 1.0 dB(A), 3.0 dB(A),
and 4.0 dB(A), respectively.
· Noise contour maps were developed (based on noise readings taken at various
representative receiver sites) to estimate noise levels at any location in the Vail area.
These should be used as a guide only, due to the variability of noise levels in the Vail
area caused by shielding and reflection. Receiver sites may vary from single-unit
structures to structures housing multiple units. The actual number of affected
receivers is based on the number of units per structure. Actual noise measurements
should be taken in order to determine the exact noise levels at any specific location.
· Since this noise analysis does not include highway construction on a new location or
the physical alteration of an existing highway, federal funds are not eligible for noise
mitigation, under the Type I project considerations. Federal funds are eligible for this
project under Type II project considerations, but the noise mitigation would have to
compete against other highway projects on the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP).
· The location and size of the proposed noise wall are analyzed strictly on a planning
level analysis. The proposed walls should be optimized prior to the design stage.
· The implementation of Type II projects is a strictly voluntary decision made by a DOT
Noise 7-35 Town of Vail
and there are no special or separate federal funds to provide highway traffic noise
abatement based on Type II projects.
· Based on the previous Type II priority list, if funds should become available through
the reinstitution of a Type II program in Colorado, the Town of Vail should have high
priority for those funds.
· The Town of Vail may compete with other transportation projects on the STIP for
funds based on the traffic noise impacts due to I-70 traffic.
· Due to the outcome of the Noise Abatement Determination Worksheet, the overall
noise abatement proposed for the Town of Vail is feasible and reasonable. A more
detailed analysis of each individual wall should be performed before any design of the
proposed mitigation is done.
I-70 Capping 8-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 8: I-70 Capping
Introduction
The Town of Vail is conceptualizing options to utilize available land in the Vail Valley as
efficiently as possible, improve overall livability and environmental sensitivity, and alleviate
safety hazards on Interstate 70 (I-70). Developable land within Vail is minimal. The
community is divided by the Interstate with the only connections at the three interchanges.
Several extra vehicle miles are often necessary in travel between the sides of the Interstate.
Furthermore, pedestrians often cross I-70 in between interchanges creating a safety hazard
for themselves and motorists.
The capping of I-70 with a cut-and-cover tunnel throughout parts or all of Vail is under
consideration to address all of these concerns. Cut-and-cover tunnels are generally used in
place of aboveground freeways to eliminate noise and air pollution. They create more space
by providing room for development, parks, recreational, cultural, and other public facilities on
top of the tunnel. They also create or maintain community cohesion.
The purpose of this report is twofold. The first is to provide the issues facing Vail in capping I-
70, and the other is to provide information on other cut-and-cover tunnels that have been
built. The three tunnels being used for reference are located in Mercer Island, WA; Phoenix,
AZ; and Duluth, MN. General information for each of these tunnels is included near the end
of this report.
I-70 Capping 8-2 Town of Vail
Opportunities
The construction of a lid over I-70 through Vail creates opportunities for new commercial,
residential, and recreational development; allows for a more cohesive and livable community;
and virtually eliminates the safety hazards to pedestrians and motorists that currently exist
within the I-70 right-of-way. The capping of the Interstate would be at a tremendous cost but
could be offset by developing the right package of real estate transactions amongst the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); the Town of Vail; and commercial,
residential, and recreational developers.
The capping of I-70 through Vail could create more than 550 acres of developable land in
Vail, some of which could be used for new commercial and residential development, parks,
open space and other uses identified by the community. The 550 acres through Vail (CDOT
right-of-way) includes I-70, the Frontage Roads, and the land in between. By placing I-70
underground, the right-of-way requirements for the Interstate are dramatically reduced, even
if the Interstate were expanded. The cross-section necessary to accommodate the Interstate
in the tunnel would be approximately 150 feet across; representing about one-third of the
total right-of-way. This accounts for three lanes in both directions of I-70 (for future growth),
a two-track rail corridor, and shoulders. This, in turn, could create at least 350 acres for
development. Development could then migrate closer to the Interstate and some
development could occur on the lid itself. In addition to the development potential, new
portals to Vail’s amenities could be constructed with new interchanges along I-70, especially
between the West Vail and East Vail interchanges.
The capping of the Interstate presents opportunities for creating a more cohesive and livable
community. The lid would provide more opportunities for connecting the areas north and
south of the Interstate. This connection would provide a more cohesive community both
geographically and socially. Currently, with the Interstate dividing the community, and with
only the interchanges and one pedestrian bridge connecting the two sides, pedestrians are
crossing I-70 at a high risk to themselves and motorists. With careful planning of the lid, this
safety hazard could be virtually eliminated.
Many environmental impacts on the community associated with traffic on the Interstate could
be better mitigated, including noise, air, and water pollution, by consolidating the sources for
treatment or mitigation. The current road noise along the Interstate could be dramatically
reduced, as the tunnel provides for the ultimate noise wall system and noise exiting the
tunnel could be muffled effectively. Similarly, air and water quality could be enhanced with
similar means. The use of chemical deicers could be reduced significantly with the Interstate
covered, thereby reducing the deicers effect on the environment.
I-70 Capping 8-3 Town of Vail
Development Potential
Land use and planning will largely determine the development potential on the lid. Limitations
on what can be feasibly located both physically and safely near and on the lid itself will also
be a determining factor. Consideration could be given to provide the current land use
breakdown percentages for the development on the lid for commercial, residential,
recreational, and open space. Careful planning and consideration of the development
potential must take into consideration the development rights, infrastructure impacts and
mitigation, right-of-way costs, and construction costs of the lid.
The potential for development lies in four main areas: 1) commercial; 2) residential; 3)
recreational; and 4) open space. Commercial development will likely provide the highest
return and therefore may be the most significant factor in funding the capping. Residential
and some recreational development will provide the next highest return. Some areas of the
capping may be restrictive on development on or near the lid, making recreational or open
space uses the primary development. Open space, while not providing actual financial
assistance in the capping, would serve as a valued asset to the community. There is a
potential for funding open space through alternate means of finance.
The building of a cap, in general, could provide other benefits to the community as well. The
noise and pollution from I-70 has led to decreased property values in the areas adjacent to
the Interstate through Vail. Capping would create potential for development as well as
lessening the negative effects of I-70 on property values in the area.
Transportation Corridor Potential
Additional opportunities exist in the overall transportation system through Vail. Potential fixed
guideways from Denver and the West Slope could be integrated into the capping in such a
way to provide good highway interfaces, intermodal centers, and stations. Better connections
to the community from the transportation systems and parking facilities could be integrated
into the capping with minimal impact to the community. Additionally, better means of loading
and delivery into the Town could be integrated into the capping by providing centralized
docks, a concept precluded at this time due to the land constraints in Vail.
Land Value and Financial Considerations
Commercial development near or on the lid has the highest potential for paying for the
construction of the capping. The key to this concept’s success lies in the real estate
transaction initially between CDOT and the Town of Vail. One scenario is that of a transfer or
lease of the land use rights of the CDOT right-of-way near and on the lid to the Town of Vail
I-70 Capping 8-4 Town of Vail
at a nominal cost, with the construction of the capping paid for by the transfer or lease of the
land use rights to commercial developers. In this scenario, consideration of the operation and
maintenance costs of the additional functions necessitated by the capping would need to be
included in the transfer or lease transactions. Infrastructure impacts and mitigation efforts
would also be a key consideration in the development and land value.
Potential funding sources also include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
CDOT. If traffic volumes continue to increase on I-70 (as they are projected to), additional
highway lanes may be necessary and some mitigation measures might become necessary
for noise, air quality, or other environmental issues in the future along I-70 through Vail. The
costs associated with providing additional an additional lane in each direction on I-70 on the
surface through Vail could be put in the $20 million to $40 million per mile. Expansion of the
Interstate on the surface, given the ownership of the right-of-way and construction cost,
would not near the cost of providing tunnels. However, it is possible that the FHWA and
CDOT could contribute the portion of the funds for expanding the Interstate to the overall
capping project. Local funding could also be used since the project would provide potentially
significant improvements to noise, visual, and air quality concerns. In addition, open space
funds could be used to create additional open space.
Another funding option includes the construction of the capping by CDOT with a transfer or
lease of the land use rights based on fair market value. This option is unlikely though, as the
risks to CDOT may not be in the best interest of the taxpayers of the State. Once the overall
land use planning considerations and feasibility of uses are identified, it may be best to
consider a developer(s) in the early planning stages of the capping.
In review and discussion of the information available from local realtors, it is difficult to
approximate the values of the land that could be realized by capping I-70. An approximate
range of values for developable land near Vail Village and Lionshead is $2.5 to $6.0 million
per acre, depending on location and zoning. In areas outside Vail Village and Lionshead, an
approximate range of values for developable land is $.5 to $1.8 million per acre, depending
on location and zoning.
Appendix G contains a copy of a Joint Development Study produced by FHWA giving
guidelines on projects eligible for the types of funding described above.
General I-70 Capping Issues
Capping Llimits
Consideration of the capping of I-70 needs to address several issues including terrain,
geotechnical considerations, constructability and impact considerations, interchange
locations, and planning and zoning constraints. For the purposes of conceptualization, the
I-70 Capping 8-5 Town of Vail
area from just east of the East Vail Interchange to the Dowd Junction interchange on I-70
provides the overall project limits. Due to the issues mentioned above, it may not be feasible
to cap the entire length under consideration. Capping could be done in specific areas that
provide the best results based upon the objectives of the project. The areas identified below
are potential opportunities for capping of I-70. These areas are a “first look” for opportunity
and will require additional study beyond the scope of this report. See maps in Appendix C
for potential capping areas through the Town of Vail.
