Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-03 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 9:15 A. M., TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. Council will break for lunch at 12:15 p.m. and resume at 1:15 p.m. Public comments on work session Items may be solicited by the Town Council. 1. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6 - 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Re: Timber Ridge (2.5 hrs); 2) C.R.S. §24 -6- 402(4)( a)(b) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, Re: Restrictive Covenants on LionsHead Parking Structure. (30 min.)(Total Executive Session Time scheduled — (3 hrs.) 2. ITEMITOPIC: (11:30 a.m.) Joint Discussion with Holy Cross Energy including Green Initiatives. (30 min.) 3. Warren Campbell ITEMITOPIC: PEC /DRB Update. (15 min.) 4. Greg Hall ITEMITOPIC: Overview of the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update. (90 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation by staff and provide any applicable feedback. Become familiar with the proposed Vail Transportation Master Plan update in preparation for adoption in late April. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail, in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Transportation, is in the process of updating the Vail's Transportation Master Plan in response to the on -going and projected increases in development activity, along with results of the past transportation master planning and pending redevelopment plans, including the Vail 20/20, the l i LionsHead Masterplan, the Vail Village Masterplan, The West Vail j Redevelopment Plan, Timber Ridge Redevelopment Plan, and EverVail. The Town of Vail adopted the first Vail Transportation Master Plan in 1993. Additional studies ensued as a direct result of the Master Plan including; The Main and West Vail Roundabout studies in 1996 & 1998 respectively, The LionsHead Master Plan — Transportation Analysis in 1998, the Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study in 1999, and the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update in 2002. Since 2002, the Town has seen unprecedented growth and development that has and will continue to impact Transportation throughout Vail. As a result the Town is in the process of updating the Vail Transportation Master Plan once again. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide any applicable feedback. 5. ITEMITOPIC: Information Update. (5 min.) 6. ITEMITOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (15 min.) 7. ITEMITOPIC: Adjournment. (3:50 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2009 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I i 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 23, 2009 1:00pm TDi4�DF YAI�' TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1 PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Rollie Kjesbo Susie Tjossem David Viele Scott Proper Michael Kurz Sarah Robinson- Paladino arrived at 1:10 pm Site Visits: No site visits 60 Minutes 1. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII -C, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub -area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for a mixed -use development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow Drive /Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1 (a complete description is available at the Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Proper SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 3 -2 -1 (Kurz and Viele opposed, Pierce recused) Commissioner Pierce identified a conflict of interest with regard to the project and his need to recuse. Commissioner Kurz was acting Chair in Commissioner Pierce's stead. Nicole Peterson gave a power point presentation describing in detail the proposal. Rick Pylman, of Pylman and Associates, representing the applicant gave a presentation which focused on the process and what step in the process was being requested at this point. He further responded point by point to comments made at the December 8, 2008, Commission public hearing. Jeff Winston, Winston and Associates, representing the Town of Vail, gave a presentation regarding the competing interests involved with this proposal. Those being the retention of green open space or creation of Master Plan language allowing for a more urban street design. He clarified that in the digital model that would be presented there was some level of detail added to the model verse doing a general bulk and mass in order to give a better sense of what might occur. However, what will be shown in no way depicts the only design which could be proposed. Specifically referenced in the presentation was the question of whether or not a "canyon effect" was created on East Meadow Drive by allowing for structures to be constructed opposite of existing development. It was described how the width of a street and the height of the structures can create a comfortable pedestrian experience as anticipated in the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines. He added that the pedestrian fabric of Vail Village has changed since Page 1 the original planted buffer was designed. And infill development on the south side would draw ' people through the Village and create a figure eight pattern for better pedestrian circulation in this area. Matt Drummond, resident of Edwards employed in Vail, said he has doubts that the proposed retail space would create jobs. He is concerned about the cost of the proposed employee housing and its attainability and the viability of the proposed retail and office. Steve Lindstrom, representing the Vail Housing Authority, stated that the Authority supports using spaces like the south side of the parking structure for employee housing. He went on to explain that there is a broad range of housing needs; that include several different price points and amenities. As a resident of Vail, he supports the location of retail and office in this location. Matt Morgan, owner of Sweet Basil, having been in business for 32 years, stated his concern with the seasonal viability of Vail. He believes that regardless of the economic climate the Town needs to have vision and foresight. He is in favor of taking a good look at the proposal. Steve Hawkins, manager of the Mountain Haus, representing the Mountain Haus, expressed his shock at seeing the model and the enclosure it would create. He does not believe that guests will want to come from the city and stay in this neighborhood. He does not believe that this proposal is good for Vail or the neighborhood in which the Mountain Haus is located. He is asking for the Commission to unanimously vote to protect open space. Dave Gorsuch, business owner and resident in Vail, gave his insight on the current state of the economy and retail in the Town. He appreciates the foresight of the proposal and believes it is good for the long term success of Vail. Having retail, office, and employee housing would be good for Vail. If the Town is going to develop this parcel it should be developed in the best way possible. He stated that he understood the comments about "canyon effect "; however, a more charming streetscape would be beneficial. He stated that this end of the valley is stagnant and could use more creative retail to bring year round activity. Tim Hargreaves, General Manager of the Willows in Vail, spoke to the need for families in Town. He said it makes sense to add the mixed use on the site. He's excited about the opportunity to have affordable housing that will bring locals back to Vail. Having families back in Town would be great for businesses and the community. Ted Wenninger, resident of Eagle, said that it is difficult to find affordable housing. He would love to live in Vail if he could. He encouraged the Commission to allow the opportunity for the project to move forward. He believes that having a mix of retail, office, and affordable housing would be a good on the site. Mike Glass, President of Alpine Bank in Vail, wanted to lend his support to this application. He has been looking for viable professional office space, and believes this is a good location to provide office use. Paul Gaudfelt, business owner in Vail, stated his support of the project. Larry Dolmont, owner of a residence in Mountain Haus, expressed that he was not in support of the proposal. He is in support of keeping the open space. However, he understands the opportunity to develop the site, and if the project moves forward he would like to see less density and lower height. Page 2 3 S Stan Cope, manager of Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa, is concerned about the model he saw and its impacts. He is concerned about the green space buffer and the fact that they put 18 hotel rooms looking to the north, of which 2 floors look at the trees and top floor looks over the parking structure. He asked that the open space remains. He was concerned about how his hotel would survive with construction 35 feet from the Mountain Lodge and Spa. He believes that a canyon is created by this proposal. Rich Selph, owner of a residence in the Mountain Haus, is confused about the model he saw and the request today. It appears a project is driving this request. He is fearful that the Master Plan amendment will lead to development. He added that the Master Plan identifies the preservation of open space as a priority. He is concerned about the creation of a canyon. He is concerned about the impacts on the future infrastructure needs of the parking structure and transit. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked several questions about the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and their application to various projects in this area of the Village. He further spoke to the covenants that are recorded on the property and getting in the mindset of what the covenants stated. The covenants speak to transit, parking, and open space and that any changes to those uses would need to go through a scrutinizing process to be changed. He believes every property owner in Vail Village Filing 1 has a financial claim attached to the covenants. While the Town has the right to condemn the covenants, the Town is required to provide compensation to those property owners. This issue is about the Village not just the Town and the owners across the street. He does not believe the Master Plan needs to be amended at this point in time. Open space is an integral part of the complexion of the Village. The amendments remove all language from the Master Plan referencing the preservation of open space. Planning in the Town has been opportunistic verses proactive and protective. There are impacts to the Vail Village Parking Structure of the Council's decision not to pursue mass transit on the North Day Lot. We have no concept of what is needed at the Town's sole transit site. Critics are saying we are becoming to urban. He questioned the loading and delivery that occurs in front of the Mountain Haus and Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa. He does not believe the necessary studies have been performed to determine that the retail can be absorbed and loading and delivery can occur. Open space is not a disposable commodity it is what it was intended to be. Commissioner Proper asked several questions about the technical aspects regarding Triumph's and the Town's abilities to adopt amendments to the Master Plan. This step today is not about the sale of the site, the development of the site, and the Commission is not approving a specific development on the property. He believes the text amendment allows for a greater range of discussion of uses on the site in the future, and is in support of the amendment. Commissioner Viele stated his support of Jim Lamont's comments. He remains unsatisfied that Triumph Development has the right to be assigned the Town's right of ownership. He is concerned about the steps in the process and the validity of the process. He does not believe that the uses are appropriate for the site. Commissioner Tjossem stated that today's request is to allow for future discussions on the site. Recently while on a trip to Winter Park, she saw a parking structure wrapped with a commercial buffer and believes it may be appropriate in Vail. She is in support of the amendment. Commissioner Paladino stated that she was not voting on a particular development and that she supports the Master Plan amendments. Page 3 t i Commissioner Kurz believes Jim Lamont made several good points. He believes there is a public trust, involved in the development, which needs to be protected. He said the development project is too dense and does not maintain the character of Vail Village. 60 Minutes 2. A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, i 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080062) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell /George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to March 9, 2009 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation based on the Staff memorandum. He asked that the Commission apply an additional condition to the application should they choose to approve the application. The proposed additional condition read: 3) The applicant shall revise the Preliminary Plan, prior to proceeding to the Town Council, to remove the text identifying the 20 -foot Town of Vail right -of -way as including a "Shoring Easement ". Dominic Mauriello, of the Mauriello Planning Group, representing the applicant, requested that the Commission discuss the condition as proposed by Staff prior to the start of any presentation. If the Commission thought the condition was appropriate the applicant was going to request a tabling in order to resolve the issue with Staff. He added that Vail Resorts only agreed to a Town of Vail right -of -way with the understanding that shoring would be permitted within the right - of -way by establishment of a shoring easement. The shoring is important because of the 3 levels of underground parking. Commissioner Viele inquired as to what the Town Council had directed in regards to this right -of- way. Warren Campbell explained that the Town Council directed Staff and the applicant to move forward with the South Frontage Road relocation design with a Town of Vail right -of -way and not an easement. While shoring was briefly mentioned there was no discussion on the establishment of a shoring easement or the details of said easement. By asking the Commission to include the proposed condition, Staff was attempting to avoid any misleading regarding elements on the preliminary plan which might be interpreted as Town, Staff, or Commission approval of a shoring easement. Dominic Mauriello stated that the applicant is looking for a Commission recommendation that shoring take place within the 20 foot easement. If the proposed additional condition is made a condition, the applicant does not want to proceed and will request a tabling. Tom Miller, Vail Resort Development Company, explained the importance of having the shoring easement identified on the preliminary plan and if Staff had concerns he would ask for a tabling so the issue could be discussed outside of the hearing. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, stated that Staff's concern was that he could not recommend that the Town agree to a "shoring easement" until such time as the Page 4 1 Council had discussed the issue and terms were established. An easement could be granted, however, we do not want to obligate the Town before the terms have been decided. Commissioner Proper asked where the condition Staff was proposed should be added came from? Warren Campbell stated that earlier in the morning he and George Ruther had identified that a revised preliminary plan submitted late on Thursday included the shoring easement language and was not caught by staff prior to the memorandum going out to members. Greg Hall, Public Works Director stated that the Town does not typically have any easements over rights -of -way in the Town. He stated that typically improvements in the right -of -way such as shoring would be done by license agreement. Tom Miller asked if Staff would agree to changing the language that to a license agreement for shoring on the plan? George Ruther stated that a license agreement would need to be reviewed by Town Council and the changing of the language at the hearing was not the solution. 5 Minutes 3. A request for a work session to discuss the establishment of a new special development district, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7 through14 (Vail Rowhouses) /Lots 7 through 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080074) Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to March 9, 2009 MOTION: Veile SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 6 -0 -0 4. Approval of February 9, 2009 minutes MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-0 5. Information Update Commissioner Kurz asked Staff to look into the possibility that Commissioner Kjesbo could provide his comments regarding the proposed Vail Village Master plan amendments in writing to the Council since the vote was so close. George Ruther responded that Staff would look into the issue and get back with the Commission. Warren Campbell made a general reminder about the need for letters from Commission members if they would like to be reappointed. 6. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 6 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Page 5 r Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 20, 2009, in the Vail Daily. I i i Page 6 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING Pw OVAO' February 18, 2009 Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:30pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Dantas departed at 4:00 Tom DuBois Pete Dunning Brian Gillette Elizabeth Plante SITE VISITS 2:00pm 1. Corrigan Residence, 2000 Chamonix Lane 2. White Rock Residences, 184 Beaver Dam Road PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00pm 1. DelPonte Residence DRB090027 / 5 Minutes Nicole Final Review of a minor exterior alteration (siding, stone & windows) 3070 Booth Creek Drive /Lot 7, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 11 Applicant: Reg DelPonte, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson, Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: Dantas SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5 -0 -0 2. Corrigan Residence DRB090017 / 20 Minutes Nicole Conceptual review of a new two - family dwelling & Type II EHU 2000 Chamonix Lane /Lot 37, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision Applicant: Blueline Architects ACTION: Conceptual, no vote 3. White Rock Beaver Residence DRB090007 / 15 Minutes Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (exterior materials) 184 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 24, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Reslock and Sullivan LLC ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. The granite panels shall have a honed finish. 4. Brundage & Henston Family LLC Residence DRB090013 / 5 Minutes Bill Final review of an addition (bedroom) 4126 Columbine Drive, Unit B /Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision Applicant: Henston Family LLC, represented by John G Martin, Architect ACTION: Approved MOTION: Plante SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5 -0 -0 Page 1 i 5. Duke Residence DRB090015 / 5 Minutes Bill Final review of an addition (bedroom) 4868 Meadow Drive /Lot 3, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition Applicant: Meg Duke, represented by Patrick Cashen ACTION: Approved MOTION: Dantas SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5 -0 -0 6. Colorado Ski Museum DRB090023 / 5 Minutes Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (facade painting) 241 East Meadow Drive /Lot B -C, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Susie Tjossem ACTION: Tabled to March 4, 2009 MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 5 -0 -0 7. North Day Lot DRB080050 / 45 Minutes Warren Final review of an application for new construction (employee housing) 600 West Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Mauriello Planning Group ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 4 -0 -0 8. Ever Vail DRB080546 145 Minutes Warren Conceptual review of an application for new construction (S Frontage Rd relocation) 934 South Frontage Road /Unplatted Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corporation, represented by Mauriello Planning Group ACTION: Conceptual, no vote STAFF APPROVALS Vail Place Building DRB080627 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (ticket window signage) 244 Wall Street/Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Vail Corporation Deighan Residence DRB090010 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (in- ground trampoline) 1163 Cabin Circle /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Valley Filing 1 Applicant: Kevin Deighan Meadowlark Residence DRB090012 Rachel Final review of changes to approved plans (remove knee braces) 4852 Meadow Lane /'Lot 11, Block 7, Bighorn Addition 5th Applicant: Meadowlark Development Partnership, represented by John G Martin, Architect Sushi Oka DRB090018 Nicole Final review of a sign 1310 Westhaven Drive, C- 101 /Cascade Village Subdivision Applicant: Rick Woo Page 2 r Shirt Off My Back DRB090019 Rachel Final review of a sign 288 Bridge Street /Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Patrick Somers Vail Transportation Center DRB090020 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (boiler flues) 241 East Meadow Drive /Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Town of Vail Lionshead Inn DRB090024 Warren Final review of changes to approved plans (extension) 705 West Lionshead Circle /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group Break Away West Building 500 DRB090008 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (exterior renovations) 963 Lionsridge Loop /Lot B3, Block B, Lionsridge Filing 1 Application: TRD Architects The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 3 GFL05S F O P Z < 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. BOX 2150 • GLENWIOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 > Z (970) 945 -5491 • FAX (970) 945 -4081 O S so About Holy Cross Energy A Cooperative Holy Cross Energy, formed in 1939, is a not - for - profit, member -owned electric cooperative utility providing electricity, energy products and services to more than 55,000 consumers primarily in the Western Colorado counties of Eagle, Pitkin and Garfield. Holy Cross has annual revenues exceeding $100 million, nearly 170 employees and paid nearly $1.3 million in county property taxes in 2007. Holy Cross is committed to providing its consumers with the best possible service at reasonable cost consistent with sound business and environmental practice. Member -Owned Each consumer receiving electric service from Holy Cross is a member -owner eligible to vote at meetings of members, to become a Director, to receive member equity allocations and/or distributions and to share in the proceeds should Holy Cross be dissolved. Governance Holy Cross Energy is governed by a duly elected Board of Directors consisting of seven active Holy Cross members from specific geographical districts serving staggered three -year terms. Director candidates submit nominating petitions signed by at least 15 active members residing within the geographical district in which the candidate resides and wishes to represent. Should a contest for a Director District exist, candidates are elected through a general election held for the purpose of electing Directors. Holy Cross is not subject to the economic (ratemaking) jurisdiction of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission because its members have elected to exempt Holy Cross from such jurisdiction. Holy Cross remains subject to the Commission's complaint and territorial jurisdiction and is also subject to any Federal, State or local authority with appropriate jurisdiction. Power Supply Holy Cross has long -term power supply commitments through contracts with Public Service Company of Colorado (a subsidiary of Xcel Energy), Western Area Power Administration and as a partner -owner in power generation facilities. Holy Cross's current power supply mix consists of 55% coal and 33% natural gas based generation with the remaining 12% generated by renewable resources such as new hydro, photovoltaic, wind and geothermal. Holy Cross has also acquired additional carbon offsets by purchasing renewable energy credits from a geothermal generation facility equal to 5 %0 of Holy Cross's annual power purchases. Although Colorado law requires electric cooperatives to obtain 10% of their power supply from renewable resources by the year 2020, Holy Cross has established a goal of obtaining at least 20% of its power supply from renewable resources by 2015. Not- For - Profit As a not - for -profit electric utility, annual revenues that exceed operating expenses are credited to each member's equity account based upon their annual energy purchases (sometimes referred to as "patronage "). Each member receives an annual statement showing their current and past year(s) member equity allocation and equity account balance. Members may receive cash distributions from their equity account up to two times per year depending upon length of membership. Cash distributions are made at the discretion of the Board of Directors based upon the bylaws and financial condition of Holy Cross. Members have received cash distributions of over $93 million since 1963 with nearly $50 million distributed since June of 2000. Franchises Holy Cross has franchise agreements with most of the cities and towns within its service territory. A franchise agreement provides the terms under which Holy Cross may build, maintain and operate its electric distribution system within a city or town boundary in exchange for collecting, for the city or town, an electric revenue based fee from each Holy Cross consumer within the city or town boundary. A Community Enhancement Fund is part of each franchise agreement, wherein Holy Cross voluntarily contributes, to each city or town, 1% of the annual electric revenue collected within the city or town.. The Community Enhancement Funds can be used for beautification projects; energy conservation projects; equipment and technology upgrades for schools; scholarship funds; acquisition and development of open space and/or park lands; sponsorship of special community events and undergrounding overhead utility lines. In 2007, Holy Cross distributed $417,000 in Community Enhancement Funds system wide. A Touchstone Energy' Cooperative .W A Green Holy Cross believes in being a conscientious steward of our natural resources. It has several long- standing programs, which are often ahead of popular demand, addressing efficiency, conservation and renewable resources. Holy Cross was one of the first utilities in Colorado to offer net metering to its consumers and currently has 145 net metered accounts. Holy Cross was among utility pioneers in offering consumers the option of purchasing renewable energy to offset their carbon footprint. Over 2,500 of Holy Cross's consumers are participating in wind power and local renewable pool programs, purchasing over 1,830,000 kilowatt hours of renewable energy per year. Holy Cross has provided thousands of free residential energy audits since the 1980'x. In 2004, Holy Cross established its WE CARE (With Efficiency, Conservation and Renewable Energy) program providing consumers: • $2 per watt for consumer installed renewable energy generation facilities. To date, $1.1 million in payments have been made for the installation of 550 kilowatts of generation capacity. • Energy efficiency and conservation grants to commercial /industrial consumers. • Free residential energy audits with free electric water heater blankets and up to four compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. • Energy efficient appliance rebates including refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes washers, CFLs and I programmable thermostats. • Rebates for the proper disposal of old, inefficient refrigerators. Other Holy Cross programs that support efficiency, conservation and wise use of natural resources: • Annual funding of the LivingWise educational program helping provide over 1,000 local elementary school students and their teachers with devices and information concentrating on residential energy and water resource efficiency. • Assisted in the formation of and continued support for the Community Office for Resource Efficiency in the Roaring Fork River Valley and the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability in the Eagle River Valley. • Expending more than $1 million over the past several years redesigning, building and retrofitting its overhead power lines in order to protect raptors from accidental electrical contact. • Created transportation incentives for its employees to reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from work. • Continuing our long - standing practice of sophisticated system design and use of high efficiency transformers to maximize system reliability, energy efficiency and economy. Contact General Billing Questions and to Report Outages: Headquarters Office in Glenwood