HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility of a People Mover 1987 11
►�, �,�
. �
own o uai
- FEASIBILITY OF A PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM
TO REPLACE
THE IN -TOWN SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE
, Prepared for
� TOWN OF VAIL
j DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS / TRAIVSPORTATION
�
by
Charles P . Elms and Daniel Dunoye
' LEA , ELLIOTT , McGEAN & COMPANY
i
,
Washington , D . C . �
�
February 16 , 1987 - '
�
i n : _ � F-s�s ` - - — r, :
I�LC.,I , C� IIIVIt , I I I � V�C.1f 1 Ot LV��JC,l�1lJ.� tronrportation engineerJ
FEASIBILITY OF A PEOPLE MOVER SYSTE�1
7"O REPLACE
THE IN-TOWN SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE
Prepared for
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/TRANSPORTATION
6y
�harlES L• ims arid uaniet Dun�y�
LEA, ELLIOTT, McGEAN & COMPANY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
February Ib, 1987
CONTENTS
1 .0 EXECUTIVE SU4IRSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 .0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 . 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �
2.2 THE VAIL RESORT EWIRONtvSENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 .3 THE TRANSPOR7ATION PROBLE �,1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 .4 CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOP ;v1ENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4 . 1 6lountain Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1G
2 .4 .2 Cascade Villaoe Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i ;
2.4 .3 Ford Park Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 .4 .4 Deveiopment of deaver Creel< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 .5 STUDY SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 .0 BUS SYSTE �t CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 . 1 VAIL BUS OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 '-�
3 .2 VAIL IN -TOWN SHUTTLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3 .3 SHUTTLE OPERATIONS AND PERFORMAUCE . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3 .4 INCREASING SHUTTLE PERFOR �SANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 .5 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 .0 TRAVEL DE ,YIAND AND RIDERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 . 1 THE RESORT GuVIRON �tENT AND POPULATION
CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 .2 PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S
43 IN -T01�/ N SHUTTLE RIDERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4 .4 RIDERSHIP DE �IAND AND SHUTTLE CAPRCITY . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 .5 TRAVEL DE �lAND CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4C
4 .6 DESIGN AND PEAK CAPACITY REQUIRE �tENTS . . . . . . . . . . Si
5 .0 THE VAIL ENVIRON �IENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5 . 1 DESCRIPTION OF "fHE RIGHT OF 1VAY RESTRICTIONS . . . . . . . 52
5 .2 I �iPAC7' ON GUIDEIVAY STRUCTURE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . 5 �
5 .3 IiviPACT ON ST�TION STRUC7'URES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5 .4 I �tPACT ON VEHICLE DESIGV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS
5 .5 I �,IPACT ON OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5 .6 OTHER CONSTR,AINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6C
5 .6 . 1 Maintenance Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5 .6 .2 Overnight Vehicle Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6C
J .bJ v�cC3i1Gi� ii� iCc afid Snccv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6n
11
CONTENTS
(Continued)
6 .0 EXA �IINATION OF FIXED GUIDEW � Y ALTERNATIVES , . . . . . . . . . 62
6 . 1 AUT0 �IATED GUIDEWAY TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . 62
6 .2 ALTERNATIVE ALIGN �1ENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6 .3 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6 .3 . 1 Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6 .3.2 Potential Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
7 .0 A REPRESENTA7'IVE PEOPLE :�tOVER SYSTE '.v1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7 . 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTE �1 FOR
SHUTTLE REPLACEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
7 .2 REPRESEN7ATIVE SYSTE �A COSTS ESTI �IATE . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7 .2 . 1 Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7 .2 . 2 Operations and �taintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7 .3 ALTERNATIVE STARTER LINE PEOPLE MOVER SYSTE �i . . . . . . 76
7 .4 OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEyiENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8 .0 ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS OF THE
"fRANSPOR7' ATION SYSTE �I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
8 . 1 ROAD BASED SYSTE �IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
8 .2 OESCRIPTION OF AN ALTERNATE EXPRESS LINK
PEOPLE �tOVER SYSTE �,1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
8 .2 . 1 Potential System Confiburation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
8 .2 .2 Capital Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5 .2 .3 O&tit Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
9 .0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
9 . 1 PRIVATE FUNDING : CONCESSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
9 .2 PUBLIC FUNDING : NO CONCESSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
APPENDICES :
A Short Distance 7' ransportation Systems
Recent Developments and Future Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A - 1
B System Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B- 1
C Supporting Calculations for Determining Ocitit Costs . . . . . . . . . C- 1
iii
EXHIBITS
3 - 1 8ighorn (East Vail) Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 - 2 West Vail and Sandstone Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 - 3 In -Town Shuttle Bus Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 - 4 Vehicles Assigned to TOV Shuttle by Time of Day . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 -5 In -Town Shuttle Directional Line Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4 - 1 Population by Type on Peak Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4 - 2 Distribution of Employees and Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 - 3 Town of Vail Residential Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 -4 Distribution of Peak Day Skiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 -5 Questionnaire Results Indicating Skier Parking Location
and Skier First Lift of the Day ( 1985 -86 Season) . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4 -6 Regularly Occurring In-Town Shuttle Peak Ridership
During Ski Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4 - 7 Ridership on Other Bus Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4 -8 Distribution of Shuttle Ridership Over Period of Design Day . . . . . 39
4 -9 Distribution of Passenger Boardings by Bus Stop . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4 - 10 Passenger Demand Over the In -Town Shuttle Route . . . . . . . . . 43
4 - 11 Peak Day �iarket Base of Demand for In -'Cown Shuttle . . . . . . . . 44
4 - 12 Distribution of Peak Day \4arket Base of Demand for Shuttle . . . . . 45
4 - 13 Estimate of Peak-Day Visitors Arriving or Departing
Vail Village/LionsHead Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4 - 14 Results of 1985 -56 Survey Correlating Skier Overnight �
Location with First Lift of Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4 - 15 Distribution of Shuttle Demand During Peak Period . . . . . . . . . 50
5 - 1 Example of i�larrow Street 1Vithout Sidewallt . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5 - 2 One -Lane Road Along the Civic Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5 - 3 Distribution of Curve Radii on In -Town AGT . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5 - 4 Example of Space Requirements for Steei Column Structures . . . . . 56
5 -5 Approximate Station Dimensions for Vail People ivlover . . . . . . . SS
6 - 1 In -Town People :�tover Alionment - - Option 1 (Selected) . . . . . . • 6 �
6 - 2 In -Town People �lover Alignment - Option 2 (Rejected) . . . . . . . 65
7 - 1 Description of Representative People �tover System
for Repiacing the In-Town Shuttle Bus Route . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7 - 2 Calculation of Dwell Time at Stoos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7 - 3 Operating I'lan for the ftepresentative Feople �iover System . . . . . % 4
iv
EXHISITS
(Continued)
7 -4 Capital Cost Estimate for Representative People �lover
System to Replace [n -Town Shuttle Bus Route . . . . . . . . . . . 75
7 -5 Summary of O& 41 Expenses for the Representative
People i�lover System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7 -6 Alignment of Alternative Starter Line
People �tover System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7 -7 Description of a Starter Line Peoole �lover System . . . . . . . . . 79
7 -8 Capital Cost Estimate for Starter Line
People 1�tover System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
$ - 1 AGT Aligment Between Parking Structures - Option 1 . . . . . . . . 87
8 - 2 AGT Aligment Between Parking Structures - Option 2 . . . . . . . . 88
8 -3 Single Track, Single Vehicle Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5 -4 Single Track, Two - Vehicle Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
8 -5 Double Track, Two-Vehicle Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
8 -6 Double Track, Multiple -Vehicle Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3 -7 Example of Shuttle System (Circus Circus Casino, Las Vegas) . . . . . 92
8 - 3 Shuttle System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
8 -9 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate - Shuttle �tonorail . . . . . . . . 96
3 - 10 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate of Shuttle Cable
Propelled System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
8 - 11 Summary of OLt �i F.xpenses Self - Propelled Shuttle . •. . . . . . . . . 98
3 - 12 Summary of O& \.1 Expenses Track -Propeiled Shuttle . . . . . . . . . 98
9 - 1 Financing the Peoole �iover by Property Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . 103
9 -2 PotentialSources of Revenue to Fund the People �Iover . . . . . . . 104
v
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7' he primary purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of replacing
the Vail In-Town Shuttle bus system by an Automated People Mover System , also
referred to in the industry as an Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) System .
Representative People �over Replacements for the Shuttle
r
A representative People Mover System for replacing the In-Town Shuttle has
been conceptually defined and analyzed and is believed to be both technologically
and physically feasible . Competitive commercially available equipment has been
identified and a feasible representative alignment defined. The capital cost of such
a system has been estimated to be on the order of $20 million.
Recognizing it may be necessary to minimize the capital costs for the initial
installation of a people mover, study was made to identify a Starter Line which has
the potential to solve the immediate congestion problem and fulfill the need for
growing demand. This was done and a Starter Line defined which can carry 78
percent of the In-Town Shuttle demand, connecting the LionsHead area with the
Vail Village and Transportation Center . The capital cost of the Starter Line was
estimated at $ 15 million . This Starter Line was defined in a way that can be
logically extended to the West towards Cascade Village and to the East through
Golden Peak. -
Based on the system requirements discussed b.etween the Town of Vail officials
and LE �t , the feasibility of an AGT system was investigated. The proposed system
would be elevated. Its representative alignment follows the In-Town Shuttle bus
route . The major restrictions of such an alignment are the small turn radii and the
narrowness of the right of way .
While there are possibilities to use portions of Gore Creek as part of the
alignment, such was not studied in depth because of problems fitting in stations and
the need for pedestrian access . For purposes of this feasibility analysis , the
definition of a "feasible representative alignment" was considered of primary
im��rtan�e= Should the Town of Vail then find the orolect to be feasible ,
improvements to the alignment should be studied and defined during preliminary
design when there is sufficient budget .
1
Physical constraints limit the number of systems that could be used in Vail .
Also, it was found that the average speed of the system will be only slightly better
than the bus unless passengers are allowed to carry their skis on - board the trains .
Section 7 .4 of this report discusses this concern and concludes that the system can
be designed where skis can be safely carried on- board a fixed-guideway people
mover by passengers . Another constraint on the people mover system is related to
the space required to locate the columns and the stations , while maintaining road
access to all the buildings alongside the alignment .
After examining these restrictions, LE �i identified alternate technologies that
would be applicabie in Vail . Full descriptions of the systems using these
technologies were prepared. A description of an operating plan was also prepared .
Based on these descriptions , both capital and operation & maintenance (O &M ) costs
were developed.
Demand/Ridership Analysis
A detailed analysis of existing population/visitor data and bus ridership was
carried out to establish the characteristics of current Shuttle demand and that
which can be expected for the future . This demand was analyzed for " peak days"
and "design days ," terms used by Vail Associates, Inc . for planning and sizing its
facilities . The peak day is essentially a factor of 1 . 26 times higher than a design
day . The design capacity is ihe capacity to which a facility can be filled before
crowding begins to take place .
Shuttle demand during the 1985 - 86 ski season was found to be 17,600
passengers on a peak day and 14,000 passengers on a design day . When Category I
and II improvements are completed, ridership demand is expected to increase Sy 23
percent for the 1995-96 ski season and by 43 percent for the 2003 - 04 ski season .
The 1995 - 96 time frame was selected for defining a design condition for the people
mover system . The peopie mover systems, upon which feasibility has been studied,
were sized to meet the 1995 - 96 peak period demand for a peak day. Expansion to
meet the 2003 -04 peak period peak day demand can be easily met by adding only
three trains .
2
"I� he peak period for demand on the Shuttle bus is in the late afternoon
(3 : 30 -5 :30 p .m .) as skiers come from the siopes when the lifts close . Approximately
24 percent of the entire day's demand occurs then - - 4 ,259 riders on a peak day and
3,380 on a design day .
The morning peak is much lighter, approximately one-third the rate of the late
afternoon peak .
Peak demand was analyzed to determine the following directional line
capacity requirements for a peak day.
Season Directional Line Caoacity Required
1985 - 86 1 , 065
1995 - 96 1 ,310
2003 -04 1 ,523
Review of In -Town Shuttle Operations and Service
A detailed review was made of the existing Shuttle bus operations . Our
findings indicate that the system is well operated and that the quality of ser�ice on
design days during the ski season is generally acceptable . However , on peak days ,
the service was rated by visitors as " poor" which is confirmed by the following:
o Single direction line capacity is 841 passengers/hour on a design day and
982 passengers/hour on a peak day . Therefore , while the system is capable
of ineeting the design day peak period demand, its capacity falls 8 percent
short of ineeting the peak day peak period demand .
o Average speed, a iactor in quality of service , falls to 6 mph which is 30
percent slower than the uncongested average speed of 8 .5 mph during off -
season.
o The major limitations of the bus system were the dweli times and shared
use of the road with the pedestrians . This results in low average speed and
reduced vehicle productivity . Because of existing physical limitations ,
increasing the vehicle capacity or the number of vehicles is considered to
3
be only a short term solution to handling increasing demand. Tight curve
radii, limited curb space and general road congestion at peak hours are the
major limiting factors in making significant improvements to the In-Town
Shuttle bus service .
- o Theoretically, eight additional 35-foot buses would be needed to meet the
1995 - 96 peak day peak period demand, assuming additional problems that
cause further average speed reduction are not encountered.
Alternative Express Links to Handle Peak Demand
Tne source of the high afternoon peak demand has been identified as cross
movements between the Village and LionsHead area. Analyses have identified that
23 percent of this demand are skiers whose first lift of the day is in one of these two
areas opposite their origin. This could easily account for the morning peak;
therefore , it is surmised that 77 percent of the afternoon peaks could easily be
skiers who, on their last ski run of the day, end at an area opposite the area where
they are overnighting or where their car is parked, or have chosen to use the Shuttle
for commercial and/or eating/entertainment destinations . It is also noted that 45
percent of all Shuttle boardinos are at LionsHead and Covered Bridge. All of this
suggests that the peak demand, which is causing degradation of Shuttle service ,
might be carried by an express link connecting the two parking structures.
The possibility of using large capacity buses , operating on the Frontage Road,
in express service between the two parking structures has been identified. However,
the current congestion at the four-way stop is an impediment to this solution .
Signalization of the four-way stop is expected to increase its level of service from
condition "F" to condition "C" during the evening peak, and would rembve this
impediment.
Also, a simplified point-to- point express shuttle type people mover has been
defined that could connect the two parking structures, with a capital cost estimated
at $6 million. The feasibility of such a system rests upon ( 1 ) verification by
additional data and analysis that a sufficient portion of the peak demand can be
carried by such an express link and (2) that an alignment , either on Colorado DOT
I - 70 right-of - way or along the south side of the Frontage Road is feasible .
4
Financial Analyses and Feasibility
Representative People 'vlover Systems for replacing the In-Town Shuttle bus
service are believed to be technologicaily and physically feasible . There will be
some hard problems in fitting the system within the landscape and existing built up
real estate . Therefore , feasiblity of the project essentially hinges on financial
considerations . The annual cash requirements to meet the capital costs of a people
mover system , at either $ 20 miliion or $ 15 million , has been examined and found to
be within the range of tne Town's ability to raise revenues . Finai decision of
affordability and feasibility rests with the Town's leaders in considering the
availability of such revenues compared with other needs.
Aiternative ways of funding such a system were briefly examined . It is LE �1 's
conclusion that concession arrangements based totally on private investment are
unlikely . The cost to the private sector would be in the range of $ 2 .00 to $ 2.55 per
annual visitor . It is not likely that implementation of a people mover will
substantially increase the spending habits of visitors . Therefore , any benefits
provided to the private sector will be judged as those which permit continued
expansion of the resort and its economic growth. If the private sector were willing
to commit 10 percent of said economic growth to a people mover system , the annual
amount of growth in gross revenues would be on the order of $ 27 to $36 million.
Any private concession would, therefore, be expected to require substantial subsidy
from the Town of Vail.
The potential for Federal or State grants was briefly considered and discarded
as a source of funding . No State grants are available and analyses suggest that the
system does not meet current Federal threshoids for justifying fixed guideway
transit systems . The current Administration in \Vashington has been reducing the
Federal Budget for transit .
A more traditional approach would be to finance the construction of the
system by issuing bonds . Whether this wiil be feasible or not depends mainly on the
"I'own of Vail indebtedness level . Retirement of the bonds and covering the O & \t
costs could be done as it is now or by creating a mix of visitor taxes. Installation of
a fare collection system was not considered because it impedes boarding
performance , increases station size and is an inefficient means to obtain revenue
5
since it increases both capital and O &Yt costs . For example , a 25 cent fare is
estimated to be required to cover these extra costs .
A financial analysis was carried out examining the potential to derive funds by
increasing various local taxes (e .g . sales taxes, property taxes, lift/resort taxes) .
Four scenarios were postulated, two of which appear reasonable . For example , a
one cent additional sales tax was found totally sufficient to fund the capital and
additional OdcM costs of the $ 15 million Starter Line People Mover System . Under
another scenario a combination of tax increases , additional one cent sales tax and
additional 3.88 millage points to the property tax, could completely fund the capital
and additional OckM costs of the $20 million Representative People Mover
replacement of the Shuttle.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As a result of this study , the following conclusions and recommendations are
made.
o The people mover, as a replacement for the In-Town Shuttle is
considered technically and physically feasible . Final feasibility is a
financial matter which must be determined by the leaders of the Town of
Vail.
o The quality of service of the existing In-Town Shuttle bus is falling
below an acceptable level, particularly on peak days. Some of this
- problem may be solved by increasing bus size and adding buses to the
route. However , demand is expected to increase to a level at which such
measures will probably no longer be effective . It is recommended that
the Town investigate this issue to more depth to determine precisely the
limit to which service on the Shuttle can be improved.
. o It is recommended that additional study of demand be carried out to
determine if significant portions might be carried by an express link
connecting the two parking structures .
6
o The four-way stop should be signalized as it would aid in decreasing
traffic congestion which would improve the operation of bus services. It
would also make possible a test of express bus services between the two
parking structures. Previous experiments with such services are believed
to have failed primarily because of congestion at the four-way stop.
o Finally and most importantly, the Town should carry out detailed
financial analyses of funding the two concepts for people mover
replacements of the Shuttle . These analyses should include the
following:
A . Development of a Project Implementation Plan upon which
financial analyses can be carried out.
B . Study of the Town's current level of indebtedness and potential for
increasing it without raising taxes.
C . Study of potential revenues from various tax increases and how
such will allow an increase in the Town's indebtedness level .
D . Examination of other needs of the Town that will require raising
additional revenues and a prioritization of these needs versus the
people mover project.
E . Development of a financial plan, including some alternatives for
funding the people mover project, assuming that the Town asaesses
the project to be feasible.
7
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In view of the traffic congestion problems associated with the large influx of
skiers into the Town of Vail during the 160 -day ski season , Lea , Elliott, McGean c�t
Company (LEM) was engaged to assess the feasibility of utilizing Automated
Guideway Transit (AGT) -- or people mover -- technology to improve the
circulation of skiers and the visitors within the Town . Projections indicate a growth
in the population of the Town of Vail and the peak period In-Town Shuttle demand of
23 % by the 1995 -96 season and 43% by the 2003 -04 season. Therefore , it is
imperative that, if the current level of service provided to Vail visitors is to be
maintained, transportation system alternatives be examined. In addition, Vail will
host the World Skiing Championships in 1989 and there is a concern that the influx
of skiers and spectators, coupled with current conditions and growth, will
exacerbate the problem of an already overloaded transportation system.
2.2 THE VAIL RESORT ENVIl20NMENT
Vail is a young community which owes its existence to the development of Vail
Mountain for alpine skiing in 1962 by the Vail Associates , Inc. (VAI). VAI is
responsible for the development of the ski-related facilities throughout the
Mountain environment. VAI is also engaged in other commercial developments in
the area and in other sl<i facility developments in nearby Beaver Creek.
The Town of Vail is the local government unit in the area; it borders on the ski
slopes and provides a full range of municipal functions and facilities, including
public transportation. In this role the Town is responsible for the local roads and
traffic and operates and maintains the bus system .
During the ski season the Vail bus system , in particular the In-Town Shuttle , serves
as a circulator for skiers and visitors , connecting the three lift areas, the two large
municipal parking garages, parking lots , and other major traffic generators in Vail.
The Shuttle operates primarily on streets with restricted pcivate auto access which
limits interference from other vehicles; however, during the ski season these streets
8
become primary pedestrian arteries and the buses are often in conflict with the �
pedestrian traffic. The relatively few alternative walkways are inaccessible as a
result of the accumulation of snow. Adding to the problem is the winding nature of
the streets and the fact that they are narrow.
23 THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEki
"Che primary transportation problem in Vail is associated with the circulation
of skiers during peak periods in the ski season . Day skiers arrive in automobiles,
Shuttle buses, and intercity buses in the morning and attempt to make their way
together with destination (overnight visitors) and local skiers to the three major lift
areas. The Town of Vail operates two major public parking garages, one at the Vail
Transportation Center with a capacity of 800 cars and one at LionsHead with a
capacity of 1 ,200 cars. In addition, the Tovm provides an additional 200 public
parking spaces on landing mats located in Ford Park and at other locations.
The arrival of the skiers in the morning creates somewhat of a peaking
problem because skiers want to get to the slopes as quickly as possible and make
optimum use of their lift passes. However, the morning peak is only about one- third
as heavy as the afternoon peak. The major parking facilities , the Transportation
Center and LionsHead structure , are located within the vicinity of the lift areas. It
is observed that many skiers overnighting in the Vail Village/LionsHead area can and
do walk to the lift of their choice and that a number of skiers parking do likewise.
Inasmuch as the parking facilities and the "fransportation Center are not located
directly adjaeen3 xo a�jy of the lift areas, the travel patterns merge, diverge , and
intersect at a number of locations. Moreover, the paths that can be used by the
pedestrian skiers are few and often concurrent �aith the bus paths. "Chus, although
the Shuttle system provides a means for skiers to circulate through the "fown , the
— _ _ , Shuttle operates on streets that are primary pedestrian arteries as well and, as a
= --- -. - result, conflicts and delays are inevitable.
Actually, the most intense demand upon the bus system occurs during late
afternoon/early evening because skiers tend to stay on the slopes as long as possible ,
but the day tends to end quickly in the mountains and many skiers try to leave at the
same time . To absorb ine nign demand sucge, ihe r�w��bzc of bu;es in revenue
9
service is increased 100 percent . Buses are stockpiled at heavy de m and points and
dispatched as soon as they are filled with passengers.
Approximately 23 percent of the peak period Shuttle ridership can be
identified as specific cross-movements by skiers whose first lift of the day is
opposite of the location of their origin. This leaves 77 percent of the peak demand
not specifically identified. Noting that the problem does not occur in the morning
suggests that m any of the afternoon peak riders (77 percent) m ay be ending their
skiing day at locations opposite from their first lift of the day and require
transportation to return either to their cars or overnightlocations .
Travel patterns of the skiers fluctuate as facilities on the Mountain are
changed and improved. For example, the introduction of the Vista Bahn has greatly
affected the attractiveness of the Vail Village lift area. Thus , this area has become
a more desirable destination (or "first lift of the day" location) for many of the Vail
skiers. The faster quad lifts also make it possible to cross the mountain (Village to
LionsHead) on the mountain easier . The effect could be that a number of skiers
then end their day opposite of their first lift of the day .
In addition to the above , VAI has currently received approval for improve-
ments that are expected to increase the visitor demand by 23 percent by the 1995 - 96
ski season. There are �dditional planned improvements which will increase
visitor demand by 43 percent by the 2003-04 ski season.
2.4 CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
2.k.1 Mountain Developments
Mountain developmerts have a significant impact upon the skier population .
�lountain developments are primarily of two types: ( 1) expansion of the ski terrain
by opening up additional portions of the Mountain for skiing; and (2) improvement of
the skier delivery system through more and/or faster ski lift equipment. 'the latter,
however, has the greatest impact on the skier population because it alone can result
in the movement of more persons up the mountain in the same amount of time . This
is ;rrportant b�caus� daily :ift passes ccst a fixed amcunt and :ess time in transit
10
results in more time available for skiing. Also, faster lift systems result in an
increase in lift capacity, resulting in a higher demand beino placed on the slope
space and a demand for more slope development.
The VAI Master Plan provides ample evidence of the impact upon capacity of
the faster lift systems. The newer detachable grip lifts are capable of moving 2 , 100
to 2 ,800 skiers per hour , while fixed grip lifts have a capacity of 1 ,200 to 1 ,800
skiers per hour.
VAI has found its new detachable grip lift located at Vail Village to be highly
successful and plans to install additional lifts of this type. In addition to higher
capacity these lifts make possible longer chairli£t lengths, further reducing lift
travel time making remote Mountain locations more accessible which is expected to
increase cross-mountain ski travel. This capability is quickly recognized by the
skiers as shown by the increased percentage of skiers using the Vail Village lifts as
the first lift of the day in the 1985 -86 season.
We have assumed that the VAI Master Plan provides the best estimate of
future skier demand because skier demand will be dependent upon the mountain
developments which are accomplished and moreover, since the VAI is dependent
upon the skier population for its revenues and development capital.
VAI has indicated that they plan to have in operation at least two new
detachable grip lifts by the time of the World Championships. Since the champion-
ships are planned to take place in the Vail Village lift area, these two lifts will help
to alleviate the skier congestion that could develop as a result of the dislocation of
si<iers from the Vail Village lift area.
2.4.2 Cascade Village Development
tiVestin Hotels is developing a major hotel complex iri the Cascade Village area
which will generate a significant amount of travel on the existing West Vail South
Bus Route. There are \dountain development plans which, if carried out, will
provide a lift connection up Vail Mountain and could lessen the need for an
additional transit connection with Cascade Village. Sir�ce u�e � eak uc�imnd cccu„
11
between the LionsHead area and Vail Village a:ea, one could consider extending the
In-Town Shuttle into Cascade Village withou: seriously affecting the quality of
service so long as the fleet size is increased.
Z_4.3 Ford Park Developmentr
Portions . of Ford Park in eastern Vail will �e used in the ski season 1986 - 87 for
vehicle parking with the installation of aircraft ' ��ding mats. In addition, when it is
completed, the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater �ill become a traffic generator but
only during the summer season.
2.4.4 Development of Beaver Creek
VAI is currently pursuing the developmen: of the Beaver Creek area which is
near Avon west of Vail . This area is growing :aster than Vail in terms of skier
population and must be considered a source of c�mpetition for the skier population.
Interstate 70 is the primary connection be*�:een Vail and Avon; there is no
transmountain connection between the two faciliues .
2.5 STUDY SCOPE
As previously stated, the purpose of this s:,:dy is to examine the transportation
situation in the Town of Vail and to determine =�e feasibility and cost-effectiveness
of installing an Automated Guideway Transi� System as a replacement for the
In-Town Shuttle. In order to accomplish this purpose, the following tasks were
carried out:
o Establish the fundamental transper.ation requirements in terms of a
definition of the current service to be -�placed and any improvements in the
quality of that service , and estimate �eeded future capacity.
o Identify the site-specific constraints which must be considered in the
development of a people mover systzm .
o Identify the applicable people mover technologies which might be
implemented.
o Idertify an appropriate alignment '�r defining a representative people
mover system , upon which feasibilit}- can be examined.
12
o Prepare preliminary estim ates of capitai and operating and maintenance
(O& ;�t) costs for a representative people mover system which could
replace the In -Town Shuttle bus route .
o Develop recommendations regarding feasibility of a peopie mover
system , particularly how such may be determined .
The primary goal of this study is to determine the feasibility of replacing the
Vail In -Town Shuttle with a people mover system . This preliminary feasibility study
will provide a basis for future decisions regarding public transit provision in Vail
and , if appropriate , more detailed engineering design and implementation projects .
13
3.0 BUS SYSTEh7 CHARACTERISTICS
This section provides a description of the Vail In -Town ShutUe bus system ,
which is being studied for replacemeM by a peoole mover . Disc� ssions 5elow
concentrate upon the physical characteristics of the route , its aerformance and
possibilities for improvement and growth . Ridership is not discussed here as it is
treated in detail together with an assessment of demand in Section 4 .
3.1 VAIL BUS OPERATIONS
The Tovm of Vail operates a free municipal bus ser'✓ ice which includes the Vail
In -Town Shuttle , the East Vail (Bighorn) Service , the Sandstone Route , and the �Vest
Vail North and South Ser✓ice . The Vail bus system is the third largest in the Stzte
of Colorado. The bulk of resources, service, and ridership is related to the Shuttle .
It is the primary means of passenger circulation in Vail and conseeuently is of major
importance during the ski season .
In addition to the buses operated by the Town of Vail there are other
transportation services which are operated principally to accommodate the Vail
skiers. These include buses which transport skiers from Denver and other locations;
hotel shuttles (vans) which deliver guests/skiers from the outlyino hotels; and taxi
and limo services. These services deliver passenaers to the Vail Transportation
Center near Vail Village and to the LionsHead Parking Structure . The hotel shuttles
and taxis may also deliver passengers to Golden Peai; .
1Uhile this study concentrates on the In -Town Shuttle, the other bus routes
operated by the Town of Vail cannot be and were not ignored. These routes transfer
a number of their passengers to the In -Town Shuttle . Therefore, peak ridership on
the �Vest Vail , Bighorn and Sandstone routes �vas taSulated and analyzed to
determine the impact on the peak demand for the In -To �vn Shuttle . Exl�ibits 3 - 1 and
3 -2 depict the routes for the West Vail , Bighorn and Sandstone routes. Saturday
ridership data is provided in Exhibit 4 -7 of Section 4 .