· Dowd Canyon
The Dowd Canyon area may provide an opportunity to provide an expanded transportation
corridor without widening the corridor, and possible accommodations for future transit
systems. In addition, with the right design, some of the geotechnical issues in the Canyon
may be mitigated while providing open space and wildlife mitigation.
· West Vail to Lionshead Area
Some opportunities exist for additional development and open space in the area of the West
Vail Interchange. Terrain transitions in this area may accommodate for transition of capping
options. Consideration of a reconfigured interchange and a future transit system may be
necessary to accommodate capping in this area.
· Lionshead to Vail Village
The area along I-70 that provides the most opportunity for development is the area between
Lionshead and Vail Village. The terrain lends itself fairly well to cut-and-cover tunneling in
this area. Again, consideration of future transit systems and interchange configurations will
be necessary.
· Vail Village to East Vail
Opportunities exist in the area between Vail Village and East Vail for expansion of open
space and recreational uses. Some opportunity exists for additional residential development
along the perimeter of the I-70 corridor, but minimal commercial development opportunities
are present.
· East Vail to Vail Pass
The area from East Vail to Vail Pass could also be considered for capping due to frequent
inclement weather conditions and potential opportunities for residential land use in the
Town’s limits. Capping areas from East Vail to Vail Pass could be used primarily for open
space, wildlife corridors, and a potential additional portal to the ski area. Two potential
capping areas from East Vail to Vail Pass are shown on the maps in Appendix C. For those
areas that space in the median is not available, the alignment could be moved north of I-70
and tunneled.
· Interchanges
Four existing I-70 interchanges are within the capping limits identified above: 1) Dowd
Junction; 2) West Vail; 3) Vail; and 4) East Vail. Within the scope of the capping, additional
I-70 Capping 8-6 Town of Vail
interchanges should be considered in the early planning stages, especially the potential for
interchanges between West Vail and Vail interchanges and between Vail and East Vail.
The considerations for the reconfiguration of the interchanges include whether they are to
remain above ground, placed within the tunnel, or relocated. The Dowd Junction and East
Vail interchanges have the least necessity for any significant modification due to capping of
the Interstate. However, depending upon the potential widening of the Interstate through
Dowd Canyon, some modifications of the Dowd Junction interchange may be necessary.
Further consideration to the West Vail and Vail interchanges should be given especially with
regards to the approach of the capping. The high cost of reconfiguration of interchanges
must be kept in context with the capping project as a whole.
Maintenance and Operations
Maintenance and operations of the tunnel would need to be addressed for the capping of I-
70. Costs for maintaining and operating a tunnel are greater than that of the current
Interstate. Costs for electricity, water, and labor may be significant. These costs and the
responsibility should be resolved in the early planning stages.
Environmental Impact Considerations
With a project of this magnitude, the environmental impacts will need to be addressed, likely
in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The process for an EIS is well
defined by Federal Law and includes an encompassing analysis of the project’s
environmental impacts. The brief discussion included in this report will summarize some of
the major issues that will require significant investigation, analysis, and mitigation plans for
both the completed project and the construction of the project.
Pollution in the form of noise, air, and water will require significant analysis for the completed
project. In terms of noise, I-70 traffic may experience more noise within the confined tunnel
sections, whereas, outside the tunnel sections, less noise will exist. The portals of the tunnel
sections, and at or near the ventilation systems, may show noise increases. Noise increases
will also be expected during construction. Location of portals and ventilation systems should
be analyzed with respect to noise impacts and mitigation. Air and water pollution will have
the same general considerations as with noise for the I-70 traffic inside the tunnels and in the
community. Mitigation of air and water issues within the tunnel involves ventilation and water
handling systems. The capping of I-70 provides a good opportunity for the mitigation of
noise, air, and water quality along the Interstate by consolidating the sources for mitigation
techniques.
Hazardous materials hauled on I-70 will require special consideration in the tunnels, as no
feasible alternative routes are available at this time. This involves special tunnel design and
I-70 Capping 8-7 Town of Vail
procedures as included in the Hanging Lake Tunnels in Glenwood Canyon. These
procedures include incident detection systems and fire and spill control systems equipment.
Other impact considerations include safety, visual quality, wildlife issues, socio-economic
issues, recreation and parks issues, and historic resource issues. As with the other issues
mentioned above, consideration must be given to the completed project and the construction
of the project, in terms of both the I-70 driver and the community.
In addition to addressing the capping of I-70 in the form of an EIS in the future, this issue
should also be addressed in other relevant studies for the area such as the I-70
Programmatic EIS (PEIS).
General Capping Considerations
The capping of I-70 through Vail most likely would be a series of tunnels rather than one
large tunnel. This assumption is derived from a combination of the terrain features, land use
and zoning issues, logically developable areas, the need to maintain I-70 traffic, and the
relative impracticality of building a single ten to twelve-mile tunnel.
The general topography suggests that areas to be capped may be constructed in differing
manners. In some areas, holding the existing grade of I-70 and covering over may be more
practical than cutting the Interstate below grade and maintaining the natural topography.
Consideration of the construction phasing, maintaining I-70 traffic, overall earthwork balance,
and the economic implications of bringing on development early in the process for funding
will all be considerations in the overall alignment and profile of the new I-70 through Vail.
Given that each of these tunnel sections would be more than 1000 feet in length, mechanical
ventilation, lighting, and drainage systems would be necessary. Significant infrastructure and
utility issues will require consideration with the type of development that would be needed
near and on the lid to support the funding of the capping. Surface drainage will need
significant consideration due to the general topography of the terrain, the proximity of the
existing community, existing low-point features, and environmental concerns. It is likely,
given the topography, that mechanical means for dealing with surface water may be
necessary. With each of the mechanical systems mentioned above, the issue of their location
and their impact on the lid development and community must be carefully considered.
In addition to the personnel requirements for operating and maintaining the tunnels, the
capping of I-70 will require significant consideration of the emergency services to respond to
potential incidents in the tunnel portions. This may require additional staffing and training of
fire protection personnel, hazardous material response personnel, and incident control
personnel.
I-70 Capping 8-8 Town of Vail
Capping Construction Issues
The issues in the construction of capping I-70 fall under three general categories: 1)
Construction Phasing; 2) Construction Techniques; and 3) Construction Impact. Issues under
each of these categories are discussed.
Construction Phasing
The phasing of the I-70 capping construction requires consideration of several critical issues
which all need to be addressed in the planning of the project. Given that I-70 is a major route
through Colorado, it is likely that the CDOT and FHWA will require that traffic be maintained
through the project area with minimal or no delay to the traveling public. This constraint will
require that two-lane detours be maintained in both directions on I-70, with a design speed
that will be acceptable to CDOT and FHWA. For the purposes of this planning stage, an
average of 40 to 50 miles per hour may be necessary. Higher design speeds may be
required or lower design speeds may be necessary for portions of the project’s construction.
It is likely that traffic stops may not be allowed, or if they are, stops could be limited to a few
minutes for construction of special areas. Given the need to maintain I-70 traffic, careful
planning of the construction phasing is mandatory from this perspective.
One possible general means of addressing this issue is to first provide two lanes of detour
within the existing right-of-way, and outside the new construction footprint. Once the detour is
complete, one direction of traffic can be moved to the detour. The newly vacated lanes would
then be the first area for new construction. Once the newly constructed lanes are complete,
one direction of traffic can be diverted onto the new lanes. Then, depending on the area, the
other direction of traffic can be diverted onto the detour, allowing for the construction to
continue. This concept is general in nature and would require in-depth traffic and
construction analysis, however, it may provide one of the more economical means, as only
one two-lane detour would be needed to maintain traffic.
Another critical issue in the construction phasing of the capping of I-70 is the need for
completing sections of the cap in an expeditious manner. One of the more probable means
of funding the project lies in the private development on the cap. If this becomes the case, a
developer would finance the construction of the project through the revenue generation of
what is constructed on the cap. With this, it is critical to begin coordination of the revenue-
generating developments as soon as possible. Sections of the construction of the cap then
become a driving force in the construction phasing.
An overall plan for the construction phasing of the cap also needs to consider the earthwork
balance of the project. The most economical construction would include all material
generated on the project to be used on the project with a minimum of extra handling.
Sections of the cap that require extensive excavation should be phased during construction
of other areas of the cap that require extensive fills. This task may be difficult at the startup of
I-70 Capping 8-9 Town of Vail
the project. More efficient construction can also be accomplished by setting up concrete
plants in town at the time of construction to reduce haul times and maximize the recycling of
materials. Minimizing the stockpiling of earthwork for later use, along with minimizing the
need to import or export material, should be a priority in the overall construction phasing of
the project.
Other issues in the construction phasing include those specifically related to the Town of Vail
in terms of access and are equally important in the consideration of the phasing as those
mentioned above. As Vail is a resort area, it derives much of its revenue through its tourism
industry, and the need to preserve its access is critical. Vail is also a community, and the
need to preserve its quality of life and business is critical in the construction phasing.
