HomeMy WebLinkAboutWest Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis 1996West Vail Interchan�e Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and ExistinQ Conditions
Table of Contents
Description
Introduction ....................................................
Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Congestionlssues ..............................................
Vehicular Circulation and Intersection Sinage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Access.......................................................
Safetylssues ..................................................
Accidents ................................................
Astetics.......................................................
PavementSurFaces .............................................
Level of Service Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public Process .................................................
West Vail Interchange Exchange - Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ProjectGround Rules .......................................
Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Focus Group Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Public Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Criteria..................................................
Solutions................................................
Origin and Destination Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turning Movement Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A
Focus Group Meeting Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B
Origin and Destination Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Table 1
List of Figures & Tables
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Existing Conditions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outline of Public Process
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Process Ground Rules
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Process Problem Statement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Process Goals and Objectives
............................................ Accident Data
Paae
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
11
12
13
West Vail Interchange Ahernatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
lntroduction
In March of 1996 the Town of Vail conducted a town survey asking citizens to identify and
rank existing problems within the Vail Valley. The survey returns indicated that poor traffic
conditions at the West Vail Interchange as the number one perceived problem in the Vail
Vailey.
MK Centennial was hired to work with Town of Vail staff to perform a technical analysis of
the alternative interchange solutions and to conduct a public involvement process to
achieve informed public consent for proceeding forward with the selected alternative.
Existing Conditions
The West Vail interchange provides access to I-70 from both the north and south frontage
roads as well as Chamonix Lane in West Vail, see figure 1. Both the north and south
intersections at the interchange are stop sign controlled with single lane entrances from
all directions.
Fiaure 1
WEST VAI L
g�EXIT I 73)
x . NoRTH
I�70
' ��AD
a�AGE
��O
��
OJ
5
MAI N VAI L
�EXIT I %6)
�
The interchange experiences significant congestion and delays throughout the entire day
particularly during the height of the winter/summer tourist seasons. The north side of the
interchange experiences total entering volumes for both the frontage road and the ramps
in excess of 1400 vehicles during the winter AM peak hour and 2300 vehicles during the
winter PM peak hour. The south side of the interchange experiences total entering
Page 1
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
volumes for both the frontage road and the ramps in excess of 1550 vehicles during the
winter AM peak hour and 1950 vehicles during the winter PM peak hour. Detailed turning
movement counts of the West Vail interchange for summer and winter peaks can be found
in the Appendix A of this report.
Congestion Issues
Generally the four intersections operate with severe delays and congestion during the peak
hours. The heaviest vehicle movements are those exiting from the I-70 eastbound off ramp
and those heading I-70 westbound and southbound from the North Frontage Road. These
heavy vehicle movements not only cause congestion throughout the entire interchange,
they often indirectly cause back-ups along eastbound I-70, as existing vehicles are blocked
from departing the off ramp by queues on Chamonix Lane, and quickly build into ramp
queues of sufficient length to spill back onto the interstate itself.
The back-ups along the North Frontage Road limit access to the stores and businesses
along it. The large number of closely spaced access drives on the North Frontage Road
creates side friction which adds to the congestion and delays along the North Frontage
Road and increases the potential for rear-end and right angle accidents.
The spacing between the four intersections of the interchange is quite close, leaving very
little room for queuing vehicles. Therefore when vehicles do begin to queue and stack up,
the entire interchange can quickly become gridlocked. Lengthy queues build very quickly
on all approaches, and traffic slowly grinds through the interchange. When the interchange
becomes this congested the drivers tend to lose patience, ignore the posted stop signs
and accept unsafe cross street gaps in trafFic, which compounds the accident potential of
the interchange.
A large portion of the traffic utilizing the West Vail interchange is commuter traffic from the
west. This pattern of greater levels of traffic coming from the west is indicative of the
growth further down the Eagle River Valley along the western slope. As growth throughout
the valley continues, commuter traffic from the west will continue to grow and the
congestion problems at the West Vail interchange can be expected to worsen. According
to Vail Associates, nearly 40°/o of the skiers arrive at the Eagle Airport, most of which would
use the West Vail Interchange to get to the slopes.
Vehicular Circulation and lntersection Signage
The location and placement of the stop signs is another problem. Due to space limitations
the signs are not installed at standard location and/or height. Vehicles at all approaches
are required to stop except for those vehicles driving under th� I-70 �nderp�ss. Tourists
Page 2
West Vail Interchange Altematives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
and other drivers unfamiliar to the area are often confused and believe all directions are
stopping and proceed at unsafe gaps in front of vehicles that are not stopping. A number
of the stop signs are also posted at a low height which makes them difficult to see due to
the presence of other vehicles blocking the driver's line of sight. This confusion often
results in drivers inadvertently or intentionally ignoring the stop signs.
Access
The West Vail interchange not only provides access to I-70 and West Vail homes and
businesses it also provides a north/south access across the I-70 barrier connecting the
north and south sides of Vail. As there are only three north/south connections along I-70
throughout Vail the majority of the north south traffic on the west side of town must use
Chamonix Lane to cross I-70. A similar condition holds true for both pedestrian and bicycle
traffic. When one of the primary north/south connections in Vail is unusable by both
vehicies and pedestrians because of congestion and delays, it limits the access and,
therefore, the economic vitality of the entire community.
Safety lssues
There are actually three separate safety issues affecting in the West Vail interchange;
safety at the intersections, safety on the I-70 corridor and ramps, and safety of pedestrians
and bicyclists.
Traffic moving through the intersections is traveling at slow speeds and alI traffic is required
to stop, therefore the accidents at the intersections are generally fairly minor and involve
limited property damage, only minor injury and no fatalities. The interchange complex
maintains inadequate sight distances for several lanes of turning traffic. For example it is
difficult for drivers to see past the I-70 bridge structure when making turns off of the I-70
ramps. The safety of the interchange is indeed compromised by these factors.
Higher speed accidents caused by back-ups onto the interstate due to excess congestion
on the ramps can have more serious effects in terms of both property damage and injury.
Recent accident data for I-70 is recorded in table 1.
Page 3
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Table 1. West Vail / I-70 Accidents
AccidentType 1993 1992
PDO
(Property Damage Only) 40
Injury
Fatal
12
�
31
7
0
Data is for both directions on I-70 at the West Vail Interchange.
1991 1990
39 14
13 6
0 0
A third critical safety issue relates to pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrians and bicyclists
have no clear pathway to traverse the West Vail interchange and often cross I-70 at-grade
just east of the existing West Vail interchange. There are a number of worn paths where
pedestrians continuously cross the interstate at-grade. There have been 2
pedestrian/vehicle fatalities at these locations.
Aesthetics
The aesthetics of the interchange are an important issue due to the resort nature of the
Vail community. Unfortunately the West Vail interchange does not aesthetically reflect a
worid class entry or gateway into the Town of Vail.
Pavement Surface
The mountainous nature of the local climate (i.e. frequent and plentiful snowfall) have
made the interchange di�cult to maintain, as evidenced by the abundance of potholes,
pavement cracks, sand and cinders - particularly in winter months.
Level of Serviee Analysis
The need for improvements on roadways and at intersections is estimated by determining
how traffic operates under capacity restraints. Unsignalized intersections can be analyzed
using procedures outlined in the 1985 and 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation
Research Board Speciai Report 209). A level of service "grade" is assigned based on the
traffic versus capacity of the intersection. The minimum acceptable Level of Service for
an intersection is assumed to be Level of Service D for most urban conditions. Level of
Service D indicates tolerable driving conditions with minor delays. Level of Service A, B,
anc� G�II represent accepfabie traffic conditions. Level of Ssrvice E represents a condition
Page 4
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
approaching the capacity of an intersection or roadway and is the common peak hour
condition in most urban areas. At Level of Service F an intersection is operating with
excessive delay and congestion, and improvements to the intersection or roadway are
required.
Based on the peak hour counts and under current conditions (stop sign control) the
interchange functions at a Level of Service F for all intersections, frontage roads and
ramps. Intersection counts and detailed Level of Service analysis can be found in the
Appendix A of this report.
Public Process
A public process was used to verify the existing problem, establish a set of criteria by which
aiternative solutions could be measured, and help determine the best solution to the West
Vail interchange problem.
Page 5
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Figure 2. Outline of Public Process ( all dates refer to 1996�
WEST VAIL INTERCHANGE EXCHANGE
STEP 1 JUNE
►r:,:►�
ORGANIZE INiERCHANGE
PROBLEMS
I �
����r�� �� +�s.�� d��u� e E��.��.�
Vi?rP�°° >.f;�§�� B€ii`°tm.-i�a-;k^.ffe�' �F��e,i=y - ;;�;�:
FOCUS GROUPS - JUNE 3,4,5
IDENTIFIED THE PROBLEM AN�
GENERATED POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS - JUNE 6, I O
VERIFIED PROBLEM, GENERATED CRI7ERIA
AND MORE POTENTIAL SOLIJTIONS
A�'t+a.�u.�1 r30�'Ci� .yE`".'��`17IKb.?:�'�'�'n^ �`!°��1° ` �.`ar.�:�l-��. ��� � n'
OPEN HOUSE ° JUNE 27, 28
DESCRIBED PROBLEM, CRITERIA,
AND SOLIJTIONS GENER4TED.
RECEIVED ADDITIONAL SOLUTIONS
AND COMMENTS.
TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION -..JULY S
DISClJS510N OF EXISTING PROBLEM, POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS AND ORIGIN AND DESTINATION STUDY.