14
Q
U
?u���
-. . _ .`•_�i,y � �,y iZ • � ' _ _ _ \��
� � � �
� �4. �,}.�i � I �
-�}.�T:'�: x � � �
er�' � �
� � i
�:i�c;.`�� �} 1 � -� �. / a�
, � - <
�����Y' iG.x � w _ ', w
.3"rv�,ssY��- a < � � , �
`<
r � °= � '
� ui z � � • �' 3
a
�� -
w w _ , s a : � �
3 - /� -� '� i � E
o _ o
�'� ' <
W � Z i � J F
1- /
� � � ° g , - y w � <
ln Q � � / - ' c - z
w w � =.! � � � �
rlo � ' � � � �
Z ^ < / = � �
�- �w� `�� ^
� S
aI W
f�l T >o� � �
¢ C / O N
�� � I Q
Z� Y � O
- w � z
U ; � � �
Z F
> F • � U ",'
O d � ° Q
J 1 w
1 z �� � � �
� a -� '
� � J � �
� i
� - � i e
, - - - - � >
� �
z � �.
z i j � e
�o-J'� � �' i d
�, � i ok'� � w :�
i
' 1 N
� �1 � J I j p Z
' > • � U � � �
� I� � �\ � �
` � ��, ° ,Q; ° u
� •
Y- c
� w ,
1 ' �
,
� ; > , w
, � , > �
_
• � w ° ' o � M
o � ° � • >
a � 4i � i - w F
� � ' ``� �
a � �� ? t `i �' Z
z � � • � � X
� - � � � " LtJ
� am
� ^ � � 1 m C9 <
O � � � `� � W
� _ ' _ � ¢ ¢
< � s � 0
_ � ` �� � �
1 Y • 5
e � Q I
� i a
� 1
� 4t �
J I O �'tii \'} iy • 1
t° J-i /
y O � � �- �% ¢ / .
a I � `��-•._ w i
aO I t'R�� `.�_ �1�- i� �Z t-
�2 � I Z � ���� ^J 2 I � � 3 � yl
N F 1 � � � , /// . �'i = I w � p j C
( 1 ¢ a O
O _ p i �' a �� � , � ¢ � � �¢ a O � +'
F LL i p A �'i'_O ¢ 1 U ¢ Q: tn
� ¢ 1 U vf �n
'" � � O � O 7 7
I � Q � � v' Y C7 '"�
i o ¢ • I • w
/ r � � z �
i
i w �
� e
, � �' � \ i
{�` �� ` _ _ r�r� \ \ � ,���
, > � �n
, �
� 15
U U
O j >
O � � �
� � o
n ' i
y J
z i \ �
m O �/' � � � � �
v �i/ ,� w ^
a a �%/�_ c 2 ' U ��.
� z y� �
� � �.;� w � o r �, ,.
� � .
_ = � _ ;
^ =• �.� . . �
< r � i/ . - � ` "\}* • �
�
= = � '1 ,' - Q, ..
z w � � , �
0 4 I �
(f I �
� N�
;� � .
Z � � ~ f � w
" ~ w < �� � _
o '� r 3 z ` ,' � �
� O � � < z
� � _ � n° vt: � i � <
- - - - - { W rz r �
- - - - � � =• �
_ � ` - - _ _ _ ' � � �? _ _ �
< i 3 ' � c - - %
_ � r � 1 w < i
" \ z � < 11 F- F- > � -.i:: .:,i� !;
� �� rU G � + Z Q / ��� ��-�,�...�'fY V.
�' _ � ✓iY � W /
♦ z w w j I o � � '�34a�'➢�`,`,��h F'
� � `� N U !�' � W � wPY,,,
< w , 1 �
'� - �. � f a i G
^ ' �
` • � i z m � �
¢
c > � '� ; ; I w � u
_ , e < � Z i z Z
w G
� � I i < � . F
m� i �, � v;
w C
i 3 w Z
= I � - a � C
� � �, _ 10,' U � v%
� �
`> �• � U> C
1 i Z
' \ C
w , H!- ' z '� C
c 1 � c � �
U , \ O �
¢ 1 I �.`
� w �� �
� %�1 \ � ` '• 3
/ w � , '�
� � Z � � `� N
� � �� l
` U \ \ 6 � M.
1 � � ` � ~
I
1 J �\ �il z i L^
• 1 'a °a� ` n a i �.
, \ r c9 I
� LL ¢� ��b ¢ i X
� m d�� � a • i L
n. � s a i
� Yi� �� �
� Z 6 � \� i�
Iz Z� \ i
\ � �� w
I w v �
� � \ `\ N 2
' Z \ E Q
\ � < F
\\ \ `\ ¢ y � w
\ �n Q O
�" � � � �` ¢ W U
\ � ` W � _ � 3
� \ �� � Z _ • �
\ • \ � ��, 6
`� i' ' � � i�+ VI
�'•� �� - - i p o'
� � `� z ��� G� �n
� � r � � �
\ � z u, � > >
�` o c? � � '�'
� \ � � � i
a * � �
z I � � wo '� i
o �� �� z i� i
� • —� ` �\
¢
x
U
16
3.2 VAIL IN-TOV/N SHUTTLE
The pur�ose of the Vail In-Town Shuttle is to provide a circulation system
within the center of the Town of Vail . The restriction on venicular traffic in much
of Vail helps to enhance the "European Village" atmosphere and encourages a large
amount of pedestrian movement in the Town . The Shuttle offers an alternative to
walking for specific point-to-point travel which the bus can accommodate .
The Shuttle is a special purpose system that operates over a 3 .5 mile route
which is basicaliy a pinched-loop. It operates from 6 :45 a. m . to 130 a. m . with a
planned 5 -minute headway during peak periods. Otherwise the buses attempt to
maintain uniform spacings. The route is illustrated in Exhibit 3 -3 . Note that the
nature of the street system yields a circuitous route which is not amenable to larger
or articulated buses. The Shuttle is the backbone of the Vail Transit System in that
it connects the two main focal points - - Vail Village/Golden Peak and LionsHead ,
which are where most of the lifts are located. The Village and LionsHead are also
the main commercial centers. The Shuttle also serves Golden Peak which is the
third lift area.
The unique nature of the Shuttle service makes it difficult to compare or
evaluate in terms of other bus systems in the U .S . , either urban or suburban .
Surreys have indicated that the quality of service on the entire, bus system provided
is rated high by visitors and local residents alike , even though the buses are often in
a condition of " standing room only" during the peak periods. However , recent
surveys made on peak days have found that the quality of service on the Shuttle was
rated as "poor". The manager of the bus system indicated that the longest queue
waiting time during the 1985 -1935 season was about 15 minutes and that it occurred
only once . Generally during peak periods the queue waiting time �a•as not more than
7 to S minutes . Ridership/demand on the Shuttle is increasino and causing more
crowdin� of the buses. This will cause further deterioration of the quality of the
current service which is falfing below the standard desired.
The Vail Shuttle is essential durino the ski season because it connects all the
entry points to the Town with the three lift areas. The Vail buses are equipped with
ski racks and hosts/hostesses are assigned to the major =toos along thP Shuttle route
17
<
° ��, _
� - _ �' -
� :. , . _
? -., , _ . < I -
t � '�, ; _ - - _ _ � � _ _
� , ,
` �. - _ '�� �e�
` �i' - ' ` = �� -
F zr. ., ,Ii � < o � _ ��fi"�a ; "
W _ .. e� ,.fI z � r � .i� :�
3 z ~ :��II � ° � • � �-'��
� - i �
F '� � ��� o - 1���� �—�
a � 3
i w
N � � �� ` I
� i a
W 1 � <
� s > � � Y -
Z r a �,^`.� < � � � I >
_ �
- � a � = 1 > _ ' _
_ � - O 1 V
w V m ` z �� • -
F.. = O z < � �
� = a U w � �
O < � � L _ I
� y • J ' C
N � � • I
_ '
�" � I ;�: �q�� .
4] � �
z i '�
�-1 z � z e. �
F- > r � y �
F- ,. - � i LL � w
� � - = r � z , d
y, c _ o J¢ w �� > w ' U �A
Vl - � U Z 1 O 2
Z m ^ w � i �
� i a
3 ` a - ` • � �
O ' r
z �
F o ? � ?
I u�i � � I � a �\
Z g ;, %''= , � ,
� " I � z ;
�; � � o ,
� ' �� ' � ;
� ^ ,
�- ! � ' , '
i � � � y `° � ' �
� Q � o��'.� � LL - - • �
� � % �L-` YJ / ' 6
'T' ' � � 6 U � m
X � /� a � � �
u '
z � o =
.- �-. — �
tn Q Gri w :n �
IW O �1 �" N � ?
o w � z • � ¢ a —•• � �
" � 4 )r � ' � ,
C t f l . J z V '
C ¢ 2 i � _ � ��! .
� � - ' (�
C I �h 6 � " ` �" I �^ � l9 . �
r � � <-
II� � , ?- a � � �
�
` I ` �z ' „ � o �
I Y �
:� Z i '� = 4 LL < 2
C � - � VI
- 2
` Y� Q Z O
v n` I ' � C� � J r�+
Z �. _ _ � c\` Q J
- .Y I . I ` w
1 1
_ � 1 Q � c
;� �� '� 1 ^ _ I a
C �I I � - LL I Y C
�y� I � � 1 C �^ � �
= 't� t \ � � a m z � C
� � � a 1 � w � O
�\ � y � � r
I � � • . v z L v:
� Q � o w a �n �n
� �
� � � ¢ ` r�l r!]
'` '' � _ _
I �
I
18
to assist skiers by establishing waiting lines and taking any other steps to accomplish
quick and orderly access and egress by the skiers. During peak periods the skiers
must wait from 5 to 10 minutes before boarding a bus.
The time for passenger access and egress is higher during the ski season than
during the off-season because skiers must store and retrieve their equipment from
the ski racks and because walking in ski boots hampers movement.
The Vail Transportation Center and the LionsHead Parking Structure provide
focal points for those skiers arriving via Trailways, Greyhound and Beaver Creek
Transit buses, hotel shuttles, and taxis and limos. Persons arriving by auto and
parking in the two garages will beoin their Vail visit here . The other three Town of
Vail bus routes terminate at the Vail Transportation Center.
The Shuttle can be somewhat flexible in terms of route design to meet travel
demand because of the restrictions on other vehicular traffic. However , there are
few potential route changes that could be made. The most general variation in the
route is to turn back some buses at LionsHead toward Vail Village during peak
periods.
3.3 SHUTTLE OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE
The Shuttle follows a circuitous route as depicted in Exhibit 3 -3 . �tost of the
street network consists of two . lane pavement with a width varying between 20 and
24 feet and there are generally no sidewall<s. Buses and pedestrians (in great
number) must share the same space. On heavy demand days during the ski season
the streets become congested with pedestrians causing delays to the buses.
The Shuttle is operated from a fleet of ten 1979 model and fifteen 1932 model
TMC 30 foot buses , except for one 1982 Orion 35 foat. The schedule of buses
opeeated on the Shuttle route is given in Exhibit 3 -4 . \Vhile as many as 14 buses are
assigned to the Shuttle during heavy peak days , the maximum for design conditions
is 12. Recommendations were made in the Transit Development Plan Update to
purchase six more 35 foot transit buses immediately and then one more per year
through 1991 =
19
EXHIBIT 3-4: VEHICLES ASSIGNED TO TOV SHUTTLE
BY TIME OF DAY
TIME OF DAY NliNBER OF VENICLES GM SHUT:' Lc
6 : 95 A . ri . XX l2 )
7 : 30 A . M . XXR C31
9 : 00 n . it . XRXXR ( 5 )
8 : 3 � A . ht . XXRXX % ( 5 )
10 : "s0 A . M . XXXXX ( 5 >
I1 : C0 A . M . XXXX ( S )
12 : C0 P . M . XXRR ( 9 >
L : O � ? . t-( . � XX % X ( S ?
.. . ] ? P . . � . XX. :' XX ( 5 )
3 : � � P . 1�! . }: XSY. kXX. � � ; )
3 : ? �� P . 1 ; . Xk: XXX }: 7: XXX % X ( : 2 >
4 : :. ^ ? . ! I . K }: :{ A :; XXXkXXX ( : 2 :
5 : 7 � P . :1 . XY. XrXYX ( 7 )
6 : GJ F . ft . Y % }: :{ :{ ,v, ( � )
7 � CJ P . : 1 . . XXR % XX ( E )
g : C7 P . : i , RXXYRX CS >
? . 0 �) P . ". . k :i ; :{ ( 4 )
! 0 � � •J 2 . M . ki: % XY l ° )
: l ". 0 P . i� . R :: KX . 4 )
i - �� 0 A . M . X :t . - )
. _ _ a . . . X :'. : _ )
za
During 1987 , the Shuttle is expected to operate 22, 000 bus-hours and 166,000
bus-miles, carrying 2,400,000 passengers. Bus productivity averages 109 passenger-
trips per bus hour at a bus average speed of 7 .54 mph . At this average speed, a 36
passenger bus (31 seats plus 5 standees) can produce a capacity rate of 77
passengers/hour per direction . If the average trip length is one half the route
length, then the bus can handle a total of 308 passenger-trips/hour . At an average
of 109 passenger-trips/hour the buses on the Shuttle route are experiencing an
average annual load factor of 35 percent which is much higher than that experienced
in cities . Considering that during the 160 day ski season the Shuttle carries 3. 1
times more passengers than off season, the load factors would be 18 percent off-
season and 56 percent during the season . At such a high seasonal average load
factor, one can expect extreme crowding during peak periods .
The average speed of the Shuttle route buses during off season is 8 .5 mph .
During the ski season , this drops to 6 .0 mph due to delays caused at boarding/
deboarding and increased pedestrians also using the streets .
Exhibit 3- 5 tabulates the Shuttle's directional line capacity under various
conditions . The yearly average has been chosen as the design condition to illustrate
what happens when the buses become overcrowded during the ski season. As the bus
fills to a crush condition , there is less room in the aisles for movement . Also, the
larger number of ,passengers require more time in storing their skis and in boarding .
These delays are a major cause of the reduced average speed which diminishes bus
productivity . The net effect is a 9 percent reduction in line capacity and at least a
20 percent reduction in the quality of service . The phenomenon is similar to the
effect of increasing traffic on roads whereby a road will reach its maximum
throughput capacity and then diminish rapidly together with siower average speeds
as congestion occurs . One can conclude that the Shuttle bus route is being operated
over its capacity limits during the peak periods of the ski season . In Section 4.7 ,
this is evident since the 1985 - 86 peak day demand averages 1 ,065 passengers/hour ,
exceeding the Shuttle's capacity by 8 percent with 14 buses operating .
21
EXHIBIT 3-5: IN-TOWN SHUTTLE DIRECTIONAL LINE CAPACITY
AVG . SPEED BUS CAPACI"fY BUS ROUND NO. OF CAPACITY
CONDITION (UiPH) (PASSENGERS) TRIPS/HR BUSES PAX/HR
Peak Day 6 .0 41 1 .71 12 841
Ski Season (Crush Capacity) 14 982
Yearly Avg. 7 .5 36 2 . 14 12 924
(Design Condition) 14 1 ,079
Off Season 8 .5 31 2.43 12 904
(Seated Only)
22
3.4 INCREASING SHUTTLE PERFORMANCE
Demand on the Shuttle route is expected to increase to require a capacity of
1 ,310 passengers/hour by the 1995 - 96 ski season and as high as 1 , 523 passengers/
hour by the 2003 - 04 ski season (See Section 4 .7). Demand at 1 , 310 passengers/hour
would require an increase in current Shuttle capacity of 56 percent for 12 buses
operating and 33 percent for 14 buses operating.
Initial observations would suggest that the system capacity might be increased
by increasing the vehicie size (i .e ., by using a 40-foot bus or an articulated bus),
increasing the number of vehicles operated during the peak periods and/or by
increasing the fleet productivity. The first two options have already been tried and
found to be unworkable due to space constraints . "Che relatively narrow streets and
the lack of ski rack equipment of appropriate capacity are the prim ary reasons that
larger capacity buses cannot be used . The 35-foot Orion bus has been operated on
the route and is considered to be the largest size bus possible . Changing all buses on
the route to the larger size 35-foot buses could potentially increase capacity by
about 15 percent. A direct linear increase in capacity will not occur with simply
increasing bus capacity because there will be additional delay for a greater number of
skiers to store their skis on the outside racks .
Discussions with the transportation syste m m anager and the To wn planning
staff, as well as our observations on the site , indicate that increasing the number of
vehicles beyond a specific point may not resultin a significant increase in capacity
because the roadway is already congested with buses and pedestrians during the
peaks . Because some sections of the bus route are effectively single lane operation
and 6e�ause the roadway width is further constrained during the wintee months
(snow accumulation) the operational speed of the system could be reduced even
further if more buses were added . Also , additional buses would mean less space for
pedestrians .
Theoretically, to meet the 1995 - 96 peak day peak period demand of 1 ,310
passengers/hour per direction atleast six of the larger 35-foot buses would have to
be added to the current operating fleet of twelve . Otherwise, a minimum of 17 of
the larger 35-foot buses would be required , not accounting for any decreased
23
productivity due to longer dwell time to board the larger bus . When the additional
dwell time is taken into account an additional two buses would be required. The
greatest potential to reduce dweil time at the stop would be in reducing the need for
passengers to store their skis in racks. However, if the skis were carried on-board (a
condition which has safety implications) the bus capacity will be diminished . Buses
equipped with double wide doors front and rear and lower floors could aid in
reducing boarding/deboarding time .
Potential options for increasing vehicle productivity, including reducing the
number of bus stops, allowing passengers to board the buses with their skis and
providing exclusive 6us lanes, were discussed at length with Town of Vail officials.
As a result of these discussions, the foliowing can be stated:
o The number of bus stops might be reduced by eliminating one or two if
some bus stops were relocated.
o Shared used of the roadway by buses and pedestrians is given; there is
essentially no other space for pedestrians to walk.
o Allowing passengers to Soard the buses with their skis (which would require
removing seats to ease circulation of passengers within the vehicle) was
ruled out because of the risk of accidents as well as the incr� ased
difficulty in boarding.
A final option, decreasing the dwell time , was also considered and found to be
of inerit. The long dwell time observed during peak periods is primarily due to high
passenger demand , crowding on - board the buses and to the time required to store
the ski gear on the side of the vehicle . 7'he act of boarding is siowed because it is
quite cumbersome to climb the steps of the bus in ski boots. Alighting from a
crowded bus also takes more time particularly where passengers are standing in the
aisle. Thus, dwell time could be substantially reduced if either the peak demand on
the bus system is reduced or if the vehicle boarding time could be reduced, or both.
The overall situation may be improved if residents are provided with ski-gear
storage faciliti2; nzar th2 lift;. These facilitie; would allow resident skiers to
24
travel about m ore freely by providing overnight storage of skis, etc. V AI personnel
indicated that VAI was looking at this possibility. We do anticipate that a properly
designed storage facility or facilities could substantially reduce the number of
destination skiers riding the buses with their skis. If VAI decides to pursue the
option of providing a ski gear storage area near the lift facilities, Shuttle operations
will be improved as the dwell time is reduced.
3.5 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The costs to operate and maintain the complete Town of Vail bus system is
stated in the Transit Development Plan Update to be $25 .03 per bus hour therefore ,
the Shuttle at 22,000 bus hours is expected to cost about $550 ,000 for 1987 .
,
25
4.0 TRAVEL DEhiAND AND RIDERSHIP
Sketch ptanning type analyses of population, demand and ridership have been
carried out utilizing data from other recent reports (Ref. 1 , 3 and 4) . The objectives
of these analyses were as follows :
A . To determine the market base of demand for the Shuttle and any people
mover which might replace it, under current conditions and in the future .
B . Characterize current ridership as a function of the market base .
C. Assess the ability of the Shuttle to meet demand and the impact upon
quality of service.
D. Develop the required design capacity and points of service for any people
mover replacement of the Shuttle .
4.1 .THE RESORT ENVIRONtv1ENT AND POPULATION CHARACTERLSTICS
As a ski resort Vail is dependent upon the skiing tourist and the 160-day ski
season for income generation. The natural beauty of the location and the ambiance
of the community make it a summer attraction as weil, but to a lesser dearee.
"I�ransportation problems in Vail are primarily related to the ski season and its
peculiar travel characteristics.
L- xhibit 4 - 1 provides a distribution of the peak-day Vail population by type of
person for four separate ski seasons. The 1985 - 86 season pooulation is provided as
the base year . Three projection years are provided for the following reasons :
1991 - 92: Category I and Category II improvements are to be compteted by
1992. This includes replacement and upgrading of existing facilities and
services and expansion of Vail 1�fountain and its special permit into the China,
Upper Two Elk and �lushroom Bowls.
26
t� � c'� u1 �O N f�
`p . . . . . . .
� 'rl Q� W �'1 N N O
�. � �0 •-. N —�
O
th �
� Z O � I� v1 N t� �/1
� Q �O l�'1 Q� � I� .� �O �'
� O � tn t0 --� O Q� O
G N c^ n N ? 00 �p
CLI --+ N th
a
n �/1 c+� v1 �O N 1�
o � � �
�'1 O� 00 1"1 N N O
� � �O --� N --• i„
T N
N 1 N
� � N �
¢ � Z t� N t� �O N -+ � M L
�
O N ^ O� O ^ �O Q� 00 O O
Y 'G-.' -� c�i �n m r� �o ..
¢ G„1 r .--� (n y pp
IyJ p+ ro o
a v N
T
Z L vi
Q i� L
an v, M h �O N n - ° T
� . . . . . . O �0
}' o u1 Q� c0 � N N p �
F"' N � �O .� N t„ a
'y 61 (0 C
O � N j. N �
�
O � p .o o �- o �o � M � t � �
N t+l I� 01 N �O vl ++ �-
N .n � t� o N � � �- 3 m .-.
� _ „ _ .. ., ., y
¢ `L' —� c� � w � .n w ° �,
a "� -" N �° o
� a" o
(L N y
a L o
b N
N
I� u'1 c�l v1 �O N 1� >+ "' .
�' � r O� 00 f1 N N p �
F � �- .o � N � .�
�
a i �
� � �
S °O Z �n o0 o c+� oo m oo co N
X °i p � o o �n c� � � �
W N � � N O O� �O �O N �-'
� -+ N N �O N h v�
[1.1 �--' --+ N
a
Y m
Y � �
� � V
� � C
C y
C C1 �.
V �'+ v +�+ 'U ""'
� � , O � C �
.a � O F
v� v a�i ai ..�
G e� ..
. �" i Y O O I-� L
F-
� o E E � v�
v�i Z u� cil
27
1995 -96 : A ten -year point to use as the design condition for any initial
portion of a people mover system .
2003 -04 : When Category III improvements are completed - - expansion into
Super Bowl.
From this data it is important to note that skiers dominate the population at
63.5 percent and are believed to dominate the In -Town Shuttle ridership during the
peak hours. Employees and non-sltiers are observed to be riding the shuttle mainly
at hours different than the peak periods. Growth projections, based upon the
Category I, II and III expansion projects, were apparently averaged out to be 2
percent per year.
Exhibit 4 - 2 provides a distribution of employees and visitors according to four
geographical areas of the Town, which are depicted in Exhibit 4 - 3 . While the data
of Exhibits 4 - 1 and 4 -2 do not match arithmetically, apparently due to the modeling ,
procedures (Ref. 3), they are sufficiently close for use in stratifying the market base '
of demand for the In -Town Shuttle to make the following observation:
The LionsHead/Vail Village area, served by the In-Town Shuttle, is
98 percent occupied by visitors which represent 59 percent of all
visitors in the town. This does not appreciably change for the 6 , 10
and 18 year projections. Therefore, one may anticipate that
shuttle peak hour ridership to be dominated by skiers who begin the
day as overnight residents and day skiers parking in the
LionsHead/Vail Village Area.
Exhibit 4 -4 provides a distribution of skiers only coming from the four
geographical areas. While these data do not arithmetically match exactly the data
of Exhibit 4 - 1 , apparently due to the modeling procedures (Ref. 3) , they are
sufficiently close . Here it is noted that overnight skiers from the LionsHead/Vail
Village area are 57 percent of all resident skiers, dropping only to 55 percent in
1995 -96 and 53 percent in 2003 - 04 .
4.2 PARKING
The c��rrent narkine capacity reoorted by (Ref. 4) in the LionsHead/Vail
Village area is as follows:
2g
�"� 1� O N UJ O N dJ O N o0 O n p� �r p� O
c �"� �O O Q� O N t� O � vl O -. �p O
�
O
M �
�� Z f'� O t�1 O� Q� 00 •-. 00 C� O N N t`1 T Q� � v�
Q �--� CO T N � i� O� �O �/'� �D CO � O� I� -. v1 1
� �O N o0 t"� i� O 1� t� � N .--� � 01 01 O O O
L� N v1 f� t"1 d N f"� N � v'� v� �. N t'� �D
� � � N �
a
�' �D O �"� 1� O N o0 O N o0 O op t+� v-� � p
� �O\ c�'1 �O O O� O N 1� O � v1 O .-. ^ O
L: .p
� �
F �
� N
� � Z �/1 M o0 �'1 _. � c+� I� O c0 --� O� 41 N N O t'1
� � O o0 O o0 --� � u1 �O W U1 v1 N I� •-. � � r'1 O�
N -.. M d M O �`l h �0 d O c0 00 t+� c0 v� M O
Z � N � �p � � N C�1 N N � v1 N � -. .r
'� L1. N �
�
u
u
� �
O �'
u
,..1 � � o c� o0 o c� o0 o c� oa o �o o �o 00 0 �.
(u o M �D O O� O N I� O � ul O -� I� p O
� N -• .-• -" G ...
L• 1 � � i
L'. � v �
_" N c �
Z � ZO •-� N t+1 v1 d O� -y c�1 �- �/1 N f� N .-. N o0 �`'1 3 ....
y d ul G1 1� h �' I� � 1� �D � �O cn �O G1 � p r
O N I� v1 N N � t� �D S 1� � N � O� CO -. � ++ x
��'" � .-• � 'n N cn .--� N d � 6� .--� N c0 4'+ W
"' •--i .-.
� 11.1 -. ry O �
� y V�
� � 3
� o
r ,H L
l7 O +U+
� L ro
M i� O N c0 O --� O� O N CO O �D U1 �O c+1 O � �
N o c�1 �O o G� O N 1� O � � O �--� 1� O � Q
+-�
�' 00 C y
� � N � �
C] � Z �n co � � � � � o � � n �n -. c� co � oo *' y
'-' 0 m m m .o c� m �n m � w oo � o o .-� �n � .. ,�
y � N � O ul (V .-. N1 �D cn O �O N 01 -�. 0� � I� N � ++
uN-. .-. c+1 � N �+l .r N �"1 � 00 --+ v� i�+ �
V � � � ry U
� i . s.
C �
� i"
V p
� Y
� � �
f7` �
L � I ("� i +
Q O � �
� „ Q � � U �
� � � � � � V
(tl L 61 (y
L (+� T
'U = 41 Q N y x �j U
O
a, a� c� a� +- v v. �, -
� � N a
�. � �, , e� >. � �, � v � � � c� y
ai e. � � �b � o � ; c ° � ;� c o � �o o ,� a C 3
� E � o � � � o ° � � o � E .� o � � c ..' ..
� v > F- � [. ! > F- U �I > F- e i_; > F C > o � � c�
G i
G
�"' � ,.Ln ( 7 > � O a�i ~ e
� � p �" v�i N ++ y;,� � V1
� --> > ul F O C
29
�
�.. ,�
.�
�,
.. - : �,
.�
.�
� �
0
w ^ � �
�,,, ' °�,'
d � � s o
�"� L L �
. Q�. i-�� i�1+
z S S F
w
Q
�
� ' °+{ e
¢ ;: U
> a�
�. ro
O =
Z > �
3 t°
p 'm -�
r > a, >
. m °� v
f^ ro L
I -'
�' � N ¢
N
F � V =
2 � �-- � t_j -
X m w -.
v V `tl o �m
� > U >
:iliEtfi;EE: y _. -. �
::: �':.':�::i:�� i::::.. N �n
. .. �� . ...::....... 'm 'm m
.... . .:::rrr:::::�:: 3 > > u
'::i'::::::. .......:..... ..
::ri:;;:::;rr�ts:::�:s;:;;`:;:::f::: �.:.
.:;�..:�['iE:;`'E:;t;.�"F`iF:.:7�.i.`.;t::._ ^-� .. .. �
''�C+...µ..�.. Q
Z
::: ����:::��::. �
�:.E;i:..��1 Ll fffil7:'. � :. .
'i:��i�.. ��^ii::;,::;�111����i���i::,, •.1
:?!;y4. '':�:�.,
ic?EE17:dE �''4iFd`2 ii
30
EXHIBIT 4-4: DISTRIBUTION OF PEAK DAY SKIERS
NUMBER OF SKIERS
ORIGIN OF SKIER 1985 - 86 1991 - 92 1995 - 96 2003 - 04
West Vail Area:
Overnight 2 , 354 2 , 700 3 , 269 4 , 012
Local 149 174 219 261
LionsHead/Vail Village :
Overnight 8 , 456 8 , 720 9 , 911 10 , 449
Local 27 27 31 33
Vail Golf Course Area:
Overnight 1 , 816 1 , 857 2 , 042 2 , 103
Local 65 67 76 79
East Vail Area:
Overnight 1 , 738 1 , 871 2 , 145 2 , 418
Local 169 178 206 226
T OTAL 14 , 774 15 , 594 17 , 899 19 , 581
Source: Reference 3
:^r�..
31
Vail Vi11aQe and Gotden Peak
2 , 170 private spaces (condos/lodges/commercial level)
800 public spaces in Transportation Center
287 other public spaces
LionsHead
2 , 538 private spaces (condos, lodges, and VAI lots)
1 , 200 public spaces in LionsHead Structure
Also the following parking use by skiers was reported in (Ref. 4) as the response to
the question " Where is your car parked today?" from a 1985 survey :
Transportation Center 21 %
LionsHead Structure 13
LionsHead West Day Lot 4
Golden Peak 3
Condo/lodge/home 35
Frontage Road 0
Beaver Creek 1
Other 5
NA /Have no car in town 13
The most important fact from these data is that approximately 53% of all sl<iers do
not park cars at the beginning of the ski day . Therefore, it must be concluded that
they either walk or ride the bus to reach their first lift of the day.
From five seoarate license plate surveys conducted from December 21 , 1985
to 1larch 15 , 1956 by the Depart��ent of Public Works, it was found that 24 percent
of the Transportation Certer's capacity and 15 percent of the LionsHead Structure ' s
capacity is utilized by locally registered automobiles, which are assumed to be
employees and local residents. The remaining spaces are expected to be utilized
primarily by visitors. It was also reported by the Department of Public Works that
the "I' ransportation Center either filled (or almost filled) to capacity 83 times in
1934 -SS and 97 times in 1985 -56 , whereas the LionsHead Structure filled to
capacity oniy once in 19$4 - R5 �nd 15 times in ! 935 - 86 .
32
Exhibit 4 - 5 presents the results of a V AI survey taken during the 1985 - 36
season correlating where s'� iers park with the first lift they use during the day .
These data indicate that cross traffic was small on the day the survey was made .
Skiers arriving in cars were parking close to the location of their first lift of the
day. For example, only 7 . 6 percent of the sl<iers parking at the LionsHead Structure
used lifts in the Village Center or Golden Peak area as the first lift of the day .
Similarly, only 7 .6 percent of skiers parking at the Transportation Center used
Lionshead area lifts first in tl�e day . However, it is not I<nown if these data
correlate with a peak or average day. Data from a survey takzn in the 1984 - 85
season ("I'able 14 . 1 of Ref. 3) seems to indicate cross-movements for a day having
15 , 513 skiers.