Consideration must be given to maintaining the resort business and the community in the
construction phasing by careful planning with the residents and the businesses of Vail.
Perhaps the best seasons to plan extensive construction activities are during off-peak
seasons, spring and fall, when traffic volumes are low and business is slow. During these
seasons, significant work could be accomplished. During the remainder of the year,
construction should be phased and constructed to maintain access through the Town.
Construction Techniques
The discussion of the capping of I-70 has largely been that of using a cut-and-cover type of
tunneling. Cut-and-cover is a means where an open excavation is made to the final grade of
the tunnel while supporting the sides of the excavation. Once the final grade is achieved, a
covering, usually of steel ribs and/or concrete, is placed as the top. The top is then covered
with dirt and blended into the surrounding landscape. This is the most economical means for
the cap through Vail, as most of the landscape lends itself well to this technique. Another
means of creating a cap may be in using the existing grade of I-70, creating a cap on it, and
blending the cap into the surrounding landscape. Variations of these two means of creating
the cap is likely through Vail in order to provide the best development potential and final
landscape. With these techniques, earthwork balance can be addressed readily in the
planning.
The geology of the area must be given careful consideration in the planning of the tunnel
from a geotechnical standpoint. Construction techniques, especially in excavation and
support, largely depend on the geotechnical aspects of the soils and rock. An extensive
exploratory drilling program should be at the front end of the planning efforts, as construction
techniques could impact construction phasing of the project.
As with the geotechnical investigations, utility investigations should also be made early in the
planning efforts. Existing utilities as well as planned or potential utilities in the right-of-way
should be given careful consideration in the planning stages. Utility needs for the
development on the cap should also be addressed in the early planning stages to ensure a
I-70 Capping 8-10 Town of Vail
coordinated and integrated utility system is designed and installed as the construction
occurs.
The staging of construction must also be considered in the early planning of the project.
Staging is locating the construction facilities necessary for the project. This includes the
areas for unloading of materials to be used on the project, stockpile areas, material
processing areas, construction vehicle parking and maintenance areas, and office areas. A
project of this magnitude will require significant acreage for these activities and addressing
this issue is paramount in the planning stages.
The contract packaging of the project is also an issue that can influence the construction
techniques. Contract packaging is the issuance of the individual contracts for the projects. If
one developer were to assume the entire capping project, this may not be of significant
concern as the developer would be driven by completion of the project in the most
expeditious manner, using the appropriate contractors. If the capping project were to be a
series of individual contracts, consideration should be given to the need to package the
contracts for the most economical means. Careful consideration of the interface among the
individual contracts is required to assure cooperation and minimization of the interfacing
delays that could occur. In any contract packaging, consideration should be given to
packaging the ventilation and traffic systems as separate contracts to assure that
maintenance, upgrading, and warranty issues can be contracted directly with the
manufacturers of those systems.
Construction Impacts
The construction impacts are far-reaching into the community and the business of the resort.
Financial and quality of life impacts will be inherent in the construction of a cap over I-70.
Consideration of the construction impacts must be weighed against the long-term
opportunities of the finished project. A project of this magnitude will have significant impacts
during construction. In general terms, the more construction impact that can be tolerated, the
shorter the overall construction period. During the planning stages of the project,
consideration must be given to the extent of the compromises that could be made during the
construction. All parties involved, including the Town, its residents, its businesses, and
affected agencies and jurisdictions must proceed into this project well informed and willing to
endure the impacts of the project.
Construction impacts include those normally associated with heavy construction, especially
noise and dust. Access will be hindered during construction. Careful construction phasing
plans and construction documents can be developed to minimize and control the impacts.
Visual impacts of the project are subjective, as there are those who enjoy the sight of
construction, and with the right approach and attitude, the visual impact can provide a
positive message of change to both the residents and the guests of the Town. These
I-70 Capping 8-11 Town of Vail
impacts, though, are still impacts, and need to be treated as such as the overall vitality of the
Town during the construction may suffer.
The construction of the cap on I-70 would also have a workforce impact. This project would
require a significant amount of construction workers in the area for a considerable amount of
time. Housing and service demands will increase dramatically during the construction. Some
of this impact may be mitigated through careful planning of the project and phasing. Tourism
may decline during the construction. However, the needs of the construction workforce, with
a proper design for mitigation, may meet the basic economic needs of the community during
the construction effort.
Comparative Capping Projects
General Discussion
Capping projects already exist in several urban environments. Many were provided to
increase development potential and some as mitigation of environmental and residential
impacts. Three capping projects were researched to provide some comparative analysis to
the capping of I-70 through Vail. These projects are in Mercer Island, Washington; Phoenix,
Arizona; and Duluth, Minnesota. While the opportunities, conditions, costs, and the general
dynamics might differ between the Town of Vail and these three projects, many of the same
concerns and issues apply from one place to another. The information provided below
highlights the research on these projects.
· Mercer Island, WA 1987-1992
The cut-and-cover tunnel in Mercer Island is a segment of I-90. The project originally met a
lot of resistance from the public because it involved the construction of a ten-lane interstate
through the city. The public did not want the air pollution and noise that an interstate would
bring. Approximately 1,000 public meetings took place over the course of several years. In
the end, negotiations reduced the interstate to eight lanes with a cut-and-cover tunnel in
place over key sections. The tunnel is 2,800 feet long with a park and landscaping on top of
the tunnel. The environmental process was also tested for this newly constructed interstate
with the completion of an EIS.
· Phoenix, AZ 1987-1990
The cut-and-cover tunnel in Phoenix, AZ is a segment of the I-10 Papago Freeway. The
tunnel is 2,700 feet (about one-half mile) long with ten lanes. Public support for this project
has been strong because of the Margaret Hance Park built on top of the tunnel, creating
increased green space within the city. The park includes approximately 30 acres of lawns,
ponds, playgrounds, restaurants, fountains, cultural facilities, and a library; and the deck
supports 13 of those acres over the freeway. Central Avenue, a major north-south
connection in Phoenix, was also bridged over the park to maintain the local traffic flow.
I-70 Capping 8-12 Town of Vail
· Duluth, MN
I-35 in Duluth, MN has four
cut-and-cover tunnels within
13 blocks. The first tunnel
(traveling east) is the Lake
Place Tunnel, and it is 725
feet long. The second
tunnel, the East Historic
District Tunnel, is 670 feet
long. The third tunnel, the
West Historic District
Tunnel, is 570 feet long.
The last tunnel, the Leif
Erickson Tunnel, is the
longest tunnel at 1,480 feet.
Public support was strong
for these tunnels for three
main reasons: they allowed
several historic buildings to
remain standing; they allow
the main thoroughfare in the area, Superior Street, to run concurrent with the freeway; and
they serve as bridges to open up physical and aesthetic access to the lakefront while
providing more green space in the form of parks and landscaping.
Project Issues
· Long-Term Agreements
Decisions have to be made about issues such as deciding what will be constructed on top of
the tunnel and responsibility for maintenance (aboveground and underground). In some
cases, long-term agreements are formed between cooperating agencies. In Mercer Island,
cooperation took place between local agencies and the funding agency (FHWA) to decide
what to put on top of the tunnel (in this case, a park) and the responsibility for aboveground
vs. underground maintenance. The Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) owns the land above the tunnel and leases it back to the City of Mercer Island.
Per the agreement, maintenance for the landscaped area is undertaken and funded by the
city.
In Phoenix, an intergovernmental agreement was formed between the City of Phoenix and
the ADOT. This agreement covers any issues that might arise concerning the tunnel such as
responsibility for particular tasks or issues. The document also addresses future
development of the deck area, responsibility for costs, and anticipation of any major activities
that might affect the park.
Cut-and-cover tunnel; Duluth, Minnesota
I-70 Capping 8-13 Town of Vail
In Duluth, all maintenance and further enhancements to the tunnel areas are paid for solely
by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), eliminating the need for
agreements between city and state.
· Lid Development
The area aboveground on the Mercer Island Tunnel consists of a park with multi-use
recreational fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and other public amenities. Mercer
Island has also included a school in one section of the public area aboveground.
In Phoenix, the Margaret Hance Park is composed of much more than just a landscaped
park facility. A library stands on one side of the park. Two large buildings house arts,
entertainment, and theater. Elaborate statues have been placed in many areas around the
park. Plans for other cultural centers are also underway.
During the development of the plans for the area above the deck, many options were
presented to productively use the land. The City of Phoenix decided at that time to prohibit
commercial development and use the space for public use and enjoyment. While huge
commercial growth has taken place adjacent to the park, the area on the deck will be
maintained for public use. The park has drawn much attention, however, and economic
growth has been restored to the area as a result.
Duluth has employed several unique ideas to cover and landscape the four tunnels on I-35.
They have landscaped the areas with several plantings. On Lake Place Tunnel, for example,
$600,000 was spent on these plantings. They have also used culture and history in many of
their designs. They have created a large mosaic “Story Floor” in the shape of Lake Superior
with brass stars marking the sites of historic shipwrecks and bronze plaques around the rim
of the depression describing each. They also placed a 35-foot high hexagonal clock to
commemorate Duluth’s sister-city relationships with six foreign cities. On the outer wall of
the tunnel, they have created a ceramic mural depicting lakefront, marine, and ship images.
On top of the Leif Erickson Tunnel, an extensive English rose garden has been planted to
replace a smaller, preexisting rose garden. A stairway and ramp to the newly renovated
waterfront have also been installed.