OPEN HOUSE - JULY I 7, I 8
ALL SOLLJTIONS TESTED FOR FATAL FLAWS.
SELECTED TOP REMAINING ALTERNATIVES FOR
FIJRTHER ANALY515.
� � � PUBLIC MEETING - AUGUST 2 I, 22
� REDUCEO NUMBER OP ALTERNATIVES TO THREE
'� ANp GATHERED PUBLIC INPUT TO SELEGT
� REFINE ALTERNATIVES FINAL ALTERNATIVE
L
i � TOWN COIJNCIL WORK SESSION - SEPTEMBER 3
� SELECT FINAL ALTERNATIVE I PRESENT FINAL ALTERNATIVE
BY TOWN COUNCIL �
PRELIMINARY DESIGN- OCTOBER I
Page 6
West Vail Interchange Altematives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Prior to initiating the public process the Town of Vail staff drafted a set of project ground
rules. These rules were not only intended to set goals but also to establish cohesiveness
between the project itself and the community. The project ground rules were presented
to the public for information and approval.
Fiaure 3. Public Process Ground Rules
� �•v�
. � So
�� — .
WEST VAII
INTERCHANGE
1
2
All ideas for solutions will be considered.
PROJECT
GROUND RULES
Design solutions will not compromise SAFETY and must accommodate long-term
TRAFFIC VOLUMES.
3. The TOWN OF VAIL (TOV) will be the lead agency in projecY initiation; in
accordance with the Town Charter, the Town Council will make the finai decision
on the project and budget.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The TOV wiil seek the maximum contributions from all funding sources.
Depending on the amount of funding received for this project, other capital
projects may be delayed.
The project will be designed to professional design standards and regulatory
requirements.
Access in West Vail. to and from. the interstate will be maintained.
The Town Council and staff will strongly consider recurring preferences
expressed by all people involved.
The first set of ineetings held were limited focus groups only, consisting of informal
group discussions. The citizens invited to attend the meetings were area residents and
business owners who used the West Vail interchange daily. The project ground rules,
problem statement, and goals and objectives were presented to the focus group
Page 7
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
attendees for their input and approval (focus group meeting minutes are found in
Appendix B of this report).
After taking input at the focus group meetings the project ground rules, problem
statement, and goais and objectives were refined to reflect the input received. This
information was then taken to public workshop sessions where the documents were
further refined, (public workshop meeting minutes are found in the appendix of this
report).
The focus group meetings and the input received at the public workshops yielded the
official problem statement, defining the existing problem at the West Vail interchange
and the goals and objectives of the project.
Figure 4. Public Process Problem Statement
dyo
� • ..-:
�\ .� s o �..,_
WESi VAII
INTERCHANGE
PROBLEM STATEMENT
At the West Vail interchange, users feel unsafe, and experience significant
congestion and delays.
• On the eastbound off-ramp, there are large backups of cars onto the interstate
which creates a high speed safety problem.
s There are poor lines of sight, causing driver� to take unn�cessary risks when
making routine turns.
• The congestion at the intersections with ramps and frontage roads has a
negative impact.
• Neighborhoods and businesses are affected by congestion.
• There are no safe walkways or pathways to accommodate the pedestrian and
bicycle traffic along either the roadways or underneath the overpass.
• Aesthetically, the intersection does not reflect a world class entry into the
community.
Vail would be irresponsible if we did not take the lead in correcting
these problems, using both short and long term solutions.
Page 8
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Public Process Goais and Objectives
c�
��.-1� �T��w.�
WEST VAIL
INTERCHANGE
GOAL
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
- Develop the best solution to existing safety and congestion
problems.
OBJECTI VES
-SAFETY
Vehicles
Pedestrians
Bicycles
- DELAYS/CONGESTION
� ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
� INFORMATION/SIGNAGE
- BUSINESS ACCESS
- AESTHETICS
Page 9
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Summary of Focus group Meetings (June 3,4,5, 9996)
Groups of approximately ten peopie met the Town of Vail staff and MK Centennial
representatives. They were given a description of the project and presented with a
public involvement approach and schedule for the project. The groups agreed with the
public involvement approach and schedule that the Town of Vail was taking with this
project. The rest of the meeting focused on defining the problem, setting some criteria,
and generating alternative solutions.
Problem
Problems at the interchange were discussed
agreed with the problem statement as it read
to the sentence structure.
Criteria
and members of the each group generally
. There were some minor changes made
The group engaged in a discussion of how the alternatives should be judged or ranked
and tried to determine the most important set of criteria by which to accomplish this
ranking. The following list of criteria is in no particular ranking. The group had difficulty
in determining which criteria should be the most important. After some discussion it was
decided that the criteria were all so interrelated that they cannot be accurately ranked.
For instance if the congestion is relieved then safety will be improved as a result.
Solutions
There was general discussion about possible solutions. A list
generated by each group can be found in the meeting minutes in
of the more predominant solutions involved the foilowing:
• Moving the I-70 ramps
• Signals
• Roundabouts
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
Summary ofPublic Workshops (June 6,10, ?996)
of all the solutions
Appendix B. Some
The public workshops served mainly to "kick off' the public process. Most people who
attended the workshop did so primarily to attain information about the project and the
public process. There were some solutions genera4ed whieh are listed in Appendix B.
Page 10
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Questions asked at the workshop were primarily concerning the projects scope. 5ome
of the questions raised follow:
Is there enough room at the interchange for a roundabout?
Will the improvements from this project be short or long term?
What will happen to the traffic during the construction phase of the project?
Criteria
Through this process of ineetings a draft list of criteria by which to rank the alternative
solutions was created.
Transportation Ca�acitv
Reduces delay by providing increases in capacity for:
Ramps
Intersections
Frontage Roads
Provides capacity for future demand
Safe
Reduces intersection conflicts
Reduces accident rate
Provides for adequate sight distances
Reduces ramp/freeway flow conflicts
Meets engineering standards
Improves bicycle/pedestrian safety
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Provides adequate areas to walk and bicycle along both frontage roads
Provides adequate areas to allow pedestrians and bicycles to cross I-70
Reduces conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicycles
Access
Improves access to commercial and residential areas
Reduces conflicting movements to commercial and residential area
Maintains interstate access at West Vail site
Environmental Considerations
Requires little or no environmental mitigation with respect to:
Visual Noise Flora and Fauna
Airquality GoreCr�€k Wildlife
Page 11
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Usabili
Is easy to maneuver and makes efficient use of informational signing and other means
for providing clear direction of use.
Aesthetic
Solution allows for aesthetic improvements and additions as secondary element
Financial considerations
Requires short- or long-term funding capability and ability to carry out construction
during a short- or long-term period
Solutions
A list of all of the solutions generated by the public process was also established for
further analysis.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Traffic signals or ramp metering
Relocation of on and off ramps to I-70
New interchange between Main and West Vail
New ramps to South Frontage Rd. at Sandstone
One large roundabout under I-70
Two double lane roundabouts
Two single lane roundabouts
New ramps and underpass between Main and West Vail
New underpass one way loop to West Vail
Additional overlunderpass connection (ie. Simba Run)
Intersection improvements (free flow right turns)
Widen ramps to two lanes
Widen frontage roads
Pedestrian/bicycle over/underpass east of West Vail interchange
Variable message signs to redirect traffic
Extend North Frontage Rd. to Dowd Junction
Bury the interstate and build roundabout on top
Gondola across the interstate for pedestrian traffic
New interchange/alternative access for Vail day skiers
Encourage alternative modes by providing improved facilities
Additional off ramps for car pools and buses
Interconnect the parking lots of North Frontage Rd businesses
Direct connection from North Frontage Rd. to westbound I-70 ramp
One way frontage roads to restrict access
Page 12
West Vail Interchange Altematives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Origin and Destination Study (June26,27, 1997J
One other need that was uncovered at the focus group and public workshop meetings was
the need for more north-south access across the interstate. There was a school of thought
that emerged from these initial meetings suggesting that an additional north-south access
would alleviate the congestion at the West Vail interchange. The belief was that by taking
a significant portion of traffic that was traveling north-south only and not utilizing the
interstate away from the interchange the congestion at the interchange would be relieved.
An origin and destination study was completed to determine if in fact there was a significant
number of north-south trips utilizing the west Vail interchange but not the interstate ramps.
The specific resuits from the study can be found in Appendix C of this report.
Information Learned
from the Traffic Counts and Origin/Destination Studies
The Winter counts are from 1994, the summer counts are from 1996
� The breakout of rush hour trip types at the West Vail interchange are as follows:
About 60% are work oriented trips
10% are shopping
10% are recreation
20°/a are personal, service, and other
• The winter rush hour trafFic is 25°/a-30% higher than summer traffic.
� There appears to have been a shift of local traffic away from the West Vail
interchange since the opening of the Main Vail roundabouts.
• Although some local traffic has shifted away from West Vail, some traffic
has replaced it, using the West Vail interchange to get to and from I-70.
• About 15% of the traffic from the North Frontage Road is detouring behind
the shopping area and approaching the interchange from Chamonix.
• The predominant traffic movement at the West Vail interchange is going between
West I-70 (Avon, etc.) and the North and South �rontage Roads
• Even with the opening of the Main Vail roundabouts, there is still about 15%
of traffic using the West Vail interchange to reach Vail Village and Lionshead.
• 75% of traffic at West Vail are Single Occupant Vehicles.