Discussions with "Cown officials indicate an average automobile occupancy of
cars parking to be about 2.5 . Calculations using data from (Ref. 3) were made as
fallows:
11 , 455 skiers parkinQ
3, 117 cars = 3 .68 skiers/car
2 , 135 other cars parking, assumed to have only the driver as the occupant
2, 135 non-skiers + 11 , 455 skiers = 2,59 persons/car
2, 135 + 3 , 117 cars
The calculated average of 2. 59 persons/car appears to confirm the average
occupancy indicated in discussions with To wn officials and the calculations of 3 .63
skiers/car . Further caiculations from (Ref. 3) project a future occupancy of 3 . 2
. skiers per parked car . Tl�erefore , an occupancy rate of 3 .6 si<iers per car has been
assumed for tlie analyses of demand in this report.
4.3 IN -TOWN SHUTTLE RIDERSHIP
In -Town Shuttle annual ridership reported in the Transit Development Plan
(TDP) Updatz (Ref . 1 ) was as follows:
1983 1 , 906 ,375 riders
33
EXHIBIT 4-5 : QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS INDICATING SKIER PARKING
LOCATION AND FIRST LIFT OF THE DAY
(1985-86 SEASON)
Question : q51
'�'hat was your first lift today?
-------------------------------------------------
Nhere is your car Gondoia Liit 8 Lift 1 Vis.a Liit 12 Lift 6
parked today? Lions- Villaae Bahn Gopher Gold
BASc Nead Express Hill Peak
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
9ASE 950 218 133 25 442 13 Sd
N/A-no car in Vail 1 18fi 53 33 8 74 4 15
' 19 . 5 19 . 1 24 . 8 24 . 0 16 . 7 30 . 8 27 . 8
28 . 5 11 . 7 3 . 2 39 . 8 2 . 2 8 . 1
9eaver Creek 2 4 1 0 1 2 0 0
G . d O . d 0 . 0 d . G 0 . 5 u . d 0 . 0
25 . 0 0 . 0 25 . 0 50 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0
Golden Peak 3 22 0 0 0 11 5 5
2 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 5 38 . 5 9 . 3
0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 50 . 0 22 . i 22 . ] _
iransport . Cznter 4 210 12 4 5 183 0 5
22 . 1 4 . 3 3 . 0 20 . 0 41 . 4 0 . 0 9 . 3
5 . 7 1 . 9 2 . 3 81 . 1 0 . 0 2 . 4
Lions4ead Par!cing 5 118 79 30 2 fi 1 0
12 . d 28 . 4 22 . 6 8 . 0 1 . 0 7 . 7 0 . 0
66 . 9 25 . 4 1 . 7 5 . 1 0 . 9 O . G
LionsHead 'Aest b d2 2? 17 0 3 0 0
4 . ; 7 . 9 12 . 9 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0
� 52 . 1 d0 . 5 0 . 0 7 . 1 0 . 0 0 . �
Cordo/lodge/hame 4 iO3 98 d2 9 i33 2 22
32 . J 35 . 3 31 . 6 36 . � 30 . 1 15 . d 40 . T
31 . 8 1 : . 6 2 . 9 43 . 2 0 . 5 l . i
;.,ar a F° ? 3 � 2 3u � i
5 . 3 4 . 1 5 . 3 3 . 0 fi . 8 1 . 7 13 . 0
21 . 7 11 . 7 3 . 3 50 . 0 I . i ll . 1
��i �� ��i
LionsHead Village Center Golden i'ezk
Source: Vail Associates , Inc. Area
34
1984 2,069, 162 riders (3 .5°o increase)
1985 2, 141 ,734 riders (3.5% increase)
The TDP also projected ridership increases at 3.5 percent per year .
The Department of Public Works reported * the following ridership for the
In-Town Shuitle during the ski season only:
1984 - 85 1 , 618 , 791 riders, average of 10, 117/day� �
1985 - 86 1 , 623, 397 riders, average of 10, 146/day
Ridership data was provided on a daily basis from January 1 , 1985
through November 30 , 1986 . These data are a result of counts and estimates made
and reported by the bus drivers, as no fare is collected or other mechanical means of
counting passengers is utilized. The accuracy of the data cannot be verified;
therefore, it can be treated only as representative data,
The primary transportation problems of the ski season are associated
with a regular occurrence of peak traffic demands on the weekends. It is recognized
that heavier demands occur depending upon snow conditions and on holidays . For
the purposes of analyzing demand and developing transit system capacity require-
ments a " design condition" must be defined. This design condition has been defined
for Vail to be the regular occurring peak ridership, which is observed from ridership
data to be best represented by that occurring on Saturdays .
Exhibit 4 - 6 provides the ridership counts for Saturdays during the 1935
and 1986 ski seasons . The average of 13, 962 for 1986 is 8 .9 percent higher than the
� average of 12, 326 for 1985 .
VAI, with respect to data, reiers to a " peak day" and a " design day" for
planning and sizing facilities . Demand for a peak day is approximately 1 . 27 times
that of a design day . The daily ridership data for December 26 , 1986 was 17 , 585 and
also annotated with "every bus was out and still couldn't handle the crowds:' If
� Source : ;yiay 7 , 1936 Memo by Stan Berryman
* � Calculated on basis of 160 days per season
35
EXHIBIT 4-6: REGULARLY OCCURRING IN-TOWN SHUTTLE PEAK
RIDERSHIP DURING SKI SEASON
(Saturdays Only -- Excluding Holidays)
1985 1986
JAN 5 14 , 361 7AN 4 14 , 124
12 11 , 328 11 12 , 913
19 10 , 118 18 13 , 955
26 12 , 263 25 12 , 359
FEB 2 9 , 378 FEB 1 13 , 944
9 10 , 709 8 12 , 565
16 13 , 786 15 15 , 864
23 11 , 888 22 15 , 601
�v1AR 2 14 , 569 MAR 1 14 , 991
9 14 , 639 8 13 , 825
16 14 , 303 15 15 , 597
23 15 , 769 22 17 , 019
30 13 , 996 29 16 , 358
APR 6 14 , 750 APR 5 11 , 495
13 10 , 532 12 8 , 314
TOTAL 192 , 385 TOTAL 209 , 424
AVERAGE 12 , 826 AVERAGE 13 , 962
Source: Ridership data provided by Public Works Departm ent
36
17 ,600 riders is used as the "peak day" condition and 14 ,000 riders used as the
"design day" condition, then a ratio of 1 .26 results for peak/design . Therefore, for
analyzing demand data a peak ridership of 17 ,600 passengers wili be assumed which
can be correlated with peak day population statistics. The current design condition,
however, is assumed to be 14,000 riders/day and will be the basis for projecting
future design capacity require m ents.
Exhibit 4 -7 provides the Saturday ridership on the other three Vaii bus routes.
Since so me of these passengers may be transferring to the Shuttle, correlated data
has been tabulated.
In addition, there were 808 ,444 passengers carried by taxis and lodge-owned
vehicles in 1985 . With 75 percent being carried during the 160 day ski season, the
season average is calculated to be 3 ,790 passengers per day .
4.4 RIDERSHIP DEMAND AND SHUTTLE CRPACITY
Data distributing the passengers over the day was not available. Therefore,
Exhibit 4 -8 provides an estimate of this distribution using the scheduled fleet
allocation. This procedure is believed to be sufficient for evaluating demand during
the peak period of the day. It is noted that a ridership rate of 1 ,694 passengers/hour
occurs over the time 3 :30 to 5 :30 p. m. as skiers are leaving the slopes on a design
day. ylost lifts are closed by 3:30 p. m . If ridership is evenly balanced in both
directions, the ridership rate per direction would be 847 passengers/hour; which is
consistent with the directional capacity of 841 passengers/hour calculated in
Exhibit 3 - 3 for a design day.
For a "peak day" condition with ridership of 17 ,600 passengers, the single
direction rate during the peak period will be 1 ,067 passengers/hour. When this
occurs additional buses are diverted from other routes to the In -Town Shuttle route.
For each bus diverted the directional capacity can be increased by 70
passengers/hour. Local officials say that usually two buses are added. This would
increase the capacity to only 931 passengers/hour per direction which is still
insufficient to handle the peak day peak period demand as it occurs. The result is
ove,crowding of the buses, longer queues for boa ,dino, lcnger waits and a sprzading
of the peak period - - ali of which can be considered as a degradation in the quality
of service.
37
EXHIBIT 4-7: RIDERSHIP ON OTHER BUS ROUTES
(1986 Ski Season -- Saturdays Only)
ROUTE
DAY
West Vail Bighorn (East Vail) Sandstone
(Peak = Design) (Peak = 1 .26 x Design)
JA N 4 2 , 614 2 , 044 1 , 734
11 2 , 461 1 , 898 1 , 140
18 2 , 372 1 , 940 991
25 2 , 301 1 , 591 1 , 096
FEB 1 2 , 063 1 , 807 1 , 201
8 2 , 476 2 , 186 1 , 124
15 2 , 349 2 , 503 1 , 726
22 2 , 585 2 , 017 1 , 469
MAR 1 2 , 641 2 , 081 1 , 719
8 2 , 452 1 , 830 1 , 443
15 2 , 629 2 , 297 1 , 818
22 2 , 741 1 , 903 1 , 499
29 2 , 153 1 , 950 1 , 548
APR 5 1 , 888 825 994
12 1 , 346 685 648
TOTAL 35 , 071 27 , 557 20 , 150
AVERAGE 2 , 338 1 , 837 1 , 343
Terminus Vail Transp. Ctr . Vail Transp. Ctr . Vail Transp. Ctr .
H eadway at 12 min. 15 min. 17 min.
Terminus 180 /hr 144/hr 127 /hr
During Peak
Source : Ridership data provided by Public Works Department
38
\
EXHIBIT 4- 8: DISTRISUTION OF SHUTTLE RIDERSHIP OVER
PERIOD OF DESIGN DAY
PERCENT TOTAL RIDERSHIP DEMAND RATE
TIME PERIOD % %/hr Passengers/hr
6: 45 - 7: 30 a.m . 1 . 5 2 . 0 280
7 : 30 - 8:00 a.m . 1 . 5 3 . 0 420
8: 00 - 8: 30 a.m . 2 . 5 5 . 1 714
8: 30 - 10: 30 a.m . 12 . 1 6 . 1 854
10: 34 - 11 : 00 a.m . 2 . 5 5 . 1 714
11 :00 - 2: 30 p.m . 14 . 1 4 . 0 560
2: 30 - 3: 00 p.m . 2 . 5 3 . 0 420
3:40 - 3: 30 p.m . 3 . 5 7 . 1 994
3:30 - 5: 30 p.m. 24 . 2 12 . 1 1 , 694
5: 30 - 6:00 p.m . 3 . 5 7 . 1 994
6:00 - 9:00 p.m . 18 . 2 6 . 1 854
9:00 - 10 : 30 p.m . 6 . 1 4 . 0 560
10: 30 - 11 :00 p.m . 2 . 5 5 . 1 714
11 : 00 - 1 : 30 a.m . 5 . 0 2 . 0 280
Source: Calculated using the scheduled fleet allocation
39
If an "acceptable quality of service" is defined as provided by a capacity of
841 passengers/hour per direction one can easily observe that "unacceptable levels
of service" will exist on peak days. Increasing the bus size to the larger 35-seater
Orions may increase capacity by 15 percent (1 ,009 passengers) but will still not be
sufficient to handle peak day demand. Also, it is not clear that adding additional
buses during the peak period will result in increased capacity, particularly if there is
any reduction in overall average speed due to congestion along the route.
4.5 TRAVEL DEMAt�ID CHARACTERISTICS
Prior to a description of the travel demand characteristics of interest to this
study, it is instructive to describe in general terms the travel scenario in Vail. The
primary travel demand imolves the movement of skiers to the three lift areas in the
morning and their retum in the afternoon. Destination skiers overnighting in the
Village/LionsHead area move from their room/condo/apartment/home to the lift of
their choice (first lift of the day) ; they move on foot or on foot and by bus.
Destination skiers overnightina in other areas of the Town and day skiers leave their
access mode (personal auto, limo, van, bus, etc.) primarily at Vail Transportation
Center or LionsHead Structure and move on foot or on foot and by bus to the lifts.
The lifts can begin operation at 7 :30 a. m., but normally begin at 8:30 a. m . and
cease operation at 3 :30 p. m. Thus the skiers, in attempting to maximize their time
on th� slopes, generate a travel demand pattern quite similar to the diurnal work
travel pattern of an urban area or large employment center, i.e., a high inbound
movement in the morning but higher outbound movement in the late afternoon when
the lifts close. This is reflected by the bus assignment schedule for the Shuttle
which was shown in Exhibit 3 - 4 .
' Thus, travel demand as it relates to this study focuses on the movement of
skiers into the Vail Village/LionsHead area and the movement of skiers from their
access mode of travel to the ski lift areas in the morning and the return movements
in the late afternoon. It is the identification and understanding of these movements
which are essential to the determination of fixed guideway transit system
feasibility.
Peak demands on the Shuttle at each of its stops provide an indication of the
major demand points along the shuttle route. (See Exhibit 4 -9 .) These data are also
40
EXHIBIT 4-9: DISTRIBUTION OF PASSENGER BOARDINGS
BY BUS STOP
BUSSTOP PERCENT
1 . Gold Peak 8 . 0
2. Tivoli/Garden of the Gods VAC) 2 . 0
3 . Covered Bridge 20 . 0
k . Crossroads 16 . 0
5 . Vail Village Inn Plaza 9 . 0
6. Vail Valley Medical Center 4 . 0
7 . Ice Arena 6 . 0
8 . LionsHead-East 25 . 0
9 . Marriott's Mark 6 . 0
10 . LionsHead- West (Concert Hall Plaza) 4 . 0
Source: Reference 1 , Transit Development Plan Update
41
presented on the route map in Exhibit 4 - 10 . The high passenger boardings (45
percent) at Covered Bridge (Vail Transportation Center) and the LionsHead-East are
reflective of each of these stops being both a parking terminal and a gateway to a
major lift area. It is also noted that 78 percent of the demand occurs along the
route between LionsHead and Covered Sridge . This has been recognized by the
Transit Department by having e m pty buses turning back at these points. One could
also consider that any initial people mover system be constructed between these two
points and be extended in the future only as de m and occurs. Buses could then be
used as feeders operating on short routes in the Golden Peak area and the loop to
Marriott's Mark Resort and possibly to Cascade Village.
Exhibits 4- 11 and 4 - 12 provide an estimate of the market base of demand for
ridership on the In -Town Shuttle. Data is given for a peak day as defined by VAI.
Similarly, shuttle ridership on a peak day would be 17 ,600 passengers. Only the
visitor population has been counted in determining the market base . Observations
and discussions with city officials suggest that the peak period shuttle ridership is
dominated by visitors (mainly skiers) since employees ride at different hours of the
day. The main purpose of the demand estimate is to determine the capacity
requirements for people mover replacement of the shuttle, which will be dictated by
the demand during the peak period.
From Exhibit 4 - 12 , it is noted there is a predominance of the market (64.3
percent when including day visitors) contained within the Village/LionsHead area.
W hile the total m arket base increases by 23 percent in 1995 -96 and 43 percent in
2003 -04 , the Village/LionsHead area re m ains predo minate. The m ost significant
shift due to growth is projected for the West Vail area.
' �Sany of the visitors sho wn as originating in the Village/LionsHead area can
wall< to their first lift of the day. However, the other 36 percent of visitors outside
the central area must use some vehicular means to do so. Exhibit 4 - 13 is an
- estimate of how the peak day visitors may be accessing the Village/LionsHead area.
"Che 1 ,622 visitors arriving by hotel/lodge vans and taxis are dropped off at
destinations of their choice : either the LionsHead Structure, the Transportation
Center or Golden Peak; therefore , they are not counted as part of the specific peak
period demand for the Shuttle.
42
Z
Q
W �
C
e
�
~ Z �� � rv
p �p � ,- - m
` b\ N I • �p
z = w _ � N � 1 m
a � � e
z = U '` � ¢i o0 a
~ IV ' .�� � a � �� _ U
1
I� � II ~ � 1� � C
� ' � I� ` < • � ` O �� ' b . `
H e ' � z ¢ � // m � , b
u+ '- a o ; / o '':' �
3 z � = •
o . .... F, Z / w
i
w � ¢ � � p ��1�1 -
111 � ' �� ° u
F a � N w I z
_ � � _ I
N � � I �.
O Q � a �`''
W 1 J J�/ �
� ,� � c � > w J�
<
{�.� W C N 0 .`�i { J fi
< Q U - 1 a O
a w O >
F' ¢ N a � �� d
E` w � : � � � w
� o Q • � 1 r
'y" p 6. U � �y I
Q Oi ( �
� � � i J ' ' �
Z `�' y 4 j • � O�i
� � � �
O � � '� �
Z Z � � j � �� _�
� w
G.1 � � LL w �
x Zw � / �¢ a
F � JQ � QQ ' 1 Q �.
O � O UF � V
�/ I
� m O w u+ 1 � � �
� w ¢ d � � � 1 � LL
O LL U �-r� Q i • w
\ �
Q � � w �� w � �
Z � ¢ �
. d °a m '+=,,y w �
r p v 1
� � � �' z i
W o py' o i
(] ° 1� m :
� �,._ o f
z � '.� o i
00 � • i �
w Q o � z F - � ¢ .
Z � Y � I Q
� � s � , �? m
W � � 6 � : �a
_ � o ¢ �
� y o - _. � i w � .�
¢ w a r i N �, �
a o w � o • , � � � : ;
�+ � F
0 o a z . - - - - �'D� U � V N
� ° r ' c I � .
� v c LL � a� � ��p � ~ N
T � ; F N � Z:_ �` ^ � �
_ a Z i � _ v1 ._.
� _ • � - N � O
I Y � �y
� _ � .-p _ < ¢ =%F'�\ .
- � � . •ll Z ' I . C � G 2 �
< < N
_ n �w � z
� �. = �� � � o �
� ' � � � c L
Z I � ��� Q O Il] N
P � � � Z \� w C d
- - i 3 �
� I Q O
- '% - l c N 1 O V1
w �I � _ Z � c
... :{S I 1 < _ 1 �O J j � N
9 \ � l a� '^ 2 � 7
� < � � w .C. G
� �
. �� � � � - o z �
� a i �m ¢ i
�� � � i
i � + � �
\
�3
EXH [BIT 4- 11 : PEAK DAY MARKET BASE OF DEMAND FOR IN -TOWN SHUTTLE
( 1985 - 86 Ski Season)
Assumption : Peak Per ;od Demand ( 3 : 30 - 5 : 30 p .m .) is dominate �' oy visitors ;
ernployees trav ? l at different times .
TYPE VISITOR ShIERS NON -SIQERS TOT �IL '
1955 - 36 Day 2 , 408 433 2 , 391
Overnight 12 , 200 2 , 445 1 � , 645
Total 14 , 608 2 , 923 17 , 536
1995 - 96 Day 2 , 962 594 3 , 556
Overnight 15 , 007 3 , 008 18 , 015
Total 17 , 969 3 , 602 21 , 571
2003 - 04 Day 3 , 434 63S 4 , 122
Overnight 17 , 397 3 , 487 20 , 884
Total 20 , 831 4 , 175 25 , 006
44
EXHIBIT 4- 12: DISTRIBUTION OF PEAK DAY MARKET BASE OF
DEMANDFORSHUTTLE
( 1985 -86 Ski Season)
OVERNIGH"I� DAY
LOCATION VISITORS VISITORS TOTAL
NU ,�14ER % NU �iBER SS
1985 - 36
1Vest Vaii 2 , 329 15 . 9 0 2 , 329 13 . 3
Village ;LionsHead 3 , 377 57 . 2 2 , 891 11 , 268 64 . 3
Golf Couse/L- ast Vail 3 , 939 26 . 9 0 3 , 939 22 . 4
TOTAL 14 , 645 100 2 , 391 17 , 536 100
1995 - 96
West Vail 3 , 279 13 . 2 0 3 , 279 15 . 2
Village/LionsHead 9 , 962 5� . 3 3 , 556 13 , 513 62 . 7
Golf Course!East Vail 4 , 774 26 . 5 0 4 , 774 22 . 1
TOTAL 18 , 015 100 3 , 556 21 , 571 100
2003 -04
�Vest Vail 4 , 260 20 . 4 0 4 , 260 17 . 0
Villaoe!LionsHead 11 , 152 53 . 4 4 , 122 15 , 274 61 . 1
Golf Course/East Vail 5 , 472 26 . 2 0 5 , 472 21 . 9
TOTAL 20 , 534 100 4 , 122 25 , 006 100
45
EXHIBIT 4: 13: ESTIMATE OF PEAK-DAY VISITORS ARRIVING OR DEPARTING
VAIL VILLAGE/LIONSHEAD AREA
(1985-86 Ski Season)
ORIGINATING 8Y TOV� 1 � BY PRIVATE�Z� BY CAR
AREA BUS SERVICES (to be parked) TOTAL
West Vail 896 603 830 2 , 329
Golf Course(
East Vail 408 1 , 019 2 , 512 3 , 939
Outside
(Day Visitor) 0 ?�3� 2 , 891 2 , 891
'fOTAL 1 , 304 1 , 622 6 , 233 9 , 159
NOTES :
1 . Exhibit 4- 7 ridership averages were used for the West Vail , Bighorn and
Sandstone Routes. Ridership was reduced by one-third , the same ratio of
employees living in the originating area . Each rider assumed to make 3
trips/day (one round trip for skiing plus half made round trips for
eati ng/entertainm ent) .
2. Private services carrying 3,790 passengers/day were factorzd according to
� the distribution of overnight visitors in Exhibit 4- 12 .
3 . There are intercity and chartered buses bringing day-skiers . These data
were not available .
46
Exhibit 4 - 13 estim ates that 1 , 304 visitors are brought to the Transportation
Center by the other three bus routes . Based on a 43 percent spiit to LionsHead lifts
(Ref . 4) the number of transfers to the Shuttle is estimated to be about 560 .
From Reference 4 , there are 1 ,087 public parking spaces in the Village
Center/Golden Peak area and 1 ,200 at LionsHead Structure - - a total of 2, 287
spaces . If 20 percent of all public parking is used by employees and locals, there
remain 1 , 830 spaces for visitors . At 3 .6 visitors per car (see Section 4 .2), there is
parking capacity for 6,583 visitors . This capacity is close to and not exceeded by
the estimate in Exhibit 4 - 13 that 6,233 visitors arrive in the Town center by car ,
which should be the case since LionsHead Structure is generally not filled to
capacity. As a check , this lends credibility to the estimate of Exhibit 4 - 13.
During the 1984 - 85 season , the Transportation Center was found to fill to 765
cars on weekends while LionsHead Structure filled only to 600 cars (Ref . 3) . During
the 1985 - 86 ski season the Transportation Center was reported to be filled to
capacity over half the time . Two sample calculations are of interest when the
Transportation Center and all public spaces in the Village/Golden Peak area are
filled.
Sample Calculation I: Utilization of LionsHead Structure
• All spaces in Village Center/Gold Peak filled 1 , 087
Less spaces filled by Employees/Locals at 20 percent 217
Net spaces for Visitors $7Q
Number of Visitors arriving by car (Exhibit 4 - 13) 6 , 233
Less Visitors parking in Village Center/Golden Peak
3. 6 x 370 = 3 , 132
Net Visitors diverted to LionsHead Structure 3 , 101
Spaces in LionsHead Structure occupied by Visitors
3, 101 /3.6 = 361
�
"fotal spaces in LionsHead Structure occupied by Visitors ,
rmployees and Locals , noting that Visitors and iocais
occupy 15 percent of those spaces 861 /0 . 85 = 1 , 013
47
Sample Calrulation II : Diversion of Cars to LionsHead
When public parking in the Transportation Center and Golden
Peak area fill to capacity, traffic is diverted to LionsHead.
The utilization of LionsHead is estimated to be 627 cars when
this occurs .
Total spaces in LionsHead 1 , 200
Less spaces �tilized 627
Net spaces for Overload 573
Less spaces for employees/locals at 15 percent of 573 86
Net spaces for skiers 487
Overload capacity in skiers 3.6 x 437 = 1 , 753
If the 43 percent split to LionsHead lifts and 57 percent to
Village Center/Gold Peak lifts remained constant then the
overload skiers capacity using the Shuttle would be
0.57 x 1 ,753 = 999
From sample Calculation I, there are 1 ,013 spaces in LionsHead Structure
utilized, 84 percent of its capacity. The 999 extra shuttle riders in Sample
Calculation II was calculated for the case when LionsHead Structure fills to
capacity . Since Sample Calculation I was made on the basis of a 17 ,600 peak day
ridership , the share of demand generated from LionsHead Structure might be
calculated to be 84 percent of 999 or 839 riders .
Exhibit 4 - 14 provides the results of a survey which correlates skier overnioht
location with the first lift of the day . These data can be used to determine the
' demand for cross movements on the In-Town Shuttle between LionsHead and Vail
Village/Golden Peak which are as follows:
LionsHead to Village/Golden Peak 32
Village/Gold Peak to LionsHead 43
"Cotal Portion 75
Base 202 + 173 375
Portion of Base as Cro=_s movemen*s 75 � j75 - Q .Zf�
48
EXHIBIT 4- 14: RESULTS OF 1985-86 SURVEY CORRELATING SKIER OVERNIGHT
LOCATION WITH FIRST LIFT OF DAY
LOCATION BASE FIRST LIFT OF DAY
(%) LionsHead Village /Gold Peak None
Base 672 285 374 13
( 100) (42 .4) (55 .7) ( 1 .9)
Vail Villaoe 209 43 159 7
(31 . 1 )
LionsHead 176 141 32 3
(26 .2)
East Vail 120 22 96 2
(17 .9)
West Vail 96 43 47 1
(143)
Sandstone 54 20 34 - -
(8 .0)
Cascade Village 17 11 6 - -
(2.5 )
Source: Vail Associates, Inc.
49
EXHIBIT 4: 15: DISTRIBU"fION OF SHUTTLE DEMAND DURING PEAK PERIOD
(3:30 - 5:30 1985- 86 Season)
PEAK DESIGN
DAY DAY
iOTAL RIDERS 17 , 600 x 0 .242 = 4 , 259 3 , 380
A . Visitors Transferring to Other TOV routes
1 . West Vail and Sandstone Routes 385 352
2 . Bighorn Route (Golf Course /East Vail) 175 139
B . Village/LionsHead Area Overnight Visi- 405 321
tors making cross movements
C . Overnight Visitors in Village/LionsHead 2 , 334 1 , 852
Area and Day Visitors (total x 0 .643) - B
D . Overnight Visitors from \Vest Vail arriving
by private services and automobile (total 181 98
x 0. 133) - A . 1
E . Overnight Visitors from Golf Course and
East Vail arriving by private services and
automobiles (total x 0 .224) - A .2 779 618
50
Exhibit 4 - 15 provides a calculated distribution of the peal: period Shuttle
demand based on the foregoing analyses and estimates . Specific estimates are
provided for cross movements between the two main lift areas as lines A and 6 . The
dominant demand source remains as being generated by overnight visitors in the
Town center and day visitors. Any additional breakdown and insight must be
determined by conducting surveys of riders during the peak period. Observing from
Exhibit 4 - 8 that the morning peak period demand rate is only one-third that of the
evening rate suggests that cross-movements in the morning are minimal, i.e. skiers
choose their first lift of the day on the basis of minimum access time and path of
least resistance. Therefore, one might conclude that the dominant number of cross-
movements in the afternoon peak period are by s!<iers who do not end their skiing
day at their point of origin.
4.6 DESIGN AND PEAK CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
As discussed above in Section 4 .4 the current In-Town Shuttle capacity can
meet the peak period demand for a design day . However, it cannot meet the peak
period demand for a peak day . It is also questionable if the Shuttle route capacity
can be increased sufiiciently to meet the peak day peak period demand, even if the
fleet is increased with larger capacity buses.
The following are the peal: period single direction capacity requirements which
have been calculated on the basis of the above ridership and demand analyses.
Peal< Period Single Direction Capacity
(Passengers/Hour per Direction)
SEASON PEAK DAY DESIGV DAY
1935 - 86 1 , 065 845
1995 - 96 1 , 310 1 , 039
2003 - 04 1 , 523 1 , 203
51
5.0 1'HE VAIL E�7VIRONMENT
To assess feasibility it is not necessary to determine the best alionment. Only
a " representative alignment," which in itself is feasible , need be determined .
Detailed alignment studies are carried out during preliminary design, after a project
has been approved and funded . Feasibility of the project will hinge primarily on
costs and financing . Therefore , any people mover project which follows the
representative alignmeM and is found to be feasible wiil be more successful when
improvements in the alignment are determined .
Examination of the Vail environment indicates that there are rivo major
physical contraints which will affect the feasibility of the people mover system in
Vail. These are the restricted public right of way in Vail and the nature of this right
of way , consisting of winding and sometimes narrow streets.
5.1 DESCRIPTION OF RIGHT OF WAY RESTRICTIONS
The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of a people
mover system as a replacement for the in-town shuttle bus system . This
fundameMal requirement essentially fixes both the people mover route alignment
and potential station locations. Therefore, the route followed by the In -Town
Shuttle was studied primarily to determine a feasible representative alionment. As
previously discussed, only elevated systems were considered in this stud,v .
On-site investigations and review of aerial photos of Vail indicate that the
development pattern is well established and that there exists little room for
roadway expansion, especially in the vicinity of the two major retail centers. These
T investigations also indicated that the esisting street right of ways along the In-Town
Shuttle route are very narrow. At some locations, buildings appear to be located
very close to the roadway edge . Further, we observed that at some locations along
the shuttle route , there are no sidewall<s bordering the streets. (See Exhibit 5 - 1 .)
yiost of the street network used by the Shuttle consists of two lane pavement
with a width varying between 20 and 24 feet. The stretch of pavement between the
C' ivi � Arena an�i thP nnrthwPSt end of the LionsHead oarl<ing structure is one lane
only with no room for expansion . (See Exhibit 5 - 2 .)
52
C • • � � � � � � .
�h � a ' x4� 3� � �
'��. , ��° f � �
�. S � �j 4 � �f ` t :
y S [ ` 4+M � ��44Y�� kYi yr i � t �
t i�✓ t
♦� Y � • -�, p� wuv� t
t ♦ ' �.0 z � � .sj " '�"" f"Nx��>` '«�,'ax � i t f
�a r �5..�.r�t �Z ���j yty� +Si e,�p4.. '� ` £ _
\ Y � `.G- � *.-. -: }
Ah -' x '�� �'r' ✓���"����� � xP �Y� �. Y �f t
� �'`= r` `� f � �-�...—' A�'� 'z—
� �, Y". 2-,,..w.t ^'� S � 1 � u x ""r "+� F j`
�{,�5_-j' �
•�6�� � r � �.�� 15:: � p ��
3
�i F yr�4f�1��.] �i�` v.
wa+ �+'
T ;1 ' �� . �� � �� �y iK 3
i�S � ! S .l.i �:: II l'� l ' � 'I ..