Springs: 970 - 945 -5491 District Office in Avon: 970- 949 -5892 Management: Del Worley, CEO dworlevAholycross.com 970- 947 -5402 Richard Brinkley, G -M of Operations/Engineering rbrinkley_(a@holycross.com 970 - 947 -5440 Tim Charlton, G -M of Support Services tcharlton@holycross.com 970- 947 -5441 Operations and Engineering: Rick Arnhold, Manager of Vail/Eagle District Operations rarnhold a,holycross.com 970 - 748 -4308 Craig Murray, Manager of Glenwood District Operations cmurray(i0olycross.com 970 - 947 - 5426 Walter Dorman, Manager Engineering Department wdorman(a�,holycross.com 970 -947 -5411 Dispatch Center: Ken Roberts, Supervisor System Operations /Graphics krobertsra?holycross.eom 970- 947 -5419 Member Services and WE CARE: Steve Casey, Member Services/Marketing Administrator scasey(&,holycross.com 970 - 947 - 5430 Visit Holy Cross's website at www.holveross.com and click on index item for more information: About Holy Cross: History; Bylaws and Tariffs, Rules and Regulations For Consumers: Rates and Charges; Billing Procedures and Options; Net Metering; Renewable Energy Purchase Policy; Generator Interconnect Policy and Metering Use Guidelines Green Programs: Purchase Renewable Energy Program; WE CARE and Energy Audit Program gardnerkElectedOfricialHandouO r MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Public Works Department DATE: March 3 d ,2009 SUBJECT: Transportation Master Plan Update The Town of Vail, in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Transportation, is in the process of updating the Vail's Transportation Master Plan in response to the on- going and projected increases in development activity, along with results of the past master planning processes and pending redevelopment plans, including the Vail 20/20, the Lionshead Masterplan, the Vail Village Masterplan, The West Vail Redevelopment Plan, Timber Ridge Redevelopment Plan, and EverVail. Background The Town of Vail adopted the first Vail Transportation Master Plan in 1993. Additional studies insued as a direct result of the Master Plan including; (See Attached Summary finding of each) The Main and West Vail Roundbout studies in 1996 & 1998 respectively, The Lionshead Master Plan — Transportation Analysis in 1998, the Vail Village Loading arrd`Delivery Study in 1999, and the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update in 2002. Singe 2002, the Town has seen unprecedented growth and development that has and will continue to impact Transportation throughout Vail. As a result the Town is in the process of updating the Vail Transporation Master Plan once again. An executive summary of the report is attached. The Town has prepared a model taking into account the projected development that is foreseettover the next twenty years. In addition to the development growth, a modest background growth figure was added to represent general growth in the Vail Valley and thef Front Range. The culmination of the future growth is expected to increase traffic in Vail by 25 % -30 %, more specifically adding 2800 net new vehicular trips through Town in the PM peak hour. The trips can be approximately attributed to the following percentages: West Vail Redevelopment 25% Remaining Lionshead 19% EverVail 17-21% Lionshead Parking Structure 20% Vail Village 6% "timber Ridge 12% These growth figures and traffic trips were inserted into an overall transportation model which identified where the existing transportation system needs improvements to accommodate the future demand. Suggested improvements to meet the future demand and-maintain the level of services desired were then conceptually developed. These improvements are discussed below and broken down into three categories: /. Abadways & Interchanges: Includes recommended improvements for the North and South Frontage Roads and the necessary interchanges 1 It. Parking. Includes recommendations for parking management and required distribution of parking to meet the future parking demand. ttt. Transit and Visitor /Skier Drop off: Inlcudes recommendations for mitigation of the potential impact new development will have on our transit service and visitor /mountain portals. This includes bus routing, transit centers /hubs, charter bus /Shuttle/Taxi /passenger drop -off areas. Preliminary cost estimates for the capital costs of the roadway and interchange transportation improvement projects have also been developed along with possible funding mechanisms. Improvements that are expected to be funded by certain new developments have also been identified. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS I. Roadways and Interchanges. Roadway improvements can be divided into two categories; Development Impacted; and Non - development Impacted. The Development Impacted roads are those heavily affected by development and will require major capacity improvements and are expected to be largely funded by development. These generally require auxiliary lanes to accommodate turning movement from and onto the Frontage Roads. Due to the numerous access points along the Frontage Roads in the Vail Village, Lionshead and West Vail Commercial areas, the auxiliary lanes become continuous for long stretches and can function as thru lanes during peak times. Medians are also suggested in these areas to better control access and to provide an aesthetically pleasing area to break up the large amounts of required asphalt. The Non - Development Impacted roads are those requiring safety, functional and recreational improvements regardless if new development happens or not. These roads require bike path improvements, wider shoulders, left turn lanes, and drainage improvements. More specifc recommendations will be presented. The major interchanges directly affected by new development growth include Main Vail and West Vail interchanges, which will operate poorly in the future if no improvements are made, specifically in times of inclement weather. To better understand the operations and sensitivity of the roundabout to the future growth a traffic operations analysis was completed for each existing roundabout. The study takes snowy weather into account, as it typically further restricts traffic operations and typically occurs at our peak traffic time, the winter ski season. The future recommended improvement plan increases the level of service in each roundabout to the adopted Vail 20/20 standards of LOS C in optimal conditions and LOS D in snowy conditions. The recommended plan helps to relieve some of the pressure placed on the function of these interchanges via a new underpass, the Simba Run underpass, and capacity improvements at the Main Vail and West Vail Interchanges. Other recommended interchange improvements will be presented. II. Parking As was presented to the Town Council previously the number of required net new public parking spaces above any development requirement is 400 spaces now and a total of 1000 spaces in the future. It is staff's recommendation to disperse the number of available public spaces similarly to the uphill loading of the mountain. This loading is 2 expected to be a little less than 50 % from Golden Peak and Vail Village and slightly more than 50 % from Lionshead and West Lionshead. The future commercial mix should trend approximately 55 % Vail Village and 45 % Lionshead and West Lionshead. Added into this mix is the activity hub of the Ford Amphitheatre and the desire of the Vail Recreation District to program the fields into a major special event venue. Our thought two years ago was that the new parking balance be met in the following manner and priority: • 400 net new spaces provided at West Lionshead (Ever Vail) as a first priority • 300 net new public spaces at Lionshead Parking Structure as a second priority • 300 net new spaces at Ford Park as a third priority This may need to change somewhat do to current events. We will be reevaluating this in greater detail with a Ford Park Parking feasibility master plan. We expect to start this feasibility study this spring. Depending on the final retail and office requirements at West Lionshead (Ever Vail), constructing too many spaces at Ever Vail would be detrimental to the overall parking balance. Year -round managed paid parking should be seriously considered once the LH parking structure is complete, since the cost to maintain the new structures will be more than today, and the cost of transit service will increase without any increase in revenue. It is a goal to have parking revenues and ski lift tax pay for the total cost of parking and transit. We will provide a graphic presentation on our recommended dispersed approach to parking. Ill. Transit & Passenger /Skier Drop -Off Transit Centers The increased demand from the new development will put tremendous pressure on the routes serving areas west of the current Village Transportation Center (VTRC). The current VTRC handles 900 bus arrivals and departures per day at peak times and is over capacity. The peak times place over 20 town of Vail buses, with a capacity of 1200 people per hour, and 12 -14 ECO buses, or up to 600 people per hour. The demand for additional berths will require that we expand the transit center or add an additional center. Future projections estimate the Town could see a 50 %- 100% increase in use and ECO a doubling or tripling in use during peak times. We have identified that Lionshead is the best location for a new transportation center. Our analysis recommends that a rebuilt Lionshead Parking structure would be the best location of the Lionshead Transit Center. If for some reason this project does not come to fruition, the second choice was to enclose a transit center was on the North Day Lot, however after an extensive design effort and cost analysis the North Day Lot has since been ruled out. The current development plans proposed for the North Day Lot by Vail Resorts include employee housing and an enhanced skier drop -off area that replaces the Lionshead Place skier drop -off removed by the Arrabelle project and provides a location for the skier drop -off that currently illegally occurs at East Lionshead Circle. A Transit Center should be constructed to include multiple bus service from multiple carriers (TOV, ECO, Charter), shuttle services, van, taxi and limosine services and general passenger drop - off and pick -up. It also needs to include facilities to provide guest services, and driver services needs, similar to what occurs at the VTRC. The Town has just released an Request for Proposals (RFP) to study the feasibility and provide design for a Transit Center in Lionshead in an alternate location other than the Lionshead parking structure, since the timeline of LH parking structure is unknown and well into the future. Potential sites include the East Lionshead Circle Bus Stop and /or in combination with an 3 enhanced transportation impovements at the Concert Hall Plaza Bus Stop area, or other possible combinations that may be an outcome of the Lionshead Transit Center study. Transit improvements in these locations could function in the interm as a transit center and in the long term future as a Portal / Destination transportation hub or be available for development per the Lionshead master Plan, when and if the Lionshead Parking Strucuture is redeveloped with a larger Transit Center. Portal / Destination Transportation Hubs &Passenger ✓Skier Drop -off In addition to an additional Transit Center at Lionshead it is recommended that any of the future proposed parking structures and/or major development centers have Portal / Destination transportation hubs. These locations would include the West Lionhead (Ever Vail), the West Vail Commercial area, Ford Park, and a location adjacent to the Lionshead mall either at the East portal at East Lionshead Circle or at the West portal at Concert Hall Plaza or a combination of the two with the completed skier drop off improvements at the North Day Lot. A Portal / Destination transportation hub location should be constructed to allow for shuttle drop off, quick vehicle drop off and convenient transit service, similar to what occurs at Golden Peak. i 4 In general, to accommodate the above, it is recommended that the following existing and future facilities be constructed or be maintained to accommodate the interdependent intermodal needs of the resort community: Transit Buses Shuttles Passenger/Skier Location In- Outer Line ECO Charter & Private Van/ Quick Short Tow Lying Haul Fut. Front Hotel/ Taxi Drop -Off Term n Range Condo Servic ( <15 Parking Buses Shuttles a Min ) (30 Min West Vail Fire X X Station/Housin West Vail X X X X X X X Commercial Timber Ridge X X X Cascade X X X X Ever Vail X X X X X X X X X Concert Hall Plaza X TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD North Day Lot X East Lionshead X TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Circle Lionshead Parking X X X X X .., X . Structure(Preferred (street Ultimate Location) Levee Vail Village Transit X — X -- - X X X X X X X .Center (Street Level )L ten;. Hansen Ranch X X Road Gold Peak X X X X X _ X Ford Park X X X TBD X X X X X X — Use to be served at Transit Location TBD - To be determined pending RFP /Study on the Lionshead Transit Center & Ford Park MP Transit Center Portal / Destination Transportation Hub As with any ski resort community, skier drop -off plays an important role in traffic circulation and the overall resort experience. It is critical to have this opportunity at every mountain portal, whether it be by shuttle van, taxi, or passenger vehicle. Similar to other drop -off facilities, like train stations, the RMRA suggests a good estimate for the number of spaces needed is 2 % -5% of the available parking spaces. In Vail, we currently have 2750 parking spaces with an immediate need for 400 spaces, totaling 3150. Assuming 3% of 3150, Vail will need -95 spaces excluding those needed for private programs (DEVO, Ski Club Vail, etc...) Transit Service Outlying demand for service will be greatest to the west with the following major destinations; Ford Park, Village Transportation Center, Lionshead Transporation Center, West Lionshead(Ever Vail), Timber Ridge and West Vail Commercial seeing the greatest 5 riderships. These developments should be designed as transit oriented developments to encourage transit use. To meet the demand, a West Vail line haul route can be provided very efficiently once Simba Run Underpass is constructed. It is anticipated that hybrid electric articulated buses would run this route with frequent headways (bus spacing). The cost of the articulated buses would be an increase over what is currently budgeted for future bus replacement. In addition there would need to be modifications at the.bus storage and maintenance area