2 �c�mp�red te the large reundabout at Main Vail, both of the inters�ctions
at West Vail carry about 70% of the Main Vail traffic volume. The volumes
are reversed from Main Vail, with more traffic on the north side than south.
Page f3
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Appendix A
Appendix A
Peak Hour of Morning Traffic, Existing Winter
(Prior to opening of Main Vail Roundabouts, includes Vail Commons)
Width of arrows indicates relative traffic volume making that movement
Black num6ers Indicales to�al voWme on in�ersecllon approach
Whl�e numbers wllhln arrows are volumes Por �ha� spedfic Wrning movemenl
WENDYS
Nohh Frontage Roatl
�
�
A
NORTH
�-�o
Wesfbound�
♦AVON
1-10
Easlbountl
Soulh fmntage Road
a
110 0
TEXACO ■ �
�
�/
120 �
iFb'1
Marrlot
PHILLIPS 66
t[�� 360
TotalEn�ering
1415
North Sitle
■ TofalEnlering
485 �575
South Side
I
350
L��
\\�
40
Road
�-�o
Wes[bound
MAIN VAIL �
Souih F�oniage Road
A•I
Peak Hour of Morning Traffic, Existing Summer
Width of arrows Indicates relative traffic volume making that movement
31ack numbers intlicates lolal volume on Iniersection approach
Nhile numbers wilhin arrows are volumes for thal specific Nrning movement
WENDYS TEXAGO
Norlh Fronlage Road
�
NORTH
I-]0
Weslbountl�
�AVON
1-]0
Easlbound
Soulh Fmnlage Road
665
145
a
m
0
rc
E
U
15 �--�
y
Marrlot
550
ns
\\ T/ %
I
20
PHILLIPS 66
� 25�
Tofal Enlenng
9090
Nor�h Side
Tofal En�ering
9965
SoNh Side
1]5
I-]0
MAIN VAIL �
1-]0
Easlbound
Sou�h Fron[age Roatl
�
A - 1!
Peak Hour of Evening Traffic, Existing Winter
(Prior to opening of Main Vail Roundabouts, includes Vail Commons)
Width of arrows indicates relative traffic volume making that movement
Black numbers Intlicates total volume on inlerseclion appmach
While numbers wilhin arrows are volumes for that speci(ic luming movemenl
WENDVS
Norih Fronlage Roatl
�
�
�
NORTH
�AVON
I-]0
Easlbountl
Soulh Fmntage Road
TEXACO
0
0
K
E
�
U
PHILLIPS 66
i �,5
160 �
1030
sso
115 �
\�\
�<
�,�
50
To�al Entering
2330
North Sltle
TotalEnlering
1985
Soulh Sitle
Bt0
�-�o
Weslbound
MAIN VAIL �
I-��
Easibound
SoNh Fmnlage Roatl
n
A - lfl
Appendix A
Peak Hour of Evening Traffic, Existing Summer
Width of arrows indicates relative traffic volume making that movement
Black numbers Indicales �olal volume on intersec�ion approach
Whlle numbers wilhin arrows are volumes for that specllk Wming movement
WENDYS TEXACO
Nohh F�on�age Road
�
NORTH
iao
Wes�b�ou,ntl
�AVON
1-�0
Easlbountl
Soulh Fmn�age Road
rc
E
U
95 �
aso , �zo
PHILLIPS 66
i <40
115 � \ �
'� �
\�\ 30
Marrlot
640
Tolal Enfedng
9835
North Side
Total Entering
1655
Soulh Side
i-vo
Weslbound
MAIN VAIL �
I-10
Eastbound
So��h Fron�age Road
A - ! V
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Appendix B
Appendix B
Focus Group Meeting Minutes
Subject: West Vail lnterchange
Date Held: June 3, 1996
The Meeting was opened by the Town of Vail. The focus group was welcomed and given
a brief description of the process.
The public involvement process and the meeting schedule for the summer was detailed to
the focus group.
June: Establish Criteria - through public process
July: Develop Alternatives
July-Sept: Analyze and Evaluate Criteria
Sept-Oct.: Determine Preferred Alternative
The group agreed with the schedule and public involvement approach.
The group read over the problem statement prepared by the Town of Vail (TOV) and all
members of the focus group agreed with the problem statement as it read (enclosed).
There was some discussion of possible solutions to the West Vail Interchange problem.
There was a question about when the improvements could be implemented. Therefore,
some of the solutions recommended were for the short-term (1-2 years). The suggestions
for west Vail interchange alternatives follow:
• Ramp metering - A signal to control flow of vehicles onto the Interstate, as a short-
term solution.
• Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass - This was recommended as a way to provide
alternatives to automobile driving through the interchange by area residents and
guests.
• Relocation of the on and off ramps to the interstate - The close proximity of the
ramps adds to the congestion probiem.
• Roundabout - There was agreement that the roundabout at the main Vail entrance
was a success and if a roundabout could fit it should be con§idered. Th@r@ was
a.�
0
a great deal of concern over whether or not a roundabout would fit.
• Restricted access via one way frontage roads in combination with a simba run
connection.
After these alternatives were discussed Larry brought the discussion back to the problem.
By better understanding the probiem TOV wiil be best able to solve the problem. The
discussion of the problem follows:
• Site problems
• Closeness of ramps
• Too many traffic conflicts exist
• Confusing signage - not always clear who has the right-of-way
• Traffic congestion
• Safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic
• Lack of enforcement for traffic violations
• Stop signs are misplaced - too high
Because of the close proximity of possible turns, a turn signal does not accurately indicate
where someone is going to turn.
• Interchange stripping is unclear and fades too quickly
• The placement of the stop signs is not conventional and confuses people
• There are no turn lanes under I-70
• Too many people use the West Vail Interchange to access Vail proper
Criteria
The group engaged in a discussion of how the alternatives should be judged or ranked and
tried to determine the most important set of criteria by which to accomplish this ranking.
The following list of criteria is in no particular ranking. The group had difficulty in
determining which criteria should be the most important. After some discussion it was
decided that the criteria were all so interrelated that they cannot be accurately ranked. For
instance if the congestion is relieved then safety will be improved as a result.
� Saf@ty
e-n
:
• Congestion/Delay
• Aesthetics
• Neighborhood characteristics
• Traffic Speeds
• Cost
• Ability to accommodate build out traffic
Additional Discussion
The group would like TOV to Iook at a short term solution (1-2 years) and a 10 year
solution and a 20 year solution.
There were also a number of questions that the group would like to have answered
concerning the availability of right-of-way and the amount needed for a roundabout.
The next step in the public process will be a series of public meetings. These meetings will
be the vehicle used to solicit the alternatives to be critically analyzed by the TOV and MK
Centennial.
Meeting Schedule
Date: Thursday June 6th
Location: Dancing Bear
Time: 7:45 a.m. - 9 a.m.
Date:
Location
Time:
Monday June 10th
5tephens Park
5:15 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
e-m
Appendix B
Focus Group Meeting Minutes
Subject: West Vail lnterchange
Date Held: June 4, 1996
The Meeting was opened by the Town of Vail. The focus group was welcomed and given
a brief description of the process.
The public involvement process and the meeting schedule for the summer was detailed to
the focus group.
June: Establish Criteria - through public process of listening, tracking and
organizing the interchange problems
July: Develop Alternatives
July-Sept: Analyze and Evaluate Criteria
Sept-Oct.: Determine Preferred Alternative
The group agreed with the schedule and public involvement approach.
The group read over the problem statement prepared by the Town of Vail (TOV) and the
focus group attendees made comments about the west Vail interchange problem. The
focus group generally agreed with the TOV problem statement as it read (enclosed).
COMMENTS:
• The Left turn onto EB ramps is a problem, the left turn movement needs a separate left
turn lane.
• There is currently no separate access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. This is a
problem.
• Visibility is a problem when vehicles are trying to turn.
• The lack of crosswalks is part of the pedestrian problem.
• The entire interchange area is dangerous and unsafe.
• The congestion and delays make the intersection unsafe, because they lead to the
frustration that makes people impatient and causes accidents.
• There are currently too many individual accesses to the businesses along the north
frontage road. The parking lots need to be interconnected so that people do not need
to get back out on the frontage road to get to shops which are next to each other.
• Aesthetics need to be improved.
s-ro
r:3
• There are additional safety concerns about people trying to avoid the intersections most
challenging movements and changing lanes.
Larry brought the discussion back to the problem. By better understanding the problem
TOV will be best able to solve the problem. The focus groups discussion of what makes
this intersection a probiem follows:
• At the WB S. Frontage Road people don't stop at the stop sign and jam up the
intersection
• Ramps are too tight and close
• Turning into the businesses along the Frontage Road is difficult
• Confusing signage - not always clear who has the right-of-way
• Lack of Visibility
• Unfriendly from a tourisYs perspective
• Lack of enforcement for traffic violations
• Stop signs are misplaced and hard to see
Criteria
The group engaged in a discussion of how the alternatives should be judged or ranked and
tried to determine the most important set of criteria by which to accomplish this ranking.
The following list of criteria is in no particular ranking. The group had difficulty in
determining which criteria should be the most important. After some discussion it was
decided that the criteria were all so interrelated that they cannot be accurately ranked. For
instance if the congestion is relieved then safety will be improved as a result.
• Safety
• Congestion/Delay
• Information and signage
• Access to businesses
• Aesthetics
• Environmental concerns - creek
• Ability to accommodate long term growth
e-v
Appendix B
Solutions
There was some discussion of possible solutions to the West Vail Interchange problem.