N
��� � Z � Z e _ �., �
� .�'���T � O�f 1 1 Ti4r� �� � ' �y
-.�;�,�e�
A ,��,.
� '��,�
,h f� y . :.. .
.
S?Y1'.
� � � ' � ' �
�+S`�y �` Acd �a Y .. t�yy31_�3�� f� W � ���+ti'w�t
: 1 24 � .� h �N Yt 3 a�a� SY �.W'' ° 'yqe-`
` + � � � ' d '' �"s�.'� k � x °� _
P�3 'y� . Si �! 't�:
�+-� 3 f . '�Y`E"x : t .� .
3
f k : �^ <
�4` � � � � �-.' �� '
+ a f �� �
'L 7k'. Jh�a�`" � `� 'Zg� A ' +�tY�.a�� .4 ._ x�+�e
��r .�: ` �.�+� +=cz. r.
c
, � / : �iar� y < � x �
� . ' Y M '� y , fX w3
� � �lr � ' 1`YE �!A$ . " ^+"R'°y' .dz_ �
t' "�"` e �w �' �.ii fs 4 ' : ,�v s�t '" �` s
p�` "*5 r 4 �e . = a � ; _, � ` { �
a} ��� �� a rl � +�' _� .
•` e ! � __� �. �
�' ``_ '; :v� ., . . ^
� ¢
� £ �,� �
r.fi, `�-1
. �
:� :� .
���'. �-
1 'Y:
A people mover guideway along the Shuttle route would consist of about 40
curved sections and a few tangent sections. The minimum curve radius will be
around 40 feet and the largest one around 625 feet. Exhibit 5 - 3 presents an analysis
of the distribution of the curve radii . This distribution shows that 50 percent of the
curves have a radius of 150 feet or less.
Unless a route along Gore Creek can be determined, the people mover will
have to follow the South Frontage Road and go under or over the pedestrian
overpass to serve the areas west of the LionsHead parking structure .
These restrictions will affect the design of the guideway and station
structures, the system operation, and the technology that can be used. The
following sections examine these aspects in further detail.
5.2 IhiPACT ON GUIDEV/AY STRUCTURE DESIGN
While many parameters contribute to the design of the guideway, a major
consideration is how and where the structural loads are transmittzd to the ground.
In Vail, the paucity of public real estate on which the foundations and columns can
be built will have an impact on the guideway structure design. There are several
locations where the foundations and columns can only be installed on the road6ed.
At these locations, the guideway structure will require special design provisions.
For example, it will be necessary to maintain clearances compatible with existing
vehicles such as snow removal, sanitation, and rescue vehicles. This compatibility
requirement pertains to both lateral and vertical clearances as well as to ability to
operate saiely and efficiently. Exhibit 5 - 4 presents typical steel columns that could
be used .
Curved guideway structures require more columns. For a Vail people mover
system , the average span length will be about 50 feet. This means that about 150
columns will be required to handle dual guideway structure and about 50 for single
guideway structure .
The design of the guideway structure will be complicated further by the
difficulty of accommodating a dual lane guideway . This complication arises due to
the closeness of buildings to the proposed system structure , the lack of air space
54
EXHIBIT 5-3: DISTRIBUTION OF CURVE RADII ON IN-TOR+N AGT
Number of
Curves
20
15
10 ._ .: ::,''
..._ ... . _...
5
< 50 I 101 - 150 201 -250I I3D1 -350
51 - 100 151 - 200 251 -300 > 351
Curve Radius (ft)
55
EXHIDIT 5-4: EXAMPLE OF SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR
STEEL COLUMNSTRUCTURES
Bearing Surface
+�
�
�
w
�
t
h
50"-52" �
Crash Protection -
Barrier Concrete N
^ Foundation
68" -70"
(almost 6 ieet)
Note: This construction would be applied for single or dual track
system on wide road. Ttie concrete foundation is above ground
and protected for safety and maintenance reasons.
56
over narrow roads, and the necessity to provide access space for rescue vehicles
during emergencies. In particular, it has been our experience building other people
movers that fire departments will resist having access restricted to the floors of the
buildings located along the people mover system route . Also, the guideway design
must be such that people mover vehicles can be accessible by the fire department
along the entire length of the system in the event of an emergency. "fhe latter is
particularly important for monorail-type technologies which do not have an
emergency walkway along the guideway for passenger evacuation.
5.3 IMPACT ON STATION STRUCTURES
CVith regard to stations, space requirements as determined by platform space
requirements and access from the street are functions of the type of vehicle and the
type of system operation. For example, applications utilizing long trains require a
long station structure to accommodate the train. The width of the platform will be
determined by train capacity, traffic volume, and the headways.
The overall station width is a function of the configurations of the guideway
(sinole or dual lane) and of the platform type (center or side) . When a dual lane
guideway is present, a central platform is usually more compact. However, in an
elevated system, access from the street level is complicated if the station is over a
roadway. To provide safe access, an intermediate level linking the platform and the
street level above the sidewalks must be added. 1Vhile feasible, this option increases
the height of the station as well as its costs.
A side platform layout allows access from the sidewalk. However, from a
service point of view, the user must know where to go, as each side of the station
' serves a different destination. Again this disadvantage can be eliminated by adding
an intermediate level that will allow passengers to access either platform from
either sidewall<. In this case, the height of the station will have to be increased.
However, in Vail, this access requirement will not be necessary since the street can
easily be crossed.
Another constraint for station layout is that the platiorm area should be either
a tangent alignment or along a curve of large radius. If the platform area is located
between two short radius curves, it is necessary to extend the tangent alignment
57
beyond each end of the platform . These precautions are necessary to ensure that
the gap between the platform edge and the vehicle floor remains small. Exhibit 5 -5
gives approximate station foot prints that would be required for the people mover in
Vail.
EXHIBIT 5-5: APPROXIMATE STATION DIMENSIONS FOR VAIL PEOPLE MOVER
NUh1BER OF WIDTH LENGTH
STATION TYPE TRACKS RANGE (FT .) RANGE (FT .)
Lateral Platform 2 30 - 35 25 -40
1 15 -20 25 - 40
Central Platform 2 20 - 25 25 - 40
S.k IMPACT ON VEHICLE DESIGN
The extremely short turn radii found along the people mover alignment
preciude the use of wide vehicles with long wheelbases. Thus, only technologies
using short and narrow vehicles can be considered for the Vail people mover.
Because of the restrictions resulting from the station requirements, i.e., the need
for and limited availability of tangent sections, operation of long trains is likely to
• be severely constrained. Limitations on vehicle length result in limited space
availability in the vehicle underframe. This lack of space will further constrain the
type of system that can be used. Thus, self-propelled, automated vehicles which
require an electric motor, a transmission, a differential, a power conditioning unit, a
control system , a braking system , electrical switchgear, a power collection system ,
a low voltage power supply, etc., might require configuration in married pair units.
Alternate propulsion contigurations in which all the traction, bral<ing and
control functions are provided through the guideway are also possible. These
configurations usually result in very simple, low-weight vehicles which are totally
unpowered. Examples of such systems are the �VEDway system at Houston
International Airport, Otis Tampa Harborplace , the SK system at Expo '36 in
Vancouver and at the Villepinte Fairgrounds in Paris. A drawbacl< of this approach
15 iI1dL TI1252 V@I71C1ES USUdllY U'V i�ui IidVC h2niii��� aii Cvfi�1t10P+ilb� CC �1°blltinaV nn
board . However, such amenities can be obtained by installing a light-duty power
58
collection system for running the auxiliaries, assuming that there is room to install
them .
5.5 IMPACT ON OPERATION
The short turning radii will have an impact on the type of operation
envisioned. For exampie, available space at Golden Peak may prevent the use of a
unidirectional loop as it will require an extremely short turn radius. This is not a
problem at LionsHead or in Vail Village because turnaround loops would not be used
there. Other alternatives such as switches and/or a turntable might need to be used.
Use of operational switching limits the applicability of available technologies.
Various factors, including the operating mode, will determine if doors will be
required on one or both sides of the vehicles.
The small vehicle requirement has a direct impact on headway as well. For a
given capacity, the smaller vehicle capacity requires shorter headways. Very short
headways are difficult to implement with self-propelled vehicles because the control
system must be extremely sophisticated. Certain guideway based propulsion
systems, such as cable driven systems, allow for short headway operations. The Vail
Vista Bahn is one example of short headway operation with a track based propulsion
system. However, in such a system, it is necessary to detach the vehicle from the
cable, and move it sufficiently out of the way,, so that the next arriving vehicle does
not collide with it. Thus, in these systems vehicles usually move at a slow speed
along the platform .
The large number of curves will have an impact on vehicle travel time. Again,
depending on the propuision technology used, the maximum speed might be
' constrained by the smallest turning radius, as in cable drawn systems, or can be
adjusted as a function of the local conditions. This is the case of the self-propelled
vehicles or track-propelled vehicles with a speed program imbedded in the track* .
These differences will mainly affect the trip time .
� A detailed comparison of these various propulsion systems is given in the paper
ent:t:ed "Shcr: Di;tance Tran�pc;tatior Systems - P.ecent Deve!opm=n* and FiihirP
Outlook" . The paper has been included in Appendix A .
59
5.6 OTHER CONSTRAINTS
Other important issues to be resolved include : the location of the maintenance
facility, overnight storage of the vehicles, and ability to operate in snow and ice.
The following briefly addresses these issues.
5.6.1 �iaintenance Facility
To ensure proper maintenance of the system , a facility which is easily accessible
from the guideway needs to be provided . Space along the line is rather limited .
However, it might be possible to create a multi-use facility near the hospital
parking lot. This facility could provide parking for patrons of the Dobson Civic
Arena and for hospital patrons and employees at the lower level . The upper level
could house the people mover system maintenance facility, control room office, and
storage space for vehicles and spare parts. If this space cannot be used, another
location that Could be considered would be the LionsHead parking structure. This
assumes that the building could be modified to accept another level that would be
reserved for all the storage and maintenance activities related to the system . If
this is not possible, then another location would have to be found. "
5 .6.2 Overnight Vehicle Storage
Automated vehicles are generally stored in an enclosed facility . In most cases
this storage is included within the maintenance facility or in a nearby building .
Vehicles can be stored in stations also . This second approach is easily implemented
with active guideway systems because the vehicles are "dumb" and require very
little maintenance. Nith respect to cleaning, the vehicle interior can be cleaned at
t the same time as the station is cleaned. The outside of the vehic:e can be cleaned
at the maintenance facility according to a predetermined schedule .
5.63 Operation in Ice and Snow
In the Vail environment, this issue needs to be examined thoroughly . Nith few
exceptions, systems using self-propelled vehicles require that in addition to
JYJCC�JlII� Si�Gw iiG�T� ilic iui�i�li�� iliif3Cc a1� iCGiTi iiic �C ':Jc^. i COl+.°.Ct10f: S;JSt° fTl � Lf1°
guideway surface needs to be heated to prevent ice formation. \�'hile systems such
60
as U �vII has operating at the �4innesota Zoo do not have guideway surface heating,
they are operated by drivers on-board and at very stow speeds, lower than 5 mph .
�'hen data iransmission is performed through a sliding contact, the transmission rail
needs to be heated as we11 to ensure proper data exchange . Seif-propelled vehicles
in which the traction forces are not transmitted via the wheel or for those that have
their running surface protected do not require a guideway heating system .
Active track systems are not subject to these requirements because the
propulsion and braking forces are not transmitted via the wheels of the vehicles.
However, snow removal will be required to avoid accumulation on the running
surface.
61
6.0 EXAMINATION OF FIXED GUIDEWAY ALTER[VATIVES
6.1 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRA[VSIT TECHNOLOGY
In a fixed guideway system , vehicies operate on an exclusive guideway or
track - - a major requirement to ensure safe operation. In most cases, the guideway
is either elevated or underground. On some occasions, the guideway is at ground
level. Ground level or at-grade guideways are generally less desirable in an urban
environment because of the creation of a physical barrier which restricts cross
movements by other traffic. Moreover, the cost of tunneling is much higher than
the cost of building an elevated structure .
For this study, only two alternative elevated tracks were considered. 1' unnels
were not considered because of their high cost and because of the relatively low
traffic volumes to be encountered.
The major potential advantages of a people mover system over the bus system
would be: ( 1 ) ability to meet increasing demand; (2) reduced dwell times due to the
level boarding, large door openings, and the ability of skiers to bring the ski gear on
board the vehicles ; and (3) reduced travel time because there will be reduced dwell
time and no interference between the pedestrian and peopie mover vehicle flows.
The result is improved service with line capacity which can be adjusted without
service degradation.
6.2 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNiv1ENT5
The selection of an alignment is primarily driven by the location of the traffic
generator/ receptors and the availability of Right of \Vay (RO \V) between these focal
points.
In Vail, the two major focal points of the existing system are the bus stops
located near the parking structures. These bus stops also serve the two major lift
areas of Vail, the Vista Bahn and the LionsNead Gondola.
'"wiin respeci to RvCv avaiiabiiity, a review oi me aeriai photograpny oi Vaii
indicated that the area is well built up and that little, if any, real estate is
62
available. The system ROW will have to be "fitted" into the available public space .
It is noted that the land atong Gore Creel< is owned by the Town of Vail, and
therefore may provide some financial opportunities in determining the final
alignment. However, there are other problems associated with using the creek
alignments as follows:
o Stations within the creek alignment will be more complicated and
expensive, requiring special pedestrian access.
o Emergency evacuation of passengers from stalled trains on guideways
located over the creek will be e�tremely difficuit.
In determining a feasible representative alignment, we assumed that the only public
space readily available to the Town of Vail was the space above the road system and
possibly some along its edges and some portions of Gore Creek.
Based on these premises, two possible people mover alignments were
identified .
The first one follows the present In-Town Shuttle route (See Exhibit 6 - i ). The
second one, presented in Exhiblt 6 -2, is basically the same but provides a loop that
traverses Vail Village. This loop would start at the intersection of East Uieadow, go
north on Willow Sridge, east on Gore Creek Drive and south on Gore Creek Road and
Vail Valley Drive up to the Golden Peak stoo. From Golden Peak, the guideway
would then follow Vail Valley Dri�re and Gore Creel< Road north and then proceed
west on East ��leadow along the same RON as the first alternative.
� This alternative improves the access to the center of Vail Village but
decreases access to the public parking. Another severe limitation of this alionmeni
is the eYtremely tight turn radii that are required to make the various turns.
Finally, the alternative alignment may be aesthetically controversial as the majority
- of the buildings found in this area are low height, chalet-type houses.
Finally, because of the narrow roads and the general lacl: of space in the
Village, building zn aerial station in the Village does not readily appear feasible.
One possible location for a station might be the berm area on the south side of the
Village if an alignment to it can be found feasible.
63
z
w
0
�
r
r z
¢ D. �
� ° �
w = .
�
U y � Y N
Z _ � Q w C
i � I::_. u ` ¢ <
^ � n
2 � (�� w U
d '^I� = � ' � \ C
Oi '�� ; i FZ
I � I �I e °- i� � e
� � �I °� � � �= b -'
w � �: : z � m ��, ,�
:i < o � w " s
^A a � ' z w
4J w � a o �7Y - �
>
U Q � W , z �
u.t y u a �
a
..1 w � � <
F J /u
V Z y) C 7
O Q � < J � 7
Y Q Q U � j �
z � y d • �" O
O w Q ZN � F
�C"' C Q i U U' Q
¢
� y N ' � a �
1 � � �
I �9
F � i�: � ✓
Z °� '�
� i w i '., '.+��. �r .I
Z � LLw �
� � o � s w
a
a JU O uw jW U T.
F
4 � a aw � F
� d � � a
ua �� � w
O oZ W � W •
� �
� wE w ' '.h '1 <
- a il, '-�4' U
�--� j "i�l '�" z
Q� 0 ��.—i O
� (�', �� p
W Qr � � �
Z -Lm� YJ • ¢
3 � � � � m �
0
0 z ✓�' o �
F ai c � w y
I ¢ a - m
Z w ° � G z aQ �
° � � os o ��)` o
� w p � U � Y
�j O F p Q O � Y C
�O N N U' Z U' f \ " � � V1 N
� N I r� � �
� � F z >i _ � � N O �
< o � c w
_ '^ I " � = _ v Q p +-' Q
X N i 1t . c � W � _ m
II.l ` m -+ �:i c - W v� .-
n z z = a y G j
0 � '�� J c• o � � O
z - � � o e� v] �
F� � a w ,y y v
c ^L.
c9 ' � � � p
C �CI - w Y Q X C C1
a-7•$ > a „ z u �n a
< < w =
N �, . ,
• r 'o i
a oJ a �
> � c
•
� 11 \\
64
Z
w �
O
e
r ¢ Q N
v ° �
w � .
E y ¢
Y � �, U � • C d Q
C � . I - ZO (� W U
d �. I .:1� C � ' � \1 O
o �~I� I�I � � �y(I O
� ' '�� ° a • o �G.�ab ,. o
� a �v jC � '^ s a � �(i7 ��'
Qw � i '� � o � o � .? �
W o � � w
H, � �`:�. � � - r �
� w a p f1
W � y � � �
a I
� N � Q
W C �/ ° �
� f � J � II �
Z NC >
z w o < � ° > o '�'
O � ¢ G � � w
N
N Z
E-+ w 0 Z N � F
¢
O � 2 U � J
a o � jd
u w ' �
I N � > •
� � 'I� � �
L � F � � �
? 2 �
. � F Y LLw ' �T J � �
C7 (� w O JS . Y� a
� � � � J6 QQ ' _ � .
w 2 ¢ IW- > w U
O I
�j JO WW Q
W � � U
� LL � � • w
O oz w w z
� � w ' �
E �
n r � F; a
w d � 1(.��� U
� m M�
7 �I 1 Z
� O �1: -`•I O
W Z = � � O /
a' oo � � • >
Z � o � � . �
a � m x = �
O a ' � ° m
o - ,
I-� F z � o F
I y o w �
4 2
O
�
� ° � w� �yI���I o � i a . � O .
N w a �'+9,x � o � +� y,
a z �
� O w ¢ Cz � � ° � . N �
� VI � F� J r
� u' ~ Z° a C' C
o ? .` > � F ..._� '� p c0
- o n. w
X � i'�; a � a < '' ` o +� 2
W < � � F - ¢ a � ii � a.
a in -+ ��,t o � a z p.. N
o w . � J �� ° o C] � �
z r � � pp N 'G
<
F� ' o Z ..C. N �
.�i
N j -'�. � O
w � w x o �x C N
�� � a �n z I1] N d
� w o
h N N � �
� � � o z
, o � a � � I
1 11 \\ � � �
65
Consequently, the only representative alion ment retained for our study for
replacing the Shuttle is the one that follows the Shuttle route .
6.3 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
In view of the above, potential candidate people mover technologies were
identified and described below. The LE �1 corporate data base, which includes the
most recent developments regarding people mover systems, is the basis for these
descriptions and data. A copy of the recently published AGT data base* was given
to the Town of Vail. "Che large number of entries found in the data base were
eliminated prior to conducting our cost estimate. A selection of potential
(representative) systems which might be operated in the Vail environment was made .
The following material reduces the selection process and presents the technologies
which appear to be best suited to the Vail environment.
6.3.1 Selection Criteria
The potential systems were screened on the basis of having a turn radius less
than or equal to 65 feet and vehicle width not greater than 7 feet. Several systems
were identified as potential candidates.
6.3.2 Potential Systems
The potential systems have been classified into four categories: systems in
operation, systems under construction, systems which have been demonstrated, and
conceptual systems.
� A . Systems In Operation
Monorails built by Universal Mobility, Inc. (U �tI) and Von Roll Habegger in
Switzerland have been included in this group. 1Vhile none of these systems offer
turn radii as low as 50 feet, their actual turn radius is close enough that our
requirement co�ld be met with only slight modifications to the alignment and the
system technology.
� International Transit Compendium - Automated Guideway Transit, Volume IV ,
Na. l .
66
Systems meeting both the turn radius and width requirement are H -Bahn
(small cabin) at Dortmund University, West Germany, the 1UEDway at Houston
International Airport, the Boeing System at A9organtown, and the SK System at Expo
'86 in Vancouver and at the Villepinte Fairgrounds in Paris.
B . Systems Under Construction
This group includes the TAU System being built in the City of Liege, Belgium ,
and the ARAMIS System being built in Paris, France.
C. Svstems Which Have 6een Demonstrated
This group includes the C-Bahn System which was demonstrated in the late
70's and early 80's at the Demag test facility in Hagen, \Vest Germany. Also
included is the C- 10 monorail system purchased by Westinghouse from Rohr
Industries. Rohr supplied this technology for Pearl Ridge in Honolulu as its P -Series
Monorail.
D. Conceptual Systems
These systems, such as the Alpha System which was recently being promoted,
, were not considered because they have not been developed and are not considered
available.
These systems can also be regrouped according to type of propulsion system
and guideway(� ), as follows:
� o Self-Propelled, Open Guideway
- All monorails (U �tI, Von-Roll Habegger, Westinghouse C - 10)
- Morgantown
- TAU
- ARA �tIS
(� ) Open guideway - the running surface is exposed to the elements (snow, rain) .
Closed guideway - the running surface is not exposed to the elements (snow,
rain) .
67
o Self-Propelled, Enclosed Guideway
- Traction Force Transmitted by the Wheels
. H -Bahn
- Traction Force Not Transmitted by the ��heels
. C - 8ahn ..
o Track Based Systems
- SK (cable drawn)
- WEDway (linear induction motor)
Of the above systems, the 4lorgantown system and GBahn are no longer
marketed and were not considered available . A brief description of these various
systems is given in AppendiY B .
68
7.0 A REPRESENTATIVE PEOPLE h30VER SYSTEM
This section defines a representative people mover system which may be
proposed as a replacement for the In -Town Shuttle bus route . This representative
system is based upon proven technology which is available from competitive sources.
Also, the system follows the representative alignment discussed in Section 6 .2 and
shown in Exhibit 6 - 1 . From a physical, geometrical and technological viewpoint the
representative system can be said to be feasible .
7.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM FOR
SHUTTLE REPLACEMENT
As discussed in earlier sections, the representative people mover system will
closely follow the route of the In-Town Shuttle. The guideway and station
structures were all assumed to be elevated. A return loop was assumed feasible at
Golden Peak. The system was sized to meet the 1995 - 96 projected demand and
provide a directional line capacity of 1 ,088 passengers per hour on a design day and
1 ,343 passengers per hour on a peak day, with service at two minute intervals. By
adding three more trains the system can meet the 2003 -04 projected demand and
provide a single direction line capacity of 1 , 580 passengers per hour on a peak day.
Train operation is automated and requires no on-board personnel. Except during the
peak hours of the winter season, stations are unmanned.
The following discusses the technologies that were considered and retained for
the Vail application and provides the main physical and operational characteristics
of the representative people mover system . These were then used to estimate the
cost of the representative system.
Technalogy
Time and budget constraints did not allow each of the various types of
technologies identified in Section 6 .0 to be sized for the representative alignment
and preparation of detailed cost estimates. The technologies represented by C -Bahn
and �lorgantown were eliminated because they are not commercially available . The
TAU, H - Bahn and WEDway systems, while available commercially, have relatively
high costs. Therefore, LE �1 narrowed its field of investigation to two technologies
69
that have a low cost record as well as a short implementation time . These are the
self-propelled monorail (UMI, Von-Roll Habegger and Westinghouse C - 10) and the
short headway cable driven system (SK) . LEUi then prepared initial sizing and
preliminary cost estimates for both systems. However, as the cable driven system
has only been implemented in point to point type of service , it was determined that
the large number of stations could have a negative impact on the system reliability
to a point where feasible applicability could be suspect. Furthermore, the
preliminary cost estimates indicated that the cable driven system cost was slightly
higher than the cost of the monorail; therefore, the investigation of the cable-
propelled system was not carried further .
Physical Description
The overall characteristics for the monorail system are given in Exhibit 7 - 1 .
The system was sized using data extracted from the LE �I data base for
commercially competitive technologies such as produced by Universal Ylobility, Inc.,
Von Roll-Habegger and Westinghouse (C - 10). Stations were assumed to be a very
simple, open design with no fare collection equipment. No escalators or elevators
were included.
Trains are composed of two permanently coupled cars. While longer trains can
, be formed, there is an impact on station size, making them hard to fit into already
crowded spaces and more expensive. Typical vehicle characteristics are as follows:
Overall length 37 ft.
Overall width 6 .5 ft.
Overall height 9 ft.
Heighi over Guideway Surface � ft•
Passenger Capacity, Design 36
Crush 51
Passenger Comfort - Heating & Ventilation, No Air Conditioning
Doors - Double width doors, each side of vehicle
Directional Capability - Unidirectional so long as turnaround loops
provided at each end
70
EXHIBIT 7- 1: DESCRIPTION OF REPRFSENTATIVE PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM FOR
REPLACING THE IN-TOWN SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE
System Length, Single Lane 5 ,400 m
Stations, Single-Side Platforms 10
Average Cruise Speed (no accel ./decel.) 4 .5 m/s
Acceleration/Deceleration, Ylaximum 1 m/sz
Acceleration, Average 0 .5 m/sz
Deceleration, Average lm /s2
Train Size (2-cars) 10 m
Train Capacity Design 36 pax
Crush Load 51 pax
No. of Double Doorways/Train Side 2
Boarding Time per Non- Skier 1 sec
Skier with Skis 2.5 sec
Total Dwell Time Design Day 629 sec
Peak Day 772 sec
Time Traveling at Cruise Speed 1 ,089 sec
Time in Acceleration/Deceleration 135 sec
Turnaround Time at Gold Peak 47 sec
Total Round-Trip Time Design Day 1 , 900 sec
Peak Day 2�043 sec
Round Trips per Train per Hour Design Day 1 .895
Peak Day 1 .762
, Single Train Capacity per Hour, Each Direction (Passengers/Hr)
Design Day 68
Peak Day 79
Maximum Operating Trains Required to Meet 1995- 96 Demand
1 ,039 pax/hr Design Day 16
1 ,310 pax/hr Peak Day 17
Headway Design Day 119 sec
. Peak Day 120 sec
Line Capacity , Singte Direction Design Day 1 ,033 pax/hr
Peak Day 1 , 343 pax/hr
Fleet Requirements for 1995 - 96: Operating Trains 17
Spares ?
Total 19
Fleet Requirements for 2003-04: Operating Trains 20
Spares 3
Total 23
Headway of Expanded 2003 - 04 System Design Day 106 sec
Peak Day 102 sec
71
The representative guideway is essentially a steel construction box beam
approximately 32 inches wide by 22 inches high . Its guideway can be mounted in a
single lane or dual lane configuration, on steel columns with spans up to 65 feet .
Longer spans require additional trussing of ihe guideway beam .
The representative system will be fully automated and driverless , following
traditional fail-safe requirements for fixed-guideway transit systems. A control
center will be provided within the maintenance facility.
Vehicles will be propelled by electric power picked up from power rails along
the guideway . An emergency diesel generator may be required to allow evacuation
of the system during a power outage . If so, trains would be sequenced one at a time
into stations allowing for a smaller size diesel generator .
Operation
Some of the general operating characteristics of the representative system are
given in Exhibit 7 - 1 . Calculations of the dwell times at stations are given in
Exhibit 7- 2 assuming skis are stored in racks on the side of the cars . Exhibit 7 - 3 is
an operating plan. Section 7 .4 recommends that skis can be safely brought on-board
by passengers resulting in significant improvement in performance and cost
reduction. ,
7.2 REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM COST ESTIMA"I"ES
7.2.1 Capital Costs
The capital cost was estimated for the Representati�re People �9over system .
This estimate, shown in Exhibit 7 - 4, was prepared for a system having the
characteristics of a low capacity monorail system as sized in Exhibit 7 - 1 . Unit
costs from a LE �,1 proprietary cost data base, developed over a period of years
utilizing actual costs of a number of system installations , were applied . In cases
where an item may be in question , a higher unit cost has been selected to produce a
more conservative estimate . Therefore, the estimate provided is considered to be
.,ufficientl .,,.curate ;c te�: � .°, � � d i:ed �st ° :e .. i!! . • ed
y fe sibility , mcr eta im � b° °gu:
during preliminary design for preparing project budgets .
72
�
�
C o� m � � � d N
n'� O� O � O �' 1�
I:-� � � � _" ^
� N N
� �
F z
.] Q
t�1 U m
3 v-�i C `^ �n �n o �n o �n
� v c m c+� � oo s oo m
pp N t� 00 �1 00 �"1 N
N �
/��
L�
(� 'v
V� l/� � C1 W O� �' Q� �Y
a
O �" �' `
F- ' d 3
¢ � � � o C]
4'-i -' N � N Z W v�
� � � *� a a� �
i c p � � N � a �o � t �
� l-' � N � r�/ \ rr1 ^'1 M . ^ ,o
.�-1 ° v � ro p 3 ro °
V o ro •3 o m y �
3 " ° °' o
0 vi � i � �,,,/ L w
� N O � � V �� � �
Z 7 1' � O W � N �o t� M i� 1+1 O Y
p N } O
� O '� � ` y _'
¢ 3 '= '" � ¢ C 3 � 3
.� 3 0- � Cl' Z t, �
� o c ro '� V o �rn
w ,y
U L � v n. �n •
a „ v ap u � ,v y �
V a G � � � N � N N .-N. N .-N. L 'O
� L � w � Y ti
N � w v � 3 p N
n � � � � U �
� F � a o � v c
Q Z ''
= o m
N Q c oO N v1 O �/1 o w +•
u � � v N N N � F
F � L ,
o �
* b o
m
N C >+
b * p G
a b 3 °
C y �
C v
� � � � b �
¢ � ttl = Y
� N X (n O
[✓J
� U +' i N +�+
* � �' N L O
� bD 7 � U L � �
F O
.D � C p
Q � � a� .*o U *
F rYO � o U � � *
v� y �O �y m T v J
U C� U I �. ,� I �. �
73
EXHIBIT 7- 3: OPERAI'ING PLAN FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE
PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEbi
OPERATING SCHEDULE HRS/DAY FLEET SIZE
WIN7'ER
Peak Hours 5 16
Off -Peak 3 8
Night Hours 4 4
17
OFF SEASON
Daytime 12 6
Nighttime 4 3
16
PEAK SEASON IN DAYS 160
OFF PEAK SEASON 205
74
EXHIBIT 7- 4: CAPITAL COST ESTiMATE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEOPLE MOVER
SYSTEM TO REPLACE IN-TOWN SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE
GUIDEWAY STRUCTURE
Single Lane 770 m �d $ 950/m $ 731 , 500
_ Double Lane 2,315 m @ $ 1 , 400/m 3 , 241 , 000
STATIONS 10 sgl . platforms @ $ 155 ,000 1 , 550 , 000
SWITCH 1 �d $ 25 ,000 . 25 , 000
"fRANSFER TABLE 1 �d $ 25 ,000 25 , 000
TRAINS (2 cars each) 19 �d $ 190 ,000 3 , 610 , 000
SERVICE VEHICLE 1 �d $ 15 ,000 15 , 000
POWER DISTRIBUTION
Substation 4 Ld $91 ,000 364 , 000
Electric Service 1 �d $8 ,000 8 , 000
Feeder Cable 3,085 m �d $302/m 931 , 670
Power Rails 5 ,400 m �d $ 164/ m 835 , 600
C041MAND & CONTROL 1 Ld $ 1 ,200 ,000 1 , 200 , 000
MAINTENANCE
Facility 8� 100 sq ft �d $50/sq ft 405 , 000
Equipment & Parts 1 Lot Ld $500 ,000 500 , 000
Subtotal $ 13 , 491 , 770
ENGINEERING 15 % $ 2 , 023 , 766
' TESTING 540 674 , 589
CONTINGENCIES 10 °.0 1 , 349 , 177
� ROW AND U1'ILITY RELOCATION (Allocation) 2 , 500 , 000
TOTAL $20 , 039 , 302
75
�
7.2.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs
A preliminary estimate of annual operations and maintenance (O& �.1) costs was
prepared, based on information regarding actual people mover system Odctii cost
experiences. The cost estimate was prepared according to the operation plan
discussed earlier. This estimate is presented in Exhibit 7 -5 . Supporting
calculations are provided in Appendix C. The costs for liability insurance coverage
during system operation have not been included, because of the current unsettled
conditions with the insurance industry. Under normal circumstances, insurance
costs would be about $ 100 ,00 per year.