to accommodate the vehicles. We have looked at this service using conventional buses verses the articulated buses and determined the capital investment outperforms the increase in operational costs needed to meet the same demand. PRELIMINARY COSTS Preliminary construction costs have been estimated for the road and interchange improvements based on 2007 construction costs. In general since that time construction costs indexes have increased 25 % -30 %, a new index for the 2009 construction season will be applied to the costs when it is determined. The improvement costs are approximately $63 million, with approximately $38 million being future development driven (2007 dollars). FUNDING SOURCES To fund these transportation system improvements, the Town must rely on some of the following mechanisms;, , , ,), , , and Other Funding Sources. These mechanisms are expanded upon below. • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) • Federal Agencies • Private Developers • Traffic Impact Fees + Tax Increment Financing (TIF) —Town has a $15 Million Bonding capacity • Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) — for landscaped areas and paths • Town's Capital Budget Vail Resorts Inc. $4.3 million parking commitment • Conference Center Fund of $9.3 million for reallocation • Selling or leasing development rights on Town of Vail land identified in the Lionshead Master Plan and the western south side of the Village Parking Structure • Tax Increase • Improvement Districts • Bonding or refinance the Town debt after 2012 NEXT STEPS + Adopt the 2009 Vail Transpotation Master Plan based on PEC's final recommendation (—April) • Complete the Lionshead Transit study (Proposals due 3/16/09) • Prepare a Simba Run and Main Vail interchange feasibility study in 2009. • Prepare a Ford Park Parking Feasibility Master Plan study in 2009 6 i • Continue to participate and complete the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Rail Study • Continue to coordinate long term transportation planning effort with ECO and Eagle County (Expansion of ECO transit / Regional Rail study) • Complete the Nexus study for a traffic impact fee to codify the current practice and adjust the fee if desired based on the new transportation need and cost information • Present a comprehensive list of all the projected costs for all projects and begin to compare this to a comprehensive list of funding sources • Expand the Urban Renewal boundaries to allow tax increment financing to be used from West Vail to Main Vail along the frontage roads, interchanges and the location of Simba Run underpass • Lobby the Department of Transportation to participate in the funding of these roadway improvements • Install permanent traffic counters at the roundabout interchanges to monitor trip trends I I I 7 t ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following additional information has been provided for your review: - Executive Summary of the Vail Transportation Master Plan -The Simba Run Underpass Summary of Benefits White Paper 2008 -The Vail Transportation Panning Document Summary -The Outline of the Presentation for 313 I K VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Prepared for: Town of Vail Public Works Department 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Prepared by: i Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 3031721 -1440 Project Manager: Christopher J. Fasching, PE FHU Reference No. 05 -168 January 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i I. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 IL EXISTING CONDITIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- - -4 A. Traffic Conditions --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -4 B. Parking -------------------------------------------------- ,. --------------------------------- -- - -15 C. Transit----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -16 III. ANTICIPATED GROWTH-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -18 A. Development-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 S B. Parking ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -19 C. Inter - Relationship of the Various Modes -------------------------------------------- - - - --- 21 IV. PROJECTED 2025 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ---------------- - ------------ 22 A. Traffic Volume Forecasts --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 22 B. Traffic Operations------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 25 V. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES ------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 32 A. Main Vail Interchange ----------------------------------------------- -------------------- - - - - -- 32 B. West Vail Interchange -------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- 36 C. South Frontage Road – Vail Road to Ford Park----------------------------------- - - - - -- 39 D. South Frontage Road – Vail Road to West Lionshead (Ever Vail) ------------ - - - - -- 41 E. West Vail Redevelopment-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 43 F. Other Improvements --------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 43 G. Frontage Road Cross Section --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 44 H. Transit--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- --- 44 I. Parking ----------------------------------------------- FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN ----------------------------------- - - - - -- 49 VII. RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN ---------- ------------- ----------------- _..-------- s0 A. Roadway Improvements ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 50 B. Travel Demand Management---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 59 C. Transit--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 59 D. Parking -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 62 E. Pedestrians and Trails------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- 62 Vlll. IMPROVEMENT TRIP THRESHOLDS---------------- --- ---------- -- - - -- ------ -- r------------- 63 IX. IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES ---------------- ---- --- __– ------------------------------- —_ 66 X. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 69 A. Priorities------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 69 B. Other Planning Efforts-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -69 C . 1 -70 PEIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 70 FELSBURO � i HOLT & ULLEVIG Vail Transportation Master Plaii Update LIST OF FIGURES Pa4e Figure 1 Town of Vail Study Area ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -2 Figure 2 Existing Peak Season Traffic ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -5 Figure 3 Existing Levels of Service ----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -8 Figure 4 Existing Vail Bus Routes---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 17 Figure 5 Trip Assignment Distribution --------------------- - - - --- -------------------------- - - - - -- 24 Figure 6 Residential "Close -in" Areas for Trip Generation---------------------------------- - - - - -- 26 Figure 7 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections ------------------ u------------------------------ - - - - -- 27 Figure 8 Year 2025 Peak Hour Levels of Service ----------------------- -------------------------- 30 Figure 9 Vail Frontage Road Daily Traffic During Winter Peak Season----------------- - - - - -- 31 Figure 10 Central Vail Parking Imbalance ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 48 Figure 11 Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan — Central Vail ------------ - - - - -- 51 Figure 12 Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan — West Vail--------------- - - - - -- 52 Figure 13 Vail Frontage Road Laneage ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 55 Figure 14 Vail Frontage Road Cross - Section --------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 56 Figure 15 Year 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections with Recommended Plan --------- - - - - -- 57 Figure 16 Year 2025 Peak Levels of Service with Recommended Plan------------------ - - - - -- 58 Figure 17 Proposed Vail Bus Routes----------------------------------------------------- --------- - - - - -- 61 Figure 18 West Vail Frontage Road Improvements ------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 67 Figure 19 Main Vail Frontage Road Improvements-------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 68 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2005 -2006 Season Travel Time Summary ----------------------------------------- - - - - -- 10 Table 2. Vail Frontage Road Accident Summary — Six Years----------------------------- - - - - -- 13 Table 3. Trip Generation Rates------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 25 Table 4. Travel Time Comparison — Year 2025 Peak Season, PM Peak Hour ------- - - - - -- 28 Table 5. Main Vail Interchange North Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment------- - - - - -- 33 Table 6. Main Vail Interchange South Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment ------ - - - - -- 34 Table 7. West Vail Interchange North Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment ------ - - - - -- 37 Table 8. West Vail Interchange South Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment------ - - - - -- 38 Table 9. South Frontage Road Alternatives Analysis — East of Main Vail Interchange — 2025 Traffic-------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 40 Table 10. Mitigation Measure Offset; Total New Trips Equivalent ------------------------- - - - - -- 64 00 A FELSBU RG HOLT & ULLEVIG Vail Transportation Master Plan Update LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING LOS CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C DETAILED TRAVEL TIME DATA APPENDIX D FRONTAGE ROAD COLLISION DIAGRAMS APPENDIX E DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES APPENDIX F CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS OF IMPROVEMENTS PLAN APPENDIX G FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN ! FELSBURG i HOLT & ULLEVIG Vail Transportation Master Plan Update (COLT FELSDURG ( & ULLEVIG i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Vail continues to experience growth through new development and the redevelopment of older commercial and residential buildings. Recently, the Town has been involved in planning significant redevelopment projects including West Vail, Ever Vail, the Lionshead Parking Structure, and Timber Ridge. Numerous other developments have been recently completed, recently approved, are under construction, or have made application to the Town. In addition, Town staff has assessed the redevelopment potential for numerous other sites; the culmination of all these development and redevelopment projects will collectively add noticeable demand (approximately 2,800 trips per hour at peak times, or approximately 25 to 30 percent increase over current Town development trip generations) on the Town's transportation system. This study was initiated by the Town to assess the nature of the increased transportation demands placed on the Town's systems by all potential development /redevelopment as well as that from other regional growth. The study focuses on the Town's Frontage Road System, but considerations for transit service and parking are also addressed towards the development of a comprehensive plan. This study also serves to provide the following: ► Establishment of a Frontage Road improvements plan from which to develop appropriate transportation improvement projects for the Town's primary road system. ► Develop transportation demand management measures to reduce peak traffic flows during the winter. ► Develop a Frontage Road Access Management Plan with support from CDOT for all future access points along the North and South Frontage Roads. ► Identify a strategy and establish direction towards developing a Town parking plan and a transit plan given potential growth. Existing Conditions A significant amount of traffic data has been collected in support of developing this plan. The data were collected over a host of holidays and spring break time periods to reflect peak conditions. Further, roadway /intersection capacity analyses (LOS calculations) accounted for conditions indicative of mild snow and wet pavement. The analyses of existing traffic conditions led to the following findings: ► The interchanges tend to be the most critical components in the Town's system. Besides providing access to /from 1 -70, the interchanges are also the only points within Town where traffic can cross 1 -70. This concentration of traffic through these bottleneck areas negatively effect travel time for drivers and for transit service. ► At peak times, drivers are challenged to turn left onto the Frontage Road (either north or south) from a side street. The nature of the challenge varies by cross- street and section of Frontage Road, but there are numerous locations where drivers attempting such a left turn experience delay. Again, this effects transit operations where bus routing is required to make such turns. . FELSBURG C � HOLT ULLEVIG Page i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Parking in Vail has been a high profile issue for many years during peak times. The Town operates two parking structures capable of accommodating 2,500 vehicles. In addition, the Town has established Ford Park for permit parking and allows parking on the South Frontage only when overflow conditions occur. Frontage Road parking tends to occur 25 to 40 times per winter season depending on conditions (the Town's goal is to achieve 15 days or less per season). Additional parking is needed to better accommodate the frequency of peak days during ski season. The transit service provided by Vail is heavily used. The Town has some of the highest ridership in the state with six outlying routes and a central "spine" route referred to as the In -Town shuttle. The East Vail outlying route often experiences capacity conditions in the morning (inbound) and in the evening (outbound) due to high demand. The two West Vail routes, which travel in a clockwise and counter - clockwise fashion through the West Vail area, provide needed mobility for areas along both sides of 1 -70, but the interstate is a barrier in providing efficient service to all areas in West Vail. The In -town route is by far the busiest route on the system and it provides frequent service between and within the Lionshead and Vail Village areas. Busy times see this route at capacity as the Town adds buses to