Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutI70Capping I-70 Capping I-70 Capping Excerpted from VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Prepared for: Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Prepared by: Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. 402 7TH Street, Atrium Suite 111 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 WGI Project Number 2284.02 July 2002 Table of Contents 1 Town of Vail Table of Contents Executive Summary Chapter 1: Vail Village Deliveries Introduction...................................................................................................................................1-1 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 1-4 Operations .................................................................................................................................1-10 Chapter 2: In-Town Shuttle Bus System Introduction...................................................................................................................................2-1 Town Bus System Overview .........................................................................................................2-2 Objectives.....................................................................................................................................2-3 Options for the Vail In-Town Shuttle System.................................................................................2-3 Analysis of Remaining Technologies ............................................................................................2-4 Recommendations........................................................................................................................2-9 Chapter 3: Outlying Bus System West Vail Bus Route Overview .....................................................................................................3-1 Downvalley Bus System ...............................................................................................................3-7 Chapter 4: Trail System Interface Recreation Trails Constructed since 1990.....................................................................................4-1 Pedestrian I-70 Undercrossings Constructed Since 1990 .............................................................4-2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................4-3 Chapter 5: Level of Service Analysis Introduction...................................................................................................................................5-1 Intersection Level of Service.........................................................................................................5-1 Possible Solutions.........................................................................................................................5-4 Parking Structure Level of Service................................................................................................5-5 Chapter 6: Connecting Fixed Guideways Draft Report Introduction...................................................................................................................................6-1 I-70 Mountain Corridor Major Investment Study ............................................................................6-2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................6-4 Table of Contents 2 Town of Vail Chapter 7: Noise Noise Terminology........................................................................................................................7-2 CDOT's Noise Policy.....................................................................................................................7-4 Noise Analysis ..............................................................................................................................7-5 Modeling Results ..........................................................................................................................7-7 Sensitivity Analysis .....................................................................................................................7-11 Noise Abatement ........................................................................................................................7-15 Summary ....................................................................................................................................7-32 Chapter 8: I-70 Capping Introduction...................................................................................................................................8-1 Opportunities ................................................................................................................................8-2 General I-70 Capping Issues ........................................................................................................8-4 Environmental Impact Considerations...........................................................................................8-6 General Capping Considerations ..................................................................................................8-7 Capping Construction Issues ........................................................................................................8-8 Comparative Capping Projects....................................................................................................8-11 Chapter 9: Traffic Model Introduction ...................................................................................................................................9-1 Model Development......................................................................................................................9-1 Existing Network ...........................................................................................................................9-6 Future Network..............................................................................................................................9-7 Summary.....................................................................................................................................9-10 Chapter 10: PEIS Issues Issues ........................................................................................................................................10-1 Other Issues ...............................................................................................................................10-6 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................10-9 Appendices A1: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, March 2000 and July 2000 A2: FHU Vail Village Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, September 2000 B1: Project Objectives and Criteria B2: Technology Screening Process C1: Portions of