73 ALTERNATIVE STARTER LINE PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM
It is noted that 78 percent of In-Town Shuttle ridership board the system at
stops located at and between LionsHead and Covered Sridge. Therefore, one might
consider implementing the first phase of a people mover system to replace only this
service. The shuttle bus route could then be reconfigured to two smal! feed routes
that interface with the people mover at LionsHead and Covered Bridge . Since the
demand on these two small routes would be light and round trip times short, only a
few buses would be required. Also, the feeder route operating to LionsHead could
be extended to serve Cascade Village.
Exhibit 7 -6 shows a representative alignment for a Starter Line that could
partially replace the In-Town Shuttle. It basically follows the street route of the
shuttle except that at the western end a single lane loop would start near the Ice
Arena departing from West �;teadow Drive, pass by LionsHead Structure, proceed
down through the LionsHead Area east of yiountaineros and then turn back east
following Gore Creek to rejoin the dual-lane guideway on West �teadow Drive .
Along both West and East Nteadow Drive the guideway would be dual-lane until
reaching Bridge Street where it would become a small single-lane loop through Vail
Village using Gore Creek as part of the alignment.
The technology would be the same as described in Section 7 . 1 for replacing the
entire In -Town Shuttle. Exhibit 7 - 7 provides a description of the application,
Sj/5.°:^ �.Zlr^6 d^'�. :u^�d� u^cfiioi ^vYc^CdLliis ErcifviTiaiiCc. i;iiiluii i -.°� i5 d�i c5:i ^iftL.°. O.
the capital costs which at $ 15 million are 25 percent less than full replacement of
the Shut4le . The O& �1 costs would also scale back to about $750,000 per year.
76
EXHIBIT 7-5: SUMMARY OF O&M EXPENSFS FOR THE
REPRESENTATIVE PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM
Personnel (Includes All Overhead & G &A ) $560 , 000
Temporary Personnel 25 , 600
Cleaning Contract 100 , 000
Electric Power 163 , 000
Subtotal $848 , 600
Consumables (2% of Subtotal) 16 , 975
Contingencies (10 % of Subtotal) 84 , 860 .
TOTAL $ 950 , 435
77
z
<
w �
c
c
�
� D
v - ° �
� �, . e
= r<.-: w . < < _
G � Il U �� C 2 U
Zp
- ✓ � �::i� � o ' � \ c
' ;ri .
�^It �\ � � o �I �
Url � . I c U �! C
ir. ,< I � a • O M
f ZP'� . I N � ' �� 1
'n - � l-��..w � � z e ^ n 3
w
3 2 � ' F ° • ` . .
o w z c
.. I �. . � _
F y > O �f �
Q U W Z
N � < �
Q Q �
FW- y � J /,y Q
N � � � J �y ' � j -
z C � .. r� Q O �
w p < U = >
� e i • � O
U N w
N =
w O 2 Q F,
� C N
p d U Q
W Q O : U �
¢ h- ; � a �
� n � J
� N � j �
% Gj,] � � �
Z N �I �' �.7'
� >- z i
wN z ri `� _ -�� I
F^ w z .
r-1 ,',f`i', Z W o LL ¢ . a �7
I3. O � � x � w > w � � n
O � 'mo ow ° ._.
w
~ W U a a � • u
Z o-,� U Q � w
� Q � � w i ¢ Z
C+ 4 � ¢ �� U
Z O � W
v m , .-�;,
� 1 �
a � o ti� �,, a
¢ Z ° < —, m
.J z F � a
� � � , °- o � � cs • >
rip] am� ? ¢ • Q
F ~ � � ac�i m
r+ L'� O a � �
� Q �- ? '� , . o ¢
yF- Q ° — wN m �
X `� w ° N � ._°
o �
W w � c '�� O � u � ' ` � � �
c
- °o a i � 1J � � � `� �
o C �
� U y ¢ GZ � I \ ° � � ` C
N W .�O � �
�
' Z F � Z" J < "� C wO
o Z „� g ... p �+ E
x 5 o Y a' �7
n N "£ F Q W �.,\ V] �.
Z " t '�F 'a . � G cl
< G �- � c < N � >
w � '� z � ' o O � °
> � � �
a ` � � oa v� �
z : - C ,� m
p o
��t i `�' �o 0
�
� � � � [j v� G
! I J w Y ^ O
%�` j C N
G v� Z
� E w O
c vr � 1
� • � O `z L
� ow a s �
�/ � P '
" ' \�
7s
EXHIBIT 7-7: DESCRIPTION OF A STARTER LINE PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM
System Length Single Lane 1 , 900 m
Dual lane 790 m
7' otal Single Lane Length 3,480 m
Stations, Single-Side Platforms 7
Average Cruise Speed (no accel./decel .) 4 .5 m/s
Acceleration/Deceleration, Llaximum 1 m/sZ
Acceleration, Average 0 .5 m/s2
Deceleration, Average lm/s2
Train Size (2-cars) 10 m
Train Capacity Design 36 pax
Crush Load 51 pax
No, of Double Doorways/Train Side 2
Boarding Time per Non- Skier 1 sec
Skier with Skis 2.5 sec
Total Dwell Time Design Day 523 sec
Peak Day 646 sec
Time Traveling at Cruise Speed 696 sec
Time in Acceleration/Deceleration 95 sec
Total Round-Trip Time Design Day 1 ,314 sec
Peak Day 1 ,437 sec
Round Trips per Train per Hour Design Day 2 .740
Peak Day 2.505
Single Train Capacity per Hour, Each Direction (Passengers/Hr)
Design Day 99
Peak Day 113
�Iaximum Operating Trains Required to �teet 1995- 96 Demand
1 ,039 pax/hr Design Day 11
1 ,310 pax/hr Peak Day 112
� Headway Design Day 119 sec
Peak Day 120 sec
Line Capacity , Single Direction Design Day 1 ,089 pax/hr
Peak Day 1 ,356 pax/hr
Fleet Requirements for 1995- 96: Operating Trains 12
Spares 1
Total 13
79 .
EXHIBIT 7-8: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR STARTER LINE
PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM
GUIDEWAY SI"RUCTURE
Single Lane 1 , 900 m �d $ 950/m $ 1 , 805 , 000
Double Lane 790 m Cd $ 1 ,400/m 1 , 106 , 000
STATIONS 7 sgl . platforms �d $ 155 ,000 1 , 085 , 000
SWITCH 1 @ $ 25 ,000 25 , 000
TRANSFER TABLE 1 �d $ 25 ,000 25 , 000
TRAINS (2 cars each) 13 @ $ 190 ,000 2 , 470 , 000
SERVICE VEHICLE 1 �d $ 15 ,000 15 , 000
POWER DISTRIBUTION
Substation 3 @ $ 91 ,000 273 , 000
Electric Service 1 @ $8 ,000 8 , 000
Feeder Cable 2, 090 m �d $302/m 812 , 380
Power Rails 3, 480 m �d $ 164/m 570 , 720
COMMAND & CONTROL 1 �d $ 1 ,000 ,000 1 , 000 , 000
ti1AINTENANCE
Facility 8, 100 sq ft @ $50/sqft 405 , 000
Equipment & Parts 1• Lot @ $500 ,000 500 , 000
Subtotal $ 10 , 100 , 100
ENGINEERING 15% $ 1 , 515 , 015
TESTING 5°.0 505 , 005
, CONTINGENCIES 10% 1 , 010 , 010
ROW AND UTILITY RELOCATION (Allocation) 1 , 350 , 000
TOTAL $ 14 , 980 , 130
80
\Vhen considering how demand is expected to increase over the next 20 years ,
the starter line system may be sufficient to alleviate the problems of congestion.
However , it would lend itself to extension at both ends by breaking the loops or by
addition of switches and building guideway extending towards Golden Peak and
towards Cascade Village .
7.4 OPPOR7'UNI7'Y FOR IMPROVEMENTS
There are opportunities to improve the performance and quality of service of
the Representative People 4iover and Starter Line People Mover defined in
Exhibits 7 - 1 and 7-7 respectively. Dwell times at stations are excessively long,
caused by the requirement that skis not be brought aboard trains and must be stored
in racks on the side . •
LEM concurs with the concern of Town Officials that carrying skis aboard the
buses can be a safety hazard. The bus must be able to and often must emergency
brake for other traffic and pedestrians. During such events passengers could be
injured by skis. However, the people mover operates on an exclusive grade-
separated guideway and encounters no conflicts with other traffic or pedestrians.
The only possible collision would be with another train and such events are protected
against by the requirements of fail-safe controls and safe braking rates. The system
can be designed in accordance with a maximum rate of emergency deceleration of ,
� O. lg, which is also the maximum deceleration for service braking. This would
greatly reduce the probability of injury due to skis being brought aboard . It is
important to point out that Aerial Passenger Tramways (large cabin systems) `
throughout the world in ski areas allow skis to be brought aboard the cabin. This is
not done on gondolas because there is not enough room inside . Since the People
� �7over and Aerial Passenger Tramway are parallel situations a safety precedent has
been established that should be permissible.
Eliminating ski racks on the sides of the trains permits two improvements as
follows:
Reduced Dwell Time - For the systems outlined in Exhibits 7 - 1 and 7 - 7 , the
d•�el! time i„ staticns ;; mc,e '.har cut ;r ha,f, d� creas;ng the r..und-trip time
for trains . The improvements are as follows:
81
o Saves three trains in the case of both syste ms which will reduce costs
of the system by $570 , 000 .
o Increases quality of service, average speed, by 25 percent for the full
replacement system and 29 percent for the Starter Line.
Improved Station Desi�n - When skis are stored in racks on the side of the
train, passsengers must always alight on the same side as boarding to retrieve
their skis. Allowing the skis to be brought a6oard by the passenger allows the
following improvements in station design:
o At heavy demand stations, platforms could be provided on both sides of
the train. Doors would be provided on both sides of the train. The train
doors for exiting passengers would open first establishing pedestrian
flow to the exit platform . The effect is a great reduction in passenger
conflicts allowing platform sizes to be reduced . Dwell time in stations
may also be further reduced again improving the quality of service.
o Having doors on boths sides of the train allows the flexibility at lower
demand stations to place the platform on either side, which may be
very important in physically fitting the station within existing real
estate . As such, this flexibility may create savings in the cost of civil
construction.
o The cost savings provided by reducing the fleet requirements may easily
pay for any increased station costs.
82
a
8.0 ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The previous sections of this report were prepared in response to the original
LE �1 proposal. As a reminder, the purpose was to determine whether a people
mover system could indeed replace the In-Town Shuttle , provide better service and
yet be affordable. "fhis point is the key issue . As indicated in Section 9 , private
funding of some or all of the fixed facilities will be dependent on the potential
return that can be expected from these investments; which, while not estimated in
this study, may not be significantly large. Therefore, feasibility may depend upon
the ability of the Town of Vail to fund the project.
Adding a people mover guideway to the Vail landscape could be considered as
aesthetically disruptive. For example, in the Village, the height of the buildings is
rather low. A people mover guideway would, in many cases, tower over those
buildings as the track must be as least 15 to 16 feet above the ground to allow
circulation of trash removal and emergency vehicles. Such a structure would
greatly affect the Vail skyline. In addition to the track structure, station structures
would also be required. These elevated structures could be overpowering in the Vail
environment as they could rise 37 feet over the landscape. Access would be
required from the street requiring stairs to be installed that would use up precious
sidewalk space .
Under any circumstance, there is need to improve the current transportation
system. Even if feasibility is determined and the Town decides to fund and build a
system , there will be an interim period during which demand will continue to
increase beyond the capability of the current Shuttle bus route. The earliest that
any people mover system might be completed and put into operation would probably
be the 1991 sl<i season. Until this time, demand could increase by another 15
percent (assuming 3.5 percent growth per year). To meet this demand will require
that about four additional 35 foot buses be added to the 14 buses operated during
peak day peak periods (total fleet of 13 TAtC's and five 35 foot buses). Because
there is a possibility that adding buses to the fleet could result in a degradation of
overall average speed and productivity, it is recommended that the Town study the
effect before assuming that the problem can be so simply solved.
83
The problem appears to be mainly one of overcrowding during peak periods on
peak days. Determining the source of this extra demand and a means to carry it,
other than on the In -Town Shuttle, could be of value . For example, 23 percent of
the peak period peak day demand (965 passengers) has been identified (Exhibit 4 - 15)
as visitors who make cross-movements between Vail Village area and LionsHead
each morning and afternoon. Of these, 792 , are generated near the Transportation
Center (560 are transferring from other Vail bus routes) and 173 are in the
LionsHead area having Vail Village or Gold Peak as their destination. There will be
a significantly larger number during the afternoon peak period, indicated simply by
the fact that 45 percent of Shuttle ridership board the buses at the stops serving
LionsHead parking structure and the Vail Transportation Center. Also, nearly one-
half of all visitors to the Town Center arrive at one of these two parking structures
either by private automobile, bus, taxi or lodge/hotel van.
As the need to improve the transportation system does exist, LE �i has
examined a set of road based and people mover alternatives that might achieve the
primary goal of improving the quality of service of the transportation system. The
backbone of these alternatives is a separate express transportation system linking
only the two parking structures.
8.1 ROAD BASED SYSTEMS
The two parking structures are accessible from the frontage road and are close
to the ski lift areas permitting a dedicated bus system to be implemented between
the parking structures. The main components of such a system are related to
routing and operations, boarding/egressing (curb space) locations, and vehicles.
The pr000sed route for the dedicated bus service would link the two parltino
structures using the frontage road. The service would operate as an express shuttle
with no intermediate stops. Vehicle turnaround could be achieved by using the loop
at the LionsHead facility, and by using the existing facilities at the Transportation
Center.
To reduce confusion at the bus stops which presently ser�e the two parking
�I.,. ' I ' ,! e : ..-I.° ^� . .Cm f{ t r irh ti �1A
52iuCiuCcSi uc $�cCidilZcu t~iU5 5.°. CViC.. .. .+u Cj �.�.�'+. .. Cjl .9C°(; l..
location than the one used by the Shuttle . This would alleviate confusion and
84
pedestrian traffic conflict due to the curb space limitation at these bus stops. 7'he
location of the bus stops should facilitate access to the buildino, facilitate vehicle
turnaround, and provide enough curb space to properly handle the demand.
For this type of service, two different types of vehicles could be used : the
standard . Vail transit bus or a large capacity transit vehicle (either a 35 -foot bus, a
40-foot bus or an articulated bus).
Standard Vail Transit Sus
The use of existing Vail transit buses would require reassigning buses from the
Shuttle to the new route. This option appears workable because demand on the
Shuttle would be reduced and the remaining buses on the Shuttle route would
ope �ate more efficiently. On the express link a round trip travel time of 15 minutes
would result in a one-way capacity of over 120 passengers per hour per bus, nearly
doubling the productivity of a bus. During the peak periods, 3 to 4 buses might be
required to handle the peak load. The remaining buses could still be assigned to the
In-Town Shuttle. It is anticipated that the net effect of this approach would be to
accommodate increased demand for the next few years at a low cost because a
supplementary bus purchase would not be required and the attendart increase in
O&M cost avoided.
Lar�e Capacity 3uses
Large capacity buses could be used along the frontage road since there are -
very few geometric restrictions. Larger buses could accommodate the peak demand
surges, especially if the vehicles are properly designed for the application. For
� example, one option would be to provide buses with limited or maybe no seating, low
level floors, and large doors for easy access. If necessary, level boarding could be
provided at the two stations. This would further facilitate passenger access and
egress. To be fully effective, the bus/door/platform interface would have to be
designed properly.
This approach could require the purchase of special purpose buses that can
only be used on the frontaee roads. However; from a caoacity standooiM; it offers
the potential for absorbing peak traffic volumes at a low cost. Also, the In-Town
Shuttle service would consequently have a large capacity reserve.
85
Other Factors
The m ajor drawback of the garage express shuttle approach is that it would
increase congestion on the Frontage Road. Also, at present the four-way stop is an
impedim ent to the concept of express buses operating on the Frontage Road. As
pointed out in the Vail Traffic Counts (Ref. S) the four-way stop is presently
operating at Level of Service "F"� . Signalization of this intersection has been
analyzed and determined to be able to increase the Level of Service to "A" during
the m orning and "C" during the evening . Therefore, the feasibility of any express
bus link hinges on the decision of the Town of Vail to signalize the four-way stop. If
so, consideration could be given to allow the express bus to pre-empt the signal
allowing a means to alleviate the Level of Service "C" delays in the evening peak.
$,2 DESCRIPTION OF AN ALTERNATE EXPRESS LINK PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEb1
An alternate people mover system could link the two parking structures. Two
possible alignments are presented in Exhibits 8 - I and 8 -2 . In each align ment, the
stations are adjacent to the parking structures. A ccess to the station is directly
from the roof level of each structure.
To mitigate the issue of right-of-way acquisition, as well as the one related to
aesthetics, the proposed alignments would be built on land presently owned by the
Colorado Department of Transportation. For the purpose of this study, it was
assumed that this land might be made available from Colorado DOT . Should the
principle of such a system be retained as a feasible option by the Town of Vail, it
will be important to verify that the Colorado DOT is indeed willing to share the
ROW . Should this not prove feasible another possible alignment may be running
along the south side of the Frontage Road. However, this alignment may be met
with objections from property owners and have significant ROW costs.
� Level of Service "A" - Condition of free flow, no vehicle waits longer than one
indication.
Level of Service "C" - Still in zone of stable flow but driver must wait through
more than one signal indication.
Level of Service "F" - Indicates a congested condition of forced traffic flow,
where queued back ups Irom locations downstream resiricL or prevent
movement of vehicles out of the approach , creating a storage area during part
or all of the peak hour.
86
Z
� ' � � � `�
� v
� _ ` ' � - ;
� N I � .
� � y li
Z �tk� .:� _ � 6 � W C
Y '.� C - C / „ <
,if��' Z : � / -
¢ F'� �I�� " = � (� �Z., C:
D ,✓Il. � ^ I ` Z 1 ' � \ C
._ i"1 � . `I � � �
� z � I � .�� c a � �� ��A ' `
N c � \ I z ? J _ ��: .5
3 z �'� ' ::li � z � � c I �
a - � `
w w < � O . �7�� .
> .
� F �� ' U w , � �� � ' .
❑.1 vi i c7 , ¢ I
�„✓ c i a _ -
..� w 1 J Y �
F Z �: v = �� � �
j :. r,
U � < �
x Q V 6J \ Q C
_ ¢ U = \
� C i • 1 b � O
[,./ U � 1
y � � w
1"' u O Z ¢ � r
N Q � � J i
� c
� Jc ' C
Z y � � � �
x � i
� �$
¢ � I �i� .��
A. � • �
Z � � � � ��
? � ,, z
L'.1 � a i LL � �
{:� � � C i �- a �
3 .� z , � � , r
F- Z ° ' i ar ' ' w � a.
W O � '? z � o i
m ow i r
d w n �� � � 1 a
l" [L 1
U ` 1 � w
L Q C w � Z �` Z
-y�tu1� w
� � ¢ & ¢ `\
t- r- ��
_ Z � �.� --, � '� \
C7 � ?I�r'� +4'� z /
..
.l o 'S = o .'
¢ ,� o �
l-� o " � � �`r= � s� i
Q E ° �:� ? T � � Q
l � e �= :� � j
� aU '!
C
. ~ N O ��"' O VI .I
� W ¢ �Li I _ � ¢
O N
� w � � z � i aa �-
L^ w a � � �', u � � �
~� o '- � � z � '� '
p a z . - - - - i� ��
~ � � ` I �� .
W � C LL � C� _ \ ..
~ '" � a v�
_ � - � `> � q . .
� - z 5 C �
- - a
= - �f < - `v
< `< ' ' � �
= R z � = i
_ . .,�x ` ^e o
_ � �� - �
' � !. ' ' _ ° �
- � � _ ' _
i �i
_ � � i �
� ' - i <
^ {�.•i' �, j I y
f
_ � i � � y � `a m = -
. � I �\ � � - a _
� J i � F
I � I • = o z
♦ Q � p J ¢
�� � � es
1 � �� _ '( =
\
8�
Z
a
w �
O
C
>
� � �¢ �
v W � /� � '�'
N � � b
� � y N
z � _ • < � a �
� � I � = � � -� � � � ¢ � ° �
�. 20 �^1 \ �� � Z U
a �,-,�i r � ,1 ` ' � \ C
� '~�y �; I Q � 1 � w � C
z '� I �� II � a • Ila `
" N e ' '� z ¢ � m :� b
w
3 `z aO j • Q
a . . � - i w
n
w ,.�' > .i� O ��l�I
¢ � V �y Z
F �
'n m i c7 c �
� ¢ � ¢ =
W 1 � � <
r7 2 y �n Q �t > � =
>
U w a N � o � a o �z
� 6 U \ O
¢ ¢ d � i � ,
' � U
� W 6 ? ry 1 �
� �
� � V � � �
V a � a 1 �
Z N a ; • �
. ¢ � i '' �4 ,�'
i
CL � ' � ��. � � �`VI
3 r z
Z ww
Lt7 � a a �r LL � w �
� w � � �� � a
a N oo Q � ¢ ! aa =
S aW � � w U
�? � I 0 � x
w Z m w V 1 �-
LO f"`+ w J � � � � u
Fr� `-' � • w
p, LL <
Z p ° w w t` =
� w �1 ,`L \
Z , ,
m _ i �il ..�,{� U 1
� � � Z i
� a . ,til;-, m i �
4 0 � "� � i
F o u .,, �
� a � �� � T ' � ¢
d � m�� r � : � �
� � ar , m
� � a � j �
ry �- z ,i.' n o � i
� Q a �;p iy .� m
u+ ,� , a
a s z � ¢ a
� w � '� ° ' r � a ' � ;
� ° � � - - - ' ` �
o a = ,- - 1�' c �.
� . o c � � c'z - c� I �, ° � .
• W _ W Ni �c J
" � y
? Z � < - � ..: /,
_ _ i '>
5
'r. � �F x - V ¢ +I.`� �
s � r
< < � . 0 � wG vti
C n '�3F. Z (' Z
V Q �� �
C '4-� 1 � � L � (J
Z - 1� e Q Q
� ro I _ -' ' ♦ �
1 � Z ` 1
1 � � Q
w � u - � �
c � ` _ ? i x c
. �"� `� > 't a �n z
. r I �` c �1 � ^ w j
I �� � � • C o` z
. � �� o y a
.` � � _
1 '1' `�; � _
\�
88
The system' s approximate length would be about 3 ,700 feet. It would be
elevated and cross over the frontage road twice and the interstate access road once .
Since the system 's main role will be to provide quick access between the two parking
structures, there would be no intermediate stops.
8,2. 1 Potential System Configuration
The proposed system can be classified as a short distance transportation
system. Depending on the anticipated traffic volume, different operational
configurations can be implemented :
o single track, single vehicle , (See Exhibit 3 - 3)
o single track, two vehicles, (See Exhibit 8 - 4)
o double track, two vehicles, (See Exhibit 8 -5)
o double track, multiple vehicles, loop operation, (See Exhibit 3 -6)
The selection of system type is primarily a function of the capacity and of the
level of service. In general, in systems shown in Exhibit 8 -3 through 8 -5 the
capacity is limited by the distance. In order to compensate for these limitations,
they utilize large cabins. Such systems are primarily found at airports Sut there are
several non-airport applications in revenue service in the U .S . In these applications,
the system links a parking facility to an activity center (e.g., hotel, casino, park) .
Exhibit 8 -7 presents an example of such an application.
While it is not required, a large number of short distance transportation
systems in operation to date utilize a track-based propulsion system; in other words,
the vehicles are not motorized. In most cases, the vehicles are cable driven. Such
modes of propulsion are more applicable for short distances because maximum line
speed is limited. Also, cable drawn systems require that the guideway structure be
designed so that they can run at constant speed . This is especially true with systems
utilizing more than one vehicle driven by the same cable. 6ecause of the lack of
sophistication and the absence of complex control systems to perform anti-collision
functions, such systems are usually relatively inexpensive.
T�� t cf stem re.,er:ed ., , Exhibi± e _ s h�� �i�� hPPn _n nnPration for
� �_ 'rF=' ''r P - �
several years. One of them was demonstrated at Expo 'S6 , linking the French
89
EXHIBIT 8-3: SINGLE TRACK, SINGLE VEHICLE SHUTTLE
Vehicle
Station Station
�---►
EXHIBIT 8-4: SINGLE TRACK,-TNO-VEHICLE SHUTTLE
�� Bypass
Station Station
H
Vehicle
90
EXHIBIT 8 -5: DOUBLE TRACK, TWO-VEHICLE SHUTTLE
Vehicle
4—�
Station Station
�►
EXHIBIT 8-6: DOUBLH TRACK, MULTIYLE-VEHICLE SHUTTLE
~ Vehicle
� � � ■
Station Station
■ ■ ■ ■
—►
91
EXHIBIT 8-7: EXAMPLE OF SHUTTLE SYSTEM (CIRCUS CIRCUS CASINO, LAS VEGAS)
�, �����„ ti...���,��- � ,� -
�-� s"� ^�^"'.a-� x;.i� � :��� ,�� .���r'�fT�� m�a�.n..,�
y � �a� �6"' .
� ax.: j-.`� . ...•v. i. ,�t. %� '�
. ��. .c.c�_�„, -o-t -"�'.-w+
s �
� ' � b�'� ��3 i�� i i � rt � � �
�GA�Pa1.G.£ I ��a✓ t._ Y'� � t �.i��� . ' .
� ,a � ��.. . �� � �.4 ��
� Q. � - .,a �{,
R� �,4 � � . , S»'R�,� n[ x _ y°�°°'a�+_� .
. .. m�, �..: � �a -ai
E � .: r :� �, -�++,�a � ., s � ��- �a�..t-.a .,:.Y {_�
tl
r y ' � �•�, 'V.a, i�: I +'°� � - �� .
s� .- y — � - ', rau �°_;
�S # �'
�4k '� �: a � . _
_ . -^ � { :w ,,,,,,r": - _;,
� �p�. ��� � _ � � .sf61 .. _ '
� � ` i � ;� � � � "g��
k S�
-� � 5 =.�� . '.t5 .
- �� �:�,P i { e s-�•y ���� ` ` " +'i' 'iLYi
. '-Y3j `` � a
3
� t� ' � i�» " :�-A:� �.��
-.. .-.�� � �, "`. � �~ � � •4 ���?..8. k�
i i �". " � � � =�'r �ez
� - , ' y,. n �' ' ''��, � "'�t
� �,_,�-4r y .. � -�X.x.y
\ a -`�
_ '. , �. . � '§ tia._. . .ua_.� . .. , _ > �
92
Pavilion to the hlain 8oulevard of the Expo . These systems are characterized by low
capacity vehicles operating at small headways (20 seconds and less) . The system
operates in a fashion similar to the detachable aerial lift found in ski resort areas.
In this type of system, the capacity is no longer a function of the length or the speed
of the system. It is controlled by the minimum headway achieved in the station.
Thus, these systems can deliver capacity in excess of 3, 000 passengers per lane per
hour. However, as these systems are cable driven, their top speed is limited. As a
con'sequence they become unattractive for distances in excess of a mile .
Another important aspect of these systems is the station access. Systems
operating along the principles described in Exhibits 8 - 3 and 8 -4 need only one
platform for both boarding and egressing. This makes them more easily integrable
into an existing structure, and consequently, they have a positive impact on costs.
The other two types of systems require two platforms at each station.
This configuration is more space consuming. However, from a passenger-
control point of view, the system presented in Exhibit 8 -6 is the simplest because
people always board and egress at the same location, and that location is always
related to the same function, i.e., either boarding or egressing. This is not the case
for the other three types of configurations.
While other propulsion technologies are available, e .g. , on-board electric
motor, a self-propelled vehicle requires a communication system. The purpose of
the communication system is to provide the necessary information to the vehicle
control system so that the vehicle operates in a safe manner at all times. When
multiple vehicle operation on a single track occurs, a sophisticated control system is
required to prevent collision. However, self-propelled vehicles have an important
advantage over the track-based system - - they can be designed to operate at the
maximum speed permitted by the application. Also, they permit more flexible
guideway designs as the vehicie speed can be adjusted to meet local restrictions.
From a reliability point of view, all the systems discussed in Exhibit 3 - 3
through 3 -6 will be equivalent, as the failure of the propulsion system will result in
system shutdown (assuming that all utilize a single drive). If independent drives or
' -' - -
on-board propuision systems are used in tne douoie 5ilUi'[ie � iflliti�e5 Gi Giic �fG}�ui�iun
system will result in a 50 percent capacity loss.
93
8.2.2 Capital Cost Estimates
Based on the system descriptions given in cxhibit 8 -8 , two preliminary capital
cost estimates were prepared for the two types of technologies considered most
appropriate for the in - town people mover. These are presented in Exhibit 8 - 9 and
8 - 10. Other technologies, such as the cable-driven reversible shuttle shown in
Exhibit 8 -7 are also appropriate . However, the time and cost constraints did not
permit these investigations.