maintain frequent service and increase capacity. Delays are often experienced at the Golden Peak area and at the Frontage Road within Lionshead Village (due to the need to turn left onto the Frontage Road). The location of parking areas with respect to commercial uses and ski portal usage is not in a precise balance. Much of the skiing terrain lies toward the eastern end of central Vail (Lionshead and the Village), yet over half of the parking is located in the western portion of Central Vail. Similarly, there is far more commercial use in Vail Village than in Lionshead, further adding to the unbalanced situation of parking demand and supply. Projected Conditions The Town is anticipating a significant amount of growth in the next five to ten years. Considering approved development, submitted development proposals, and potential redevelopment proposal in the future, the Town could experience an additional net 3,000 new units and an additional net new 700,000 square feet of commercial uses. The combination of this additional development is projected to add approximately 2,800 PM peak hour trips onto Vail's roadway system during peak times in the winter. The consequences of the combined traffic impact of the development will significantly impact mobility within Vail, particularly during snowy weather. Transit will also be affected negatively as buses travel along the same roadways and will pass through the same congested intersections as other traffic. . FELSBURG ( O FI O L T & ULLEVIG Page ii Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Specifically, the following issues are anticipated during the peak hours of peak season: ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound off -ramp at the Main Vail interchange (attempting to enter the north roundabout), particularly during the AM peak hour ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound South Frontage Road approach at the South Main Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the south roundabout) ► Significant delays for motorists turning left onto the Frontage Road at numerous cross streets in the Main Vail area and in the West Vail area. ► Significant delay for motorists turning left from the Frontage Road onto Vail Valley Drive due to the peculiar stop sign configuration. (Frontage Road approaches stop while Vail Valley Drive approach does not.) ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound North Frontage Road approach at the West Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the north roundabout). Numerous options were considered to correct these issues. Some options were intended to address a localized issue whereas other options could address a myriad of issues. A consideration of pros and cons for options as well as other analyses, have led to the recommended plan shown in Figure ES -1 and ES -2 and the general frontage road widening scheme shown in Figures ES -3 and ES -4. One of the most crucial improvements recommended in this plan is the proposed Simba Run underpass of 1 -70. There are numerous mobility benefits that this improvement would provide to the Town including: ► Traffic congestion relief of the West Vail interchange roundabouts. ► Traffic congestion relief of the Main Vail interchange roundabouts. ► Increased flexibility and efficiency to provide transit service to West Vail including a potential for a "line haul" rapid service connecting the Town's major activity centers. ► Accommodation of a trail connection to serve bicycle and pedestrian activity between areas north and south of 1 -70. ► Improved response time for emergency vehicles. Other needed improvement considerations as part of the plan include: ► Construction of roundabouts along the North and South Frontage Road at strategic locations to accommodate minor street left turn movements onto the Frontage Road at peak times. ► Lane additions as well as signing and roadway lane striping to establish two northbound lanes under 1 -70 at the West Vaal and Main Vail interchanges (lanes would each be 11 feet wide). ► Expansion of the north roundabout at the Main Vail interchange. P FELSBURG � 4 I O L T & ULLEVIG Page Hi The Simba Run Underpass Summary of Benefits — White Paper September 9, 2008 The Simba Run Underpass is a critical component to serve Vail's traffic needs in that it provides some relief to the Main Vail Interchange and a fair amount of relief to the West Vail interchange. Additional benefits realized from this improvement include the provision for an additional pedestrian crossing of 1 -70 and a dramatic increase in bus routing flexibility within Town. This underpass of 1 -70 will greatly improve mobility within Vail and it benefits all modes of travel. Traffic -wise, this improvement will provide moderate relief to the Main Vail interchange approximately improving operations by one -half a LOS (some approaches more than others). It's most significant traffic operations benefit is realized at the West Vail Interchange in which peak hour operations have the potential of improving by up to two Levels of Service. The grade - separation of 1 -70 will provide for crossing capability without relying on the interchanges where traffic concentrations occur due to 1-70 access. This underpass is anticipated to reduce traffic by approximately five percent and 12 percent, respectively, at the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges. Further, the increased ease of crossing 1 -70 would reduce total travel along the Frontage Road system and reduce travel through the existing interchanges, thus extending their functional life and reducing the level of needed interchange improvements. Transit -wise, the Simba Run underpass would provide an excellent opportunity to enhance service and increase efficiency. The areas served by the West Vail routes are awkward given major origins and destinations along both sides of 1 -70. Buses, like all traffic, are forced to cross 1 -70 at the Main Vail and the West Vail interchanges, and the circular routing through town is cumbersome. The underpass would allow for a host of route revisions resulting in far fewer vehicle - miles of bus travel required for service. With major activity centers possible along the North Frontage Road west of the new underpass as well as along the South Frontage Road east of the new underpass, the potential exists to establish a °spine" or line - haul" service connecting all of these centers. Other routes within town would then "feed" into the line -haul service. The improved transit mobility will have a positive impact on the frontage roads and interchange system by increasing transit ridership thereby decreasing vehicular traffic demand on the system. Pedestrian -wise, the Simba Run underpass would provide a crucial link between the north and south sides of 1 -70. Pedestrian activity has been known to take place across 1 -70 at -grade near the Simba Run location. It is an extremely unsafe situation when pedestrians are crossing the high -speed freeway. Fencing barrier exists along both sides of 1 -70, but openings in the fences are often created (illegally) allowing pedestrian activity to cross the interstate. The addition of an underpass pedestrian connection will minimize exposure to fatal 9 pedestrian /vehicular incidents that have occurred along 1 -70. Further, the Simba Run underpass would provide an excellent means for bicyclists to cross 1 -70, allowing riders an alternative to pedaling through the roundabout interchanges. The crossing could reduce bicycle /pedestrian travel by as much as four miles (depending on the specific origin /destination along either side of 1 -70). The one drawback of the Simba Run underpass is it's expense. This is the most costly element in the Transportation Plan. However, it is also an improvement that provides a significant level of benefit to the Town's mobility for all modes of travel. As a next step, the Town should undertake a more detailed feasibility study to fully appreciate the impacts, costs, benefits, and potentially identify a means of funding. 10 TOWN OF VAIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DOCUMENTS SUMMARY Vail Transportation Master Plan 1993 • Reduce Vehicular and Loading /Delivery in the Village • Consider Ford Park, West Day Lot, North Day Lot and expansion of Lionshead Parking Structure for additional public parking • Consider high- capacity bus service, Low Floor buses or people -mover between Village and Lionshead • Modify out lying bus routes to be more efficient • Extensive review of Main Vail and West Vail 4 -Way stop interchanges. Recommends to construct underpass in the vicinity of Simba Run. • Consider Vail Valley Drive as one way with new bridge connection just east of Ford Park • Widen Frontage road and implement left turn lanes at needed intersections with the Frontage Roads • Add 6' lane bike lanes on all Frontage Roads Main Vail and West Vail Roundabout Specific Studies (1996 &1998) • Implemented Roundabouts to ease congestions from 4 -way stops, delay the need for Simba Run Underpass. Lionshead Masterplan -- Transportation Analysis 1998 & Updates • Recommendation of widened Frontage Rd from Main Vail to future Simba Run Underpass, to include medians, left turn lanes, and continuous right -in /right out lane, and widened shoulder /parking lane. • Recommended Lionshead Transit Center at North Day Lot or a redeveloped LH Parking Structure • Suggests Simba Run Underpass as need for capacity at roundabouts increases. -Suggests roundabouts at W. LH Development and E. LH Circle. • Indicates need to increase public parking by up to 400 spaces. Vail Village Loading & Delivery Study 1999 • Expands upon needs and solutions for reducing or eliminating Loading /Delivery vehicles in the Village Vail Transportation Master Plan Update 2002 • Expanded detail of Loading /Delivery Facilities in the Village in light of the Font Door Project and the 1999 Vail Village L/D Study. • Expanded study on high capacity buses and people movers. Implemented Low floor buses, NEXTbus system. • Reevaluated and made recommendations for out lying bus routes and a Lionshead Intermodal Transit Center • Coordination with railway system proposals (IMC- Inter - Mountain Connection, CIFGA -CO Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority) • Creation of a Noise Contour map and model, indicating noise levels throughout the Town and possible abatement. • Investigated preliminary considerations for burying 1 -70 under its existing alignment • Coordination with the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 1 -70 from Denver to Glenwood Springs 11 • Creation of a traffic model to forecast traffic based on development expectations at the time. Vail Tunnel Options — Square 1 Document (Draft) 2005 • A preliminary document exploring the considerations needed to be addressed if 1 -70 were to be tunneled thru Vail 1 -70 P'EIS (2004 - Present) • Considers future traffic model predictions in the Denver to Glenwood Springs 1 -70 corridor. • Discusses the considerations needed for the implementation of Rail /Mass Transit system along the 1 -70 Corridor and highway widening Lionshead Transit Center White Paper & LH Master flan Update 2008 • Provides additional analysis for a LH Transit Center. Recommends Redeveloped Parking Struculre or North Day Lot Simba Run Underpass Benefits White Paper 2008 • Provides summary of transportation benefits of Simba Run Underpass Vail Transportation Master Plan Update 2009 • Updates traffic model based on the recent Billion Dollar Development surge. • Provides specific traffic improvements for the Frontage Roads to handle current and future development -Main Vail and West Vail Roundabout Improvements, Simba Run Underpass -For vehicle capacity, bus route efficiency and pedestrian crossing, Widening of the Frontage Roads, Ford Park Roundabout (w/ Parking), West Vail Safeway Roundabout (w/ West Vail Redevelopment), Turn lanes and Landscape Medians • Coordinates future access points with CDOT. Provides Buy -in from CDOT. • Recommends future bus routes, including a line haul route with Simba Run Underpass • Recommends the addition of 400 public parking spaces in the short term and 1000 in the long term with locations at: Ford Park, Lionshead Parking structure expansion, Evervail, • Recommends an Intermodal Transit Center at Lionshead and a hub at Evervail 12 Vail Transportation Master Plan Unpdate Presentation March 3` 2009 1:15pm I. Intro (5 Minutes) A. Intent of overview and expectations of Council B. Future Meetings (PEC /Adoption) II. Big Picture Overview (10 Minutes) A. Transportation and growth statewide B. State initiatives (RMRA, PETS, Coalition) C. Regional growth (ECO,Collaboration) D. How it all impacts Vail IIL Vail Traffic (30 Minutes) A. Existing Conditions B. Anticipated Growth C. Projected Traffic Volumes and Operations /LOS D. Improvement Alternative E. Recommended Plan F. Improvement Timing/Thresholds G. Access Management Plan IV. Intermodal Interdependency — Plan Overview (10 Minutes) A. Transit, Parking and Skier Drop Off, How it all comes together V. Bike Ways along the Frontage Rd (S Minutes) VI. Other Impacts of Recommended Plan (10 Minutes) A. Approved Developments & Timing B. Lighting C. Signage -VMS D. Wayfinding E. Maintenance (Summer/Winter) VII. Next Steps A. Simba Run Underpass Feasibility Study B. Adopt Master Plan by Resolution C. Traffic impact fee nexus study based on recommended plan WS aa. t tea, x 4 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Overview Presentation March 3rd, 2009 Overview Intent &Expectations • Listen to presentation and become familiar with the Recommended Plan • Affirm solutions and the current direction of the update; and /or • Recognize Red Flaa issues and discuss with staff &provide further direction • Request additional meetings if more detailed discussion is necessary • Confirm Next Steps and Process Process • Council Overview 3/3 Overview 3/3 • Draft Master Plan to Draft MP 3/19 Council & PEC on 3/19 • PEC Worksession 3/23 PEC 3/23 • PEC Final PEC Final 4/14 RE:commendation 4/14 • Council Adoption 4/21 L Council 4/21 Population 2000 -2035 2000 2035 % Colorado 4.3 M 7.8 M 81% Metro Denver 2.3 M 3.9 M 70% Summit County 23548 54042 129% Garfield County 43791 146271 234% Lake County 7812 20811 166% Eagle County 41659 98150 135% Employment 2000 -2035 2000 2035 Colorado 2.3 M 4.6 M 100% Metro Denver 1.5 M 2.3 M 53% Summit County 21787 54874 152% Garfield County 24482 56826 132% Lake County 2423 4565 88% Eagle County 34172 84296 146% Housin g Units and Jobs 2000 Post Dev. % Housing • Eagle County 22111 35852 62% • Vail 5386 8950 66% Jobs • Eagle County 34782 84296 142% • Vail 7500 11000 46% Future Parkin g Demand Drive up Demand for Vail Parking Spaces Incremental Percent Current Percent Futrue Daily Futre Number of Current Future Peak Day Daily Peak Peak Incremental Percent People Number of Numbers Numbers Useage Useage Useage number Transit per Car new Cars Merchant Pass Local Skier 5000 6000 3000 60% 30% 900 50% 2 225 Transit Users 450 Current Front Current Incremental Vail's Daily Range Pop Futrue Front Current Percent Percent percent of New Skiers Number of Percent Numberof Number of Range Peak Day Peak population popula,ton on the Front Front use peple per Number of skiers Poplation Useage Useage Skiers Skiers Range Range Transit car new Cars Colorado Pass Day Front 3.5 milion Range 700,000 skiers 4.5 million 3000.5000 .43 % -.72% 20% 10 -15% 125,000 540 -900 0% 3 180 -300 Transit Users 0 Total Number number of Percent of Future Numberof Assumed for Percent Numberof People in Skiers on Numberof Percent Numberof Units Zoned in the Second occupancy peple per Second any given Incremental use peple per Number of Eagel County Home Market Peak Days household homes day Skiers Transit car new Cars Part Time Residence 12000 10,000 Homes 30% 3 9000 11% 990 50 % 3 165 Transit Users 445 Incremental Numberof Percent Peak Day Future Number of Number of New Percent Housed in Demand Incremental Percent Numberof New Jobs in jobs per Employees Housed in Vail use Based on Number of use peple per Number of Vail Employee Vail Vail Transit Shifts Emplyees Transit car new Cars Local Employee 3600 Jobs 1.2 3000 30% 100% 50% 1000 50% 2 250 Trans, 900 500 Toatal incremental Future Demand 3820 -4180 48-44% 2.4.2.5 820 -940 Transit Users 900 1395 Existing Demand S h o r t f a l l 351.465 Total Number of Long Term Futre Spaces 1171 -1405 Potential Rail Alignments 1-70 runnel Options 16' ti 21 Narri Fork i 3.1 Breckmddge 4.)Aspen �' ~ \ tine nna a aasaw sores f / ��. `- i" - tr N rM E! lYLdPL h K dEa11yM j L Y Su � n aerebprRn pinre _ - , � �s Y �Ir' D- R 131.