Focus group members had some questions about the time frame for solutions and the
abiliry to phase the solutions. Some of the solutions recommended were for the short-term
(1-2 years). The suggestions for west Vail interchange alternatives foliow:
• Ramp metering - A signal to control flow of vehicles onto the Interstate, as a short-
term solution.
• Provide an alternative access for Vail day skiers.
• Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass - This was recommended as a way to provide
alternatives to automobile driving through the interchange by area residents and
guests.
• Additional connections without ramps under I-70 to help connect north and south
Vail.
• Extension of the north Frontage Road to Dowd Junction - This was recommended
as a way to provide an alternative to driving the interstate from the west.
• Relocation of the on and off ramps to the interstate - The close proximity of the
ramps adds to the congestion problem.
• Roundabout - There was agreement that the roundabout at the main Vail entrance
was a success and if a roundabout could fit it should be considered. There was
a great deal of concern over whether or not a roundabout would fit.
• Elevated roundabout.
• Widen area under the interstate and have one big roundabout.
Additional Discussion
The group would like TOV to look at a short term solution (1-2 years) and a final solution.
The solution should be phased to help alleviate the problem while keeping adequate
access.
s-v�
Public transit should be promoted.
Meeting Schedule
Date: Thursday June 6th
Location: Dancing Bear
Time: 7:45 a.m. - 9 a.m.
i:�
Date: Monday June 10th
Location: Stephens Park
Time: 5:15 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
s - v�r
Focus Group Meeting Minutes
Subject: West Vail Interchange
Date Held: June 5, 1996
Appendix B
The Meeting was opened by the Town of Vail. The focus group was welcomed and given
a brief description of the process.
The public involvement process and the meeting schedule for the summer was detailed to
the focus group.
June: Establish Criteria - through public process by listening, tracking, and
organizing interchange problems
July: Develop Alternatives
July-Sept: Analyze and Evaluate Criteria
Sept-Oct.: Determine Preferred Alternative
The group agreed with the schedule and public involvement approach.
The group read over the problem statement prepared by the Town of Vail (TOV) and the
attendees of the focus group made comments on how the problem statement could be
altered to more accurately represent the problem. initial TOV problem statement enclosed.
COfV1MENTS:
• Elaborate the safety concerns in the initial statement then separate out the other points.
• General comments about the sentence structure of the problem
Larry brought the discussion back to the problem. By better understanding the problem
TOV will be best able to solve the problem. The focus groups discussion of what makes
this intersection a problem follows:
• Congestion, getting off of the EB ramps is hell
• People do not alternate at stop signs
• Traffic flow is non-existent
• Confusing signage - not always clear who has the right-of-way
• Lack of Visibility
e-wu
��
• Pot holes
• Lack of enforcement for traffic violations
• Pedestrians and bicyclists need separate access
Criteria
The group engaged in a discussion of how the alternatives should be judged or ranked and
tried to determine the most important set of criteria by which to accomplish this ranking.
The following list of criteria is in no particular ranking. The group had difficulty in
determining which criteria should be the most important. After some discussion it was
decided that the criteria were all so interrelated that they cannot be accurately ranked. For
instance if the congestion is relieved then safety will be improved as a result.
• Safety
• Congestion/Delay
• Information and signage
• Access to businesses
• Aesthetics
• Environmental concerns - creek
• Ability to accommodate long term growth
• Budget
• Time frame
Solutions
There was some discussion of possible solutions to the West Vail Interchange problem.
The solutions recommended were both short and long term solutions. The general
consensus of the foc�s group was that something needed to be done in the near future
and a final solution needed to be pursued for the future, 10-20 year time frame. The
suggestions for west Vail interchange alternatives follow:
• Ramp metering - A signal to control flow of vehicles onto the Interstate, as a short-
term solution.
• Widen under I-70.
B-IX
Appendix B
• Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass over I-70 - This was recommended as a way to
provide alternatives to automobile driving through the interchange by area
residents and guests.
• Additional merge and turn lanes every direction - to make it clear where people
intend to go..
• Make the interstate ramps access prior to the intersection for right turns.
• Relocation of the on and off ramps to the interstate - The close proximity of the
ramps adds to the congestion problem.
• Roundabout -There was agreement that the roundabout at the main Vail entrance
was a success and if a roundabout could fit it should be considered. There was
a great deal of concern over whether or not a roundabout would fit.
• Simba run underpass to accommodate the Vail north-south traffic not using the
interstate.
• Widen the Frontage Roads.
• Use variable message signs to inform driving public which interchange to use,
west of central.
Additional Discussion
The group would like TOV to conduct an origin and destination study to determine the
major traffic movements at the intersection.
Meeting Schedule
Date; Thursday June 6th
Location: Dancing Bear
Time: 7:45 a.m. - 9 a.m.
Date: Monday June 10th
Location: Stephens Park
Time: 5:15 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
e-x
i3
�ublic Workshop Minutes
Subject: West Vail Interchange
Date Held: June 6&10, 1996
The Public Workshops were given by the Town of Vail to assess the citizens perception
of the west Vaii interchange problem and to take comments to help develop the criteria and
alternatives that the TOV should consider.
The concerns and ideas expressed at the public workshop:
The existing interchange configuration is confusing and not properly signed.
TOV should consider a large oval shaped roundabout for the entire interchange - perhaps
elevated.
Extend the Frontage Road connection to Dowd Junction
Construct and over or underpass at Cascade
In conjunction with the improvement to the West Vail Interchange - also construct the
Simba Run underpass.
Roundabouts similar to main Vail entrance
Traffic signals are a simple solution and have no more negative aesthetic impact than all
the signs necessary for a roundabout.
Consider a right turn yield rather than a full stop
Pedestrian and bicycle overpass
Bury the Interstate at the West Interchange location.
Place a"Please Alternate" sign at the stop signs.
Add another interchange between West Vail and Main Vail
Construct smaller roundabouts than the ones at main Vail
a-w
�
u
Construct a half diamond interchange between West and Main Vail interchanges
Connect the parking lots of the businesses along the North Frontage Road
Change the speed limits on the frontage roads to discourage use of west Vail interchange
and encourage use of main Vail roundabouts
Add left turn lanes to the existing configuration
Questions raised at the public workshop
Is there enough room for a roundabout?
Will the improvements be phased, short term and long range?
What will happen to the traffic during the construction of the preferred solution?
Meeting Schedule
Date: Thursday June 27th
Location: West Vail Lodge
Time: 4 p.m. - 7 p.m.
Date:
Location
Time:
Friday June 28th
West Vail Lodge
7:30a.m. -10:30 a.m.
s-x,�
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Problem Definition and Existing Conditions
Appendix C
Appendix C
South Frontage Road
C - I
Destinations of Morning Traffic, Existing Summer
Movemenls below 10% of ihe total traffic are not labeled, so percentages may not add to 100%
WENDVS
TEXACO xI� ������
Notlh Frontage Roatl
�
n
n
NORTH
�_�o
Weslhound
� AVON
I-]0
Easibound
Destinalions of E
T2ffc Imm
14D OB-Ramp
Soulh Fronlage Road
eslina�ions of W
Traffc on Norlh
Fmntage Road
�.�o
Was�baund
MAIN VAIL �
�� I-]0
Easlbound
Road
SoWh Franlage Roatl
C
C - I!
Destinations of Evening Traffic, Existing Winter
Movements below 10°/ of the total traKc are not labeled, so percentages may not add to 100 %
WENDVS TEXACO
NoNh Frontage Road
�
n
n
NORTH
,_,o
Weslbound
�AVON
_,..�
1-10
Easlbo�nd
Oesfinalbns of E
TraHlc fmm
I-70 Ofl-Ramp
Soulh Fmnlage Road
Matrlot
estinatlons of W
TraHic on Notlh
Fmntage Road
Road
�.,o
Westbound
MAIN VAIL �
I-]0
Easlbound
on South
oe Road
Sou�h Pmnlage Roatl
C
C - l/1
Appendix C
Destinations of Evening Traffic, Existing Summer
Movements balow 10 % of the total traffic are not labeled, so percentages may not add to 100%
Nohh Fronlage Roatl
WENDVS TEXP.CO
�
�
n
NORTH
64%
�AVON
I-]0
:stlnalions ot
TreHic Irom
I-]0 OH-Ram
Soulh Fmnfage Road
=stinailons ofW
TraXic on Norfh
Frontage Roatl
i-�o
Westbountl
MAIN VAIL �
TraHic on
Fmntage
Souih Fmntage Roatl
C -IV
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
Alternative Solutions Analysis
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
Table of Contents
Description
Alternatives Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Process.......................................................
Fatal Flaw Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Refining of alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Three Categories of Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing Layout with Laneage Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moving Interstate Ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roundabouts .............................................
Analysis of Three Top Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations ..............................................
Analysis of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2A
List of Figures
Figure 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Go/No-Go Analysis
Figure 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refined "Go" Alternatives
Figure 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Three Best Alternative Solutions
Figure 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Comments on Three Top Alternatives
Figure 5 . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roundabout Solution
Paae
1
1
2
2
7
9
9
9
9
9
13
West Vail Interchange Altematives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
Alternatives Analysis
The West Vail interchange project began with a series of public meetings. Through these
meetings existing problems were defined and validated, a set of criteria by which to rank
alternative solutions was created, and a list of possible alternative solutions was
developed. The list of alternative solutions, the process by which the alternative solutions
were analyzed, and the final recommended solution are described within this report.