· Safety
Safety issues must be considered for items such as flammable cargo or automobile fires.
Mercer Island expressed that safety issues are of utmost importance. They have installed a
foam system. If activated, foam drops to smother fires. The run-off goes to detention vaults
where it is held and later removed. The material is biodegradable, so accidental leakages
into the lake or other water bodies do not pose an environmental threat.
Phoenix installed expensive turbine fans, but these have not been used to date. The traffic
creates a natural airflow through the tunnel, eliminating the need for these fans. However, an
emergency situation in the tunnel might warrant a need for the fans in the future. They have
I-70 Capping 8-14 Town of Vail
also installed 10,000 feet of fire detection wire and 36 fire telephone cabinets every 300 feet
on both sides of the tunnel (18 in each direction).
Phoenix has also installed 24 video cameras to monitor and identify traffic hazards and
vandals. Electronic loops monitor traffic and send messages to an operator in a control room
under Central Avenue. The operator can use cameras to evaluate the condition and use
lane-control signs and message boards to guide traffic past the trouble areas.
In the City of Duluth, there is a ventilation system to control smoke in case of fire and fire
sprinklers. Heat detectors mounted throughout the tunnel will trigger the fans, as well as
send an automatic fire signal to Duluth’s 911 emergency service. There are also 24
electronically monitored wall-mounted emergency cabinets containing manual fire alarm pull
stations and emergency telephones directly connected to the Minnesota State Patrol’s Duluth
Headquarters. There are twelve fire hydrants within the tunnel. However, there were no
regulations on fire safety systems at the time, and they are not aware of any current codes
that have been enacted since then.
· Lighting
Lighting is an issue for tunnels, depending primarily on the length of the tunnel. Shorter
tunnels allow enough daylight or streetlights (nighttime) to illuminate the interior. For the
Mercer Island Tunnel, a tunnel lighting expert was hired to determine the type and amount of
lighting to be used. Considerations for the lighting included start-up costs, operational costs,
and replacement costs.
Phoenix has installed 3,500 amber-colored sodium lights to illuminate the interior of the
tunnel. Light sensors have also been installed in the deck to adjust the amount of light in the
tunnel so travelers’ eyes do not have to adjust too much upon entrance and exit.
Lighting in the Duluth tunnels varies due to the lengths of the tunnels. The Historic District
Tunnels do not need lighting because ample daylight illuminates the tunnels. The Lake
Place Tunnel has openings in the walls to permit passage of additional sunlight. The Leif
Erickson Tunnel, however, required 1,235 lights. For this extensive lighting, the monthly light
bills total about $6,000 per month.
· Eye Adjustments
Without proper lighting and other techniques, tunnels can create problems for travelers’ eyes
because of the drastic differences in lighting from aboveground to belowground. In Duluth
this was a particular problem as the tunnels run in succession and the distances between do
not allow ample time for the eyes to adjust to lighting changes. They have employed three
techniques to solve this problem. First, high-pressure sodium tiles designed for reflectivity
were used inside the tunnels. Second, rustication and three different shades of brown were
used to reduce reflection outside of the tunnels. Third, the concrete was dyed black with
epoxy-penetrant sealer outside of the tunnels. These have all been effective methods to
eliminate eye adjustment problems.
I-70 Capping 8-15 Town of Vail
As mentioned earlier, the City of Phoenix installed light sensors to adjust the amount of light
in the tunnels so the eyes do not have to adjust too much.
· Ventilation
Ventilation systems are generally required only for tunnels of 1,000 feet or more. Ventilation
issues are important for air quality within the tunnels. An obstacle for ventilation is keeping
the air pollution down in the tunnels to acceptable limits if the traffic is stopped. Mercer
Island uses feed fans to extract gas, smoke, or fumes out of the tunnel. The system is fully
automated by the use of monitors that continuously collect data and adjust conditions inside
the tunnel.
Phoenix makes use of the turbine fans installed for fire safety. Eight, 750 horsepower fans,
with blades six feet long ventilate the deck park tunnel. Phoenix has also installed five
carbon monoxide sensors in the tunnel.
Duluth uses the most advanced ventilation system for the 1,480 foot long Leif Erickson
Tunnel. The automated system operates from a compact ventilation building under the deck.
The system includes air quality monitors in six locations. These monitors constantly test air
quality and trigger fans if carbon monoxide levels go above six parts per million (ppm)
(OSHA limits are 50 ppm) for more than two minutes. These fans have been triggered twice
in about eight years with average daily traffic (ADT) volumes of 25,000 vehicles through the
tunnels. All results are automatically reported to the district office aboveground.
· Waterproofing
Waterproofing is an issue for any cut-and-cover tunnel, especially those in areas of high
precipitation or where large volumes of water are used for landscaping as in the case of a
park over the tunnel. The Mercer Island waterproofing system includes a two part system
consisting of an asphalt layer and a bentonite clay layer. The bentonite layer is placed on
the outside of the tunnel and is the first layer of defense. This clay material is held in
cardboard panels that are tacked to the walls and tunnel roofs. The second layer is an
asphalt membrane used as a last defense should something penetrate the tunnel. This
asphalt layer is applied directly to the concrete structure. The bentonite layer is activated by
water, which causes the clay to swell and become a permanent waterproof seal.
In Phoenix, a thick plastic membrane was placed between the cement roof of the tunnel and
a layer of soil from four to eight feet in depth for landscaping. Some leakage occurs with this
system, although it is not excessive. Currently plans are underway to construct a koi pond
(an authentic Japanese pond) around a Japanese teahouse. This causes concern about the
pond breaking through the plastic membrane at some point. Because of this, ADOT is
researching stronger membrane samples to replace the existing membrane (a major project
in itself).
I-70 Capping 8-16 Town of Vail
In Duluth, a 6.5-millimeter plastic sheet with a sticky side was wrapped around the entire
tunnel. An asphalt board was used to hold the membrane in place. Four inches of low
strength concrete were placed on top of that, and a granular backfill and landscaping were
the final layer.
Duluth has had only one problem with leakage where the waterproofing pulled loose at the
top of the Lake Place Tunnel. This was corrected and resealed.
· Drainage
Drainage has been a major issue for cut-and-cover tunnels in the cities referenced. In
Phoenix, drainage was the greatest expense for construction. The drainage flow through the
city, northeast to southwest, cut across the area where the tunnel was to be built.
Consequently, a complex system of drainage tunnels under downtown Phoenix, 20 feet in
diameter, was built to carry the water six and one-half miles to the Salt River (south of the
project area).
· Access
Access for the Mercer Island project is provided through doors along the tunnel corridor, as
well as through the top of the lid. Plumbing, electrical, fire abatement systems, etc., are
accessed through these doors. Regulations regarding access pertain to issues such as
safety and visibility, but no regulations govern maintenance access.
· Public Support
While all of the cut-and-cover tunnel projects have ultimately received strong public support,
early and frequent communication with the public is essential when considering any project
of this magnitude. Benefits of cut-and-cover tunnels such as decreased noise, better air
quality, and increased green space appeal to a majority of the public. Public involvement
includes actions such as public meetings and open houses, newsletters, web pages, and
brochures.
Public involvement costs as a function of the total costs of the project cannot be calculated
precisely, as these costs vary. In Phoenix, public involvement costs totaled one to two
percent of the overall project costs. On Mercer Island, the percentage of public involvement
costs was not calculated separately, but these costs totaled millions of dollars. A great deal
of time and effort has been spent on public involvement by each city that has undertaken a
cut-and-cover project. They all stress that a thorough public involvement process will ensure
a smoother project in the long run.
Construction Issues
Construction issues must be addressed and include how to divert traffic on an interstate with
high traffic volumes, schedules and timing of construction, and possible impact to local
residences, structures, and businesses. In Duluth, historic structures in the area of
I-70 Capping 8-17 Town of Vail
construction were issues of much debate and concern. The cut-and-cover tunnels made it
possible to preserve all historic buildings in the area. Measures used to preserve these
structures included careful monitoring of blasting activities, use of small, delayed explosives,
and matting of explosives to eliminate flying rock. The final resolution left good feelings
between public agencies involved in the planning of the tunnels, members of the community,
and historic preservation agencies.
· Utilities Relocation
Utilities relocation was a great obstacle for all three cities because the tunnels were not
constructed within an existing roadway. Relocations are very costly and time-consuming.
· Soil Considerations
In areas such as Mercer Island, issues such as earthquake regions must be considered for
construction of a tunnel. In Vail, however, other considerations might apply, such as depth of
digging, type and density of soils present, and time of year. Digging should ideally take place
during warmer seasons to avoid frozen ground.
· Construction Details
Construction details were not acquired from all three cities, but the ADOT provided ample
information regarding the construction of the tunnel on I-10. The deck is actually 19 bridges
built side by side (one-half mile long). Each bridge is approximately 150 feet wide and 250
feet long with a six-foot thick concrete floor. The bridges are covered with a specially
prepared soil ranging in depth from four to eight feet.
The underground structure includes a completed bus terminal that serves two lanes. The
bus terminal is still not functional to date, as efforts by the City to initiate bond opportunities
have not been successful. Another attempt will be made in November.
Over 1,400 caissons support the deck units. The shafts for the 48-inch, square caissons
range in depth from 35 feet to over 70 feet, which required drilling of almost 70 linear feet.