the Eagle County Trails Master Plan C2: Trail Maps from Original Transportation Master Plan D1: Intersection Level of Service D2: Roundabout Level of Service E: I-70 Capping and Fixed Guideway Mapping F1: CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines F2: Noise Contour Mapping G: FHWA Joint Development Study H1: Population and Employment Data Table of Contents 3 Town of Vail H2: Traffic Volume Data H3: Model Calibration H4: Growth Model H5: Trip Reassignment Work Table List of Figures 1-1: Potential Delivery Quadrants for the Commercial Core......................................................1-8 2-1: Comparative Screening Matrix...........................................................................................2-7 4-1: New Trails Completed Since 1990.....................................................................................4-4 7-1: Receiver Locations ............................................................................................................7-8 7-2: Approximate Noise Wall Locations ..................................................................................7-25 8-1: Total Costs for Each Tunnel ............................................................................................8-18 9-1: Schematic Representation of the Vail Transportation Model Network................................9-2 9-2: Schematic Representation of the Vail Transportation Model Network.................................9-4 List of Tables 3-1: Low-Floor Vehicle Specifications.......................................................................................3-5 5-1: Level of Service for a Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection ............................................5-2 5-2: Town of Vail Existing LOS Analysis ...................................................................................5-3 5-3: Town of Vail Existing Parking Structure LOS Analysis.......................................................5-5 7-1: Typical Noise Levels..........................................................................................................7-3 7-2: CDOT Noise Abatement Criteria........................................................................................7-4 7-3: I-70 Segment Characteristics.............................................................................................7-7 7-4: Noise Model Results..........................................................................................................7-9 7-5: Noise Level Ranges Based on Distance from I-70...........................................................7-11 7-6: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes ..............................................7-13 7-7: Decibel Increases Based on “Jake” Brake Noise .............................................................7-14 7-8: Decibel Increases Based on Rumble Strip Noise.............................................................7-14 7-9: Noise Wall Descriptions...................................................................................................7-23 7-10: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place ..................................................7-26 7-11: Masonry (Concrete Block) Noise Wall Cost .....................................................................7-28 7-12: Concrete Pre-Cast Panel Noise Wall Cost.......................................................................7-28 7-13: Concrete Cast in Place Noise Wall Cost ..........................................................................7-28 7-14: Noise Model Results with Mitigation Measures in Place ..................................................7-29 7-15: Relative Noise Level Increases Based on Traffic Volumes ..............................................7-34 9-1: Nodes in the Vail Transportation Model.............................................................................9-2 9-2: Links in the Vail Transportation Model...............................................................................9-4 9-3: Origins and Destinations Matrix (Existing).........................................................................9-5 9-4: Estimated Growth for Nodes in the Vail Model...................................................................9-7 9-5: 2020 Adjusted Volumes for the Vail Model ........................................................................9-9 10-1: PEIS Issues for the Town of Vail and Possible Solutions................................................10-11 Executive Summary i Town of Vail Executive Summary Vail, Colorado attracts a large number of visitors each year because of its world-class ski area, wide array of recreational opportunities, and thriving economy with numerous restaurants, retail businesses, and services to choose from. With a high volume of visitors comes a need for an efficient transportation system to get visitors to and from Vail and to transport them within the Town as well. In 1990, the Town of Vail undertook a Transportation Master Plan to address all transportation systems and future needs for the area (see Vail Transportation Master Plan, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, 1993). That document addressed the current transportation system within Vail and also provided recommendations for improvements to the system. Purpose of the Update to the Transportation Master Plan The Town of Vail makes great efforts to keep its transportation system as efficient and updated as possible. This is evidenced by the many improvements and additions to the system over the years to accommodate the high volumes of visitors and traffic each year. Because ten years have passed since the production of the original Transportation Master Plan, the Town has deemed it necessary to provide an update for the continued efficiency of the transportation system. The purpose of this Transportation Master Plan Update is to review the existing conditions of the transportation system and to address and/or resolve transportation issues that have arisen since 1990. The following issues were included in the original Transportation Master Plan and will be addressed and updated in this document: · Vail Village Deliveries · Town Bus System (specifically, the In-Town Shuttle) Executive Summary ii Town of Vail · Outlying Bus System · Trail System Interface · Peak Hour Traffic Volumes · Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis · Implementation Process · Plan Monitoring and Updating One issue addressed in the original document has been resolved since 1990 and is no longer applicable to this update, and that is the Interstate 70 (I-70) Access. In the original document, parking issues for the Town of Vail were also addressed. The parking issues are also being addressed at the