* H..* T- r In2e[aillffoal 1 cny 1 L. e. 000 n. _ I Ar;po GaIden P 1 ITYl.l �F1 lZl r 1F r .j Nom Fwt Tunnel Lr w0ODDR C ; 1 pp ` i .fir y[ Lr 14.000 It , - • z fm a —Fb C. Eke4en Tunnel • f �� F i Lt 22,000R Legend Sl�oms j • � ` { r .,'� A i p �/ � __ lJ.' � � N UlomsCaineE Abpnrtlenl - .� l`� uu IK ( \ / +. T _ -. 1!r 'I `.[ • ra.. " Iq 1TIV E,. sa Rai P6 Rob Map #3 a z 0 4Pnies E.WM RaYOad I -70 East of Avon A 0 y . 1 []ooiinES IEYSp,.r� cmarers �, Rail Station Requirements 1 .Y Track center line Bus /shuttle access / Vehicular access �► "'7 '�► • 1r B bays g 1 Il - Plaza r - Kiss -n -nde • 15 car capacity Stabs -ac s to ploltforf` I _ - Storm water First level parking 234 spaces = �. detention Ticketing/ baggage/ I I check in/ irlf tion desk - -__� - Elevator/ stairs — Bike storage Bus/ shuttle/ - - -__ -_ 30 bill capacity � - velor access • �C' ",`AfS AV • ter` Vail Traffic • Existing Conditons • Anticipated Growth • Projected volumes & Operation • Improvement Alternatives `�'�` • Recommended Plan Improvements Timing • Access Management Plan FEL I. RU RG C8n '12 C H L T S —, 2A5 . lee . m U L F.VI(' 35o t n ® 425 - 600..7 7 - m Sop ® 165 70 ,l so..� - - 160 e'er 370 • I I' ` �� o I r^ 26 25p eto ♦ g v WV �u e App r"�1 3c i l 5 4 � r Sanh F—t.g. Pe y@ u wp [1 a9 !� 95 ♦ 15 °ao m ® 275 *g . 35 ?per' ® . 18 •',.�• 3 9 210 T• 5 '_. �'m 0 f201 so 7so yo,n zs I25 235 270 3 � �' (70 400 - 50 2� 30 �nVg ^.'L '` \'.. 1zS t00 [� 130 s a - y 6 y 4P� y10 a,N 5 g �Z. Ea ® y � A,f • \ �,S ,�°° m rAaaalro Gar b LEGEND ,,�, XXx . PM Pak Hour Traffic Volumes A ll fXXX( . AMP: ak Hour Traffic Volumes "1 , (at Interchanges) �/p� �s 2� 2 � c •� 6r$� - ® Count Locations Less Than 5 Vehicles per Hour Gnec�k or � g2i F I r o •� � Fgure 2 Existing Peak Season Traffic Nertk v.0 TM.yONIM lavlp.0&1!� rYYp HOLT ti U G a u BIDI 4- Al m lei cl 7� 4 A[ d d� 4 NOTE: Roundabout LOS'S reflect poor weather conditions V B JAI LEGEND PM Peak Hour Level of Service X AM Peak Hour Level of Service K,17 \ (Interchanges Only) q W.Gw*Ctk.N. -1. C IAJ M = Count Locations 0 = Roundabout Figure 3 Existing Levels of Service noun ' FEISBURG s90 _r»o H O LT fi 460 r I-L I m m LEVIG I 65p m 55 91p 770 250 �i� 95 f B80 , ��. ?,r loo ,i 57 0 �r 55 a75. i i. 3 70 .� 4 315 57 2 t M 3 - r d So.. Frontage RC F s As /y 7� •' . 6 ®_ 375 316 0• eAb 9° o e0p _� —;5 I N 225 j 335 550 -.- r._ as 150 (� m P _ P�¢ o � '6� • 3 1 , `', t,ons.,aa, ,.00c -- _.. �® \ C �Ie WnaaE 00 ' ,15 '• �5 R �0 h a� I g10 9 l m0 _�• o -- 740 � o S 1'i e ® .10 3pOryp m `, m Maue,nanGr Jc�s y m $-%. m � , LEGEND i e°y 9 m �S'eo 0,0 3 45 XXX = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ' Intersection Number Less Than 5 Vehicles per Hour rt o Q W. Dora CO. Cr. h ®� J � � 3 O • e g 1� Figure 7 �y 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG r ti' , el 7M,m S oulh F, _w ,� ® 77 c # \ \M LEGEND M x = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes J11. V. 1XI = AM Peak Hour Traffic Volume. (at Interchanges) 0o Intersection Number A--- Less Than 5 Vehicles per Hour NOTE: Roundabout LOS's reflect poor weather conditions Figure 8 Year 2025 Peak Hour Levels of Service ncrre FELSBURG C 'HOLT & ULLEVIG on Frontage Road to Includ Explore combining E. LH Circle Possible Signal, Officer Combine Forest Road & W. LH Circle with redevelopment access; Control or other traffic with Ever Vail Redevelopment and possible roundabout. control device. construct roundabout. Expand Roundabout Possible Signal, Officer Control or other traffic control device. U Convert to 3/4 Re- stripe for movement. Construct Simba Run �' \t 2 NB lanes underpass of 1 -70 with H 61. roundabout intersection of frontage roads. ^r'' Construct new roundaboutat �e Q J . Ford Park. S J (9 Align and reduce access 9 as appropriate. m i Clearly designate turn lane assignments along westbound approach. Future access to Ford Park. See Access Management Plan for specifics on access points Note: Travel demand management measures also need to be incorporated into the plan. Of Figure 11 significance in the need to encourage 1 -70 traff ic coming f rom the east to exit at East Vail Recommended Frontage Road Improvements Plan - rather than the MainVail interchange during Q the AM peak hour. Central Vail North See Access Management Plan FELSBURG for specifics on access points C H O L T & ULLEVIG Provide primary full- movement access; either a roundabout or a traffic signal. e �m m�U Add second SB approach lane. Chamonix cane ---- --------- � West Vail Planning Area _ (No public road _ — ) d. i through Planning Area) ' !North FrOte A 1 -- — — — — — — — — — Off -site improvement; Construct Simba Run underpass. South Frontage Rd. 1 Restripe for 2 NB lanes under 1 -70. Figure 12 Recommended Frontage Road Improvements Plan - West Vail North Vail Transportation Services - Enviromental Study, 06-168,0211&09 Vail Interchange Levels of Service (LOS) - PM Peak Hour Main Main West West Vail Vail Vail Vail North South North South Existing (Ideal) B A B B Existing (Snow) B A B C 2025 Do Nothing (Ideal) F B C F 2025 Do Nothing (Snow) F D F F 2025 w /Improvements (Ideal) B B B B 2025 w /Improvements (Snow) D D C D Vail 20/20 Plan LOS Goals: Ideal - LOS C or better Snowy - LOS D or better r •Y;' Is � t ` i y NOR r y � .I WN Lw LEGEND FELSBURG IL. .� + •- }1� •i ,` " r ♦, ` �/ J,� 1. l�'�,M' 1 . •,/ -ten "� ULLEVIG �.� $ . f ► , Red Sandstone School Lionshead TOV - 4 Routes TOV In -Town Ford Park \ ECO - 5 Routes 15 Charter Buses TOV - 3 Routes - - needed) North Day Lot p s • • Charter B us (When needed) 9 Drop -off 15 Short Term Parkin ' I • ! • - - Scool ' 5 -10 Drop -Off 3 -5 Drop / Concert Hall Plaza TOV In -Town LH Parkog _ TOV - 2 Routes Stu ECO - 5 Routes T E. LH Ctde 3 -� E. M.ad '4. � 3 -5 Drop -Off Ue Rd. _ Gore Creek d' �? Vail Village 6� TOV In -Town TOV - 8 Routes ECO - 5 Routes Founder's Plaza 1 -3 Charter Buses 3 Drop -off 30 o erm ar mg Gold Peak 17 Drop -Off TOV In -Town de TOV - 1 Route Transit Center �`s Short Term Parking TOV - 2 Routes Charter Bus (when needed) ECO - 5 Routes 0 Portal Hub + Drop -Off 2 -3 Shuttles 1 -2 Shuttles 27 Drop -Off Ski Valet Informal Drop -Off Lion / Ever Vail North Day TOV In -Town Ford Park TOV In -Town Lot TOV - 2 -3 Routes TOV - 3 Routes TOV - 2 -3 Routes 9 Drop -Off ECO - 5+ Routes Charter Bus (when needed) ECO - 5+ Routes 2 -4 Chanter Buses 2 -3 Shuttles (when 15 -20 Charter Buses .S, ttl needed �� - • •. 550 Public .. - 1 ort erm Pk ng . r 20 -25 Drop -Off 10 r_o_p 10 - Drop - Off _ W est Vail 5 't TOV - 3 Routes ECO -5+ Routes = LH CIU9 2 ShuttleNan 4 -6 Drop ff G�Cr-k F Vail Villa TOV In -Town Gold Peak Concert Hall Plaza TOV - 8 Routes Founder's Plaza ECO — 5 -F Routes In -Town TOV 3 Drop -off Shuttles /Drop -Off TBD 1 -3 Charter Buses y Co ld Peak �� - 30 Short 'Term Parking TOV In -Town 17 Drop -Off TOV - 1 Route _ Charter Bus (When needed) Cascade —f 2 -3 Shuttles TOV - 1 Route Transit Center � Short Term Parking 27 Drop -Off ECO -5+ Routes (TBD) Portal Hub + Drop -Off Ski Valet 1 -2 Shuttles. 3 Drop -Off Je� Sandstone Pedestoan overpass West Vail Red North \ Vail Exit No. 173 °u 1... „ Vail Exit No. 76 A a F`opta9e d � MemEnawrce) taw �.e�+"'.. Fret�eRd' Cascade e Hd• 50 Village Lionsheao ® $pe Fro dHg Golf Course r p ap 4OFCieakLit. I� West Green So Vail � *nark uth i Village da V� Intermountain GGlde Golf Course Peak ,,j Sandstone + \W � fkn¢trYu Wes[ veil Red NoM No E xit \ Wg 6dt d ^erorF'° ve "'ffG� pa p Vefl \ n w a'M 8bhan Ad. �u0 p Cascade Lionsheao 1J �w ■� "0, wrialla n�' Golf Ccurse Fist Vall s�� �Ghe aeeicD;. West Van " Ford Peik Green South Wall Or Village Interinouldafn Golden ay PWR Goff Course TOWN OF VAIL EXISTING BUS ROUTES Recommended Transit Plan Summary • Transit Center Improvements • Portal /Destination Hubs • Quick Drop -Off &Short Term Parking • Bus Route Improvements • Parking Transit Centers • Provide facilites to function as a hub for Vail's bus service, ECO's bus service to Vail, charter buses, hotel shuttles, taxi services, van shuttle services, and general passenger drop-off/pick-up, with facilities to accommodate guests, employees and drivers. • Vail Village Transit Center — Expanded Transit Deck • Lionshead Transit Center — Within the redeveloped LH Parking Structure — Or at E. LH Circle in combination with Concert Hall Plaza Portal /Desti nation 'Transit Hubs • Provides necessary transit facilities to support a mountain portal or major destination; including at a minimum TOV and /or ECO buses, shuttles, and quick passenger drop -off • Portal Hubs — West Vail Commercial — Cascade — Ever Vail — Lionshead (TBD) — Gold Peak — Ford Park Passenger Drop-Off & Short Term Parking Parking Short Quick Skier Skier (Public) Term Drop -Off Drop -Off Drop -Off Parking (Total) ( <1200') ( <600') Existing 2750 45 78(2.8%) 73 32(1.2%) 3750 210 120 99 58(1.5%) Future (3.2%) • Parking: Public Parking (Vail Village, Lionshead, EverVail, Ford Park) • Short Term: 30 min. to 2.5 Hr Short Term Parking for multiple uses • Quick Drop -Off: 15 min. or less spaces for quick Drop -Off — RMRA suggests this number to be 2 % -5% of available parking spaces and ideally within 600' of destination. Bus Route Improvements • Improve Bus efficiency and Service with the addition of Simba Run underpass • Line Haul Route (8 -12 min. service) hitting major destination along the route from West Vail to Ford Park • West Vail Routes increase from 30 to 20 min. service • Ever Vail is added to In -town, Line Haul, &West Vail Routes • Transit Centers at LH and VTRC provide driver accommodations and transfer stations • In -Town buses expand from 6 -8 to 10 -12 Bike Ways • Goals Year Round open &continuous safe accommodations along the Frontage Roads for all types of bicyclists: • Recreational (Families, Visitors, Beginners) • Commuter (Point to point, Most direct route) • Avid /Sport (Minimize conflicts, exercise, fast) Frontage Rd. Solutions • Recreational Bicyclists — 10' raised and separated path • Commuter &Avid /Sport Bicyclists —Share the road accommodations • Provide minimum 6' paved shoulder where single lane exists in one direction • Share 12' auxiliary lane (continuous turn lane) with no shoulder where two lanes exist in one direction • Share 8' paved parking lane and 4' paved shoulder where Frontage Rd. parking exists Town of Vail _ Typical Frontage Road Cross Section 6' 12' 12' 6' l Bike Travel Isle Travel lane Bike Lane Lane TYPE A Two -Lane Frontage Road 6' bike lanes each side Existing Bighorn Road Bighorn toad Future. AIITwo -Lane Frontage Road, except as noted below East Val 10' 2' 4' 12' 12' �- Attscled Bike Travel lane Travel lane Bike Peer Lena TYPE B Two -Lane Frontage Road Attached Path B1ke lanes each side Existing, Blue Cow Chute to Ford Park West Vail Roundabout South side to Conoco S. Frontage Rd Future Post Office to Buffehr Creek by The Wren Pedestrian Overpass to Solar Val 10' 6' 6' 12' 17 Dataded Min Bike Travel lae Travel lane Bike Path Lane Lane TYPE C. Two -Lane Frontage Road Detached Path Existing, none Future. Most of North Frontage Rd has detached path, but need to add widened shoulders N. Frontage Rd east of Red Sandstone School 10' 6' 12' 12' 16' 12' Deteded LS Au4iliary Lore Travel lee Lendac�ed Travel tare Bike Path Edge Median Lane? Faking TYPE D. Two -Lane Frontage Road Bice lanelparl ng on one side Auxiliary/turning lane on the other Detached Path Existing. West Val commercial area by Safeway (without median) N. Frontage Rd Future South Frontage Rd, EvarVai to Municipal Building West Val commercial area Bike Ways Policy • Adopt Bike Way Policy via Master Plan • Adopt Bike Way &Existing Recreational Bike Path Standards this Spring Other Related Issues • Frontage Rd. Medians &Infrastructure — Lighting — Signs &Variable Message Signs (Real -Time) — Wayfinding • Additional Maintenance &Operational Costs • Capital Improvement Funding Lighting Lighting: How Much &Where? • Safety • Wayfinding • Aesthetics • Environmental Stewardship I SAFETY AESTHETICS • Improve visibility between motorists, bicylists • Develop standards for lighting that are consistent with the and pedestrians at key intersections and character of Vail, including appropriate light levels, quality of light, overflow parking areas and selection of materials. • Provide an organized visual environment to assist • Connect the outlying north, south, east, and west communities visitors in anticipating traffic decisions with a visitor- friendly and welcoming atmosphere along the frontage road. I r, ' • Create opportunities to improve traffic flow •Spet; fficient and sustainable light sources and equipment at congested and high density/activity intersections that is ark Sky compliant. • Assist visitors in orienting easily to their • Take a low- impact approach to quantity destinations about town. and control of lighting systems. CAToa, RuMA E