The entire structure required over 100,000 cubic yards of concrete and 20 million pounds of
reinforcing steel.
As mentioned earlier, the old Central Avenue was removed and replaced with a new Central
Avenue Bridge. The bridge rises about 15 feet above the deck. 135,000 cubic yards of
concrete was used in its construction with about 80,000 yards used in the structures and the
remainder of the caissons.
Approximately 160 palm trees were removed from adjacent neighborhoods during
construction. They were maintained in a nursery during the three years of construction and
later returned to the same neighborhoods.
A unique feature of the Duluth tunnels includes the excavation of 236,000 cubic yards of
rock. This excavated rock was used to develop the City of Duluth’s new Downtown Lakewalk
I-70 Capping 8-18 Town of Vail
facility. 10,000 cubic yards of this material were also used to construct a lake trout and
salmon spawning reef in Lake Superior 700 feet offshore.
The Mercer Island Tunnel required 31 million pounds of steel and 154 million cubic yards of
concrete for its construction.
· Construction Costs
Figures for construction costs of cut-and-cover tunnels indicate that they are expensive to
build. The figures in Table 1 indicate the total costs to build the tunnels in each city and the
funding sources. The costs include the aboveground activities as well.
Table 8-1: Total Costs for Each Tunnel
City Total Cost
(2001 dollars) *
Funding Sources Percentage covered by funding
source
Mercer Island $220 million Federal (FHWA)
State (WSDOT)
Local (City)
90%
8%
2%
Phoenix >$200 million Federal (FHWA)
State (ADOT)
95%
5%
Duluth (all 4 tunnels) $400 million Federal (FHWA)
State (MnDOT)
90%
10%
*Costs have been escalated to 2001 dollars, by escalating costs by 6 % per year from 1989 to present.
In general, the FHWA primarily funded the basic structures required for the tunnels. State
and local sources funded most aboveground work (landscaping, artwork, etc.).
Complete tunnel dimensions were obtained from the City of Duluth to give an average
account of the costs of the four tunnels. When the work was done, the costs ranged from
approximately $30,000 to $80,000 per linear foot, depending on the functions of the tunnel –
ventilation, lighting, safety features, etc. These costs escalated at six percent per year over
the last twelve years amount to approximately $60,000 to $160,000 per linear foot of tunnel,
again dependent on the functions of the tunnel. Care should be exercised in applying these
cost figures to the capping of I-70 through Vail, as the conditions, situations, and desired
results are significantly different than those of the projects studied. The best way to
determine a rough cost of the I-70 capping is to prepare a conceptual layout of the capping
and proceed through a cost estimate based on the conceptual layout.
Funding of the tunnels in Mercer Island, Phoenix, and Duluth were built as a form of
mitigation for the building of freeways through these cities. The roadways did not exist
before the building of the tunnels, so noise, visual, and air quality mitigation were necessary
for construction.
I-70 Capping 8-19 Town of Vail
For comparison, construction costs were also found for the Hanging Lake Tunnels in western
Colorado (approximately 50 miles west of Vail). The major difference is that these tunnels
were drilled and blasted into the side of the mountain (a more expensive process). Total
construction costs for this project were $90 million for two 4000 foot tunnels, each with two
lanes. This equates to approximately $22,500 per linear foot in 1989 or $45,000 per linear
foot escalated to 2001 at 6% per year.
· Maintenance Costs
Reports on maintenance costs were mixed as some city officials said these costs were much
higher than projected, and others said they were as expected. Mercer Island took steps
during construction to reduce long-term maintenance costs. Some measures include using
stainless steel where possible because of the corrosive atmosphere in the tunnel, installing
automated systems (described throughout this document), and providing easy access for
maintenance. The routine maintenance costs for Mercer Island are $1,105,000 per year and
are broken down as follows:
· $750,000 Area 5 Maintenance – energy bills; mechanical, electrical, electronic, utility, and
fire systems; road surface; drainage; and structure
· $100,000 Signals Branch – roadway illumination, radio rebroadcast, and emergency
phone and camera systems
· $175,000 Traffic Operations – traffic monitoring and systems operation
· $75,000 Mercer Island Park Department – landscape maintenance on the lid
· $5,000 Bridge Branch – structure inspection and repair
Maintenance costs for Phoenix are higher than originally anticipated. The Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) is responsible for the tasks and costs of maintenance
underground. The routine maintenance costs for the tunnel below ground are $500,000 to
$800,000 per year. The City of Phoenix is responsible for the tasks and costs of
maintenance aboveground. The routine costs of aboveground maintenance are
approximately $300,000 per year, and this includes tasks such as landscaping, water,
personnel (a full staff just for the park), and other park and building maintenance activities.
The maintenance costs of the Duluth tunnels include costs such as wall-washing twice a
year, maintenance of the concrete roadway, snowplowing (which is not excessive since the
roadway is covered underground), and the use of chemicals for salt removal. Routine
maintenance for the tunnels is over $200,000 per year.
Maintenance costs were also found for the Hanging Lake Tunnels, as these costs might be
somewhat comparable to the maintenance costs for capping in Vail. The Hanging Lake
Tunnels have two lanes in each tunnel and are three-quarters of a mile long. These tunnels
have total maintenance costs of $1.4 million per year.
Traffic Model 9-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 9: Traffic Model
Introduction
The Vail transportation model is a simple spreadsheet model using origin and destination
pairs to estimate future traffic volumes on the street network. The transportation model does
not distinguish between vehicle types and trip types. The model describes the potential
traffic volumes on the Vail transportation network when the existing ratio of vehicle types and
trip types remains constant. The model does not assume new transit programs and services
other than what would be needed to maintain the current transit mode split. The model does,
however, identify the potential for congested roadways in the future that should be under
consideration for new or enhanced transit and alternative transportation services.
Model Development
The spreadsheet transportation model is intended to be simple and easy to develop. In the
transportation model, “nodes” represent the main origins and destinations in Vail, and “links”
represent the main roadway network (including I-70) in Vail. The spreadsheet model
includes sixteen nodes and eighteen links (see Figure 9-1). These nodes and links are
described below.
Traffic Model 9-2 Town of Vail
Figure 9-1: Schematic Representation of the Vail Transportation Model Network
Nodes (•)
The sixteen nodes represent specific major origins and destinations in Vail. Table 9-1 shows
the name, abbreviation used in the model spreadsheet, and a description of the nodes used
in the Vail transportation model.
Table 9-1: Nodes in the Vail Transportation Model
Name of Node Abbreviation Description
I-70 West 70W Includes all origins and destinations west of Vail along I-
70.
West Interchange WIN
The roundabout interchange is not an origin or destination
by itself, but serves as a transition point for I-70 traffic into
Vail.
Intermountain IMN Community on the south I-70 frontage road, west of the
West Vail roundabouts.
Cascade CAS
Community on the south I-70 frontage road, east of the
West Vail roundabouts.
Lionshead LHD Community on the south I-70 frontage road, west of the
Main Vail roundabouts.
CHX WVL VVW FAV
IMN CAS LHD GCS EVL
70W 70E
VVL
TRC
H
O
I
J
K
L M
A B DC
E F
N
P
Q R
G
North
Traffic Model 9-3 Town of Vail
Middle Interchange MIN
The roundabout interchange is not an origin or destination
by itself, but serves as a transition point for I-70 traffic into
Vail.
Vail Village VVL The main village of Vail, south of the Main Vail
roundabouts.
Transportation Center TRC Transportation intermodal facility on the south I-70
frontage road, east of the Main Vail roundabouts.
Golf Course GCS The public golf course in Vail on the south I-70 frontage
road.
Falls at Vail FAV Community on the north I-70 frontage road, west of the
East Vail interchange.
East Interchange EIN The interchange is not an origin or destination by itself, but
serves as a transition point for I-70 traffic into Vail.
East Vail EVL Community south of I-70 and east of the East Vail
interchange.
I-70 East 70E Includes all origins and destinations west of Vail along I-
70.
Chamonix CHX Community on the north I-70 frontage road, west of the
West Vail roundabouts.
West Vail WVL Community on the north I-70 frontage road, east of the
West Vail roundabouts.
Vail View VVW Community on the north I-70 frontage road, west of the
Main Vail roundabouts.
Links ( )
The eighteen links represent the major roadway network in Vail. Table 9-2 shows the name
and description of the links used in the Vail transportation model.