time of publication of this update; however, the study is still underway and will be published as a separate document at a later date. In addition to the updates in this document, new issues for the Town of Vail transportation system have come to light. These will be addressed in this document and include the following: · Connecting fixed guideway transit systems · Noise contour map for I-70 traffic · I-70 capping review · Traffic forecasting · Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) issues resolution Each of these issues will represent a different chapter in this document. In general, these issues were studied and completed individually but are brought together in this document so that all affected parties and agencies may view them as a whole system. This ensures better coordination by all agencies in making the transportation system efficient for the present as well as for the future. Summary of Updates, Additions, and Resolved Issues To provide ease of reference, each update and addition is summarized below with recommendations, if applicable. The issues from the original Transportation Master Plan that are either resolved or no longer applicable are also summarized below. Updates: Vail Village Deliveries The Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study was researched and prepared 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. The study and this summary provide options and supporting background to help minimize or eliminate motorized vehicles (primarily Executive Summary iii Town of Vail delivery trucks) from the Commercial Core for the purpose of enhancing visitor enjoyment and safety. Based on analysis of the present loading and delivery system and the available options for the Commercial Core, short-term and long-term recommendations include the following: · Short-term 1. 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. 2. Consideration should be given to a ticketing structure that penalizes the repeat offender of the loading zones in Vail while not affecting Village guests. First-time offenders pay the maximum hourly rate, and the rate for each subsequent offense is increased significantly. 3. 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. Further, the use of on-street loading bays can be better regulated. 4. 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. 5. 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. Earlier delivery of goods could remove the majority of larger delivery vehicles from the Commercial Core before “guest hours.” This approach would be most effective if instituted in conjunction with improved signage and some changes in access and traffic flow in the Executive Summary iv Town of Vail Village. Stricter limitations could be put on Village access if delivery personnel could complete deliveries to all establishments before 7:00 a.m. · Long-term 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Change current zoning code requiring additional on or off-site storage requirements per retail square foot for businesses in the Village. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. Parking (summary to be provided by FHU) To be completed as a separate document at a later date. Executive Summary v Town of Vail In-Town Shuttle Bus System As a 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 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. This update is to determine the best options, from a range of opportunities, for providing mass transit for the Town of Vail In- Town Shuttle bus route. These options are being presented to address the increased demand and other issues discussed below on the In-Town Shuttle. The bus route is roughly a three-mile loop from Vail Village to Lionshead. The analysis of all potential options for the In-Town Shuttle system resulted in the following technologies for final consideration: · Power Unit/Trailer Combination Units · Low-floor Buses · Articulated Transit Buses · Low-floor, Articulated Buses · Guided Busway · Automated Guideway Transit (AGT): · SK · Cableliner DCC · Aeromovel Based on analysis of the remaining technologies and input from two focus group meetings attended by residents and businesses within the Town of Vail, a set of short-term and long- term recommendations for the In-Town Shuttle bus route have been developed and include the following: · Short-term 1. Develop an Express Bus Route from Vail Village to Lionshead – 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. 2. 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. Executive Summary vi Town of Vail 3. Improved 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. 4. Extend In-Town Shuttle Route to Cascade Village – If demand warrants, the In-Town Shuttle route should be extended west to serve 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 an on/off survey on its West Vail Green and Red routes to determine the number of riders who currently board and/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. 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 1. 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, 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. 2. 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 consider not only the presence of a bus, but the bus adherence to schedule and the volume of other traffic. Outlying Bus System This update includes a West Vail route structure review based on the West Vail Red Loop and the West Vail Green Loop. Ridership, schedules, and route information are provided as Executive Summary vii Town of Vail well as short-term and long-term recommendations to streamline the existing route. Also included in this analysis is discussion of a potential undercrossing of I-70 to be constructed in the Simba Run area. In particular, the effects to the West Vail bus route from this undercrossing are determined. Recommendations for the West Vail bus route include the following: · Short-term 1. 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. 2. Improved 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. 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. 3. Elimination of 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 stopping 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. 4. Installation of 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. Executive Summary viii Town of Vail · Long-term 1. Purchase of 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. 2. Incorporation of 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. 