Alternative Solutions
The following list of alternative solutions was developed through a combination of public
input and analysis by the project team. Each alternative is illustrated and described in the
figures following this section.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
74.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Traffic signals andlor ramp metering
Relocation of on and off ramps to I-70
New interchange between Main Vail interchange and West Vail
New ramps to South Frontage Rd. at Sandstone
One large roundabout under I-70 intersecting all four crossing streets
Two double lane roundabouts
Two single lane roundabouts
New ramps and underpass between Main Vail interchange and West Vail
New underpass and one way loop to West Vail
Additional over/underpass connection (ie. Simba Run)
Intersection improvements (free flow right turns)
Widen ramps to two lanes
Widen frontage roads
P�ci��4riar�ldicyEl� av�r/ur�d�rp�ss ���4 0# 1ii/��fi� V�il i�i�ePeHai�g��
Variable message signs to redirect traffic
Extend North Frontage Rd. to Dowd Junction
the interstate and build roundabout on top
Gondola across the interstate for pedestrian traffic
New interchange/alternative access for Vail day skiers
Encourage alternative modes by providing improved facilities
Additional off ramps for car pools and buses
Interconnect the parking lots of North Frontage Rd businesses
Direct connection from North Frontage Rd. to westbound I-70 ramp
One way frontage roads to restrict access
Page 1
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
Process
After collecting the list of possible alternatives from the public, each alternative was run
through a fatal flaw analysis. The results from that analysis were brought back to the
public for further discussion and input. More in-depth cost and engineering analysis were
conducted on the remaining alternatives, and brought to the public for their final input
which resulted in the final recommendation.
Fatal Flaw Analysis
As part of the public invoivement process the project team agreed to consider all of the
aiternatives recommended. A list of all alternative solutions was compiled and each
alternative solution was analyzed to determine if it met with the project givens, goals and
objectives; namely:
• Improves safety of the intersection by reducing intersection conflicts or improving
sight distances;
• Reduces delays and congestion at the interchange by meeting, at a minimum, the
existing traffic capacity requirements; and
• Economically feasible and constructable alternative.
Each of the 24 alternatives, shown in Figure 1, was tested against the project givens, goals
and objectives. Those alternatives that did not meet these criteria were identified as fatally
flawed and were eliminated from further consideration as a stand alone alternative.
A number of the eliminated (fatally flawed) alternatives were suggested for solving other
problems, mostly dealing with the north-south access issue for pedestrians, bicycles, and
vehicles. Most of these alternatives can also be considered as an addition to one of the
alternatives that did meet project givens. For example, the Simba Run connection
(alternative 10) did not pass the fatal flaw test, because it did not address the interchange
issues. However Simba Run could still be combined with one of the alternative solutions
that did pass the fatal flaw test such as roundabouts.
The charts (Figure 1) on the following three pages detail the fatal flaw analysis, noting the
reasoning behind each decision. The "Go" alternatives will be carried forward for further
analysis, the "No-Go" alternatives will be dropped from the study at this time, although
elements of the "�No-Go"" alternatives may be considered as possible additions to the "Go"
alternative�.
Page 2
West Vaii Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
PA6E I OF 41
ALTERNATIVES:
One large roundabout under I-70
Double lane roundabouts
Single lane roundabouts
Go1No-Go Analysis
'GO ! NO-G0 "N6G0' COMMENTS:
- ----- —_—.- �--- ' - M d, --------
' � ' ! Re�ative Cost,p�,p�`�
� I ; j Large roundabout altemative provides adequate capacity
: Xi j � for fulure gmwth. This allernalive would require ihe
building of additional I-70 hridges.
_... - - -----' -
��' . I �Re�ative Clost ��
j This allemative would provide excess capacity for lhe
i.� �,� � mterchange. The engineering of a Iwo lane roundabout
on ihe south side of I-70 would require a larger bridge
; over Gore Creek.
1' . „
.. j/
1
I^ j
i '
�
---.._ — __ -- — --� —� -- T
� i
� I ^
New Ramps and undercrossing behveen Main and West Vail ; �'. �;
- - — _—� __-� -_ ..i__
New underpass one way loop
� �i
./4
---- _ i —` ---''
Re�ative Cost �� �
Single lane rounda6outwould not pmvide adequaie capacity
for fulure gmwth unless combined with an additional under/
overpass. Single lanes roundabout on south side would
operate under capacity during heavy peaks, 6ut would not
---°=g_.—_—, -
]Zelative Cost ��.p
Variations possible, this opfion provides ramps for the heavy
trafiic movement lo and from wesf I-70 (Avon, etc.). An under-
crossing would be necessary for �he reverse peak movemenis.
Engineering issues with adding a ramp on Ihe Nodh Side.
]Ze�ative Cost,p���
This altemative provides adequate tra8ic capacity. il
requires significant oul-of-direciion travel for many low
volume local movemenis. Diffcult interseclion geomelry
is required which may confuse drivers.
fNOGO` = THE5E ALTERNAlIVES 5TILL REQUIftE AN IMPR04EMENf TO THE WfST VNL INfERCHANGE, BUT ARE NO LONGER IN�FPENDANiLY UNDER CONSIDERATIOH
Page 3
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
FIGURE I
PAGE 2 OF 4
GolNo-Go Analysis
ALTERNATIVES:
-------- — -- i
� io
il i
; Traffic Signals or Ramp metering
� �
i
i�'
I
Relocation of on and off ramps to I-70 I
i
� �
�
I
New Inierchange beiween Main and West Vail ;
_ _ _ --- _ — — ---• — I
�<<_ _9
� � v�
.�� �
New ramps on south side at Red Sandstone
I !
j
i �
X
COMMENTS:
Re�ative Cost .}�
Traffc signals allow the intersections' major movemenis lo
flow, while reslricting 1he flow of minor movemeNs. This
would generafe ihe capacity necessary tor current
inferchange iunctions. Inlersection delay may improve slighily.
Relative Cost �`��
Relocating ihe ramps would reduce conflicts and thus
increase capacity, to meel current iraffc demands. FuWre
demand may be mei by inlersec�ion improvments such as
roundabou�s ar signals.
2e�ative Cust ��'���
Variafions possible, this option would reduce traffic al
West Vail and provide a new crossing of I-70. There
slill need l0 6e infersection safety improvements at West
Vail, and there are engineering issues in fitting a new
inlerchange in ihe narrow corridor.
Relative Cost �`�
This option would help �o lower tra�c levels at the
soufh side of lhe W. Vail interchange in fhe AM peak.
This option does not help PM Iraffic since ihere is no
connection to weslbound I-70. This alternative may
combined with additional West Vail interchange
improvements.
tNO�GD� = THESE ALi�RNATIVES STILL REQUTAE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE WEST VAIL IN7ERCHANGE, BUT ARE NO LONGEA IN�EPENDANTLY UNUFA CONSI�EAATION
Page 4
West Vaii Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
FicuRe I
PAGE30F4
GolNo-Go Analysis
ALTERNATIVES:
r---- .�- -------
� —+ �
' Additional over/underpass connections (ie. Simba
�
i
! INersection Improvments (ie. free flow ng rm
� .ti
i
i
; Wideo ramps to hvo lanes
� --- . . --- --
Widen frontage roads
PedestrianlBicyde ovedunderpass
W. VAIL E1(IT AT -
CAPACI7Y �.
USE:MAIN UAII EXIT
Variable message signs to redirect traffic
VaGO" COh1MENTS:
� Alone lhis allernative will not provide ihe needed
XI capacity. Thls alternative may be combined with
; additional interchange improvements.
! These improvemenfs help capacity and storage for mostly
Xminor traflic movemenis and alone will not have adequate
Iraffc capacity. This alternative may be cambined with
additional interchange improvemenh.
i d of lhe ramps has little to do wi[h ihe capacity
' of the interseclions, therefore this solufion alone does
X not increase capacity. This alternative may 6e combine
with additional inlerchange improvements.
—�- ----- — -- ---
X� The capacity constrainl is the inlerchange iiself,
; not the frontage roads. This alternative must be
Alone this alternalive will nof provide the needed
X capacity. This alternative may be combined with
additional interchange improvements.
�Alone this altemative will not pmvide the needed capacity, or
Xi reduce conflicts or improve lraKc control. This altemative may
� be combined with additional interchange improvements.
tN6GOf = THESE ALTEANAIIVES AL50 AEQUIRE AH IMPROVEMEM T01HE WEST VAIL IHfEACHANGE, TNEY pAE NO LONGER INDEPENDAMLY UNDER CONSIUEAAlION,
Page 5
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
FIGURE I
PqGE 4 OF 4
ALTERNATIVES:
Go1No-Go Analysis
GO' NO�GO!'NO�GO" COMMENTS:
Extend Norih Frontage Road io Dowd Junction
, Bury ihe interstate and build roundabout on
�'
Gondola across the interstate
New InterchangelAlternative access for Vail day skiers
; Encourage aliernative modes 6y providing better facilities
� --� ----_._.-----� -------!---
Additional ot( ramp for car pools and buses j
-- _- P--9 ---- - — --;_
Interconnect arkin lots ofVail Commons businesses i
— _----- --------J—
Previously Recommended Alternaiive
Direct Frontage-Ramp conneclion,
'. relocate pad of Nodh Frontage Road
roads to
X
X:
Alone this altemative will nof provide ihe needed capacity,
X� Dowd Jct, has capacity consirainfs, and fraRic is still forced
� ihrough the WestVail Inlerchange. This alternative may be
i combined with addilional interchange imorovements.