8.23 OEcM Cost Estimate
The O&M costs estimates presented in Exhibits 8 - 11 and 8 - 12 were prepared
for the two types of systems defined in Exhibit 8 -8 .
94
EXHIBIT 8- 8: SHUTTLE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
SELF F'F;OF'ELLED TF:ACf :: F'F:OF'ELLED
�Y�TEM LENGTH ( M ) 115�? ll �f�
EhID OF LINE STATION DOUbLE F'LATFOF;M ^ _
STATI ��N SINGLE PLATFORM 0 n
AVEF:ACE SF'EED M / 5 ! NO DWELL ) �. . � 6
qrrELEFATI �7N RATE ( M / S� ? ? 1
�JEHICLE ! TF:aIhd CAF'ACIT`f - ( S CAF' - TF:AIN ) 114 1 '?
EOARU IhlG T I ME F'ER F'f�S5chdGER 1 . ° 1 . �
NUME�Efi OF DnpF.S F'EF: CAR / TF:� IP1 6 1
Dl�lELL TIME 2d . ` 18
F'LHTFQRM LENGTH ( M ? ? 4 b
TURN ARO�JND TIME AT ENL� STyTION _ = 4�?
°�TATION SF�EED thii � i ' ci ii . =
TFAVEL TIME ( t�a0 L�IdELL TIMEi 14U 20%
DWELL TIME ( TOTr�L ) 200 1 ?5
ROUND TRIF' TIME ( TOTa� 'r '-C� ��^
LIPJE CAF`ACITY ° OU ?OV
CAF'aCITY F'ER VEHICLE / TRAINS F'ER HOUF; 1 �!i3 11 '
MUMBER OF UEHIr_LE ! TF;AII`dS Iil SERVICE 1 8
SF' ARES 1 1
TOTAL NUMbEF' QF UEHICLESiTF'AIhdS _ lU
95
EXHIBIT 8-9: PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE - SHUTTLE MONORAIL
1JNIT COSTS UNITS $ AMOUNT
GUIDEWAY
STRUCTUFiE
SINGLE LANE ( � / MY 95�� 115i� 1 , �?9^ . 5���?
DOURLE LANE ( � / M ) 1400 i� i�
OTHEF:S �i �j �j
STATIONS
HALF LINE STATION ti p
FULL LIh1E STATION
FULL END STATI0I�I :s�i�i�i��i � 7��p � ���j�j
SWITCH ?�i�C�n 1 <S , Oc.��j
TkANSFEk TAPLE 25U0�� �i p
VEHICLES /TFAINS 450000 2 9i�O , C���i�
SEFVICE VEHICLE 15i��i0 i� n
F'OWER DISTRIPUTIDN 515 , ��?4 1 615 , G44
CJ �C ^J �>
Ji � J�17 L �J�c � J��
MAINTENANCE
FACILITY — � PER SOUARE FOOT 45 � ??� 179 , b74
EOUIF'MEMT 1 ?;,i�c�i� 1 125 , OV0
SUPTOTAL ;; , 889 , 8��6
EN6INEERIN6 15% 58„ 471
FESTIN6 S% 1 ? 4 , 4?��
CONTINGENCIES 1 ��'! �88 , ?81
SUPTOTAL 5 , �?56 . 747
ROW AND UTILITY kELOCATIOPI COSTS ( ALLOCATIOM 1 , ��Ui� , i�i�i�
TOTAL b , ��56 , 74 ?
96
EXHIBIT 8- 10: PRELItv1INARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE OF SHUTTLE
CABLE PROPELLED SYSTEM
UNIT COSTS IJNITS � AMOUN-
GUIDEWA�"
STRUCTURE
SINGLE LANE ( � / M ? ? SU i�
DOUELE LANE ( 5 / M ) 1400 115�? 1 , 610 . 000
OTHERS ( CAPLE , kACEWAYS , SHEAVES , ETC ) 950 1150 1 , ci92 , 5��0
5TATIONS
HALF LINE STATION 1 �800V �i p
FULL LINE 5TATIOiV 19!��?�?��
FULL END STATIaN 2i2U0�� � 4�4 , t�ci0
SWITCH
TRANSFER TARLE ?�000 1 32 . ��0��
�JEHICLE5 76��00 10 745 , 181
SEFVICE VEHICLE 1500U 0 U
F'�WER DISTfiIBUTION ��
C= 1i�i�niii� 1 li�q , O��p
MAINTENANCE �
FACILITY - � PER SQUAftE FOOT 45 � , 451 11 �� , 3UE
EQIJIF'MEMT 750UC� 1 75 , U��O
SUETOTAL 4 , 188 , 987
ENGINEERIN6 15% b<8 , ::48
TESTIN6 5% 209 . 449
CODITINGENCIES iV% 418 , 899
SUbTOTAL 5 , 445 . 68�
ROW AND IJTILITY RELOCATION ( ALLOCATION ) 1 , 0OO , OC�O
TOTAL b , 445 , 683
97
EXHIBIT 8- 11 : SUMMARY OF O&bl EXPENSES
SELF -PROPELLED SHUTTLE
Personnel (Includes All Overhead ix G &A) $ 210 , 000
Temporary Personnel 6 , 400
Cleaning Contract 7 , 200
Electric Power 49 , 252
Subtotal $272 , 852
Consumables (2% of Subtotal) 5 , 457
Contingencies ( 10 % of Subtotal) 27 , 285
TOTAL $ 305 , 594
EXHIBIT 8- 12 SUMMARY OF OdcM EXPENSES
TRACK-PROPELLED SHUTTLE
Personnel (Includes All Overhead cF G &A) $ 210 , 000
Temporary Personnel 6 , 400
Cleaning Contract 7 , 200
Electric Power 17 , 899
Subtotal $ 241 , 499
Consumables (2% of Subtotal) 4 , 830
Contingencies ( 10°/u of Subtotal) 2k , 150
TOTAL $270 , 479
98
9.0 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Funding and financing a people mover system in Vail was briefly examined.
Town officials have informed us that no State grants are available . Federal funding,
such as through a capital grant from the Urban ytass Transportation Administration
(UM7'A) is not considered feasible for three reasons . First, the current transit
demand for the In-Town Shuttle is less than the average (year around) daily demand
of 15,000 trips required by UMTA to even consider funding a fixed-guideway transit
system . While current annual demand for the In-Town Shuttle of 3,000,000 trips
averages 8,219 trips per day there are an average of 10 , 146 trips per day during the
sl<i season. On a typical Saturday during the ski season the demand is 14,000 trips.
Second, UMTA requires that the system not cost more than $ 10 per each
incremental new rider that it carries . As a replacement for the In-Town Shuttle the
people mover system has no current incremental new ridership . In 1995 - 96 the
incremental new ridership is estimated to be about 700 ,00 per year; therefore, the
cost per incremental new rider would be $ 21 to $ 29 for the $ 15 million and $20
million systems respectively . Third, the current administration has a policy not to
fund new fixed-guideway systems and has a record of using bureaucratic obstacles as
a means to stall even those projects that meet the guidelines. Therefore, funding
derived only from the economy of the Town of Vail was considered.
The total annual revenue required to meet both the capital and O&11 costs of
the three different people mover systems was estimated as follows:
Capital Recovery
� 15 year period at 10 percent/yearinteeest - - cef = 0 . 13147
Representative People �1over to Replace In-Town Shuttle
$ 20,000 ,000 capital x 0. 13147 $2 , 629 , 400 /year
O &M cost 950 , 000 /year
Total $3 , 579 , 400 /year
99
Starter Line People Mover to Partially Replace In -Town Shuttle
$ I5 ,000 ,000 capital x 0. 13147 $ 1 � 972 , 000
06cM cost 750 , 000
Total $2 , 722 , 000
Alternative People Mover Express Link
$6 ,000 �000 capitalx 0 . 13147 $ 738 , 820 /year
O&M cost 300 , 000 /year
Total $ 1 , 085 , 820 /year
The Town's economy is derived from approximately 1 , 400 ,000 annual visitors.
Therefore, the above annual costs spread over these visitors would be approxim ately
$ 2.55 per visitor for the Shuttle Replacement People Mover, $ 1 .94 per visitor for
the Starter Line, or 80� per visitor for the alternative Express Link. The
possibilities of deriving these funds from private and/or public sources were
examined.
9.1 PRIVATE FUNDING: CONCESSIONS
A full concession in which a contractor is responsible for providing the entire
system and operating it for a fixed amount of time is an attractive idea. This type
of approach was investigated for the Orlando people mover by �tATRA of France .
Unable to obtain all the ROW necessary to build a system that would be
economically feasible and lacking support from the major real estate holder, Disney
CVorld, \�IATRA has decided not to pursue the project. Similar investigations have
been going on for several years in Atlantic City, Las Vegas, and Boston.
Success greatly depends on whether the capital cost expenditure can be spread
between several entrepreneurs and/or businesses who are willing to take the risk of
paying for all or a part of the system , anticipating that the additional profits
generated by the System's presence will more than offset the capital and OcC �i
_ ...,: .. .__
cX�ci �viwi c .
1�0
Such an approach appears to have two major obstacles. 7he station locations
are not within the two retail areas. Also, the majority of the users, who in the
future will be comprised of a higher proportion of day skiers, spend only about $20
per day in Vail versus $ 120 6y destination skiers. To generate $ 2.55 per visitor
totally within the private sector, and not as a direct admission charge, would require
additional spending in excess of $25 per day. For the Starter Line People Mover and
alternative Express Link such additional spending would have to be more than $20
per day and $3 per day respectively. At this stage, it is doubtful that a people
mover system will significantly modify this spending pattern . The predicted
increase in the number of skiers will increase the local revenue only marginally;
therefore , the implementation of a full concession, whereby a deficit wouid not be
paid by the Town of Vail, appears unlikely.
9.2 PUBLIC FUNDING: NO CONCESSIONS
Under this option the Town of Vail would procure and own the System .
Operation could be by public agency or under fixed-price contract. Feasibility is
based on the ability of the Town of Vail to:
1 . Raise the capital needed for construction of the system .
2. Find a regular source of funding to cover yearly O& �,9 of the System.
Large capital expenditures are traditionally financed through municipal bonds.
Whether this approach is feasible in Vail depends on the Town's indebtedness level.
The preliminary cost estimates submitted in this report should be an indication of
whether such an option can be considered.
Revenue generation for O& �vt is usually done several ways:
o Fare Collection
o Grants
o Taxes, Fees, or Assessments
o Advertising
101
In the existing bus system , there is no revenue from fare collection - - an
approach which is justified in the Vail environment. Having a fare collection system
would increase the confusion and the dwell time. It would also greatly increase
station costs because of the need to control paid and unpaid passengers; increased
space would have to be provided for passengers buying tickets, etc. It also increases
O&M costs since maintenance of fare collection equipment is required and because a
special facility and extra personnel are required to handle money.
Grants do not appear likely, especially since the project would not qualify for
an UMTA grant as discussed above. The potential for a State grant has been
examined by the Town's Planning Department and found unavailable. If
aesthetically acceptable, advertising could bring in some revenue, but is estimated
to be insignificant with respect to the need.
• Therefore, the prime source of funding to retire bonds and meet the O& b1
costs is expected to be a tax, fee or assessment or combination of each. Some
examples for consideration are as follows:
Assessment -- This is usually a tax assessed commensurate with the benefit
that is derived by the businesses and property owners whose incomes are
enhanced by the System. Formulas can be derived on the basis of assessed
property value and/or gross annual income. Since an increase in the economic
level is not predicted, the "assessment" approach may be unlikely.
Property Taxes - - This would be an increase in the millage rate, earmarked
specifically for the transit system . Exhibit 9 - 1 provides an analysis of the
required increase in millage rate to completely fund the annual cash
requirements for the people mover system. It has been assumed that
procurement and construction contracts would be let in 1933 and the System
opened for operation in 1991 . 1Vhile the estimated millage rates are high,
when compared with current rates, they are not proposed or recommended .
Exhibit 9 - 2 shows the revenue generation potential for a 5 point increase in
millage rate over the 15 year capital retirement scenario.
SWiPgTa� _ _ T���ea �ar�j cajac t3Y rayani�a ra nires incre�sed soending; WhiCh
9 ---
appears unlikely as discussed above in Section 9 . 1 , or an increase in the sales
102
EXHIBIT 9-2: PO'fENT1AL SOURCES OF REVENUE TO FUND THE PEOPLE MOVER
(Constant 1985 $)
INCREASE E.XTRA
EXTRA O .SY LIFT/RESORT 5 MILLAGE P"CS
PERIOD YEAR SALES TAX 1/ TAX RATE 25 % 2/ PROPERTY TAX 3/
1 1991 1 , 217 , 000 295 , 000 768 , 000
2 1992 1 , 241 , 000 301 , 000 783 , 000
3 1993 1 , 266 , 000 307 , 000 799 , 000
4 1994 1 , 291 , 000 313 , 000 815 , 000
5 1995 1 , 317 , 000 320 , 000 831 , 000
6 1996 1 , 343 , 000 326 , 000 848 , 000
� 7 1997 1 , 370 , 000 333 , 000 864 , 000
8 1998 1 , 398 , 000 339 , 000 882 , 000
9 1999 1 , k25 , 000 346 , 000 899 , 000
10 2000 1 , 454 , 000 353 , 000 917 , 000
11 2001 1 , 483 , 000 360 , 000 936 , 000
12 2002 1 , 513 , 000 367 , 000 954 , 000
13 2003 1 , 543 , 000 375 , 000 973 , 000
14 2004 1 , 574 , 000 382 , 000 993 , 000
15 2005 1 , 605 , 000 390 , 000 1 , OI3 , 000
� NOTES: 1/ Sales taxes at 3% in 1985 were $6 ,482,000 and have been escalated
at 2% per year for actual growth of the resort.
2/ 1986 estim ated revenue of $ 1 ,070 ,000 escalated 24o per year.
3/ B ased on Property valuations given in E xhibit 9- 1 .
104
tax rate . A one-cent sales tax earmarked for the transit system would require
each visitor to spend $30 just to generate the 80r per visitor for the
alternative people mover Express Link and $ 255 to get $ 2.55 per visitor for the
Shuttle Replacement People Mover . The latter clearly exceeds the spending
rate for day skiers and probably that of resident skiers . However , if one
accounts for the growth of the resort the problem lessens. Exhibit 9- 2 shows
that with the revenue-generating potential of a 0.5 cent increase in tax rate
over the 15-year period, 1991 - 2005 , a system might be financed .
Room or Hotel Tax - - In this case a tax of 80r, or even as high as $2.55 would
be reasonable; however, it would be in addition to any tax presently charged.
Also, it would not be paid by day skiers so that it would not generate all of the
required revenue . As such, this method should probably be combined with
other methods of generating revenue assessed against day skiers.
Visitor Tax or Fees - - There are a number of ways in which a fixed amount
could be levied on visitors as follows:
o Additional tax on lift tickets .
o Additional parking fee or tax.
o "Landing Fee" to be paid by bus and limousine operators at the
Transportation Center .
If combined with a hotel or room tax, relief for overnighters might be provided
by exempting them from any such tax on lift tickets.
Exhibit 9- 2 shows the revenue generating potential of a 25 percent increase in
' the lift/resort tax rate, again for the same 15 year scenario discussed above.
Four scenarios were postulated and assessed for determining the source of
revenues to back bonds or other financing of the people mover system . Only the
Shuttle Replacement People 11over and Starter Line People Ylover were considered
in these scenarios. For each case , the design and construction project is assumed to
begin early 1983 and the system opened for operation in 1991 . The yearly cash
requirements are as given at the beginning of Section 9 .
105
Scenario I: Fund Totally by Increased Property Tax �vlillaQe Rate , Earmarked for the
System
o Shuttle Replacement - - millage rate increase of 19.74 .
o Starter Line - - Nlillage rate increase of 14. 15 .
o If millage rate kept constant then an excess would build up for buying
additional trains and/or extending the system when demand increased
beyond 1996 .
o Recommendation - - This scenario is not recommended because the extra
millage rate is high as compared with that already received by the Town .
Great resistance from property owners may be expected.
Scenario II: Fund Totally from Increased Sales Tax Earmarked for the Transit
System
o Shuttle Replacement - - Requires increasing sales tax from the present
three cents to 4.25 cents
o Starter Line -- Requires increasing sales tax to four cents .
o Holding the incremental increase constant will create excess funds for
expanding the system .
o Recommendation -- This scenario may be feasible, particularly for the
Starter Line and warrants exploration and consideration by Town officials.
Scenario III: Fund Totally by IncreasinQ the Lift/Resort Tax Rate
o Shuttle Replacement - - Requires increasing tax 3.56 times higher than
current rate .
' o Starter Line - - Requires increasing tax 2.84 times higher than current
rate .
o Recommendation -- Not recommended because it will increase cost to a
lift ticket beyond the present $30/day making Vail less competitive against
other ski resorts .
106
Scenario IV : Combination of Tax Increases
o Shuttle Replacement People Mover
- Increase Sales Tax from three cents to four cents .
- Increase property tax millage rate by 3.88 points .
o Starter Line
- Increase Sales Tax from three cents to 3.5 cents.
- Increase Property T ax millage rate by 6.22 points .
o H olding the increases in tax rate constant will provide excess funds for
e xpansion.
o Recommendation: Combinations of tax increases appear to be reasonable,
and therefore should be explored and considered by Town officials .
93 CONCLUSIONS
The annual cash requirements to fund the people mover , even as a complete
replacement for the In-Town Shuttle, do not appear excessive and may be
affordable. Funding the system totally from private sources does not appear likely.
However, there may be the opportunity to obtain private participation in obtaining
right of way and through some property owners building and owning stations .
Funding the system, by grants from the Federal or State government appears
even less likely than from private means.
Funding the system by increases in various taxes does appear reasonable.
Therefore, is it recommended that in determining feasibility , the Town officials
concentrate their efforts on these issues . Technological and physical feasibility has
been determined by other work in this report.
107
REFERENCES
l . Town of Vail Transit Development Plan Update 1987 - 1991 , dated April 1986 .
2. Vail Mountain blaster Plan, 1985 .
3. Potential Impacts of the Vail Master Plan Regarding Circulation, Parking and
Population Growth on the Town of Vail, by Rosall, Remmen & Cares, Inc.,
September 27 , 1985 .
4. Memorandum to Larry Warren from Nolan Rosall, January 30, 1986 , Parking
and Bus Utilization, Vail Mountain �taster Plan Update.
5 . Vail Traffic Counts, Centennial Engineering Inc. , March 1986 .
108
I
�
�
Lr
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
APPENDIX A
�
� .
!
�
�
�
�
�
I
M
I
� .
�
��
' A-1 -
� _
� -
��
�
�
�
SIiORT DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
RECENT DEVELOPhiENTS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK
Jtme, 1986
.
� �
�
By .
,
Daniel Dtmope
i�r
�
LEA, ELLIOTT, McGEAN & COMPANY
�
Washington, D.C.
�
�
�
i
1
�
4
�
f �
� �
� -
�
�
Y
i
�
NOTICE
Lea, Elliott, McGean & Company does not endorse
products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers'
e names appear herein solely because they are considered
essential to the object of this presentation.
�
�
r � �
�
3
�
�
�
�
t
i
�
�
r
. �
1.0 INTRODIICTION !
Modern short distance transportation systems, often referred to as "Transport I
Hectometrique" bp the French, first entered revenue service in the late sixties and
eazly seventies at U.S. airports (Tampa and Seattle). Today, several similar systems �
are operating at major airports (Atlanta, Las Vegas, Miami, Houston, Dallas/Fort
Worth, Orlando, Birmingham (see E�chibit 1) and Gat�vick), while several others are �
being planned (New York's JFK, Washington Dulles, Cnicago's O'Haze, Boston and
Pittsburgh).
. -�
EXHIBIT 1: BIRI��IGHAM AIIZPORT PEOPLE MOVER
�
:�
. ' , ti �t`} i
✓ ~c � � �
s � + �� �;
$ � ��� �
����fti=° ���
��� �;yi'� -,
r���q :�� 1 _ �� �
"."� y�� 'z'�`,s� =yg y�''-'s°'`-�• " -
�V.. ' y�, a � � � .�',��? t ��, g F� .� Y � �
� : i.�. ��� �«e � � a&w.wR� m�+Y`` '#s° �
j ���� � � � � � � : :��, �i li � e'�� � � ;�_ .
�«��.���s::� �� � ,r�.��� -��� � -•_...
����t,��srt'�sz��_� t� �' '-.._ ..:• � ` ..
��' {� r���•'S � (� '} ��� +c�... �y�`S � .":sre.r �rw�Ai �4'^^� �,�� �
4{� �� } g �tl E�� -,�T`� .::� � �
� �� (,l\ �„63, ' o,r°.' ;�,T'�y�. i
it�. � '.- � '°'�..� � � • , . ' '_.
�Ff ^ "`'�KS� �,i'� '� t .
, �� j��°""`.'^_.:� '��� �
,�"r� �` �.�,
,�.c� �� �' .°_� � ?� —
y ^ h
.c�'°`II'� "�a�' ;,ad+'� � vµ +os�...�
.a.�.��+����.w.ww',�e_..Jea:,a..n.wa..:��aevaf'�� �a....... . �v 9ib� �
�
�Iost of these systems rely on the traditional vehicle desija, wnich is self-
propelled. Furthermore, to meet the specific require�ents of the airline passenger
the vehicle is usually larger. In the early seventies, a new breed of short distance
i
transportation systems appeared. Usually quite unsophisticated in terms of both
technology and operations, several such systems were investigated to be soon
abandoned. They were not fancy enough and did not fit any of the grand schemes, -
1 -
�
� such as the famed Personal Rapid Transit systems (PRT) that were being promoted
� at the time. Today, however, an increasing number of these unsophisticated short
, distance transportation systems are entering revenue operations. This paoer will
address only this new type of system because the more sophisticated one has been
thorouohlv documented throu�h vazious studies and assessments sponsored bv the
Urban vlass Trans�ortation Administration of the U.S. DOT.
Unlike the Automated People Movers that are also found in several cities
(Vancouver, Detroit, Miami (see Exhibit 2), Lille, Kobe and Osaka), the short
distance transportation systems deployed to date rarely compete against the
, automobile as it is beyond their capabilities. The origin of their ever-increasing
appeal is twofold: first, as a complement to the automobile; and second, as an
effective and economical pedestrian aid. By allo�ing usage of remote, and thus
cheaper, parking facilities, they also complement the automobile.
EXHIBIT 2: �IIA:►�II DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER
,
I�.+ .. 4 ����� � ����t t� ��� d��T z� �t � "� , ��� t��,� e � � 'y
�II �� � ���� �,s i r� � { "��
� � ° °t 4 $ s � �� �b �� �3 {� �".
f7 f i�t� 3�.if��1 3�� �� i-y �� F� 3 � Y � a� a �$'�5 4 y2 4 i, L
F 3� � � * -,.: � � �� �t �. '�� �� (�_ b�
:# i l� } Ili �t � �, � e� � § .�.� i t j -
1I ; , �' � ��- � �� ��� ��� �
la„ << ($ !f< <; ,a�� � 3� � ,'�` �� c����� � s� }���gr [ �
a + `
ia . � ,�` �'�a a�. � £•„� f £;. a � � ,�� � "��' 3� `� �
� ;�. , �� �
_ � °°°^ � �.-��_� �,��� �� ;�
� r t: �� _! �~ 4! . �,�`�� H
c"'� � �`�ti,�� '
_ � .�a � ""�-.,.--° M \ �
i `�'���,e�+,.,�`� � _ 'M' `. r �.� �''`� x!
�� tN��� N � : ,„ �
�� . ��� � �l.v.A-l �3�`: H'; 'Fl b � � : `�. � �
�,p„F F -. .. � �r^ � �
"�$�E"'3���.���an� � � "' � t ;. ..� ��"' ��� t
� F � '�xo� -SGW���� ' �a.x..�.q�y srd� p�� ,� .•���{
�. .. �v+. �°'<' �^- � �i�xa�,_�� : :,z-,
' �s�°°+'�'�*�,,. � ., ,�� ��� �...... .. �� . .. . "' �mW::,,,�„�'^�e�.�a�s-,'.`�;�, .
y ��
� —,,,,aa,s�-_-� ����'$`3 .,t t. �`�'-�- .i � • �1{ ,� -
y,�Y � x' . .. � -... . - _"'°---�._ . ._ �� t .
.. � � � �_ � �� {�m-�i��...«..�'�S �o. . ¢a� y _� "�w---..,,� - .
T �'�'M' ` -d . �'"'�g�w+^�¢ s,�„- ,1 �#r^�",�.-�°'�"'43'�y, '.�
a�r � r��° �'
� ��qa,,, i� �l-��R'g" �Y''� ��-�f�'� � >::i t�a�f K �q.
�� '�'��� �� k ,�'c',r".Y2'�P.�_ ��'4xi?"a "'y,r�lx}^�� ����:0
� * S�tara.__ A
� As an aid to the pedestrian, they relieve the discomfort associated �vith a long
and sometimes st:enuous walk, particularly when it involves vertical movements.
�
�'
2
� �
�
In many of the most recent applications, short distance transportation stems �
SY
have been used to overcome specific difficulties. For example, the aerial tramway
that parallels the 59th Street Bridge in New York allo�ped the residents to go quickip !
from Roosevelt Island to Manhattan. Similarly, the POMA Z000, installed in Laon,
France, eliminated the difficult and long walk that separated the upper and lower �
sections of the City. There esist many other examples where such systems are
primazily beino used as pedestrian help: the Rigiblick automated funiculaz in Zurich �
(see Exhibit 3), the VEC system at the FNAC Department Store in Paris and, most �
recently, the quite spectaculaz crossing of the Mississippi River with a Pomagalski �`
gondola lift. A most recent example is the Si� system at the Villepinte Exhibition �
Fair Grounds in the northern suburbs of Paris.
r
�
EXI�TT 3: SHORT DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
IISED AS A PEDESTRIAN AID �
. ;I
�.-�."�"�� _,,:�., �r-� .
� ��� ar`.,,.� 3 � `���� .
i Z ' � K ,� ,"�5.. F�� �
�� F : ,�� � r6 �ae« ,rf fr'� q ���
�4 �I � ('; f 9 » c�, J
�•� ',� �,`��,'�. �'� � �+ar"y_ ry��,� �{
�-� � 3 � ` �, ° � `
,.� �°���.�� � .� � �.� � �
� .
, a�� � � � �. -� � -----�
�,�- g�'`�•^°'. �r ��.".q� .' �� � 3 �. '•�� �
� �"�q#5. -�" ���x�.� "=.�.#-x..r,e�• �
...C � a.yU'� R!tM ?j���+r. ff Y :�-i �
� : ...g�' �'� L ,.
�'t ���xc � '��3�;;-s F ° � � �� ^ � t
� � �'��`� TRACA OF THE FULLY AIITOMATED
�, � � -r"� ��� �' '"
�a a��� �` ..�`�„,,,�°� ��� x'� ' RIGIBLICK FUNICULAR IN ZIIRICH -
� �„ ;� �� �� ,� ��� "'��;
r,� �� � g a� ` .:� g ��� ""'�'" /'�4 ` � . s
��':';�..�°'_��s" ;� - r r�^..�.�..�'�,,,,�..�" �;�
r ,vr "a y...g• � �....,,� i�-�-- �+�°p'.a'� �o y...
��� �+4 �' �'�'� �#"°�. � � ��`` � .�':�' � �� �
�„s;,�a ,�;:� 4"is ��3.-��y a 1 �, '.
,*�+x+„'°�. "'s�a. � 'a 4 ;w;�.�
3p,A i� �, �
)+&+�„°`. �����'� . �..'��..e�.,.++ � �E � � �
.3, �?.�" a 'E��'" :� �..a�f.��.7�
�. ��`°"�-.....: ���� xa �
r�,"���� ,..�,,;� :.�r�� "� _ _
'-�A°" �r�.�� ..
�J':`'�'',,�+,�"^�` .r:; ��.�'a � �,.� —
S �� ��� _ � �',� �� � .
( a ..,�� ��� :�i1 'S�i7.�i� . i��x�
�*�f:g='b+�� ."'1 :'� _'.�.�." f} � ��.. —
�*.'�x a-rt�� "'•' �� '� �e�`y
., 3�' •'�ri� \ ey�.� �:
�N.A�`Y �'.i�'*�Y :..`,, ,µ\ � ■
� �'t k�'�'�-�f y��� n' >.r�` � j ■
.t�,,:..p�a-w ,�
'�� 'S :q"_ S y, ' d
'��,[,��_'� :'i ,P ?-!,� ((;$� ." �
"«��,� '1�A V �'} ijl
���" V�i,�:.� } � .
"�_ ��`�w.` �.:£m'�,.�� °,�".�.� . ' .
�3�' - -.f � s�#"�e" .tic..�i a`c. �r� :'. ' . �
...� ..... r ��w�Y -.,,,�*k �swi.6� JG..+.+�..�...�,.�'.]
_ .�x°" ..��
3 �
�
. i
�
�+-
� In Section Z.O, the major characteristics of short distance transportation
�- systems are identified and the various systems installed to date are classified and
� presented. Finally, Section 3.0 briefly addresses the potential U.S, market for these
systems.
� 2.0 MAJOR CHAR.ACTERISTICS OF SHORT DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
While quite different in terms of technology and configuration, most of the
short distance transportation systems in operation to date have several
characteristics that differentiate them from traditional transportation systems.
These differences can be grouped into the following categories:
o technical,
0 operational and
0 others. "
These differences are identified and discussed hereafter.
2.1 TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES
,
The majority of short distance transportation systems have most of the
�
following attributes in common:
�"
o The vehicles are passive
� o They operate at low speeds (30 mph and belo��)
� o They are automated
r_
o They have unsophisticated suspension syste:ns
� o T'ney have very few amenities such as air conditioning
o The capacity of the vehicles is generally small
# o They usually have a very small turn radius
�' o They do not have switches
Le
�
�
' 4
�
� �
��
. ; �
r
The first attribute means that the vehicles have no on-board propulsion and �
braking systems. This implies that the power to drive or stop the vehicles is T
provided along the wayside. Depending on how the wayside propulsion sqstem is ?
configured, all vehicles travel at the same speed between two points along the
guideway or vehicles all travel at a specified speed at any one of many guideway T
locations. An interesting feature of track-based propulsion systems is their ability
to negotiate high grades without adhesion limitations. ' '�
�
The various propulsion system configurations currently in use are generally
related to how the wayside p"ropulsion system is distributed and how the power is �
transferred from the wayside to the vehicle. Exhibit 4 presents the three major
classes of propulsion system configurations that are found on short distance propul- i
sion systems to date. �
.