Traffic Model 9-4 Town of Vail
Table 9-2: Links in the Vail Transportation Model
Name of Link Description
A I-70 west of the West Vail roundabouts
B I-70 between the West Vail roundabouts and the Main Vail roundabouts
C I-70 between the Main Vail roundabouts and the East Vail interchange
D I-70 east of the East Vail interchange
E South frontage road west of the West Vail roundabouts
F South frontage road from the West Vail roundabouts to the center of the Cascade
area development
G South frontage road from the center of the Cascade area development to the
center of the Lionshead development
H South frontage road from the Main Vail roundabouts to the center of the
Lionshead development
I Main access to Vail Village
J South frontage road from the Main Vail roundabouts to the transportation center
K South frontage road from the transportation center to the golf course
L From the golf course to the Falls at Vail on the opposite side of I-70
M Bighorn Road from the East Vail interchange to East Vail
N North frontage road from the West Vail roundabouts to the center of the Chamonix
development
O North frontage road from the West Vail roundabouts to the center of the West Vail
development
Traffic Model 9-5 Town of Vail
P North frontage road from the center of the West Vail development to the center of
the Vail View area development
Q North frontage road from the center of the Vail View area development to the Main
Vail roundabouts
R From the Falls at Vail to the East Vail interchange
Model Matrix
The main origins and destinations (the nodes) in Vail were arranged to create the following
origin (rows) and destination (columns) matrix shown in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3: Origins and Destinations Matrix (Existing)
DESTINATIONS
70W WIN IMN CAS LHD MIN VVL TRC GCS FAV EIN EVL 70E CHX WVL VVW
70W 0 0 653 1182 2694 0 1912 3323 2869 641 0 684 4038 1058 2135 2478
WIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IMN 457 0 0 36 126 0 70 161 178 26 0 31 151 24 49 105
CAS 1182 0 56 0 165 0 583 982 824 49 0 62 344 38 81 233
LHD 1924 0 128 119 0 0 553 990 890 188 0 201 1176 167 339 687
MIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VVL 509 0 27 152 203 0 0 103 148 5 0 10 53 25 52 33
TRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GCS 1145 0 98 331 497 0 222 168 0 86 0 97 603 221 427 349
FAV 706 0 32 55 286 0 22 143 257 0 0 11 60 36 74 47
EIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EVL 1369 0 82 120 555 0 75 307 498 22 0 0 177 87 180 121
70E 4375 0 242 373 1782 0 214 957 1620 59 0 98 0 265 548 367
CHX 1058 0 39 38 232 0 94 333 525 33 0 45 245 0 15 175
WVL 1200 0 41 46 265 0 110 380 608 38 0 50 284 8 0 184
OR
I
G
I
N
S
VVW 2826 0 165 265 1104 0 136 594 1027 47 0 70 386 199 368 0
Traffic Model 9-6 Town of Vail
Each cell contains a value that represents a number of trips being made between two nodes
(the process of developing the trip numbers is discussed in the following section). All trips
are assumed to be one-way and originating from home (home-based). For example, in
Table 9-3 the number of existing trips made between CAS and TRC is 982. However, the
number of existing trips made between TRC and CAS is zero because the TRC does not
produce an original trip (i.e., a home-based trip). All trips from the TRC were originally
produced from somewhere else.
The origin and destination table is used to determine the volume of trips made between
nodes. The volume of traffic on an individual roadway (link) can be obtained by adding up
specific trips between nodes (origin and destination pairs). Appendix H2 contains the
roadway link volumes and associated origin and destination pairs.
Existing Network
Population and Employment Estimates
Assumptions were made about the population and employment of each node with respect to
every other node. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau was used to estimate relative
population densities for each node. Land use and zoning maps were used to estimate
relative employment densities for each node. Appendix H1 contains the population and
employment data used for developing the model. Existing traffic volume information and the
population and employment estimates were used to allocate existing trips for the model. The
Calibration section below discusses the calibration procedure in more detail.
Volumes
Existing traffic information was used to develop a baseline of existing traffic volumes for the
existing model matrix. The model uses the most recent data available for the Town of Vail
from counts taken in the summer of 2000 and verified through conversations with the Town
of Vail. The model also uses the most recent available traffic volume information for I-70
through Vail. Appendix H2 contains the traffic volume information used for the model.
Calibration
The existing volumes for the Vail area were used to calibrate the model. Trips were
assigned to specific origin and destination (O-D) pairs in an iterative process. The trips were
Traffic Model 9-7 Town of Vail
assigned to O-D pairs based on the respective weight of the population and employment
densities. The greater the population or employment density, the more trips were assigned
to that O-D pair. The iterative process included adjustments to original population and
employment estimates to create model volumes that matched existing volumes.
The iterative process yielded a model that reports existing traffic volumes on the network to
within two percent, with thirteen out of eighteen links within a one percent tolerance. The
largest margin of error was twelve percent. Appendix H3 contains the results of the model
calibration.
Future Network
Growth Factors
Estimates of growth for each node were developed in consultation with the Town of Vail,
except for nodes east and west of Vail on I-70. The growth in nodes east and west of Vail on
I-70 were developed using the I-70 Mountain Corridor MIS. The following table shows the
estimated growth over a 20-year period for each node:
Table 9-4: Estimated Growth for Nodes in the Vail Model
Population Employment
Node Annual
Growth
20-Year
Growth
Growth
Factor
Annual
Growth
20-Year
Growth
Growth
Factor
70W 3.50% 70.0% 1.700 3.50% 70.0% 1.700
WIN 0.00% 0.00% 1.000 0.00% 0.00% 1.000
IMN 0.13% 2.50% 1.025 0.00% 0.00% 1.000
CAS 0.13% 2.50% 1.025 0.15% 3.00% 1.030
LHD 1.00% 20.0% 1.200 1.25% 25.0% 1.250
MIN 0.00% 0.00% 1.000 0.00% 0.00% 1.000
VVL 0.65% 13.0% 1.130 0.20% 10.0% 1.100
TRC 0.10% 2.00% 1.020 0.10% 2.00% 1.020
GCS 0.03% 0.50% 1.005 0.03% 0.50% 1.005
FAV 0.03% 0.50% 1.005 0.00% 0.00% 1.000
Traffic Model 9-8 Town of Vail
EIN 0.00% 0.00% 1.000 0.00% 0.00% 1.000
EVL 0.03% 0.50% 1.005 0.03% 0.50% 1.005
70E 3.50% 70.0% 1.700 3.50% 70.0% 1.700
CHX 0.13% 2.50% 1.025 0.00% 0.00% 1.000
WVL 0.15% 3.00% 1.030 0.40% 8.00% 1.080
VVW 0.00% 0.00% 1.000 0.03% 0.50% 1.005
The growth estimates assume very little population growth in the Vail area with the exception
of some in-fill development in Lionshead and Vail Village. Employment growth is expected to
out-pace the population growth in these same areas, including the commercial growth in the
West Vail development.
The existing traffic volumes are multiplied by the growth factors to estimate future traffic
conditions. The relative weight of the growth factors provides an estimate of the trip
distribution between origins and destinations. This type of model is commonly referred to as
a Fratar trip model. In a Fratar model, the trip growth on a link is related to the growth rate of
the associated origin and destination nodes and the relative size of the growth compared to
other nodes. An iterative process of balancing origins and destinations yields the future 2020
transportation model. Appendix H4 contains the growth model.
Trip Assignment and Adjustments
The simple spreadsheet model assumes that the O-D pairs only have one route. In reality,
there are several different routes (links) between O-D pairs. In the Vail model, the route
chosen for the origin and destination pair is assumed to be the most likely route. For
instance, the model assigns all trips between Cascade (CAS) and Vail View (VVW) along
links F, O, and P. However, a certain percentage of the actual trips being made will use
another route along links G, H, and Q. In the Vail model, these trips are reassigned based
on the forecasted traffic volumes and capacity of the individual links.
Before adjustments, some links showed decreases in forecasted traffic volume as a result of
the “all or nothing” trip assignment discussed in the previous paragraph. Reassigning trips
from overloaded links solves this problem. Trips were reassigned if the link volumes
exceeded a level of service D (LOS D). Typically, LOS D represents a congested condition
that may be unacceptable to some drivers. Drivers that are discouraged by the congested
condition will seek other routes to their destination. Appendix H5 shows the trip assignment
and reassignment worktable for the model.
Traffic Model 9-9 Town of Vail
Final Model – Adjusted 2020 Traffic Volumes
The final, adjusted model is shown in Figure 9-2 representing the Vail Valley/I-70 corridor.
Table 9-5 represents the 2020 adjusted model traffic volumes for the Vail model.
Table 9-5: 2020 Adjusted Volumes for the Vail Model
Link Existing Volumes % increase to
2020
2020 Model Volumes Adjusted
I-70 A 40,500 74% 70,600
I-70 B 28,250 77% 50,000
I-70 C 22,400 76% 39,400
I-70 D 18,500 74% 32,200
Intermountain E 3,000 3% 3,100
South Frontage
Road
F 10,000 26% 12,600
South Frontage
Road
G 9,000 39% 12,500
South Frontage
Road
H 12,000 17% 14,000
Vail Village I 5,130 21% 6,200
South Frontage
Road
J 16,000 5% 16,800
South Frontage
Road
K 8,000 23% 9,800
Underpass L 7,000 6% 7,400
Bighorn Road M 5,000 2% 5,100
Traffic Model 9-10 Town of Vail
Chamonix N 4,500 16% 5,200
North Frontage
Road
O 12,000 18% 14,200
North Frontage
Road
P 7,000 31% 9,200
North Frontage
Road
Q 5,000 16% 5,800
Falls at Vail R 7,000 29% 9,000
Figure 9-2: Final Adjusted Schematic Representation
of the Vail Transportation Model Network
Summary
Given the assumptions about the growth potential in Vail, the model identifies several
roadways that have the potential for significant increases in traffic volume; specifically, the
North and South Frontage Roads near the West Vail interchange.
The model indicates that the North Frontage Road (links O and P) will see a substantial
growth in traffic over the next 20 years with an approximately 30 percent increase. This is
due to the assumed employment growth of the West Vail development north of I-70.
Increased development in the Lionshead area results in increased traffic volumes on the
South Frontage Road between the West Vail roundabouts and the Main Vail roundabouts.