; This altemalive provides the needed capacity for long-
X i ierm growth. There are engineering and financial
constrainis lhat do noi make this a reasonable
. short-term solufion for the interchange.
-�: Alone ihis alternative will noi provide the needed
X: capacity. This alternative may be combined with
�, additlonal interchange improvements.
'� Adding an interchange is a possible long-termsolulion.
' Alone, most o( lhese aitematives will not provide the needed
I capacity increase or improve safety at ihe WestVail
� interchange. These alternatives may be com6ined with
i additlonal interchange Improvements to enhance
; all aspects of transpadation in Vail.
I This altemative does not solve the sight distance
'�� constrainfs, and many of the coMicting movmenis
� still exist, and is therefore not a safety improvement.
� There is also limited capacity for existing or fuWre growlF
' Alone ihis alternafive wiil not provide the needed
: capacity. This alternative would lead to a signiFlcant
��: increase in ou[-of-0irection iravel.
RNo-GO� = THESE ALTERNATIVES AL50 AEpUIRE AN IMPAOVEMENf TO iHE WE5f VAIL INfERCH4NGE. THEY AftE NO LONGEA INDFPENDAN1lY I1N�EIt CONSI�ERATION
Page 6
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
At least six of the 24 alternatives had no fatal flaw and were carried forward to undergo
more detailed analysis including the "project criteria" established by public input for the
project. These six alternatives were shown and described in detail to the public in an open
house format on July 17th and 18th. Public input given at this open house was considered
in the continuing analysis.
Refining of Alternatives
The six remaining alternatives were further refined for analysis by the project team. The
original alternative solutions generated by the public and project team were very general
and not specific in terms of geometry or design and location. For example an alternative
solution that needed to be refined was relocating the interstate ramps. There are four
ramps at the current interchange and a number of possibte ways to relocate these existing
ramps. The project team conducted traffic circulation and capacity analysis to determine
the affect of moving each ramp and the best location for the ramps, east or west of the
interchange. A detailed analysis of possible locations for each ramp was then conducted,
see Appendix 2A, taking into account the minimum turn radius necessary for the ramps
and the topography nf the area. The project team then analyzed only the best of all
possible ramp relocating alternatives. The same process was used to determine the best
design and locations for the other alternatives as well.
Each of the refined aiternatives was then analyzed in terms of capacity and cost. Capacity
was measured utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual and Rodel (for roundabouts). Cost
estimates at this stage were based on a conceptual design and were used primarily to give
a picture of the relative cost differences between alternatives (Appendix 2A)
In order to compare the alternatives in a comprehensive manner the capacity numbers on
the following chart (Figure 2) represent the ability of the alternative to handle current (
winter 1994) traffic volumes. The number 1 represents the capacity necessary to handle
current traffic volumes, any number less than 1 indicates that the alternative does not have
the capacity to accommodate existing traffic. A number greater than one indicates that the
alternative has excess capacity to the magnitude of the difference between the number
and 1. For example an alternative with a capacity level of 1.5 would allow for an increase
in traffic of fifty percent over existing volumes.
The alternatives are presented here in three categories:
• Existing Layout with Laneage Improvements
• Moving the Interstate Ramps
• Roundabouts
Page 7
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
For both the existing layout with laneage improvements and moving the interstate ramps
capacity analysis were conducted for both stop sign and signal traffic control. Both the
north and south intersections at the interchange were analyzed for all of the alternatives.
The results of this analysis was than brought to the public for review and comment on
August 21st and 22nd.
Three Categories of improvements
Existing Layout with Laneage Improvements - These alternatives under stop sign
control would not provide enough capacity to the interchange to accommodate existing
traffic. Under signal controi the interchange could accommodate existing traffic, but would
not be able to accommodate an increase in traffic volume. These alternatives do however
represent the least costly short-term approach to improving the interchange.
Signal control with the construction of additional lanes for turns represents the best
alternative for this category of improvements. This option would provide some increase
in capacity at limited expense.
Moving the Interstate Ramps - Moving the interstate ramps did not provide the excess
capacity that was predicted. Because the West Vail interchange is a north-south connector
and the majority of the traffic using the interchange is utilizing the interstate ramps, most
of the traffic would still have to travel through the interchange and signals would be
necessary to create any excess capacity. Moving the interstate ramps aiso represents the
most costly option.
Moving the off ramps only represents the best alternative for this category of improvements
(assumes signalization). This option would provide the most increased capacity for the
least expense in this category.
Roundabouts - Roundabouts in all forms considered would provide the greatest increase
in capacity for the interchange. The cost for roundabout options is moderate, in between
the cost of signals and moving interstate ramps.
Two lane roundabouts on the north and south side of the interchange represents the best
alternative for this category, providing the highest increase in capacity.
Analysis of Three Top Alternatives
The one best alternative from each category was chosen to be analyzed using the criteria
generated through the public process (Figure 3). The best alternative from each category
Page 8
West Vai] Interchange Altematives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
�
ReCined "Go" Alternative�vs Based on July 17th & 18th Open House
Roundabou�s
i
i-m ; i.io �.i.ro I
i i i .,
ILancSomWENoph OneLageROUndabom � Speedoay
�' � � NonA 196 � Zq6 L12 i••m.u,,.n.. x�n.e
« 'o� ' :
.y ' � i � �� kk��rm A'
q v :_
v:__.__ .______.. _._. . oa. � �
� � v
a �� SaulA I.0 L56 i 1 i a0°'""""°°"°
U �°�
i
Conslrutlion Cos� S1.0 Si4 I 5��7
NIIIIIIIYR i
numbers indicate capacity:
1=a1 capacity (operates +vith congeslion and delays)
less than 1= Ihe intersection is beyond its capacity (failing)
greater than I= excess capacity (minimal to no delays)
* Note: Ramp combinations shown here
are the best of a11 tUe possible
ramp relocating altematives
Page 9
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
FIGURE 3 A Comparison ofThe Three Best Alternative Solutions
Esisfing Layaut rvi[h Mave Freex'ay Ramps Rounda6auh
Lanea�e Im rovments
��°
i
iao �a���
�
Si6'���Conrcol Mu�eOfl'AampsOnly ±���sSoulh&Totlh
NoM
� o tioulh
e
� � � Nonh
U -
iv � So���h
�A
1�0
Sz.n
l.i
1.25
Sl.t
i ?.�fi
I.ifi
Si.J
_"_ - __ '_ __' - _.__ ' ,
e�.,,..�m��n.n.�. _ "_ _ _ _ _ O -_ I -_-- + _
_ _ __. ____'- - - ._ _. _" '—�
.^'w � � � +
n.:w
- -'.__--_ -. -_' -'__ _�
nu.a••.s��mume... ; -
+ 1 �
'_'_ -_---'. _ _ " _ '
"'__
� +
wowr,...., u.on�:e +
_ -__.-. .-__ -_'___• .
_'- . _
_ .�.,....,,...,a,.,N�.,� es
-- n�,�� __— � _ �5--- � -- ps --II
--- -- —�
_ _ _—
PeJ/Bike Trealments I � I
_ _-'____'-.____._ _
1
Fln��.e.w,e� + . ___-_ __--� ___'___ .
'_"-_ - - _'"__ ?_
. _ _ _.___'__ .
� _ -'
cw.,�..�.�o � O _. _.._ _ . 6-____'_,.
_'_'-- __..__. _ _ _ ___ �
.xexo-r..n�n�een.R + . .__ � � + '
__ --- _____ __ �.
��e.tneenew�umun O O .. . � + _.
___. .
Access - � . ...� ---"-' ,..
_"_'_'_ ' . _"_ __ _ _. �
.�mm.�.m�n.,u.�x 0 . .. __""__ _ _ ,.
_ �—_
.. ___._.._
'_-__ . _.- __�____- ,
----- >�....�.�,�....,, - es ---
. y .. _. _._ yes - yes
._ — � -- ' --- — �
Environmentol ��. i
._ -- ... -- .- I � _ _ = . .
_'-_
" ...� '_ _ 0 - �
� -___ ._' - .__ . _� _'
' — -__ _ .__ � 0 � --"_._
__ __.""
x�n.,e.am _ - --�0-. __.. - __ . _ _ _ ._- _'_� -� � �
. . �s e _'__ _ _. _.. _-_.
_._- -._ . _._ .__. .
-..."__._- __.. _�__
. -.--. _ . —_'_ .
Aesihetics _ , .' _ _ ' +
-._ _. .__. _.._._._. .___ _.�. '
..... __-- ._...-.
_ _-- __-____. - - .
Cnnstruc�aM1iliti�/Timing } - O
- - _.___--..._. _.._' ____._.._.:...- - -_'____ �-_ -_--'--
Consfruction Impacts � _ i -
_ . - _-- _ . � -_' _. __ -' __-
O _-._"_____.__---_.._
r.,.�... _
-._-_' _ , ___' O ___.._ - ._- _'__ ,__-__.._
n. w.,r-i p ---
_ i
___- . O. __ -__ �.. ._. _ -'__'__�___
- __—
c.mm.��,i _
_ '_-.__- '____-._'_._. __'_ �___ -_-___J__-
- _".'