EXHIBIT 4: CLASSES OF SHORT DISTANCE TRANSPORTAZTON SYSTEMS
PROPULSION SYSTEM �
DISTRIBUTION
ALONG TSE R
TRACK DISCRETE UNIFORM `�
TRACK/VEHICLE
POWER TRANSFER ,
INTERMITTENT DISCRETE MIXED �
.
CONTINUOUS (*) CONTINUOUS
.
* 7
This is the typical configuration of an active vehicle (on-board system). _
s
2.1.I Discrete Propulsion Systems
In a discrete propulsion system, the propulsion elements are installed at f
specific track locations to produce specific traction forces to meet acceleration, �
deceleration, cruise speed and grade requirements. The propulsion elements are `
activated only while the vehicle is above them. _
,�
�
�_.
5 -
� ' -
___ _ _ �
� . -
�I
�, ` In such systems, the level of power transferred at a given guideway location is
�r'�
determined by the configuration and characteristics of the propulsion elements.
� Consequently, at a given location, all the vehicles travel at approximately the same
4�
speed. Thus, in effect, the o ideway is speed programmed, and allows regular stops.
�I However, deviations from the nominal speed are somewhat restricted because the
� I ro ulsion s stem laid discretel alon the track is rimaril desi ed to o erate
P P Y � Y g � P Y � P
t�'- at approximately the nominal speed. When an unscheduled stoppage occurs, restart
� of the system can be difficult. In such systems, vehicle movements are independent,
F - implying the necessity of an anticollision system along the entire track.
This propulsion system implementation relies primarily on Linear Induction
�c Motors imbedded in the track. Speed control is obtained by either vazying the pole
r nitch or by varying the frequency of the supply voltage.
� The first a roach, used on the Telebus system in France (see Exhibit 5),
PP
Mi implies that the speed profile is built into the track. Also, as it is physically
i
k impossible to build linear induction motors achieving speeds below 4 m/s at
industrial frequencies, acceleration and braking of the vehicles generate large losses
in the reaction rail. In these areas, fine speed control can be achieved by
controlling the motor input voltage. The WEDway syste� at Houston International
Airport uses a similar approach. Voltaae modulation is implemented through
�' microprocessor-based control systems.
�
EXHIBIT 5: TELEBUS TRACK - LIMS ARE DLSCRETELY
LOCATED ON TSE SIDE OF THE BEAM
� _ -..
�
_a
� ��,> • , :...y-:--;
�.,,.;� ` {�=�-_ �.
r �_��` '".�r � � �:.
"r`tim{-.�..� �: �'4'�- ��� . �
.e x ���� � � �- �
i �y ��
�;;,, �, ,�».
" `'m""'.,,❑
•.ai.t�..i.�'ri-� . ��
.. . .. . . .
y �> ':,,�.a^e.Y,
,. �'Y ti.�,l`�.
�` �. . , .. `'
1.
y �i�- yi_ :°_ #�+�? f .; � , _ � . . .- . � b.�,;;Y'ai
.r '_F'3»a +. ' �" r`
�tr�C,� � � -1;'t�„E,1�,� " . �. -���J:T..
^'"�� -'�..��� w '�� .a-"��� t y1?d''L„�+�''3�'' •�L.�W�4 �
r... �. _.._.. a . +al¢�(' �� at5.'�'Y� '�It.-^r• �! ".°'.�
� � �� t�Y'M �s y�.F' �t� �,__t..' 'Y"1 JJ sf�.E� �` "� . ..
��. I y� '��l'-L �r�T .''.
�: ��_ ` +' .�_S f, t�f' :�'�'C�`�°�'.��r- } �:�:
�7�" � ���` :.�a.:��'• 4";�^�"- :� �."`s.�,
f�� � � ��'?'�''aF�'i. :��y� �,�, r �`����.��
h
! � � � �.�,'_
� �. ��.'� r:. ,�..���, �� , ,.
-�+ - _r�: ,�•�" M�� �;,�.. � i;,
,� 6
_ � .
. �-
The second type of speed control system, variation of the frequency of the -
supply voltage, has not yet been deployed on a short distance transportation system. -
While more flexible, such an approach would require that each linear induction
motor be fed through its own inverter. This would be extremely costly and could not
be justified from an economics point of view. ` -''
�
�
2.1.2 Continuous Propulsion gystems �-
In a continuous system, the propulsion system is present at all track locations.
Depending on the type of operation, shuttle or collapsed Ioop, the propulsion system
�
may consist of one or more independent systems that operate over specific elements
of the guideway. For example, on a collapsed loop system, the interstation �
propulsion system is different from the stativn system. This is because the vehicles �
located in the interstation are all operated at the same speed. Thus, as they need to *
slow down when entering a station, vehicles must be transferred to a different �
propulsion system.
�
�
In systems operating on-line stations at short headways, it is not always -ry
possible to stop a vehicle at a platform. In this case, the vehicles are decelerated to �L
a speed of approximately one foot per second. During the headway, the vehicle
must move the distance of its own length plus a safety distance so that the next
vehicle can safely enter the station. -
Such systems generally require anticollision protection in the station area only -
as, in the majority of cases, the propulsion system used in the interstation zone
relies on cable technolo �
gy. Since the vehicies are attached to the cable, their
physical separation is always ensured (see Exhibit 6). As shown in Exhibit 7, cable-
drawn systems can be grouped into two categories, based on the type of orip used
(detachable or fixed). �-
Generally, systems with detachable b ips aze used on collapsed loop operations i
with short headways. In this case, boarding and egressing are accomplished while
the vehicle moves at low speed. Systems utilizing fixed grips are primarily used on -
shuttle operations.
�
7 -
� •
�_�
� EXHIBIT 6: EXAMPLE OF CONTINIIOIIS PROPULSION SYSTE�+S -
� THE GONDOLA LIFT
� �+�'�?^m a�°>;�x.��n;�;�. -p, �..-- ��;� � :.-��,...
�>�
_- J.f 5� " Y, " v-,.
, _�..., �._ ! ,¢ �f�' . .
�' ,3 /�� ' � :�.
r �,
�y. �.. . �'�.� � .'
G ,_ .� �" , . ' ) .: .
.,.� . �•, ,....v' .. .'z"�
/:. f
- '�, . �./ �.` .. �
/ i Y �y� ,.�L/ i{ »//�a' �
.
y,.. y �O/J N'/F/f�^� " �i / : / /� � /d F � . .
"_ . ��.. /� // . .
/G / ; � / /�� .
fh
/ y
%� 1�'.. *l" �� �ii/.
� �
�.s�� c�'e � y ✓��
y„ '
7 '9 s.a' : ��' .
.a/ „wl a- � . i' �A ,. /
r q ""' ,�iG ��i
Y • i �f
. � ,� +t� . n-nn�� x � rk
� , � '/ C� °�� `� /mYa4 , 4 ii 6�
� � '✓+- /j f' /iN' � K( ., .
� „ y/ / 9//%�//P �' .,�
� �///! Y'/.�:'� /� .�� ( J � 9
�k' / ✓�� � �_/- ' : �/ �
� � .t�/��{ , � j
/// ��.� _ '. .. � / y ✓ �
� � n��-i%%a �� ,a� � - � .�y � � �
� ,��� ,%,� ; , °'v� ,;;i y ,
��i�'`° r"",..��r � �� �� s '- �s t i
�
,:
;
,
;.' -s: 'ry s�.. j0� : . - �i
�..,,� ��_, �� �" t:� ��'�' �. �s . ,
t'�' y° .s . ` rt �w s'L,.; � �;� �i�,,.""'^.-^�-.,�
s r <6��' 2- "-.�.-�: .x.s' �'�'
-:; � 3 : : � n� . � .
'- ,� X�� ... � a� ' .' � , � ,
� '� � � ,z� � �� � ' �
�a gW"`rs,a �'�'.�i r� � r���i°l�L,°� -".,' ,� /.�y,� e.a�nv�3�� f ��' i� '4�
�",��., r �.�-�,�:e� �y 's �"`"`^�>�° � � ��,
�° �e,�, ��,�. �
a�«a.;�.� �x�.!i��v"`�,rret^�«:.i�, r
�
� To date, a lazge number of systems relying on cable propulsion are found
throughout the world. The largest group consists of the detachable monocable
• gondola lift. While these systems are mainly found in ski resort areas, they do fulfill
a specific short distance transportation need.
With respect to urban applications, several cable-drawn systems have entered
�� .
revenue operation in the last three to four years. Among them, and various fixed
� and detachable o ip syste:ns. These are briefly discuss2d hereafter.
' FiYed Grip Spstems
, Several fixed b ip systems recently entered revenue operations in the U.S. and
overseas. These include the three VSL cable-drawn, rubber-tired shuttles (two at
Circus Circus in Las Vegas, Nevada, (see Exhibits 8 and 9) and one in Memphis,
a
Tennessee); and the three cable-drawn, air-levitated O"I'IS shuttles (one in Tampa,
�
�
�
� $
�
�
�
CABLE PROPULSION
TYPE OF CRIP
DETACHABLE
PERMANENT
GRIP ACTUATION MANUAL
AUTOMATIC
NORPIAL CONDITIONS
• WHEN CRIPPINC ON SLIP
CABLE NO SLIP SLIp
TYPE OF JAWS FIXED ROLLERS
FIXED ROLLERS
�
TYPICAL SAN FRANCISCO NO LONGER
APPLICATIONS POMA 2000 SK OTIS SHUTTLE
CABLE CAR USED
' DETACHABLE FUNICULAR
GONDOLA LIFT
TELERAIL INCLINE
REVERSIBLE AERIAL
WOODLING PATENTS TRAMWAY
JOHNSON PATENTS �V
,
NEWTON BROWN
PATENTS
WOODS PATENTS ,
LOW SPEED MAIN CABLE; MAIN CABLE• �
EN'l'RAINPIBNT . SEPARATE SEPARATE NONE
USL GRIP AS � USE GRIP A,S SYSTEhlS
CLUTCfI SY5TEMS REQUIRED
CLUTCH
��� � , , ,.. � �'� � j I
I .. � � � � � � . � � � ._._.� ,_.__i , _
� �
�
,�„�,,,,,,. , .,.,�,-�.-A.�-x_,��- � °..,,...�.*,.-=�
� ¢�°� �� r � �< - .>
g�,..K�'�''s3"a` � b *e`s,�'-$ ,. ✓ �_���r,�,,,'a.r'°�,"""` �:-�
��
F'-xy....Y:�s'G�`.���'�%rt�'_�.�''r'� J��"''�"+�-
��'hs..'.��.., � �',��'� '�.'y�i�'-�"^'� �ifG+/._ '_
r T � ���:��� .� _ - ���
� � - � `���, s,a2. ��-�.
{�h� Y q.�I�g�^�EY+ __�!�
* �� . . � `�
��,
— y��.:_..x ,�=,N +�. � ,:s�f-�'. `
� �'..... � _..,, . _ °
�'� y 1�"T,�„i;' � � -���^�-
. '��� 7 y`'�t'��.;�._:�.��
� .,
�
�- �:.�:�..�-- __ _ �_ ��
, ;"'� �S -���y�cc�.��.�.;� �
�,.,,,,,...,.,,: �.� �.. . . ����r, ,..
� _y�r�- 1 .g�,,�4r � q� �
� �'�� � � �����d'��$k _��.�aF�
S�
��w. � �"� .. y " 3"Zm,��' >w10.���:���
. :-��.,�.,_F�`� " � :� _ � Ex�rr s: ��ai, v�w oF vsL
� � ��:�r�„� �� � ._�-� �.� �,,,.,���-;,,� CIRCUS CIl2CUS SYSTEM
� f �
�,� > � �` �'������3�.�-�
� � �
:�. �" ,��,..��,, :�
�� b � ;
� ,s �? -� �.�a �4 �rsyg. ��r:�g�� �°�'i� �y',�Y
f .{.'.__+ tya n�` � �'}�t by�e
"� " .a.��..� ..lA .i .
_ n';c'r'°��� �r � ��,>} • ���i
� ��.�� ��$�" '�`"� �...e�
�q A��' ��� _,,_�� � �` �Y .��3°°,`�+���
� T°7'� �t°""X��� � �� �,an Y ia �..
� ,'� ��
v'� �'-- �°w;"°w�' ,.�.t-,�'
� � r �-',�„ ,,.���'�..z ���° t ` �
;r , —�� „m - s�"c,"�°'� '6. r `
. a � � �������� i�� '..
. .. � � �� ��� � ,.p.� '�� ;�� "4 :A yw
.. ' - ����� .. �, � ��� � �' ,� r
,g °��' �,! au' ', '-� r� ' �x t y �',
. �� ..9 ,��,,.:aa+o"�;�,.�.,� �� � n� �k__.,�„�-_.x�
. ��� � � � �� �����
t_ � � ��
--w`"flau9a. "�' �c� s „h 'a ; �3w s .
�N ���u .*a�_ 3 ��� � �.
or
� �i \b 3 �� � � \."�� [_��„��
v��
! �
. � ...�.� � � � �, � �
i
r„�yy _ .� ^� ��., a.h>, l
� -.:'�,'^,e F'� �
� �TM.r•e.��� ����,�_ ., . .. , ev.. �� � �
� �
� .^+»..a+.m."+'T+ts F�lRe��^� ' - � �l a
�, ... _ .. 4��
f
i �.Y� ••• 7 �� � axbtr- 14},y q?,
� �.{ 3>�,, �'`'. €z t f y �-t` .,-wi..�,�+-.�� k... �
't� ��i 3.¢ s' ,y., `�`yr+�„_. _�' .
�1.� . } .`. ,.� R��t� .
��� E'.,r 'f�l.^.ri .e..#� ''�;t't�kn „ u �„�� •! � ,j Y�7[
� r ` ' --rrtt
v,�.� r� ��ss � 3. /hi '.�.Y. �1�`a� � lt,4�E�;,:�- �
�- � 3,ti`s�W,xi-� �� ,� �„r°�'�'s t`h.:... R'�� � 1��_ '", � '-�?
7r.+-y'�;tses •S ''" �r "
e �r.�„��__�„•3r4�a, t'y�'�t �.�+ • ��} J �'��� !" ,
. ....y...-. .�x �' �,>a y.,�.e h w...,-°�>r',j �+ �.... �
�, .�h,-�'� �.T-�,? c f, „�,� ,„_ i�� t .',�� ' fll �.,;.-.»
."�.°` �i'i`s..�`r�.�"-s�`��a�.�.s.,.��,[y.�- 4�`. �„��,taF, a�,..'s' s : ,.�,,r�.: � ir� ���.
_ r• +°�p"m"^
s,4�+. ` �,�''F.:��.� v' ::..� y� r �^
� � ""'�1" r�.. :�. .„ _„ '�. ,b;.a..a'., ,;,�s„ �s.�-''"
E� �����. . Y -� �:�:.
�,�. �,�;,,�.p-.:
._..:�w-;::.-
EXHIBTT 9= vSL CIRCUS CIIZCOS SHUTTLE-
� A VEffiCLE ON ITS GIIIDEWAY
�
� 10
�
J l
Florida (see Exhibits 10 and 11), one in Serfaus, Austria, and one in gun �
City,
Bophuthatswana), Besides these recentlq opened spstems, rehabilitation of old
inclines has taken place in the cities of Pittsburgh (Monongahela Incline) and �
Johnstown, both in Pennsylvania.
. �
EXAIBTT 10: OTIS VEHICLE AT HARgOUR LSLAND �
_. . ,�� �
��_ _. ��� k „�
� � �_� � � . . . �
�,,,: z ':.Z b " � p.� . .
..m:n ,���'„�. � _�� � '
-. �S S � �� ..
�`� r-Aam»�'m�d�� . � �
��, � ; ����y��� .
�� �_,_ , ' ' - .' . _ �
�,r.y", '°.�,
.: y�<,. . , .. . ..; ., . , .. „
s�:;�a.,n:.�.�,»;+�wcs��.��_ �� �. .�. � ,,:. .. `" •, ;:
� ,._...<: ..,,,.�:,� d_.,,_.,.�,.�c .>�....,...�....�..o.,.,�,,,,;� .L
?�--w,�-� �
�,�n°��. ,:ar'�� � '°� ,
� ����� � ��y�� � � �
� w � �`� j�� m�T� �
}' aas rx
��§�+�....-_. _ s �^zu��.... ,� Z �: # '"�t+ �
� ���- - ��~ �'���� /j 4 �y� '�•� —
�� yg^ �4� �H y�`S'�-i ,� 3
EXHIBIT 11: � °; � :� -: �- ��'�"�� �a�� F��' �� �.~ ; .� �
�
DETAII. OF TFIE PROPULSION '� .;; t�.;£`�'� -�3`�,�, �
SYSTEM OF Z� O� . t � - —
CABLE—DRAWN, ��� °`�'�°�;° �� � �����' �e
���� � ��:.
;� ������ �����. �;�
AIE2-LEVITATED SHUTTLE � ��:� ' � � . _ �
.,� a ���� �
�
� .���� �a _
= �. ��� �.. � �
- x
'� '�i.,�+S' c 3 y"t � ;
��"x� l:.k...�� �� �s^ � �1��'� s .
. � '. � t � `3��� � —
� �fn`'�" ..._,...-:.y�.,
'';i� � c�'u�'���. ��* +a: �: ..,-
` ~ �;� � � �.. +����1��T ``�t[+;'`
�• *.%r �� ,� y' Z_�
�� ' � ■
.� r '� �^r..��,_ �.. S %9t�
/,r o,i+ tia '+...
� 7 �,.,.:
:,?♦ ,�� �r.71"" 3 r��vb0..��. 4'�
Z• .��� 4 .�.i��j 'K,
. '::.�.' ., L..�3�ar+�i��" 1 . .
y 's..•.. ,�.,'�-� �'"� . : -
n"S z �:, s +yy � . ;� .
�� ''� '"� _*��, � ,,� �� • -
=: ,�`r ,k�,x rt �-j��s+>` � �... J
���lE � -�� Fa-sr�r -a.•�.. �'!`.'� � -
Y -d t j
11 �
� �. :;�; � -
r -
Detachable Grip Systems
r—,
� As with fixed grip systems, several new systems entered revenue operation
recently. These include the SK (one in Villepinte, France (see E�chibit 12), and one
? at Expo 86 in Vancouver; the POMA 2000 (Laon France); and the Mississippi Aerial
i
Rapid Transit (Expo 8� New Orleans).
.
EXHIBTT 12: SOULE VEHICLE
�- �, ,-�,�.,�„�„�-, �� ,��,,� �_
�2. z�� �°°`.�
, � '� ,
an
a
i' �� ��
� �� �� ��➢`.; � �
�� � � �� s A °la ��'^h�. t�� ��
� - �f� �r� � �
. F �3 �� � g�Y �(av,f :"'� � _
�` � � �
�' � � �Z �.- �
. ;� � 5 ,���,n .(.� �3i 4 4 � �,
� f �,�p� 'S )�sT .i� � _. � ��, #
� � �� {�
� ➢ ���� �� � �
� � ;,:� �: � { � �� t.
� � �;k ;�t = �b� ,�� '�.� � � _
s � . > j �
c
,� = _� k � `s q � �,
. . �J s` � � ,.� s" ,r+ „m'.vn3� -"� °n.°' .� +{j ka � i_ :
. f�� ��'�T"� �;�k%6*^'°��� �� ���3 � -y��kf R. i
. i� x �,�. � x � � '�0 � .y, �.: ?
, . �.x��Y � . .r iE l .w � ,�k' � � �' t
� � '�,�.'ak '�, '�' ` ,,w.,� °-, .. �� .
� '. y � �'e �.
'p�-" �fi� �= r. � 1 F .• _z. �, :
� z; ; i
t� r �� . � , i ;. � � 'i ,-� �� �E �
�- f�� � '�� ,� �� � ' .•^�° ,y `s� r�",S
�-� ��� �•'�:�.� '�i �� �°�s�„""`�-,`"S�i.�� ��� � � "�e--T t�"'�'
��` '� t a .5,,,,�',°`� �, .s x �.. � �'°"'*k'�.,�w. 1.�.��-�r �
��' j
� ' "=
, ��,.°"."R�F. �..'�s,..'°�'` . ...��°"sa'��Y �:v� �'9tY...t� .. ��..�."—�'�'e'..
��� .��°, : , '�=t� ��" +:;�
��"4� `� .„< 3_v. �.
# � �
� � �� �.,Q.o�^"' � '4°'fcr.,�4�� �'�'�i�+a�� '_.,� ti�&0.
� Y, .���> E ..x�-aa.
: t �3 a-':"r�1"sa, �
> _
� FR� g��R 3, wnr...,,x��,,, Y K
.F'+r° �.°�.
T �
y a'�cr�.i3 ���+YlFivv�a' "�`Yli�.�:�i:x _ o _
�
Other U.S. Developments
� Other applications of such systems are being considered in Cincinnati,
- Pittsburgh and St. Louis. In France, a new system called the Delta V is under
development. Its potential use �vould be as a pedestrian aid in the long and
� circuitous pedestrian tunnels of the Paris �fetro. Also, the SK is being e:cplored as a
potential feeder system to the Paris Subway at the Creteil Terminal.
�
�"
��, 12
� �
�
Besides cable-drawn systems, another frequently encountered continuous short -
distance transportation system is the moving walkway. However, because of their —
low speed of operation as well as some limitations �vith respect to grade and tangent �
alignment, their use is limited. Accelerated moving walkways were proposed to
eliminate the speed penalty associated with the traditional moving walkway. Two �
major systems underwent substantial development efforts. The Speedaway
developed by Dunlop and the TRAX developed by the Pazis Transit Authority (see
Exhibit 14). To date, neither of these advanced systems has been tested under �
revenue operation. The TRAX system to be installed in both Pazis and Hoboken,
New Jersey, has run into reliability problems due to its complex handrail. Besides -�
technical problems, safety issues related to the risk of falls during deceleration
were never satisfactorily resolved. �`
EXHIBIT 13: PROTOTYPE TRAX DURING TESTIIJG '
�
�'"�"� �°� ��'� �' �..._..�...�,.,,�;��� r
� t�, �r; ' ��a � � � ��� �
�' � �� �,�� � �y��'�'���' �
.
a'�^--.,• ,�`�, a a' "��' x -°�°{ �'' �'�� �;�� a,,:
:i st�°':a^�. � ` �. t�� , � �p qg � '°�&�,q�. ��� � ..
� �T
.��,i.r-� �� i .�r�c„'"u �� � ��'`,�� � � �'� A a`
� �� V�� ;.ec�'"'.cr.��'�,.�, e a�_ � t ,n� a; �P-. � f ,;,� `
� . 2 S
�c -: : � � ,�� � ;
: ` . ::�' ,�"�����€ � ,�A� 'e�:��f �i �,
�� � �. e� �r # .���-,� �t°„�
°,��.��,.. �Y�, � f � �� ..�s � `
>; ' ,,� �
- ;z' ; .� x " aM�` �-
pP'"°�"'�<ia.s< i
� � i '� � �
'� I p� \. ��� �� S '�� C
F�� �`g � ��y� � �4.m � �
�: S � h� � .
x it� ri
� :° �+'� +�` +� , 3 �""" �
"�/ � �rt° °. � � �
, ��,.�, � t � �,�i �� � �
, �r .r',. ry� < � !� �? �� ; � —
� �� � y�T � �1� �g� ^xNYk
�r �= �Y� � x.
Y � � i r �•' � C
°!�a� ��` s,� 5" �"' �
„�y � � '� . �' '� '-�r � a-�� �� .�� >.
-.�* . � ,t e ey . ..� r : �` �"�"°"r+w -r �� �.��.i� :
'!i :�> y 'E�� �K _Y ��, � ��� 4 T X � �'.- .f. i
`� �"3 �i ar. S {J� Ji i "fs".{� 9,. �� � rf ._ q, � �
,x_.. 9 .y�4 ...a � ; J� � � �x���a_g„^cs �b � ,.� _
� �:� �
$".,o�' . C .� 4'� .i^'.'�e.'b '.��MlM nY t . ¢
,�- �iS,n ''� � :��� Y°:o��� �''` ,�r��� r,«-rj5� (�t `�
a�' . � ,d'.+' ,�,yY"; n r� r ;�,,s"° � �°"'' ,�.
r . � �.,,, }'r �,," �.�,��.,,�',1��. �,t .����:4.�' ��C��n.s�a..`�`•s.,.y".+"°', _ '��`- .
� f '- a t. f � ..1' 1 �:1.Rt r4�. 4.�� �
� c��e�..A'�.�.yi � '��� !k5 xf +.'�.,-a'�.,t� �.���� F.fttt t�F 7 ",.`_ �4 '''`; ,y> .,
� �'�r`naaa�'a.y.cSk � E At,,afj +� s
't ��r. >-z" � �,, ,r. x ,:.'�" ,���•sR.rayr�y���'(j�Y �tcL.;�,, '�� �� �..;�
:<._��_.� _ — ��� '.il{ �ylRi�.�iSL�J.� � ,A 4 ,T+cl�r.. 'Y"'.A*F ti�4 '+ �" -1 ��
• r,�e! i
' �
13 �
. �
{ .
, 2.1.3 Miaed Propulsion Systems
+ —�
�, These systems are a combination of two types previously discussed. In
general, they have a continuously distributed propulsion system in the interstation.
� However, the propulsion elements aze only turned on when the vehicle is above
them. In such a system the anticollision function can readily be implemented by
controlling which elements of the propulsion system can receive power and thus be
activated by the vehicle. Like the discrete system, the speed of each individual
- vehicle travelino in a given interstation can be different.
In these systems, the traction system forces can be generated through
� compressed air, or electromagenetically through a long stator lineaz induction
i
motor, or a long stator synchronous motor. This last type of propulsion system is
T being demonstrated in Germany on the M-Bahn system. The M-Bahn's system is
designed for a different market segment and is not a short distance transportation
' system. However, its propulsion system demonstrates a possible configuration for
`„ short distance transportation systems. .
.
Another approach to a mixed propulsion system consists of discrete propulsion
elements propelling a continuous system to which the vehicle is attached. The VEC
• system, which was operated for several years at the FNAC Department Store
� parking lot in Paris, is typical of such an irnplementation. The system operated at
� speeds of 10 m/s on a tortuous line with both high grades and small turn radii. The
vehicle was entrained by a deformable moving belt which acted as the secondary of
, the lineaz induction motor (see E�chibit 14). Stators were located at discrete
locations along the track and were continuously powered. T'he system operated at
�
low headways (below 15 seconds) on a collapsed loop. In the station, vzhicles �vere
entrained witn slow-rnoving belts (see Exhibit 15). The small vehicles could carry
t�vo passengers and had no doors.
i
i3•Y
�-_"
�= 14
_ �
�
. - �
EXHIBIT 14: VEC HIGH SPEED PROPIILSION SYSTE\T `'
. �
���
E, x.>ct+ �ak����� �"}"� .r..�,�'s'�r•�i° �. s`y�,.$7"'"'�^"'"F'�w , .r,.�, • . � � � . -ui
e�wq`"��v.�� z +� „ra *�++""^'T'�r1�ri, � ..
✓.r�1-�„� y��'
�,r a�at4. � �SL ;�.c � .,7'r„� a � -� E. s � .
�s.��s�l"",�������r���`E .e�-r��..�,�^^' tr�t�n a� � 1.�� ��_.. ..�:�i q . � '- � i.. '�
T
.� �' ��S;,�i.^�i��si`"'�'"°?r:.ia�e`�,`t�"�� i� ���'A` .c.- r e4 �
��'���,.,..�::�::..�:+��:�'�.�%.��C. � �=��Z.�{," ��.�+mr�l':�;�.��`1�:..-...:-�. , �. '��. .•,� �
ff+�z � . � , , .
�ar "T' .�Si.�4�E.� ��s r�*�"� ":I.*�_F �x ?C.itrf+*+•+a�' z�sf,�z es-+r -'rr y� -d1
� �,�"� ._, �`�r& -r .������m� � � -� �� "'� � �,.� �' `i� �ss.w.xr,',y
m -�.`�s w�"�y.u•g.-� %'�t�u.�a�z.��d��.�.,a� '� .ra «a .r ...
z�;,.,,,y.°��.,.r3t �',�'. - *-„w� .r+,+aY "",�� �"'
* ,. ; � �2,.�, �,,} " �!,�, `# ��f � t, �-
�����F} `.kr 'e n.+�. ,y„�v+,c�� � hrt.�t[ ..�` , t _ •
4jr�3,.���t2 a�,,a. 1'... -:,�, ".t .»+--...> ,.... ,. . � .. . _..�3 . d�•�,o , w -�b � ...x.,..
� � � � � " � � .�
�p,."�„ _..,�...��- ',�,.`�'"°„"„ '�,e�...�....�w �r ; _ �S � ; �^'ir"'. „,.T,�. �a'�+
',�;: ' ,�y�;v ,, r-. "c"x` n'�"��.,�zm,�€� � ; ?
�' L;^�°'....:,,w, °3.=.:,+ef .�,5?L•+�e'�� �� . .at% I
iT��"« , : . «s-,- ..
�.r---� %' ' . ._ _ ..'�.��•�__-__y �� _ ___� !'
�2 ���`
—� ' «+b�i.oY�"s�";�'w .�.,.'."'""�_ �+a
...........___. ............
. . � . .._ , . ". _,.-.sY.+.rr...r,�.L,« ,. �
"� ��. :. c r,��.<°r.s€..: A ��"� � fis4� ,�5,`�rr1 's° +n„ ;3ai. ..
�"` ��� ���.s � i.�- „y 's� _ �.,�s .: 3..�... '
� ..�..,Bb�rYiT ��I.. �?S.. i.�� 4
} �N '�?" �� ��+.a
.. ,x� �,�'S' <'.r� - ,v. ��.f'"3 ✓�'�""„q.^.�syg.. � —.
��.. ;:-�sad.ava�..d.'���'was�sr-- � 4 � '3~ }� -
�e-�. . , _y.. �.ue._ e.
A`.�YY�?�e�+.�+n��sw ���"7�. ; �
1
{�.:. �t f -.J .-� .'�), �
' -n-,,.� i
L_
,+
l
EXI�IT 15: VEC VEHICLES AT THE FNAC MONTPARNASSE STATION _
3
� �" � n- �` ,8 ,� ��"�"�,
�s � ��. - i.� �Y�
:S "'� ,�L�.e M'�P �+�v ��[. � ��� � _
�
� . . �1 �o�� ..... ,..�-. '�. '. _
arec��.vw...a s.sr.--Nwrve..<,w�c . •: ,�•. � ,•.