Note that the South Frontage Road link to the Transportation Center (TRC) has only a
moderate increase (five percent) in traffic volume. This is because the Transportation Center
is not expected to attract any more traffic volume than it currently does now. Enhanced
transit services or additional incentives to use the Transportation Center could be
CHX WVL VVW FAV
IMN CAS LHD GCS EVL
70W 70E
VVL
TRC
H
O
I
J
K
L M
A B DC
E F
N
P
Q R
G
North
Traffic Model 9-11 Town of Vail
implemented to counteract the increase in traffic volumes in other parts of the town. If such
strategies are implemented, the traffic volumes in and out of the Transportation Center would
increase.
The Town of Vail has set a limit of acceptable congestion of LOS C or less on town streets.
Several of the roadways modeled for the existing condition do not meet this criterion. These
roads include the South Frontage Road between the West Vail roundabouts and the
Transportation Center (links F, G, H and J) and between East Vail and the Transportation
Center (K), the main road into Vail Village (link I), and the North Frontage Road into West
Vail (links O and P). In addition, the South Frontage Road into the Transportation Center is
in excess of LOS D. The model estimates that these roads will continue to be over LOS C,
with links F, H, J, and O being at LOS D.
PEIS Issues 10-1 Town of Vail
Chapter 10: PEIS Issues
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) recently initiated a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Interstate 70 (I-70) between Denver and
Glenwood Springs. Several I-70 issues have been identified that affect the Town of Vail
and are relevant to the PEIS process. These issues were developed by the Town of Vail
from a citizen focus group. The purpose of this chapter is to document the issues
identified, discuss real and potential problems caused by these issues, make
recommendations for these issues, and provide input into the PEIS process.
Issues
Issues relevant to the Town of Vail that were raised from staff involvement and from the
focus group held September 28, 2000 included the following: noise, air quality, water
quality, fixed guideway opportunities, accessibility, congestion, safety, the East Vail
Interchange design, and transportation options. For each of these issues, comments
were raised to address the associated causes and/or problems. Potential threats to the
Town of Vail were then identified for each issue. Finally, solutions were proposed to
address these issues. Table 10-1 at the end of this chapter also shows these issues in
the form of a matrix. The matrix includes each issue and the solutions that might address
that issue. Most of the solutions pertain to more than one issue.
PEIS Issues 10-2 Town of Vail
Noise
Noise has become a concern for many Vail residents, due primarily to increasing traffic on
I-70. Comments raised through the input process include the following:
· Speeding. Many vehicles on I-70 exceed the posted speed limit through the Town of
Vail, creating higher levels of noise.
· High traffic volumes – a high volume of vehicles creates overall noise levels that are
unacceptable to the residents of Vail.
· Type of pavement – rough pavement on I-70 and rumble strips along the sides of I-
70 create higher noise levels through this area.
· Topography – the steep valley slopes keep more noise in the valley and result in
increased noise levels from I-70.
· Compression brakes on large trucks – Commonly referred to as “Jake-brakes,”
these are used to reduce speed on downgrades. These brakes create high levels of
noise and are used by trucks traveling west on I-70 on the downgrade of Vail Pass.
These factors may result in potential threats to the Town of Vail and its residents.
Property values may begin to decline if noise levels continue to increase, especially near
I-70. This may also result in lower development potential of the area in general. Quality
of life for residents may decrease if high levels of noise become constant from I-70. The
visitor experience may be negatively altered as well if the area is perceived as too noisy
and congested. Finally, health risks such as loss of hearing and increased stress may
also be associated with high noise levels.
Ways were discussed to solve noise problems along I-70 through the Town of Vail. Some
methods met unanimous approval while others were discussed only briefly. The solutions
discussed that met unanimous approval are as follows:
· Better enforcement of speed limits using techniques such as an increase in
enforcement personnel or issuing speeding tickets using photo radar.
· Lower the speed limit for trucks through the Vail area.
· No passing for trucks through Vail.
· A smoother, low noise pavement could be used on I-70 through the Vail area. This
would reduce tire noise.
· Sound barriers to block I-70 noise from the Town of Vail, if they are feasible.
PEIS Issues 10-3 Town of Vail
· Enforce the noise ordinance that is currently in place for the Town of Vail. This
could involve better coordination between the Town of Vail and the local or state law
enforcement agencies.
Some other opportunities to address noise issues were also mentioned but not
unanimously supported including the following:
· Alternative transportation routes for trucks and freight through the area to diffuse
the noise.
· Bury or “cap” I-70 through Vail. This would involve tunneling I-70 underground and
using the land above for development, open space, or other uses.
· White noise is a low-level noise used to mask louder noises. Residents or
businesses could use white noise to muffle the noise from I-70.
· Noise cancellation creates opposite and equal noise waves to cancel the noise from
automobile engines, based on the characteristics of each individual engine.
Some solutions for noise that will be described in further detail below include the use of
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), better construction management, and providing
incentives for using alternative transportation use.
Air Quality
Air quality has also become an important issue for residents of the Town of Vail due to
increased traffic volumes through the area. The Town of Vail raised comments specific to
air quality including the following:
· Burning brakes cause greater emissions of particulates and odor into the air,
causing a decline in air quality in the Vail Valley.
· Dust in the form of PM10 results from gravel used on the road for snowy/icy conditions
on I-70.
Problems with air quality create potential threats to the Town of Vail and its residents.
The threats addressed were found to be the same as those listed resulting from noise,
with the addition of several issues specific to air quality. In addition to the health of
residents of the Town of Vail, wildlife in the area could be adversely affected. The threat
of hazardous material spills by trucks transporting these materials could also create
potential air quality problems. Other hidden threats could exist as well, which are not
PEIS Issues 10-4 Town of Vail
always apparent in the short term; rather, they have the potential to affect the long-term
health of the community.
Opportunities to address air quality issues were also unanimous in some cases, with only
a few comments on others. Opportunities to address air quality issues that met
unanimous approval include the following:
· Diligent carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring. By constantly monitoring CO levels,
the Town of Vail will be better informed as to when levels are unacceptable.
· Decreased sanding of I-70 in snowy or icy conditions. Sanding the roads to increase
traction for vehicles traveling I-70 in these conditions creates high amounts of dust.
Alternative types of traction could be considered such as hard aggregate that gets
swept away instead of creating dust. Other types of deicers could also be used that
are more environmentally sound to decrease sanding while still providing a safe
roadway in snowy or icy conditions.
· Alternative transportation modes for people such as a fixed guideway system
would decrease the amount of vehicles on the road and therefore could reduce the
amounts of pollutants in the air.
· Alternative transportation routes for freight could be used to disperse the
emissions in the air. Instead of all vehicles on I-70 traveling the same route, trucks and
other freight vehicles could take an alternative route to reduce concentrated levels of
emissions in the corridor.
Other ideas mentioned to address air quality issues include fans or mechanical devices to
diffuse vehicle emissions in the Vail Valley along I-70 and the installation of a heated
roadway to reduce the amount of sanding necessary.
In addition to these solutions, some others that would address air quality described under
solutions for noise include speed enforcement, lowering the speed limits for trucks and
other vehicles, and capping I-70.
Some solutions for air quality that will be described in further detail below include ITS and
providing incentives for alternative transportation use.
Water Quality
Water quality is another concern for the Town of Vail because of increased traffic
volumes. Comments were raised by the Town of Vail about I-70 and the effect that high
traffic volumes are having on water quality. These include the following:
PEIS Issues 10-5 Town of Vail
· The source of the pollution into the waterways. Point source pollution is easier to
diagnose and control; but non-point sources, which can originate from I-70 and travel
to distant waterways, can often be difficult to diagnose and treat.
· Sanding of I-70. Once the snow and ice melts, the sand is blown into ditches or runs
off into waterways near I-70, creating sediment problems.
· Polluted run-off is a problem resulting from storm drainage, animal carcasses or road
kill, magnesium chloride used for deicing, oil and other hazardous materials from
vehicles traveling I-70, and litter.
Threats caused by these issues are once again the same as those common to noise and
air quality, with the addition of some specific to water quality. Polluted waters adversely
affect fish and plant habitat. This can be seen in declining numbers of certain species of
fish and plant life. Another threat is that the water flows to downvalley communities,
putting the health of the residents, wildlife, and plant life in those areas at risk as well.
Some opportunities to address these issues were raised briefly during the process, and
these include the following:
· A water treatment program for local waterways.
· An Adopt a Highway program to clean up litter and spills before they have a chance
to enter the waterways.
· Better maintenance of the area to keep the corridor free of litter, hazardous
materials, and/or other obstacles that might lead to the polluting of the local waterways.
In addition to these solutions, other solutions already addressed that would apply to water
quality include capping I-70, less sanding, alternative routes for freight, and heating the
roadway.
Some solutions for water quality that will be described in further detail include ITS, better
construction management, and providing incentives for alternative transportation use.
Fixed Guideway
The PEIS also addresses the idea of a fixed guideway (monorail) that would eventually
run from Denver International Airport (DIA) to the Eagle County Airport, under the
authority of the Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority (CIFGA). Because the
guideway would travel through parts or all of Vail, the Town of Vail addressed the issue.
The main comment raised was that the fixed guideway would provide for a greater
capacity of people to travel to and from the area. The higher volume of people using a
PEIS Issues 10-6 Town of Vail
monorail and therefore not driving in their vehicles could lessen the threats to the
community mentioned for the preceding issues.