Appro��zls I, i
- ____'__.__ '-_-_- __.. __.. �
+ ,-_- _'___'__'_—_ --. ___-_-.
vour __
—' _ ._. ___. _. ___.. __ _—. __—__ � -F
--_.-°---- ---
vmee } . _ - �.
-- _' _-_'____ -__'__.�_ i
mn.onrnm�r.,:i�.on. _.-'__-_O '� D
i'
+ .�.,,.��.�.,��<��k.�.�..�oo,,,��
p�.,�,�...�..,,�.��...,�., ����.,.,.�..h
_ �..�,�..,�v.�.,�.,..,R..,, �.�,�.�. =,.°,,,tw°C",�P...",:,�1": ;',:"�;F:���.�.,
N,.,,.., '.� � �-.,s....�.,��m,,;.,� �� w..�„�
��Ww.. .,.�.�.,,,mn�.u.�n,sum.mr,o�,.ana.u„�s���m.n�,„.,,,u��:..,e..,r,.�r+nn.ic.,�vnnm�ma�n,r.ww.�m.+n;.sxra..,ma.,..�.ro�"m�..n�so�nm..
Page 10
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
was chosen based on capacity and cost. The criteria issues were addressed by deciding
whether the affect of the proposed alternative would be positive (+), negative (-), or neutral
(o). Because some of the criteria issues cannot be quantified, and are subject to individual
interpretation, the decisions as to wether the effect would be positive, negative, or neutral
was decided upon by the entire project team and reflects no one individual bias. The
results of this analysis were presented to the public at the August 21st and 22nd public
meeting. Comments and questions by the public were incorporated into the final decision.
Comments from the public at this meeting were strongly in favor of two lane roundabouts
(Figure 4).
Page 11
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
Figure 4. Public Comments on Top Three Alternatives
Intersection Improvements and Signals
`1O ��NOT ENOUOM INCREASE
IN CAPACRY TO PL4N FOR
THE FUTURE�
. REQUIREMENTS .
I � LANE IMPROVEMENTS '� �
� � FRONTAGE ROqD IMPROVEMENTS
• SIGNALS AT FOUR ANTERSECTIONS
CAPACITY : N INTERSECTION = I �� PEDESTRIAN IMPqOVEMENTS
S INTERSEGTION = I
IMEETS EXISTING CAPACT' �EMANOE� DURING WINTER PE4K)
GOST : �Z.O MILLION
��NOT COST EFFICIENT.
Moving OfS-Ramps Only EgpEC1AlLY D19APOINTNO THAT
fT WOULD AL40 REOUIRE
�/ SIONALIZATON TO OAIN THE
""'I ,`•O NEEDED CAPAGIIY�
` � REOtIIREMENTS' �. ;
` i'� LqNEIMPROVEMENTS
.1 FRONTAGE ROAO �MPROVEMENTS�
� � SIGNALS AT TWO INTERSEGTIONS
� � EJRENSIVE fiRADING ` I
� � RETAINING WALLS � i
�� PEDESTRIANIMPROVEN�ENTS
GAPACITY : N INTERSECTION = I .SO _,__,_
S INTERSECTION = I .2S
(PROVIOES EXCESS CqPACII"Y: SO°o AT N. 2S% AT S)
COST : �7. I MILLION
Roundabouts - TWo Lane Design
�YHIS SOLUTON 19 THE MOST EFFICIENT
MEAN3 TO 90LVE THE MOST PROBLEMS
FOR 60TH NOW AND IHTO THE FUTURE�
�-%0
���`i REOUIREMENTS: � ^
I � BRIDGE . . . � � '
i� FRONTAGE ROAO� IMPROVEMENTS I
� � RETAINING WALLS � � �. . I
'� PEDESTRIqNIMPROVEMENTS
CAPACITY : N INTERSECT�ON = 2.46 -----.--.- —
5 INTERSECTION = I .56
IPROVIOES p(CE55 CAPACITY: I46�%a AT N. S6% AT S)
COST : $5.4 MILLION
_—__..___________..—. --_._._"___-"__.___._--
num6ers indicate capacity:
1= at capacity (operates with congestion and delays)
less than 1= the intecsec[ion is beyond i[s capacity (failing)
greater than ]= excess capacity (minimal to no delays)
Page 12
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
Recommendations
The final recommendation for the West Vail interchange is two lane roundabouts on the
north and south side of the interchange.
Two lane roundabouts were determined to provide the greatest increase in capacity for the
lowest relative cost as well as increasing safety, access, and aesthetics. The roundabout
solution wiil also accommodate growth in and environmentally friendly manner.
Fiaure 5. Preliminary design of Two Lane Roundabout
Page 13
West Vail Interchange Alternatives Analysis Alternative Solutions Analysis
Appendix 2�4
a gaanmm�3o _=�a � a m
o 'O� ° _ _ ' � " c &
� "�^ ,� c e x� ' n F E
y 4Q y F o>� a n Z y� m O u O��n i 2� y y�(1 N O$ 9 _r _T, (1 �! ll s
� .. ' m_- '�o,=2vm P¢ n3�n � "
� O N C y m 3� d�° a 'i 'a � ^ N Q n A w P+ �� 2 e C m-
8 o n m.� b2 _ y .. .� n n c F F. F x o_
p � 0 �() � w�9 _ £ 6�
-�'� "_ z o "'°„ 3 0 3
? g o � � y � 3 � 3 ^ _ _
0
do° .�- - '
$ o -
eaa �'�+H n�n
m m w ' ' ' _ r p < < < < <
3 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o �
o� �,� �« '
o$ 0000mu 1JOw '�� »
$oo 00000
��,eaz�^� "o°OO°o °o°o°o°o °o "'�°
2 =
2 a
� �n mm � u ' nm D
omo°o 00000 0 0°0 °o°o 00 00°0°0°o ma
m pn
00 °o
om o°oo a0000
F
0
3
w u0P
p Ou00 00000 O 00 00000 DOp00 aD
bA �m�
0000 00 00 �000
n
3
�,°� °oao°o 0000°o 0 00 0000a o°o°o an
N ^
a � m '" m ° N �
0
° «°o 00
°aa°o 0
� z
N� omm o 0 00000 00 00000 00o Q
�N mo°o °o$ aa
� o0000 0 00 ��oo 000
� ao
A
A a
0000 00
a£ Z
g3�
0000 ooaoo 0 00 00 00 ooa mD
aH o � o m m
0 0 ^
NF
N� oroo°o a0000 0 0°0 °oo° °a on
000 00 m9u
A
OOUm O��O 000 O� A
�
d
Q
N
9 NdAnn�n30 N�NO A � T
� � � ] � u
W N� -_ u m¢ a G .1
y n� w i c � u' - m - n _ F F
�.m o_ ' n -� o� z� y-�� t� N o 5 r�n n r n:
o °u � �� 9 m� o - � o�� F o S a 9 '_ '
y m z o£" d 3•
� _ mo�o ti e �o�_ 'm2ou wE�zm �m
r�- o o n� 3.dp _ C _'� m u¢ �n s ' _
g$ �m ^ - y ....� x .�^.£ �.F x o__
io o m� =n§ f°_
�? � � z n ' " _
0 0 0� v = y � c 3" _
�o ? � 3
� °o � _ ,.
� o -
O b� N � N V� N fl (1 (1
fnNVI rKKK K<(
3 3 3 . . . r . . . . ' r . - . . . . . .
wu o^�
o,°o .,� No �
00 0000�� ,�,bo� . ««...
0o b00000 " w '"
0o ep����y�p o°o°o°o °Oa °o°oo ou°�'"�o
m m
� o
eomo°o a000 o °o°o °oo°a°oo °ao°o°OO°o ��n
3
N c
�mJmPP Ou J y�' x
A P
00 O Op00 OO oO
000 Op O
n O
~P �n
o � o 0 o u o a o e 3 N n
Jp Om00 Op0 O OO 00000 p 000
P x
0
r�i A A m
0 pm0 0 00 0000 0 Nm AA
OPP 000 00 OO ppp �O
j N u
0000 0000 O 00 00000 000 mD
P
AAN O
J O �� NO
O 00 00 00
'sp
D �
0 0 �' o m 3
°omoo 000°oo o°o°o 00000 000°00 3n
A
�AA A s
AS o0 O 00
' O O00 000
i� p
D�
a 3
ONOO 00000 O 00 OOOOO 00000 '�
3 i
0J N N p N� qp �
A�00 O �000 �O OO 00 Op O�
OPOO 00000 O 00 00000 00000 6D
vi m p u i' '^
Om O p�
�O� O 00 DOOO�n 000
O O O O O O
�
Q
�
I 1 11' 1
�-
�
R
�
�
- �
" >\..��
�1
�
�
',' �
i
� i�,.
�t�
1
i
l
. _ _ .. . __. -__- __ . _
_-: ._._ .__. — .__ . . ___ _ _ _ .__ _..
1 (o
�
n
�
m
n
c�
m
/ m
� o
�
�
a
n
�
v
�
Z
z
0
�
-�
x
�
�
n�
m
z
�
�n
c�
m
�
c�
�
m
�
n
z
�m
on
n
m D om
xA • •
ZN m
-� D m?
m N
�`" -��
n� . �
sG5 � NZ
�
� � O�
� mn
O �
z m
i
�
n
3
�
.f"�'s�..�_.1
� \ � t�._.,....•,-.� }
MI�
, ; ; 4 ,�
\ L,i� � ` <-�
�. c �
Am
<n
� m
�^ n
n' 1
; ��z
�
Z�
o�
�o
i\�. ' r=� Q. �.
i \ � a � m n �
z O `� m
����.\� o � o
,�`.�\.