- br4�x+m.'iS..:. . . ., ��a'��ra .. ._...� s ..a � �:, —
. -��. �f �.�„- ,yW�
. . .. ._�� _.¢����� �
.. .�{�Y =B!R
� . " `T9"�C�w�`.'
k �t"� ����^ _
.: � �� �� . ��.
� ... �^� d. �s � � ��„ A , _
• � ,+a '
y� .. '.�� 'Y�'Y .x.L',+� . 4 'e3, .M�"r�.� �t %;: �� t^`%��r�'�.'qa a ..
�v� m � � °�r 3
�ea� w,� � � �:��;.� �, ;�� iA$ „& '. ._
,., �._ .. �ve �� _ � �. �4`°.��a r � : `� L 3 f
t�A � ' � � ;�"�x �' M
�. � ;, - �'"� �� f„ r �„n,. �"� �tl � '
-�° e � '� � �°, � � ��� r�
*��f,'S � R - Fa '
�'y. /� t .. � d F��� �'�,.�� �3�� f r"� �1 .�
Fy' ri-,,,Z,' � :� � . .� ,"�t '�.,j�.�+€�*xA�[, f r y � ,
�"%�''.. Y�x�£„��.1� �� 'jR: � ���T¢q ���i� ➢ �v�a�F"
;:v'j �� . w' �;�j.. t � ,.Atl'�''f,r�aF�".�FJ_Yr°,b. Ffi _: "-
.<-^`�r y',..,+.,-r �..�,,���i"`i` :`" .�� � s�{•s.�.r��,�� t r'''�x•r,��" -
rXG f`�yJay�+�6 �r �- ,.�'7 t',s�,4n t � �/'��,�tf'...�7$�'�f o-�+r .f m c- 1,,
/�- !'�' -.4 R� �
�+�bsr�-atF�-.��,o,"„��k����,��y,���,�-t a,£'r�:.a' • +"��M'���Rq;a,b�S l � ''�r,x�'."E`r^r.` �''� '
-+„k it-wr -1��"#c,�ula", �aF��'�.`"6��t°.s�17^i.���-rr''.`,s',a� :.,Cw+2rr�t.s. �z
��73...'°�{t�.,-;yw,u�+ti_°.:"+'tS-�'.F°`3�u?^�,�..�'-r:� E�.� a3�+d��da$� ..%'S �s�.;T r �r-
�y �" � i` ...r � ��r ,°•,.�,.'� ���.ac�.'S -�i� a �� '� r i�'.e. .
��y..:,-r r�.++`?s�' .e:c �:,+,ae°� ,§ T�S y g. z.�. .
.«Y � v; w.. �r� �.•r,�-"
' � ',.9 :Y._�-:sx'�`'S,.`�.,.� ,.i„'e + .�. `
T';;�
�
15 �
�
�
r
r
� 2.Z OPERATIONAL DIFFERENCES
� From an operatino point of view, the most distinctive traits of short distance
transportation systems are the following:
�
' o They are mainly used to offer point to point service.
� o They have a low line capacity (below 3,000 passengers per direction per
hour).
�� o They operate either in a shuttle mode or in a collapsed loop.
o They can be operated at headways below one minute.
3
o They are frequently used to traverse natural obstacles such as rivers and
hills.
o They frequently utilize vehicles with small to medium capacity (30
� passengers and less).
� o Some of the systems operated to date no not stop in the station during
the boarding phase. This is related to the type of wayside propulsion
system used as well as the type of operation (shuttle or collapsed loop}.
:
In general, short distance transportation systems greatly increase the level of
service of travel over a specific link. However, as the distance and the number of
�
stations increase, the systems' limited speed and capacity make them an
unattractive solution to any elaborate transportation system.
y � .
Also, from a comfort point of view, the generally lower standards (no air
� conditioning and no elaborate secondary suspension) set for these systems make
�� them acceptable only for short trips.
�
The above characteristics in�jicate tnat short distance transportation systems
fill a different market niche and thus are not competitors of traditional public
� transportation systems at all. Thus, estreme care must be taken when economic
comparisons are made. The generally low costs of these systems are also associated
! with operational restrictions that wiil make them unsuitable for most urban transit
���
applications.
�
" � 16
�i �
� �
�
:, �
2.3 OTI�R DIFFERENCES �
i��As alluded to in the previous section, short distance transportation systems are
generally less e:cpensive than traditional mass transit systems. Lower costs are
attributable to a lower level of sophistication, smaller vehicles, stations and �
structures, as well as use of standard components. Also, another appealing
characteristic of short distance transportation systems is the quick turnazound time �
needed from procurement to stazt of revenue operations. In many cases, these
systems can be procured in a short time frame, as low as a year or less.
�
To conclude this technical round-up, one might ask the following questions:
what is the future outlook for such systems in the U.S. and how will such systems �
compete with established suppliers of high capacity s;ZOrt distance transportation
systems found at several U.S. airports? We address this issue in the following �
section. !
3.0 SHORT DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: A MARKET OIITLOOR �
Separate estimates of the Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) market made �
for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (U�ITA) have concurred in
identifying three primary markets for AGT systems: �
o Major Activity Centers (MAC), , �
o Central Business Districts (CBD), and L
o Line Haul Applications.
�
MACs aze defined as large complexes such as airports, shopping centers,
remote parkin� lots, hospitals, sport centers and other similar applications. In such .
applications, transportation requirements involve short trips between two or more
focal points located within the MAC. Generally, traffic volume is lo�v to medium •
and the expected quality of service is generally high. �
.
CBDs are defined as the downtown section where most service-related -
activities and retail centers are concentrated. In this type of application, medium �
to large passenger volumes are expected to be served, mostly during the business
hours. -
.
17 '
-�i
. �
� _
� —
� Line haul applications refer to high capacity transportation systems operating
in a corridor. In such applications, a lazge number of passengers are transported
� mainly during peak periods between the suburbs and the CBD.
I Given the technical and operational limitations associated with short distance
transportation systems, it becomes clear that their prime market azeas will be the
T
MACs.
= This potential market area is already beina exploited. Because of the
increased architectural freedom and improved land use made possible, developers
z may be willing to spend several million dollazs to connect two activity centers if
such a connection permits building on a less expensive and more suitable site and
reduces construction disruption as well.
3
� LEM's own investigationl established that about 25% of the �iACs under
� construction aze potential candidates for short distance transportation systems,
provided that their cost would be no more than ?% of the cost of the project.
.
Exhibit 16 shows that number of candidate projects as a function of the cost of
the short distance transportation system. It shows that there aze ten potential UTAC
3 applications for a system costing no more than $10 million. If the system costs $20
million, the number of V1AC applications drops by half. Conversely, if it would be
possible to put in a system for $3.5 million, there would be 21 potential projects.
- EXHIBTT 16: SIZE OF MAC MARKET
�. z s
� K za
�
� 15
, 'C
� � lU O�
o p�
� 5 Q
N 0
I �
0
lp 20 30 �0 SO 60
�
Cost of People Mover -S:�lillioa
��
�
�, 1 Market for AGT and its Implication for needed R3cD, T. J. McGean and C. P.
Elms, �.ea, Elliott, �1cGean & Company, Washington, D.C.
18
€
I �
,�
. � � t - l
In the Previouslp referenced studp, LEM reported that cable-drawn systems �
were significantly less expensive than AGT system operating to date. �fajor cost
differences were attributed to lower guideway costs, lower engineering and manage- j
ment costs and lower equipment costs.
The overall simplicity of the short distance tran ortation �
sp systems, which has
a direct impact on system cost, is related to several factors such as elimination of
the power distribution system, less complex control system, less sophisticated f
vehicles, less amenities, and no major on-board au�iliaries. r.
l
�
Systems such as the VEC, the WEDway and the S� are the epitome of simple
vehicle design. They do not have on-board power circuits and have either no, or ^'
�i
minimal, low voltage circuits for control systems.
However there are two side �
� s to a coin. Thus, while absence of an HVAC
system is not a problem when a sqstem runs in a controlled environment, this design
solution is no longer acceptable in subfreezing or tropical outdoor operations. In �
order to meet such specific requirements, major design changes might have to be
engineered, thereby substantially increasing the cost of the system. f
L
To conclude, it is believed that short distance transportation systems have `
progressed to the point where elevators were at the turn of the century, As these
systems become more reliable and less expensive to build, operate and maintain,
their field of application will undoubtedly enlarge as the concept of "horizontal —
elevators" finally emerges.
�
�
1
19
. �
�
�� -
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
APPENDIX B
�
� SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
�
Aramis �
. Bombardier WEDway
C-Bahn
�
Monorails
,
Morgantown
�� SK
� TAU
�.
�
�
�
�
� ,
�
�
a
�--
�
,
B-1
1
�
{ ARAMIS
r
�
r
�,.,�.,r�..� � -
�^ ,
� _ � ,
� �. ,�--' �. �
:1
� � ��
q �
i� 7 ; � # F '� �`� "'� �, ,
� � �
� �� �.s� ��� .a- � w..a_ z � '� �t� � � ���
�`a. �.a �=y� t.�.�a -2 .�,_u.:,.., � �� �, a a �� '�
�+ a ".—,..�$.w3=' .,�,.s � ����`s�r�-�� �� � �
�+«as�tro°� +f..��m d�wj-'�"a' F �E
� 3�^.r�'`�. „w5'�'�u.w'.. q `elaw° f�W'� � f'�LS �� �
�fr.'P A �S° ; � 2
� '^t AN� . ,jA r yir`�
� .' � t _ � �'h"��` .'f:��S
A ��
�`��� a � ,�.� � �'�`� ' ^ �x{�g#A, a��.a s
�3'� °'�»��� F ".� '1=�s'§�''�,z� � a'�Y
i �•;,��^° �`�; �v t`�` �;Z <�.�.a � ��. '
Y a,�¢
i �� `���. �l
.ste. .., '�'�S '9a� .. . .... ... .� . R.r.,,a�.., ..,,� N�
TECHNOLOGY: Aramis is a transportation system that combines both advanced
technology and novel operation modes. The system has been under development for
the last 15 years. The system's developer includes MATRA, the manufacturer of the
� VAL automated system, and the Paris Transit Authority. The system uses small
� 10-passenger (all seated) vehicles propelled by variable reluctance motors. Vehicles
can operate in platoons or in single units. In platoon operation, vehicles follow one
another at a distance of about one foot. An on-board switching arm allows each
vehicle from the same platoon to diverge -- or merge -- according to its
� predetermined routing. The first segment of a 20 km, 28-station system has just
� been completed in Paris. A 15-month-long test trial of 10 two-car vehicles,
operating on a one-mile-long guideway, with two stations, has started recently.
� Future system expansion is linked to the results of the test program.
�
SYSTEMS: Paris -- Petite Ceinture Project -- first two stations built,
demonstration under way; Montpellier, France -- construction of a 13 km,
� 22-station systern has been recommended.
�
�
P"
�
r
i
i '
�
�
J
�
BOMBARDIER WEDWAY
_,
��=r •
.
. �_ xF -- . .
u r �
� ' ., �.�.,, ._.. . . � � . .._..�..-�^^'^°"'."`— 3
..• �.., . - �
. ...� , ...,..
vr.a w,.wm°�" - ..... .
H� w,
>.. .. . _,�, . .. �,, i
� 0 •
.,:.�... ,,..�',��.,, �-�.; .. . . .. . ._. _.�.,,. t _.. ,. .�
� � �M.'°„w... ... . .. .. .. , � . . tt',y4 c� H. . �':?
3._ . � . V. ..
... a ., ... .
., r•a....ik` ;. ..,,,: �� ,,,: �� . _ � ,._. �_,.,_�---�°��
�32�.. �., . . ��. �
� ��.'" � .. .. .. . � �� _, _.... �
8
`� � �
w, �,. ..,..'
,. ... . . . •a,
,,.. �., . `..,. .,� ...
:., .. .�- � :. .—, . . . � � ..
1 �
� ���. � �,� � ...a "�`+. 5��.� �. � � .. .. ' ... .
:'d+.'"°°,�' J ��'�'�. � . �.h�'.,.. _
�^ 3� �µ :��, . � Y ��.. � :� . .
_ ., q� } r4V� A� � -t� �`�'��»�� � `�, ..
�6� � . �� � � �xv x1:s��'y it �,,,.�,�. ,....� '1 .
{ ,� , �:3 � '¢��? � � � � �.,�
` _.�-_,_, �� ��y &� �'� i x'r� �s�a � .siifi �� �`� ' `aa� ] •�a.
3 � 0.�y�.`°'°�°g; � � �� �.. k ,���1� FIi � �
- q ,� .. W +�ieT#� ro.�i'� N � ��' �4 j .
� M �_°'y� '�'� �'_ � � ;� �
�� _^ �°� �"
��� �, ,����;�.� ,� �
� ��:��:�� � ��. _��. @,, � , ,�.��i
._ y . �. . �n��� ��5 . .. �.�
�
j
�� ,�°"��� f �
..�i,.�F ��
x �� �
a
� �� S
� �
y.
� � � '
� ��`c y �'�2.� �'/�fi�y �.Y � .�
.a,,. _ . .,.. ..,.__,,._ ,. .,,..N, ,..,. .��,,.., _.,....�.:>,xi,....,,..K a.�.r.wM..;,.�.x-�. `��,. 5 tz �� °j�`* �� ,.. ,.N, �.,,.w,..,,.�c��.»g..�l
TECHNOLOGY: Bombardier, a major Canadian manufacturer of transit vehicle
" technology, has recently purchased the 1,VEDway technology from Walt Disney
Productions, the system developer. The WEDway technology is unique; the vehicles
are completely passive, and carry no motor, no control system, no on-board power,
_ and have no moving parts except for the small, urethane running wheels and the
vehicle doors. The cars are propelled and braked by linear induction motors spaced
along the guideway. Vehicles operate in three-car trains, which are approximately
42 feet long, and carry 36-40 passengers in a seated/standing configuration. The
" track for the WEDway is constructed of two rails made of steel tubing, bolted to a
concrete floor (or guideway). Linear induction motors are set in the guideway
` between the rails. There is no power distribution rail, as the vehicles require no
�. power. Control of the vehicles is maintained by presetting the speed profile for the
� system in the motor logic. Each vehicle receives the appropriate thrust from each
motor, depending on its particular location. Headways are maintained by adjusting
the power to the motor elements. Train separation is assured by removing power
4`" from the motors immediately behind each train, and dispatching trains from stations
only when the next station and the route between are unoccupied. Switching of the
WEDway is accomplished by moving rail segments. The system operates at a speed
� of 15 mph and can accommodate grades of up to 15 percent.
SYSTEMS: Houston Intercontinental Airport.
�
�
r
�
� �
YK- C-BAHN
■r
�
� i
I �, -,o,,�*
.� ^ � ` �
r :s �; � �, ;
., ,�.�"� � � �/
� ��
�� '`' � � �fi����, '
�. � �-�� ��-----
.- u �e� � "-- �
.�� . :
� � .�:�=-�' �..::��� �
� �� �
�� I� � :.
; ,
;�
���� ���;.
a�
? � ; � kr"`�[��.��°��•�f�, •^ � .c�
p a
� �^���i q��.t� .,...#.,�ae_�d>�r��;`��� �''-� � .,
� � �� ��.u€ " .:� � ,� .
£ � �;�
. °'4` ��..,{ ��� t�..;'r _.'^!� � " _
� �
�
TECHNOLOGY: The C-Bahn System developed by the German firms MBB and
j Demag is another Personal Rapid Transit System. The C-Bahn concept relied on a
� box beam type track. 8oth the upper and lower surfaces were used as rolling
surfaces. On the top, vehicles were supported; on the bottom, they were suspended.
�, While both chassis were differeni, both types of vehicles used two doubled-sided
linear induction motors for propulsion and service braking. Emergency braking was
done via air-actuated brakes acting on the support wheels. Since the track structure
� was enclosed, no snow accumulated on the running surfaces. This allows for
maintaining a high coefficient of friction in all weather conditions. The control
system allowed operation at headways as low as one second at all speeds via the use
� of the moving block system. Switching was obtained via a vehicle-mounted
� switching arm. The system relied heavily on a modular design approach for both the
vehicles and the track.
� SYSTEM: None in revenue service; extensive testing took place in the late 1970s at
r the Demag test track in Hagen, �Vest Germany. Following an unsuccessful attempt
� to install the system in Hamburg in 1979, no further development of the technology
has occurred.
1
�
�
� �
�
�
�
�
� MONORAILS
�
� ' a
� :. "
_ ���--�
' ,:..-b':..
I
;.�'
� 3� I
F �
''�4r �
� � i ::'� �,?L:
� � �#, � �
�<n,�
�� �
� � � ' w �
`' t;:
� � .��' .
��^� a�}
� �- ���`�,�° ¢t'�
���.:m � ., � �s�T �f P r,`R..�Y�=�
� ' :+,� .i� ,��� ""� �,t���t�� �����,��� .
.�, -
� ��,� �_' ���,� � -�'�"` � ,
�
_ �� ��y�°g... � � .,k�y � �t ����4� r'+��"`-
�� s-�= ���'� x � � �x��i`" °�,,z�,;c�,�4�,
- .g...,.,� . � . 'g+4 �`*'�',..T`v t` •y�'}�i.�
�0 �p. gµ �#
y` ro�'."" s :..'� '*.'.�L PZC M�1Y°,t�3�`a.
�pr �¢ . u,. �,¢ 1� = i ..
�:H X'�'�� Yfi�._ . F � � k« ���'�'�q.�^��..
,k-' ?� � s'6' ° ���� ��
� �;,���. � � �, .���� �,���
� ��
� �� �� � ���� �
� ��� � � � � �� � r �
� � " � _� �:� ''��' ���. ��.
� :.;� r��� ;,�-t T. ,� � � �
� = w- � �.. *�.-t
�` � :. ,,.��.� �, � � ,.
r�..� � .�. �.�� .�.�
TECHIVOLOGY: Several Monorail suppliers have supplied numerous systems throughout
� the world. The technology �an be regrouped into two types of systems that reflect
specific applications -- amusement park and urban applications. Universal Mobility Inc.
(U1itI) and Von Roll-Habegger are the most well-known suppliers of the first type of
� system. The second type is found mainly in Japan and has been built by Hitachi. In the
U.S., three urban monorails are in operation -- one in Seattle built by Alweg, and two
built by WEDway Enterprises operating at Disneyland and Disney World. Both types of
� designs use a box beam as the riding and guiding surface. This highly efficient structure
allows for smaller, less-intrusive, and lower-cost guideways. The vehicles straddle the
beam, with the load-bearing wheels riding on the top and the guidance wheels on each
side. It is intrinsic to this design that an entire beam segment must be moved in order
3 to switch from one track to another. Monorail switching is thus inherently more diffi-
cult than switching of a railroad type system because of the mass that must be moved.
� A corollary of this is that from an operational point of view monorail systems are
primarily used on unidirectional loops in multiple vehicle operation or on reversible
� sh�ttle operation in single vehicle operation. The complicated switch precludes the use
of variable train lengths to adjust capacity to demand. The narrowness of the guideway
constrains the axle load. Consequently, for a given capacity and headway, the consists
� will be longer as the weight has to be distributed over a larger number of wheels. �1ost
of the monorails in operation to date are manually driven. Propulsion is done via DC
motors with either chopper or SCR controllers. Power distribution is either DC or AC.
� Non-urban vehicles are designed with simple suspension systems. Consequently, maxi-
mum speed is limited to about 15 mph, On vehicles of urban-type design, maximum
� vehicle speed ranges from 40 to 50 mph.
� SYSTEMS: Urban Type -- Seattle, Disneyland and Disnevworld (U.S.); Tokyo and
Kitakyushu (Japan). Amusement Park Type -- over 20 installations, 9 of them in the
U.S.
�
�
�
� -
,- MORGANTOWN
�
� ___ ----.... _...._
� _
.�
�
{ _ ;
-�r�' i
'�=--�c���.�.: �,s.��:,
_ i
�: ,
- ;
:�'Y.^x ,� "��,�����i�'��r�.�.��p�fi��,.�"�;:3... T '�"�.-� '�,°�„,.���
� „3 -t .. �aa �a.w
a��a:� "w'° '�t
� r . � ,�. .� �,�e'��� '� , .�,
3 �` E
�x�������rw '���y ��y' 3� f �S .w� �' ��J�� �
�,�Y V�,�-���;y�"ez b3 �' t at^T-t�` `Yk� �_f §�+t '�xc'� �s 3"� �"..
'�t � � � t `+�.'�.
� � �` ��� � � �a
��-'��.� a n a n' 6 $ �
'�. . � s:' � ���r 3' �r � �;
-� � .,��i '� z�
� ..��,� � ��,.��,.,� �%rt. �.. 1�, d�-^3 d � .�
�, t .a,���� � a �� k �; t
�, .�, .'� >.e� aw,, _� �� � . I 4 }
s., r �. -v„g ,h 3�,r'� _ �, t�t .;y '.��
�� �a �'�� 4 *� �,+�+esr�x
I� � ;' 4 4 't ���r,.
�. € �� ��t:,.S �� ,..� s ,�r��-
� � _-.�,.�a,. o—. � .� ��'�.
i =-.��'
F
TECHNOLOGY: The Morgantown System is the first and only Personal Rapid
� Transit (PRT) system in operation to date. The system consists of 3.4 miles of
double track guideway, five stations that allow sending a vehicle back in the
opposite direction, 78 twenty-passenger vehicles and two maintenance facilities (a
�„ main one and a small one). The system allows operation in a direct origin-
destination mode, avoiding all intermediate stops. The system was built by the
Boeing Company. Vehicle guidance and switching is done through a fail-safe
on-board wall-following system. The propulsion system consists of a DC motor
i driving one axle. Vehicles are designed for unidirectional operation only.
SYSTEM: One system in revenue service at West Virginia University, i�'forgantown.
�
�
�
�
[
�
�
�
,
SK
� � � �b �, �_,
.�� °.; ,� ;
� - ~ � ~ L�: �~
-, �`�°"".�., F.`� ,r��'�."� ..!��
n
, ����� ! �n �� �����
�_ � 7 � � ,..�» �l
l � ; �� �' ' `: ��� ,���� �.
-��a �✓�� �' 2 ^° �� �� 3� `
.=1-�"A � .�.x -� "��� � , �f� ,:'
,� � � t,= � � f� �.
.��y; ,� ��
it-` 5�7 4s � � -��[� �i �� � .�
� R �
w 4�i :. � �� .. .��F §�„5 . � �:g°
.�s �,�-s-yw � d4w.`a� � w � B �
. . � % ,� n: �c� �
'w� � � �� ��' � �,''�� �
�-; � � ���a x�� _ �
,�'� ��� � ' ���`� � ��
�_��'��: 4-: � � � °,�'��`��., �*� ��
R}}-,, �.� � � ��.
' �� �k 4 ,�- f.� �����'��6Rx"a: ♦ z��-�.
' f. r �.'.� ���� r����, q���. �.4�.n,.
r �Y �
�� � � �k �
� � �.�� ��'" k��' A4 ���.� � �'��
�.� 5 Y,k:��G Y° r> S&��� �� '�4* ��� ���..
; - �;V ax �� �fi�.. '„��
�.,` ��^s'°'�� �� ,.;'� .
� �� �, �, �,,
t ,' r
�-...Y 1 e�-�� ; �
I� � A.� �;. � �" � _
�. ,
� s r
� � ',�v� �' ,� }a �� `� �
� �� =��
° ;� ",i�` #�°' � ,s, a,�'�3 � � �:"-
3
TECHNOLOGY: The SK System is a short headway, low capacity, short distance,
� cable driven system. It operates along the principles of detachable aerial lifts.
Cruise speed is constant throughout the system. Upon entering a station, the
�` vehicle releases the cable. Simultaneously, the vehicle is dropped onto a constant-
�, speed belt carrier. The vehicle rolls to a contcolled stop on that belt. The braking
effort is controlled by the vehicle weight. The belt moves at a constant speed along
the platform. A track-actuated system unlocks and opens the vehicle doors. A
� reverse procedure is followed for door closing, acceleration and attachment to a
cable. The system operates unidirectionally. At end stations, a rotating platform
turns the vehicle around and sends it in the opposite direction.
� SYSTEM: Villepinte Exhibition Park, Paris; Transpo '86, Vancouver. Project under
study to use the SK system to the Creteil Subway Station, an end station of the
� Paris Subway, to a major commercia! and residential area about one-half mile away.
�
��
�
�,
�
�
�
�
TAU AUTOMATED URBAN TRANSPOR'I'
T�
�
i� .
- ;
�� �
� �� �
� ��� �.���' � � �' �� � �
., �
r , =_ � ;
_ � � �'�. »r,W� .a� ,. .�.�.�. `.`� 9
� . w `,��'�. � .,
, � ti ,.y���� �` .�`�'�"�..e�,.y`�S,. �,
'�,i���y�j`�"'"�r'•+:1�ST��j�'LYi'd �"f�:�°�,. , �
�{# ..!e"w.p �.��y✓K n-ap � �� �
'9 i����s��'"r n..f......<��� �- `> �� � �.� ���,�.�� c
� '-- � ,� "� '� � � ��
� �✓� ^�P' "?, .� �a � r:�„^'k-°°+�z,�'
�"c .��.0°`"�s�9�..�. t�.� �a��+:t— ',� .1. s-. � {.« � � �.,.' �'»"f -.3
�C�, � >.,. 1 y .�,,.a" . .� .,d. >?�.-,��.., ,K ,.+5`.+* A v:
wrr � �.i�.� �.� 3 f,��� � `,y� ; �:;� � ix :�. �-.�* �. x"'
- - r -�.�2�r+,.�'t:r. J .�- "^ Y k>`�-�°s n .�
�' ,�,,�.,�,,,,.r ,N,r' :�, •,e, �,
.�-,f s -''
� . �a �,..
, .�,.�� -
� "4 r .,> "'� ,,,a.'�sS� �
. `� � I � H°� � '�
„ _
�; _ ..: .�,.'� '_ ,. , - . , ', �. '
�;�
�^� ���� <��' , ,�
� ' _ �
r �
�' ���. �� \ :.�•�
,.».�,.�s.,..,s...�..v�..,..w;,c,_.,.... ,. �« . �..wx.,....,.�.„r.. .. ,� � ,..... .,b�w. �,y.a,�.e�1�..a�..a..�u,�,<...�.a,a.,�....x.-,..->':;,..�4
1_u
�
TECHNOLOGY: The TAU System is a steel-wheel, steel-rail AGT system based on
light rail technology. It is being offered by a consortium of Belgian firms with
extensive rail transit experience: ACEC, a propulsion and automatic control
�^ systems supplier; BN, a car manufacturer; and C.R.T.H., an engineering and testing
organization. The specially designed, light weight bogies have been developed to
� handle 32.8-ft radius curves. The bogies utilize an articulated frame based on a
special kinematic design comprising two pivoting axles, a short wheelbase and
independent wheels individually driven by a high speed traction motor with built-in
" reduction unit. Vehicles operate as married pairs or in trains of up to three cars;
each married pair is about 57 feet long. They run on metri� railroad track, using
flanged railroad-type wheels for guidance. Switching is accomplished by conven-
, tional raiiroad equipment. The vehicles, which are of modular design, can
accommodate up to 124 passengers. Power supply is via a third rail running parallel
�_ to the track. The automatic control system consists of two control levels structured
on a priority basis: (1) the operating and handling level comprising two redundant
,� computers, one of which is on standby; and (2) the safety level, comprising three
� redundant computers operating simultaneously in parallel. All system operations are
monitored from a central control facility. Cruise speed is about 37 mph; top speed
� is about 45 mph.
SYSTEMS: The TAU test track at the C.R.T.H. Testing Facility in Jumet, Belgium,
has been the site of operational testing since 1982. The test track consists of
' metric gauge track with a main circuit 7,150 feet in length and a secondary circuit
� 1,499 feet in length. Minimum curve radius is 98.4 feet on the main circuit and 32.5
feet on the secondary circuit. The TAU System is being built in the City of Liege,
' Belgium.
: �
� �
� , -
�
�
�
�
�
�
APPENDIX C
4
�
�• SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
z for
f
DETERMINING OacM COSTS
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
t�,
r
i
�
C-1
I
y
� -
� _—�-�—_�_
�
� EXHIBIT C-1: ENERGY COST ESTIMATE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEOPLE MOVER
SYSTEM TO REPLACE IN-TOWN SHUTTLE
� NERGY
OPERATIN G FLEET E
��- SCHEDULE HRS/DAY SI?E TRAIN-MILES CONSUMPTION (kW)
�,
� WINTER
� Peak Hours S 16 81,357 813,570
Off-Peak 8 8 65,116 651,160
� 16 279 162,279
' Night Hours 4 4 �
� OFF-SEASON
' D aytim e 12 6 93,859 938,590
Nighttim e 4 3 15,643 156,430
�" 2,722,029
TOTAL
�
COST (Assumes $0.06 per kWh) $163,322
SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS:
� Length 3.356 mi.
�- Round-Trip Time 1,900 sec
�. Vehicle Average Speed 6.359 mph
Peak Season in Days 160
� Off-Peak Season 205
Energy Consumption 10 kWh/mi.
�
■e�
�
�
�
:�i
i �
�
�
� �-2
�
� -
'
�
�
r_ .
� EXHIBIT C-2: ENERGY COST ESTIMATE FOR EXPRESS PEOPLE MOVER
LINKING PARKING STRUCTURES
r
�
� fLEET SI?E VEHICLE-MILE5 ENEk6Y CONSUMPTION
OPEkATIN6 5CHEDULE HR PER QAY SELF-PROFFLLED TRACK PFOPELLED SELF-PROFELLE➢ TRACK PF�PELLED SELF-PROPELLEQ TRACK PRO?E!LEC ;
` �
�iINTER
� PEAK HOl1k5: 5 1 8 34,?56 74,b°5 205,53? 14,6?: '
OFF-PEAK: 9 1 5 32,986 71,707 147,316 71,707 �
� NI6HT H�11R5: 4 1 3 8,?Z1 11,??? 49,3:9 17,??? �
� OFF SEASDN '
DAYTIME 12 ! 4 5?,66° 114,844 31b,014 11�,84�
NI6HTIME 4 1 2 8,718 1?,141 5�,669 1?,141
� 1
TOTAL 135,911 ?08,314 B?0,865 298,31� �
h COST5 (ASSUMES sn,Ob PER KaH) 4?,252 1?,6?4
� --------------------
-------------------------------
SYSTEM CHAF.ACTER?STICS
r
LEN6TH (M! 5440 54�t!
` R�IIND TRIP TIME {51 1845.6 11b1.2375
� ?EAK SEA50N IN 1�AYS 160 1b0
- OFF PEAK 5EASON '_05 295 �
' ENER6Y CONSUMPTI�N (KAH/KM? 6 !
,
�- '
� C-3