Some opportunities to address this issue and encourage people to use the monorail were
discussed, and these include the following:
· Provide services in the median for travelers using the fixed guideway system (in
those areas where the system runs in the median).
· Provide incentives to use the monorail such as discounted rates for certain groups
or periods of travel or a frequent users card that offers special discounts or free miles
after a specified amount of use.
· Coordinate with parking strategies in Vail. This could be achieved by locating
stations near existing public parking garages or lots in Vail.
· Make compatible with the types of uses for the community. For example,
because skiing is a primary industry in the Vail Valley, ski racks and luggage
compartments should be installed on the cars of any rail system. All types of use for
the area should be considered to encourage riders to use this type of transportation.
· Find alternatives to the addition of traffic lanes on I-70 through Vail. The Town of
Vail feels that widening I-70 is not the answer to congestion problems, and alternative
transportation solutions such as a monorail are necessary. Additional lanes of traffic
on I-70 could potentially limit opportunities for other transportation solutions in the
corridor in the future.
In addition to these opportunities, other solutions already mentioned that would apply to
the fixed guideway include capping I-70, alternative transportation modes for people, and
alternative transportation routes for freight.
Some solutions that would apply to the use of a fixed guideway system that will be
described in further detail include better driver education and ITS.
Other Issues
Other issues were discussed by the Town of Vail in less detail, while still retaining the
same level of importance. These are discussed below.
PEIS Issues 10-7 Town of Vail
Access
Access is not always consistent on I-70 from Denver to Vail (and vice versa) because of
construction delays, weather, congestion, and other unforeseen conditions. The Town of
Vail raised some comments concerning access. One of these is the economy of Vail.
Inclement weather, closures, or other conditions may create poor or no accessibility for
the Town of Vail. This may prevent people from visiting the area, and therefore, reduce
benefits to the economy.
Poor accessibility may also result in a poor guest experience. High travel times can
create frustration and a feeling of dissatisfaction with the overall experience.
Consequently, some of these guests may not make repeat visits.
Another comment concerning access involves the dependability of travel times along I-70
in the corridor. Travel times are generally inconsistent, depending on the time of day and
other unforeseeable conditions on I-70.
The Town of Vail discussed opportunities to address access. One solution was
unanimous while others were mentioned briefly. The unanimous solution discussed is
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). ITS is a way of managing transportation from a
broader perspective, stressing the fact that transportation involves more than just
widening highways. For a growing population, alternative methods of improving
transportation should be considered such as rail systems, improved bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, better management of existing systems, better management of
vehicles, and better management of transportation users. Some of these systems such
as fixed guideway systems can be run in almost all weather conditions and would not be
hindered by delays such as road construction or road closures.
Another solution is better communication. This includes better communication with
residents of the Town of Vail, travelers on I-70, and within agencies such as the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT). Improved information for travelers such as road
closures and congestion delays may alert a driver to make the trip at another time or use
another route, if possible. The various regional branches of CDOT may also benefit by
keeping all information consistent and updated through constant communication,
electronically and/or verbally. This can be done with centrally managed message signs,
radio, websites, and phone systems.
Better construction management during construction activities can also minimize delays
for improved access. By practicing efficient construction management techniques such as
performing the majority of the work during off hours or days, traffic congestion can be
minimized.
Other solutions already mentioned that also apply to access include capping I-70,
alternative transportation modes for people, alternative transportation routes for freight,
PEIS Issues 10-8 Town of Vail
providing services in the median, providing incentives for alternative transportation use,
and coordination with parking strategies in Vail.
Congestion
Congestion along I-70 is another concern for the Town of Vail. Congestion occurs under
many circumstances including peak hour periods such as post-ski area closure, accidents,
inclement weather, and construction delays. Congestion and traffic delays can reduce the
quality of life for residents and quality of experience for guests.
One solution that met unanimous approval for the Town of Vail is an Incident
Management Plan, a subset of ITS, to be managed by CDOT. Incident management
involves the anticipation and prevention of problems by assigning jurisdictional
responsibility for problems or incidents that may occur on I-70. This would require
coordination between several different agencies such as fire, emergency services, and
CDOT; all of which may be under different jurisdictions. In the event of an accident, the
Plan would designate a responsible party for that type or location of accident. Specific
procedures would be laid out for that party to follow in order to respond quickly and clear
out the accident to maintain adequate traffic flow.
Other solutions that have been mentioned previously that would address congestion
include alternative transportation modes for people, alternative transportation routes for
freight, other ITS, traveler communication, construction management, better CDOT
communication, providing services in the median, providing incentives for using alternative
transportation, and coordinating alternative transportation with parking strategies in Vail.
Safety
Safety has also become a concern for the Town of Vail. As an increasing number of
vehicles are traveling I-70 at high speeds, more accidents are occurring. In addition to
some of the solutions discussed above, another solution to this problem includes installing
guard barriers on I-70. These would prevent vehicles from crossing over into the other
lanes or driving over a steep drop during an accident.
Better driver education is a unanimous solution to create safer driving conditions. Many
drivers are unaware of the potential hazards that may exist on a roadway such as I-70.
By educating drivers about these hazards and how to avoid them, many accidents could
be avoided.
Other solutions already mentioned that would also apply to safety include speed
enforcement, lower speed limits, no passing for trucks through Vail, capping I-70,
alternative transportation modes for people, alternative transportation routes for freight,
PEIS Issues 10-9 Town of Vail
heating the roadway, incident management, other ITS, and providing incentives for using
alternative transportation.
East Vail Interchange Design
The Town of Vail also discussed the East Vail Interchange design. They feel that the
design needs to be reviewed in relation to the traffic volumes at that interchange.
One solution that was discussed is a redesign of the intersection. A more efficient design
could alleviate traffic problems by creating a better flow for the high traffic volumes.
Another solution for this issue that has already been mentioned is better CDOT
communication. Intersections such as this one with poor functionality should be made a
priority for local and state agencies.
Transportation Options
Transportation options involve creating or providing other modes or options to I-70
travelers. Some specific options include finding sources of funding for the CIFGA. CIFGA
would provide an alternate mode to private vehicles. Funding for this agency has not yet
been established for the creation of a mass transit alternative to I-70. Another option
includes giving the CDOT responsibility for finding an alternative route for freight carriers.
One example is the use of I-80 as an alternative route to I-70.
Solutions suggested for this issue that have already been mentioned include other
alternative transportation modes for people, alternative transportation routes for freight,
driver education on the benefits of alternate modes, ITS, traveler communication, better
CDOT communication, services in the median, providing incentives for using alternative
transportation, coordination with parking strategies, catering to types of uses for those
using alternate modes such as the CIFGA, and prohibiting the addition of traffic lanes to I-
70.
Conclusion
While the Town of Vail is not a large community in terms of population and area, the
community is an important part of the economy of Colorado. The ski area, recreation, and
retail industries are substantial contributors to the state. The issues discussed by the
Town of Vail are not necessarily specific to their community. These are issues that affect
many towns along I-70. With rising local and visitor populations, I-70 has been a source
of conflict and debate over solutions to relieve environmental, safety, and congestion
concerns that will only become worse with time if no action is taken. Alternative
PEIS Issues 10-10 Town of Vail
transportation solutions seem to be the most promising remedies for many of the
problems on I-70. The Town of Vail presents these issues with the hopes of creating
lasting solutions for the future of the community and other communities along I-70.
Issues
**
S
p
e
e
d
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
**
L
o
w
e
r
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
r
u
c
k
s
Lo
w
e
r
s
p
e
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
f
o
r
a
l
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
**
N
o
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
r
u
c
k
s
Re
r
o
u
t
e
t
r
u
c
k
s
**
L
o
w
n
o
i
s
e
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
Bu
r
y
/
c
a
p
I
-
7
0
Wh
i
t
e
n
o
i
s
e
No
i
s
e
c
a
n
c
e
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
**
S
o
u
n
d
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
En
f
o
r
c
e
N
o
i
s
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
**
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
C
O
**
L
e
s
s
s
a
n
d
i
n
g
**
A
l
t
.
t
r
a
n
s
p
.
M
o
d
e
s
f
o
r
p
e
o
p
l
e
**
A
l
t
.
t
r
a
n
s
p
.
r
o
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
f
r
e
i
g
h
t
Fa
n
s
/
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
i
r
He
a
t
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Wa
t
e
r
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
Ad
o
p
t
a
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
**
D
r
i
v
e
r
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
**
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
**
O
t
h
e
r
I
T
S
Gu
a
r
d
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
Tr
a
v
e
l
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
Be
t
t
e
r
C
D
O
T
c
o
m
m
.
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
m
e
d
i
a
n
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
u
s
i
n
g
a
l
t
.
tr
a
n
s
p
.
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Ca
t
e
r
t
o
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
u
s
e
**
N
o
m
o
r
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
s
Noise X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Air Quality X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Water Quality X X X X X X X X X X
Fixed
Guideway X X X X X X X X X X X
Accessibility X X X X X X X X X X X
Congestion X X X X X X X X X X X
Safety X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
E. Vail
Interchange
Design X X
Transportation
Options X X X X X X X X X X X X
Solutions
* Indicates unanimous support for these solutions by the Town of Vail.
Table 10-1: PEIS Issues and Possible Solutions
PEIS Issues 10-11