3. Incorporation of 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. In addition to the West Vail bus route, a discussion of the Downvalley bus system (the ECO system) is included. A bus service review is provided and includes information on routing, schedules, and ridership as well as short-term and long-term recommendations to provide more efficient routes. Recommendations for the Downvalley bus system include the following: · Short-term 1. Variable Lane System and GPS at Transportation Center – The transit plaza could 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 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. Executive Summary ix Town of Vail 2. 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. This can be done by making some of the existing runs into an express run with limited stops, or by adding an express run, which may require additional vehicles. · Long-term 1. 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 – 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 areas in each town, with runs scheduled to meet arriving and departing trains. Trail System Interface In the original Transportation Master Plan, the 1990 trail system is described and mapped. Recommendations are also included for new trails to be constructed that would tie in with the existing trail system and create a better-rounded system. This update provides information on trails that have been built in the Town of Vail since 1990 (from the recommendations made). Each new trail is described in terms of location and physical characteristics, and a map is included to illustrate the locations of the new trails. In addition, the recommendations made in 1990 have been re-prioritized to make a high priority of trail improvements that have not yet been implemented. In addition to the re-prioritization of the 1990 trail recommendations, the Town has also identified additional trail links that it considers to be of high priority. These include the following: 1. Lionshead Bypass – from the skier bridge in Lionshead, bypassing Lionshead, and connecting to the existing trail system behind Tree Tops Condominiums 2. Vail Village Bypass – from Vail Road near Checkpoint Charlie, to Vista Bahn 3. Sunburst Road Bypass – from the golf course clubhouse to the west end of Katsos Ranch Path Appendix C1 is a portion of the Eagle County Trails Master Plan. This appendix is included to illustrate how the trail system in the Town of Vail ties in with the Eagle County Trails Master Plan. Executive Summary x Town of Vail For reference, Appendix C2 includes the trail maps from the original Transportation Master Plan. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes In 1990, peak hour traffic volumes were collected at 26 intersections along the Frontage Roads in Vail. These counts were taken in March and July during peak weekends. This update includes counts in 2000 at the same intersections in March and July during peak weekends. The counts in 2000 differ because eight of the intersections from the 1990 counts have been reconstructed as four roundabouts; two in West Vail and two in Vail Village, all providing access to and from I-70. The results of the traffic counts are provided as Appendix A1. Appendix A2 also provides peak hour traffic counts completed by Felzburg Holt & Ullevig in September 2000 for the Vail Village area. These counts were not conducted for the 1990 Transportation Plan but are included here for reference. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis The LOS Analysis update provides LOS for the intersections studied in the original Transportation Master Plan. This update also includes LOS for the newly constructed roundabouts in West Vail and Vail Village. All intersections along the Frontage Road were found to maintain a LOS of C or better, a standard for the Town of Vail, with the exceptions of Vail Valley Drive West (LOS D), Matterhorn Circle (LOS E), and Westhaven Drive (LOS F). Recommendations for these intersections include the following: 1. Traffic signals. Although the Town of Vail has not used traffic signals in the past to maintain the character of the Town, they are still a feasible solution and could be considered. 2. Traffic directors during peak periods of travel. 3. Roundabouts at these intersections. Although the space requirements at the intersections with poor LOS would indicate that roundabouts are not a feasible solution, this possibility should be further examined, as roundabouts are effective tools in creating adequate flow conditions at an intersection. 4. An all-way stop installed at the intersection (this would bring the LOS to C). Implementation Process The implementation process includes a scheduled plan of action for certain elements within the Transportation Master Plan Update. Transportation system elements within the Update should be prioritized as short-term (one to five years), mid-term (six to ten years), and long- term (eleven to 20 years). Recommendations have not been made concerning priorities for Executive Summary xi Town of Vail the Town as priorities usually change, depending on what is most appropriate at that time. The Town of Vail should develop a flexible plan for prioritizing the recommendations included in this Update. This prioritization plan should remain open and flexible as any changes in priorities may affect other plan elements. An individual chapter is not included to address this element. Plan Monitoring and Updating The original Plan included continuous monitoring and periodic updates of the Transportation Plan to include actions such as periodic traffic counts and a formal plan update every five years. This update to the Transportation Master Plan serves the purpose of updating changes that have taken place in the transportation system for the Town of Vail since 1990. An individual chapter is not included to address this element. Issue that is resolved and no longer applicable: I-70 Access In the original Transportation Master Plan, I-70 access was addressed because of the poor traffic flow at two of the three interchanges (West Vail and Main Vail interchanges). The report outlines the physical and operational characteristics of the interchanges, goals regarding access to I-70, additional crossing capacity of I-70 at these locations, and alternatives to solve the congestion problems at these interchanges. The issue has since been resolved with the construction of roundabouts at these interchanges – two roundabouts to replace the four intersections at West Vail, and two roundabouts to replace the four intersections at Main Vail. Additions: Connecting Fixed Guideway Transit Systems Two rail systems that have been proposed are the Inter-Mountain Connection (IMC) and the Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority (CIFGA). The IMC is a commuter rail that would primarily use existing tracks and run from Vail to the Eagle County Airport. The CIFGA system is a fixed guideway system that would run from Denver International Airport (DIA) to Vail and eventually the Eagle County Airport. This addition to the Transportation Master Plan addresses these two systems and how they would affect the transportation system in Vail. This chapter also includes recommendations for alignments and station locations in the Vail area based on topography and proximity to activity centers. Mapping is provided in Appendix E to show potential alignments for the fixed guideway system. Potential alignments for the CIFGA system include the following: Executive Summary xii Town of Vail · 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 north back to I-70. This option would be considered because of potential 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. 