� �. �. \� �, ;.� ': `� �n � n
, --� �\� �\�.�.`: �-` °nm
� on
��` �- �
\ A C1
� `�, �� -. .;\
� \. ;\ m.
� �� \`. x \\�. \ zx
n i �, � N➢
\ � ��. o ��:`_ I �o
\ .: cz
� /�.. n..
� :��� � . .. o � -i x
�. �
I � I ;' � i z
.� � I; � i �
+� I U �
_ _ � —�
,�
� ._
i i
' X I
o.. � �,
ZN
-i
�^ \
nz
� c�
v �
m
ti `""�
A..,}
�1'. -
m
n
m
i
0
z
� � � i
._-_. n �_..�
v
��n
f N/
• A
O
Z
. �
`; � ":.
O
\...,,
1
\
�
r
�
1'�
; .'
�
I .. _TL`—
� �t
7
�
zi
l . . � I1�\ —..� . . - _ J -_. 1_ . . _ _
- `�—� : � ..__. ___�
�-< •
.\ � • �san..
�� \��
m
�`� :� d °'"
�\. -n N
��_,' ._`�` �
._. A z
�`. \� �c�
.\�, v
� m �
� 1
:\
: \�, m ,
.�-'. �.-; � o-m
_:�, ; � Z �{ �
�'.� (l<
� � ..�
. ;. Z .�a
:,`� � c�r --
�\ � wr
mo
� no
f.� A c�
�
� � ...` . �-��.
- .,� � -- �...:, �
� \i � � �.
r
; �/
o ,%
D
A o
m
�n 0
o \
o no
o• ///'''���
Ez , �
✓ �T j ( \
� A
^+ O W
Z Z o.s
G) -I
n
m
r 'i
r _,; � �
� _..F. .' �
i...,)_
�
n
. .`.i \\' \ CA iJ'4
� .� -im
_ ..� \-.. �� °�n '•�J
I ` �z3 N
n
� I �°o °o m
I m T � i
I .` � n°� `
I I� I� � I\�-' pov
-: I � I :I�II� I�.
0
�
n
�
m
0
0
N 1 —
� O I
� _n L
�—J �
d
(
_ ;_i.
,. .
i "}+ ''�„ '` ..
_, '
� ;� �` + �, .
� ' t` i `'-.. i ��
I �_ ,
� �
I ,'... ;
I �` � �
I
� _ ... �
i , _._
.
_..: , ,
�
_.. •
� _.
� n
I'_•? �
�m
�,; _: on
� zr
� �
n
G� A
mm
r
�a
� °nn
� o -r
m
I o
�
� �' �
�
� . •
�
�
� ,
� .
I
�.
I.
�i
�
�
� �
� ;
� '
�-..'
� �/:'1
�``� !� ....
I �. _
�
�'-,_.....'
I_ _.- ......
I , \
�
I_ .__. �',: `�..,
I;........_ \ E
I �......,: i. ...: �... 1
4\.;�� ...- ,. ....
�, 1
�; I
I 1 I`
I,:
I `.
�
I'=.
� •.,,
�...
�
I
I I� i. I I . I . l. .I I ��+,. L 1.,_ __ _ _.
r=� l►� � �II r :��. ►-
m
CO n
o�
z�^
�n
A�
D
��
�' J
C) � �
���� � o
. z_.J r
l� C�.� F ��
� o
0
I
0 0
m J
m
n
am m
Tn
A� °o
n.
�
v
N
O
O
�
A
f) �
Z 2
➢�
zn
c� �'
m �"
.A
n°
9p
m°
a�
'0 a
�
n
�
o m
'n n
m Z
O U1
Z O
��
nx
vm
z
a
l
�
u
� ;: ;, `�
�... �..
. �_-'
, . .. ,:
...._.� � 1, t
_ _...... ;:
� ,.t
G
r
���
C
c
�
in
1�
%
m
�,-., - _ � - - -J --' --' -� - ,
TD
�A
m
�Zn
0
`^n�
-� L�
amA
� m
Tor
a
`�'o `�
m n
m�
{m
0
�
�
i
>
�
t`,�t\/�"
1 j °�(
L I
� � n\
��
<m
m�
N D
D �
"� Z
-- O.
� C
Z T
O �
�O
m Z
� x�
n
c�
o a d om
< I
�
c>
�
�
�
� �
1 X
�
. r i .i n, Y. i iv , � r�.u. i .:il:l�\ !
.__ -.�� - _� ._... :'_' -_=: ._. _ � �--� _� —� .� -� _...i
� � � � \ �
� :, ��a�
�...� ��\. \ � _ X
J .,\ �`�� i ��
! .�• '•\\ T�
L ? �� : �
m �.f : �? \� D z
• x . �.\� �c�
o'-' � �� ` '' �
z� �`` � �
nz r � 1
� c�
2� :�•.
�m � ��.'� �\
��
. �
1 � . � �� �
m
� `A � \ `.I � °cn .
n -i
�� '.: I <�� Z
��
n � � ' I � � Z�
"1 x m �: ' � �\ c� r y�
�� �1 �. ��A� mo
t r^ . n o .
� ��' �� �c>
�,,. �o f �I . � � � ��7 r"
4{ LJ
` ..--�' /`� I � , � � � -� �.�• � ...> \
� � � ,� .
/ /,-� n � � � � . � `\ �
� �,.-�r � II: ��� � `.
.1 ' �: �" �I �:v
� � li �: I, V � � ✓
' ' ` � � :; I �'� V � F_
I '^ �:` �:� : � � •'�� i
. . �
�� \ �� ;i '� 0' .
A \:.
� \ ��� I�� \� \�� �J o
� � � \ �: � I I \ . \ O O o 0
�
\
� � �\ � �� I � \�, p. \
j . \; I� .� �� Ez : �
� 1 0 � \ � \ �� : i: :a . z A � �
� . ` \ . Z�Z o;
\'
� .; _ : ' . \\ ,., ., c� n
� � c�
� �'� � � �.�.�' m _
I ' i"
i ` �' � � ���
� �� �,�` .
: � i � :� �� ( � �
. i: 1 �; ', � { �).
� � : , r., —J
�, ; I �
, ; I\;i' i
� •� � �: i
r- : � �� :� �� �
,:��: i i\� �n �J
: � i \�� ��n 1
: � ; �,: Z��
.�.: \ �: .. i � \`\_ YQ- n
<,i .�� . "°o °o �
� m-„ n d'
I \ n °i
� : A�._ A��
nn
"� �-.. • : ' �� �� \ \S z� �
y f j�-"�..y � � j �.. � o v o
�� � �i- ��� �.� , .
� ',, i ' e � \� \ �
*"� �: , , � "
1 � I ,`I m
��
� �
�' � � :1 0 >�
� �, > ' : I
i � �i,j ��= ��
\ �� ^t � t, i ' � N �
'} l i
e' L � � o
o � ��'� f_t � �
r"', c, l t y � �
� ��� �� V \7
�; ���`�,��..�'� d
i �
—� �._�': `t.
„n
�A
m
�°n
�
^n °
1�
�m�
� m
i�r
�0
an
�°n
m�
jo
�
� `� � �`� ���\�
fl
�
��� ��
�
� TD
�° �oom
€) �mnn
Ao
i �D�A
� m
� n�'rvi
� N O O
C D n C
ZZD�
o�s
C
Zm�T
oziz�
t ^ � i�� NN=O
��
ef
J
l�,\
��
� ( E
;� 4
�
�
�
� ��
;J�i ^�
! ^L--,.... �,,�:1
J �
�
� �
�
C+
f.�
t � C�
e
O
�
. e��.
, , ., i-d �� _
.
�,�i�l l I.�;���
`J
V
N
(l
➢
m
�
��
o�
ZD
0
O A
�C
Z
D
�^Am
-� o
�nD
mO�
n
�'
�mZ
cr
zo°�
n
�ni
Z -1
O �
mo�'
AZ�
�
D T1�
Ul O n
(/� A �
m
�
�/ �S\ . . I \I ! L.l c' I I �� _I. J.I�.i l . ��l
� �,� _-L,. _- L, _ - —, . r- . -.--, � - _ _-- t� -
i � � i ;i
� � � � '� . � € ��-,.
� ; �
I� � , ,_..�,
� � tm�,�1 � � C ` �.-.:�
I � --� • � . �: � : I � ,
j� r_ � ,� ��ji �j �:
I � � � � ,' . I
I � �s �� �` � : I C
I .� � ;I�� i �I � I £ ) � 1
n
�
-n m
A➢
O
zr
D�
G) A
mm
r
�o
o�
nn
o�
m
0
� '• � �
I �
I � , /l
I //
I (j
� f fV�
� �J
�
�� _ ±
� _,��
�
� %
� �V
��
�
�
� 'w"'�
��--'"1 �_.�y �
I �j \ �
� �� � `�. �
m
mn
o�
z�"
in
�F
n
��
�3 ,��o
• ��'J !
� t.�.l
/
AT
/
A
m t� I
m
O A �
T m fil
T� D
I
A c
n-
�
v
T
�
n O
2 Z
D �
zn
c�"
mm
. �
n°
An
m°
n�
�n
0
D
S
O n
E Z
Q1-
O V1
Z O
I�
� -a
Dx
�m
z
0
, _ __
-� a (- --
?,,- -- r�
0
O
N
O
O
r