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 Executive Summary xiii Town of Vail 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. Recommendations for potential IMC alignments include the following: · 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 Transportation Center, at which point the line would go back downvalley along the same route. Noise Contour Map This addition includes the creation of a noise contour map based on existing and future traffic volumes in the I-70 corridor. Noise measurements were taken at 50 locations throughout the Town of Vail to determine current noise levels produced primarily by I-70. These existing measurements were used for the development of a noise model. The noise model accounts for terrain features and traffic conditions. A future noise model was then developed based on known development plans and traffic forecasts. The noise model includes planning level noise abatement options. A map of the noise contours with explanatory text will be included as a part of this section in Appendix F2. I-70 Capping Review The Town of Vail has expressed the desire to explore other options to reduce noise levels and bring a greater sense of community cohesion to the Town of Vail. Under consideration is the “capping” of I-70. This would involve the tunneling of I-70 under the existing alignment, using the land above for development or open space purposes. This addition to the Transportation Master Plan provides an analysis of other capping projects completed throughout the country, critical issues that the Town of Vail would face in considering such a project, and recommendations for locations and land use in constructing a cap. Appendix E provides mapping for potential capping areas along I-70 through Vail. Executive Summary xiv Town of Vail Traffic Model From existing traffic counts, peak hour link volumes were documented and compared with previous 1990 link volumes. Using this information as a base, a spreadsheet-based travel demand model has been prepared for the Frontage Roads and major intersections in the Town of Vail. The model forecasts future traffic based on socio-economic data (housing, population, and employment). Eight traffic analysis zones have been used for the model and these include the following: I-70 East, I-70 West, East Vail, Vail Village, Lionshead, West Vail south of I-70, West Vail north of I-70, and Other Vail north of I-70. The model has been set up for multiple forecast years, and ten and twenty-year forecasts have been conducted. Appendices H1-H5 document the model structure and assumptions made. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Issues Resolution A PEIS was recently initiated by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for I-70 between Denver and Glenwood Springs (see I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS, Summary of Issues, J.F. Sato & Associates, June 2000). To prepare for this PEIS planning effort, issues that could potentially affect transportation in Vail were identified and discussed during a focus group attended by residents representing a wide array of interests and backgrounds. This addition to the Transportation Master Plan identifies these issues and potential solutions to the issues that have been recommended by the Town of Vail. The issues and solutions are also presented in the form of a matrix to indicate how different solutions can potentially address more than one issue. Recent or Ongoing Studies In addition to the studies described in this update, other recent or ongoing studies are taking place in the Town of Vail. Some of these are summarized below. Transportation Center Work in Lionshead The North Day Lot Transportation Center is proposed in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (Design Workshop, Inc., December 15, 1998). The Transportation Center would serve to create a major new point of entry into the pedestrian and retail core of Lionshead. It would also play a role in providing for a central transit stop in Lionshead. The Transportation Center would consist of: · Local/regional shuttles · Local/regional transit and charter buses · Short-term skier drop-off area · Pedestrian portal · Combination of large central service and delivery facility · Construction under a structured parking deck · Access to central Lionshead by freight elevators and a service tunnel · Accommodation for a peak volume of 15-20 delivery vehicles and storage space Executive Summary xv Town of Vail The Redevelopment Master Plan views the Transportation Center as a priority project as it is a prerequisite for other critical projects discussed in the Plan. Roadway Functional Planning along South Frontage Road for Simba Run Crossing The scope of work for this project involved conceptual design development for three elements: 1. Improvements to the South Frontage Road between Ford Park and just west of Cascade Village 2. A two-lane I-70 underpass at Simba Run 3. Related North Frontage Road improvements at the intersection of the new Simba Run Underpass Other elements of this project: 1. Feasibility of the improvements identified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 2. Improvements to drainage at Town Hall and access control 3. Feasibility of the South Frontage Road realignment near the VA shops 4. Space and height constraints at the pedestrian overpass 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. APPENDICES A1 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, March 2000 and July 2000 A2 FHU Vail Village Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, September 2000 B1 Project Objectives and Criteria B2 Technology Screening Process C1 Portions of the Eagle County Trails Master Plan C2 Trail Maps from Original Transportation Master Plan D1 Intersection Level of Service D2 Roundabout Level of Service D3 Parking Garage Level of Service E I-70 Capping and Fixed Guideway Mapping F1 CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines F2 Noise Contour Mapping G FHWA Joint Development Study H1 Population and Employment Data H2 Traffic Volume Data H3 Model Calibration H4 Growth Model H5 Trip Reassignment Work Table