AssociTi Co I®pf56M NORTH • ROAD TOWN WVK i KEY — Traffic Volume & Density ' �0°eoq o high density o a o6Q transition ■ low density _ _ _ . overflow parking m° a'�O' 8 0 0' ° o a O Y� a u6'Ob B p• v � ° •o - - e \ °4 o �a�o. C� ��� •y m � o c0 o C • o "AAq a C TOR, RuNiA S AS5F" TFS. Co. ® C, ll515h J P o e �rxmimnc. rux�urvi <-n�risnucu we eeu lh�t V4 R—db— NORTH AND SOUTU FRONTAGE ROAD * Lighting Guidelines for the Vail Transportation Master Plan 70A OF VAR Signs & Wayfinding • Provide enhanced Signage and Wayfinging by means of: —Signs — Variable Message Signs (Real Time Information) — Landscape Treatments & Monumentation — Banners, Seasonal Displays &Lighting — Lighting Maintenance • Summer — Landscaping, Irrigation, Flowers, Turf • Winter — Plowing — Blowing snow & hauling — Snow Storage & Snow Dump — Cinders /sand /mag chloride • Gene — Egqupp ent costs and storage — Operational /employee costs — Lighting costs — VMS maintenance & operation — Asphalt /Curb & Gutter /Striping /Signage n ital Funding Pote a it a p - CDOT - Federal Agencies - Private Development - Traffic Impact Fees — Tax Increment Financing — Town's Capital Budget — VR Parking Commitment — Conference Center Funds — Sell /Lease Rights per Master Plan - Tax Increase - Iq porn e ' ent Districts - Bon efinance Town Debt Next Steps • Adopt Transporation Master Plan • Lionshead Transit Center Design Study • RFP for Simba Run Feasibility Study • RFP for Ford Park Parking Feasibility • Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study Completion 1 Master Transp ortation Plan � March 2009 Ik •7 w I \ \ i Ira • 1 t ;I , _ �, a � Nr ? � r t � • , � i �„ „1 • • • li i • VAIL TRANSPORTATION • • MASTER PLAN UPDATE • i • DRAFT • • i Prepared for: Town of Vail Public Works Department • 1309 Elkhorn Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • 9 Prepared by: • 0 Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 • Centennial, CO 80111 • 303/721 -1440 • And • Town of Vail Public Works Staff • i Project Manager: Christopher J. Fasching, PE • • FHU Reference No. 05 -168 • March 18, 2009 • • • 0 • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Page PREFACE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- I • Purpose of the Master Plan-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- i Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan -------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - - - -- -- - - - -- -iii 11 INTRODUCTION CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ------------- - - - - -- 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS - - 4 A . Traffic Conditions---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4 B . Parking------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -15 • C. Transit --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - 16 III. ANTICIPATED GROWTH --------------------------------------- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- -19 • A. Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -19 B . Parking----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -20 • C. Inter - Relationship of the Various Modes --------------------------------------------------- 22 IV. PROJECTED 2025 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS--------------------------- - - - -23 A. Traffic Volume Forecasts------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -23 B . Traffic Operations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -26 V. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -33 A . Main Vail Interchange ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -33 B. West Vail Interchange----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -37 C. South Frontage Road - Vail Road to Ford Park-------------------------------------- - - - -40 D. South Frontage Road - Vail Road to West Lionshead (Ever Vail) -------------- - - - -43 E. West Vail Redevelopment------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -44 F . Other Improvements------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -45 • G. Frontage Road Cross Section------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -45 H . Transit------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -46 I . Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -48 VI. FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN -------------------------------------- - - - -51 VII. RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN ------------------------------------------------ - - - -52 A. Roadway Improvements-------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -52 B. Travel Demand Management ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -61 B. Travel Demand Management ------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -62 C. Transit------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -62 D. Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -66 E. Pedestrians and Trails ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -66 VIII. IMPROVEMENT TRIP THRESHOLDS ---------------------------------------------------------- - - - -67 IX. IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES ------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -70 • X. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -73 A . Priorities ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -73 B. Other Planning Efforts----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -73 • C. 1 -70 PEIS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -74 • D. Implementation of Recommended Plan ------------------------------------------------ - - - -74 E . Funding Sources ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -76 F . Next Steps ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -78 • • • • X 4 t I•ELSBURG r HOLT & • ULLEVIG Vail Transportation Master Plan Update LIST OF FIGURES P �L Figure 1 Town of Vail Study Area------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2 Figure 2 Existing Peak Season Traffic------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 5 Figure 3 Existing Levels of Service----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 8 Figure 4 Existing Vail Bus Routes ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -18 Figure 5 Trip Assignment Distribution--------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -25 Figure 6 Residential "Close -in" Areas for Trip Generation------------------------------------- - - - -27 Figure 7 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections------------------------------------------------------ - - - -28 Figure 8 Year 2025 Peak Hour Levels of Service------------------------------------------------ - - - -31 Figure 9 Vail Frontage Road Daily Traffic During Winter Peak Season-------------------- - - - -32 • Figure 10 Centra Vail Parking Imbalance --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 50 • Figure 11 Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan — Central Vail--------------- - - - -53 • Figure 12 Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan —West Vail------------------ - - - -54 • Figure 13 Vail Frontage Road Laneage ------------------------------------------------------------------ 58 Figure 14 Vail Frontage Road Cross - Section------------------------------------------------------- - - - -59 Figure 15 Year 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections with Recommended Plan ------------ - - - -60 Figure 16 Year 2025 Peak Levels of Service with Recommended Plan-------------------- - - - -61 Figure 17 Proposed Vail Bus Routes ----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -64 Figure 18 West Vail Frontage Road Improvements----------------------------------------------- - - - -71 Figure 19 Main Vail Frontage Road Improvements----------------------------------------------- - - - -72 i Figure 20 Figure Coming Soon - - - -- Transportation Master Plan Preliminary Prioritization and Implementation Plan-------------------------------------------------- - - - -75 S LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2005 -2006 Season Travel Time Summary -------------------------------------------- - - - -10 • Table 2 Vail Frontage Road Accident Summary — Six Years-------------------------------- - - - -13 Table 3 Trip Generation Rates----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -26 Table 4 Travel Time Comparison — Year 2025 Peak Season, PM Peak Hour---------- - - - -29 • Table 5 Main Vail Interchange North Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment --------- - - - -34 • Table 6 Main Vail Interchange South Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment--------- - - - -35 Table 7 West Vail Interchange North Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment --------- - - - -38 Table 8 West Vail Interchange South Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment--------- - - - -39 Table 9 South Frontage Road Alternatives Analysis — East of Main Vail Interchange — 2025 Traffic ----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -41 • Table 10 Vail Interchange PM Peak Hour Levels of Service ( LOS)-------------------------- - - - -57 • Table 11 Mitigation Measure Offset; Total New Trips Equivalent ---------------------------- - - - -68 • FFLSBURG • H O L T cis ULLEVIG Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i i LIST OF APPENDICES • APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING LOS CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C DETAILED TRAVEL TIME DATA APPENDIX D FRONTAGE ROAD COLLISION DIAGRAMS APPENDIX E DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES APPENDIX F CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS OF IMPROVEMENTS PLAN APPENDIX G FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX H VAIL 20120 STRATEGIC PLAN - 2009 APPENDIX I LIONSHEAD TRANSIT CENTER WHITE PAPER 2008 i APPENDIX J EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO - 2005 & VAIL NOISE MEASUREMENTS - Techinical Memorandum 2007 APPENDIX K LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN - TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS - 1998 & 2006 APPENDIX L A REPORT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF A PREFERRED SITE FOR • THE VAIL TRANSIT CENTER - 2005 • APPENDIX M VAIL TUNNEL OPTIONS - SQUARE 1 DOCUMENT (DRAFT) - 2005 • APPENDIX N VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE - 2002 APPENDIX O VAIL VILLAGE LOADING AND DELIVERY STUDY - 1999 APPENDIX P WEST VAIL INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS - 1996 APEENDIX Q FEASIBILITY STUDY 1- 70 /CHAMONIX ROAD - 1996 i APPENDIX R MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY - 1995 APPENDIX S VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN - 1993 APPENDIX T FEASIBILITY OF A PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM TO REPLACE THE IN -TOWN • SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE - 1987 • FELSBURG r 4 11 G LT ULLEVIG • Vail Transportation Master Flan Update • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • FELSBURG • P-9 HOLT ULLEVIG . Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i PREFACE Purpose of the Master Plan The purpose of the Vail Transportation Master Plan is to consolidate and update the transportation planning and design efforts that have been on -going for the past 20 years.. This most recent document, which is based on the existing conditions of Vail's transportation system, current trends and the anticipated growth, will guide the implementation of Vail's transportation system for the next 20 years. In order to keep the plan a viable document over . this time period, continuous monitoring of the transportation system and periodic updates of i the plan are needed, including periodic traffic counts and formal master plan updates. Previous transportation documents are referenced and summarized in the appendices of this document. These referenced documents remain relevant and provide additional insight and guidance for transportation planning and design purposes. The scope of each of these referenced documents focus on various transportation related topics with some overlapping • subjects. The redundancy in this is deliberate to create a historical base and provide the necessary background information to predict accurate trends. It is implied that all overlapping, inconsistent information between documents shall be superceded by the most • recent and relevant document. This master plan is intended to provide direction for a period of time over the next 20 years. It does not convey approval for any one particular improvement, development, project, or facility. Every improvement shall go through the applicable town review process prior to implementation. Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan The Vail Transportation Master Plan was adopted by resolution No. , Series of 2009, on , 2009, by the Vail Town Council following a recommendation to approve by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Future amendments to this master plan must be approved by resolution or motion by the Town Council following a formal recommendation by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Implementation activities and ordinances will be approved in accordance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code. I= rL�I ;v�zo • �� HOLT &c ULLEVIG Page i • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FELSBURG • C 1 HOLT & ULLEVIG Page II • • • • • Vail Tratisportation Master Plan Update • • • EXECUTI'V'E SUMMARY The Town of Vail continues to experience growth through new development and the redevelopment of older commercial and residential buildings. Recently, the Town has been involved in planning • significant redevelopment projects including West Vail, Ever Vail, the Lionshead Parking Structure, and Timber Ridge. Numerous other developments have been recently completed, recently approved, are under construction, or have made application to the Town. In addition, Town staff has • assessed the redevelopment potential for numerous other sites; the culmination of all these development and redevelopment projects will collectively add noticeable demand (approximately • 2,800 trips per hour at peak times, or approximately 25 to 30 percent increase over current Town development trip generations) on the Town's transportation system. • • This study was initiated by the Town to assess the nature of the increased transportation demands placed on the Town's systems by all potential development/redevelopment as well as that from other regional growth. The study focuses on the Town's Frontage Road System, but considerations for transit service and parking are also addressed towards the development of a comprehensive plan. This study also serves to provide the following: i • ► Establishment of a Frontage Road improvements plan from which to develop appropriate • transportation improvement projects for the Town's primary road system. • ► Develop transportation demand management measures to reduce peak traffic flows during the winter. • ► Develop a Frontage Road Access Management Plan with support from CDOT for all future access points along the North and South Frontage Roads. • ► Identify a strategy and establish direction towards developing a Town parking plan and a transit plan given potential growth. • Existing Conditions • • A significant amount of traffic data has been collected in support of developing this plan. The data • were collected over a host of holidays and spring break time periods to reflect peak conditions. Further, roadway /intersection capacity analyses (LOS calculations) accounted for conditions indicative of mild snow and wet pavement. The analyses of existing traffic conditions led to the following findings: • ► The interchanges tend to be the most critical components in the Town's system. Besides • providing access to /from 1 -70, the interchanges are also the only points within Town where • traffic can cross 1 -70. This concentration of traffic through these bottleneck areas negatively effect travel time for drivers and for transit service. • ► At peak times, drivers are challenged to turn left onto the Frontage Road (either north or south) • from a side street. The nature of the challenge varies by cross - street and section of Frontage Road, but there are numerous locations where drivers attempting such a left turn experience delay. Again, this effects transit operations where bus routing is required to make such turns. • iii • M., FELSBURG ( BOLT be ULLEVIG Page III • • i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update , Parking in Vail has been a high profile issue for many years during peak times. The Town , operates two parking structures capable of accommodating 2,500 vehicles. In addition, the i Town has established Ford Park for permit parking and allows parking on the South Frontage i only when overflow conditions occur. Frontage Road parking tends to occur 25 to 40 times per • winter season depending on conditions (the Town's goal is to achieve 15 days or less per season). Additional parking is needed to better accommodate the frequency of peak days during i ski season. The transit service provided by Vail is heavily used. The Town has some of the highest ridership in the state with six outlying routes and a central "spine" route referred to as the In -Town shuttle. The Fast Vail outlying route often experiences capacity conditions in the morning (inbound) and • in the evening (outbound) due to high demand. The two West Vail routes, which travel in a clockwise and counter - clockwise fashion through the West Vail area, provide needed mobility for areas along both sides of 1 -70, but the interstate is a barrier in providing efficient service to • all areas in West Vail. The In -town route is by far the busiest route on the system and it provides frequent service between and within the Lionshead and Vail Village areas. Busy times see this route at capacity as the Town adds buses to maintain frequent service and increase capacity. • Delays are often experienced at the Golden Peak area and at the Frontage Road within Lionshead Village (due to the need to turn left onto the Frontage Road). The location of parking areas with respect to commercial uses and ski portal usage is not in a precise balance. Much of the skiing terrain lies toward the eastern end of central Vail (Lionshead and the Village), yet over half of the parking is located in the western portion of Central Vail. Similarly, there is far more commercial use in Vail Village than in Lionshead, further • adding to the unbalanced situation of parking demand and supply. Projected Conditions • The Town is anticipating a significant amount of growth in the next five to ten years. Considering approved development, submitted development proposals, and potential redevelopment proposal in the future, the Town could experience an additional net 3,000 new units and an additional net new 700,000 square feet of commercial uses. The combination of this additional • development is projected to add approximately 2,800 PM peak hour trips onto Vail's roadway system during peak times in the winter. i The consequences of the combined traffic impact of the development will significantly impact mobility within Vail, particularly during snowy weather. Transit will also be affected negatively as buses travel along the same roadways and will pass through the same congested intersections • as other traffic. j Specifically, the following issues are anticipated during the peak hours of peak season: ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound off -ramp at the Main Vail interchange (attempting to enter the north roundabout), particularly during the AM peak hour i iv N J FFLSRURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page iv • i • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound South Frontage Road • approach at the South Main Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the south roundabout) ► Significant delays for motorists turning left onto the Frontage Road at numerous cross streets in the Main Vail area and in the West Vail area. ► Significant delay for motorists turning left from the Frontage Road onto Vail Valley Drive due to the peculiar stop sign configuration. (Frontage Road approaches stop while Vail Valley Drive approach does not.) ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound North Frontage Road • approach at the West Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the north roundabout). Numerous options were considered to correct these issues. Some options were intended to • address a localized issue whereas other options could address a myriad of issues. A consideration of pros and cons for options as well as other analyses, have led to the recommended plan shown in Figure ES -1 and ES -2 and the general frontage road widening • scheme shown in Figures ES -3 and ES-#. • One of the most crucial improvements recommended in this plan is the proposed Simba Run . underpass of 1 -70. There are numerous mobility benefits that this improvement would provide to the Town including: • ► Traffic congestion relief of the West Vail interchange roundabouts. • ► Traffic congestion relief of the Main Vail interchange roundabouts. ► Increased flexibility and efficiency to provide transit service to West Vail including a potential for a "line haul" rapid service connecting the Town's major activity centers. • ► Accommodation of a trail connection to serve bicycle and pedestrian activity between areas north and south of 1 -70. ► Improved response time for emergency vehicles. • Other needed improvement considerations as part of the plan include: ► Construction of roundabouts along the North and South Frontage Road at strategic locations • to accommodate minor street left turn movements onto the Frontage Road at peak times. • ► Lane additions as well as signing and roadway lane striping to establish two northbound • lanes under 1 -70 at the West Vail and Main Vail interchanges (lanes would each be 11 feet • wide). ► Expansion of the north roundabout at the Main Vail interchange. • • • v y F U LSBURG . I HOLT l ULLEVIG Page v • • FELSBURG C 'HOLT & ULLEVIG oa contl AccaUQecel lane, Explore combining E. LH Circle Possible Signal, Officer Combine Forest Road 8 W. LH Circle with redevelopment access: Control or other traffic with Ever Vail Redevelopment and possible roundabout. control device. construct roundabout. Expand Roundabout Possible Signal, Officer Control or other traffic control device. V Convert to 314 �)�' ' sk' movement. JG Construct Simba Run iy' E Re- stripe for 2 NB lanes underpass of 1 -70 with H Gir roundabout intersection NL L of frontage roads. "` a Construct new ¢ roundabout at e\oGa`9ePa ;• ` Ford Park. Fk � L 9a < < m m m Clearly designate turn lane assignments along westbound approach. Future access to Ford Park. See Access Management Plan for specifics on access points Note: Travel demand management measures also need to be incorporated into the plan. Of Figure ES -1 significance in the need to encourage 1 -70 traffic coming from the east to exit at East Vail Recommended Frontage Road Improvements Plan - rather than the MainVail interchange during ® the AM peak hour. Central Vail North Vail Transportation Services 05 168 2116 • • • • • 0 • 0 0 • • • • • 0 • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • See Access Management Plan ' FELSBURG for specifics on access points HOLT & ULLEVIG Provide primary full- movement access; either a roundabout or a traffic signal. a e U Add second SIB i� approach lane. Chamonix Lane West Vail _ Planning Area _ (No public road _ — — J through Planning Area) - North -- rootage Rd. Off -site improvement; Construct Simba Run underpass. South Frontage FFd Restripe for 2 NB lanes under 1 -70. Figure ES -2 Recommended Frontage Road Improvements Plan - West Vail North Vail T•ansporiauon Services - Envr —enial Study, CE-168,C216/09 FELSBURG C ,HGLT & ULLEVIG n m a n N \ oY o (� m c 3 1 1 o $ t om .W ui U ou en 3U > rn 3 rO "tage c m LL e m +yr m 'o" d9 U a 'Q W.Lionshead Circle W. 69 r9 �d o m 9y m e� LEGEN P O f- = Two -Lane Cross Section 90 AI- Four-Lane Cross Section Five -Lane Cross Section L p J\ � NOTE: See cross section details in subsequent figure. di All access and intersections are subject to additional f accel /decel lanes pending development and P i State Highway Access Code criteria. Matterhorn Cir. s o� k W. Gore Crk. Dr. Figure ES -3 Vail Frontage Road Laneage D North Vail - , — por I al— Sa­ 05- 166.2'16%09 • • 0 . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • P—A F ELSBURG HOLT & 6' 12' L a n e 12' Lane 6' U L L E V I G Shoulder Shoulder Bike � t Bike • 2 -LANE CROSS - SECTION • • • • 10' 12' Lane 12' Lane 16' Lane 12' Lane 6" • Walk or Me ia Shoulder • � � � t n Bike • • 4 -LANE CROSS- SECTION • • 6' J 4' J 12' Lane 16' Turn Lane & Median 13' Lane 14' Accel /Decl Lane 10' Bike Path arking f 'ShldU or Throu h Lane • Bike Lane — A • • t • 5 -LANE CROSS - SECTION • • NOTE: All cross sections are subject to additional laneage with respect to turn lanes. Some adjustment may be necessary for certain locations. Figure ES -4 • Vail Frontage Road Cross Sections • • Vail Transportation Services, 05-168,2/16/09 • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • • • i • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Document In order not to overwhelm you we have trimmed the entire report down to just the the Vail Transportation Master Plait main document and Appendix G — Frontage Road Access Management Plan. The Access Management Plan is a took that will be used by both the Town and CDOT. The Appendices that have not been included are; A -F which are generally technical back -up for information within the report, and Appendices H -T are historical documents that provide a foundation for the report. These additional Appendices are available upon request and will be available on the Town of Vail website by the beginning of next week. Please let me know if you would like a hardcopy of any of them and we will provide one. Thank you. Tom Kassmel tkassmel u,vail log v.com 479 -2235 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update I. INTRODUCTION The Town of Vail continues to experience growth through new development and the redevelopment of older commercial and residential buildings. Recently, the Town has been • involved in planning significant redevelopment projects including West Vail, Even Vail ,Timber Ridge, and the Lionshead Parking Structure Redevelopment. Numerous other developments have been recently completed, recently approved, are under construction, or are in the development review process (Appendix E shows the list of developments and redevelopments). In addition, Town staff has assessed the redevelopment potential for numerous other sites; the culmination of all these development and redevelopment projects will collectively add noticeable demand on the Town's transportation system. This study was initiated by the Town to assess the nature of the increased transportation demands placed on the Town's systems by all potential development/redevelopment as well as demand from regional growth. The study focuses on the Town's Frontage Road System, but considerations for transit service and parking are also addressed towards the development of a comprehensive plan. This study also serves to provide the following: • ► Establishment of a Frontage Road improvements plan from which to develop appropriate • transportation improvement projects for the Town's primary road system. • ► Develop transportation demand management measures to reduce peak traffic flows during the winter. ► Develop a Frontage Road Access Management Plan with support from CDOT for all future access points along the North and South Frontage Roads. ► Identify a strategy and establish direction towards developing a Town parking plan and a • transit plan given potential growth. • This study addresses existing and future conditions for the North and South Frontage Road extending from the West Vail interchange to Ford Park including the West Vail and Main Vail Interchanges. The focus of this effort has been on the South Frontage Road along the Villages (Vail and Lionshead Village), but areas such as the West Vail commercial area and the two • primary interchanges were analyzed in a bit more detail than other areas within town. The study area is generally shown in Figure 1. Vail recently completed a planning effort, Vail 20/20, in which the community developed a strategic plan to improve the community. Transportation considerations were a big piece of the • overall strategic plan, and the community authored a paper outlining a strategic direction for the Town's transportation system. The five -page paper summarizes current practices /strategies, i future goals, and potential actions to achieve their vision and values. Summary "bullets" from • this effort include: ► Maintaining mobility through out Town ► Discourage use of the automobile ► Manage parking demand /supply to reduce overflow parking along the Frontage Road ► Provide necessary support to maintain and embellish the area's transit services. ► Accommodate pedestrian and bicycle activity throughout town Reduce the negative impacts of 1 -70 on the Town such as noise. FELSBURU C� DOLT U LLEVI G Pagel M FELSBURO HO LT 61 9 Main Vail U LLE VI(: Interchange 'o J D i Q ��° a OUjh V�Onsne9e LOO? W Lionshead ` g . 9 Circle W o V IYU J6 ¢ I r � 36 Lionshead Area ' If s West Vail ° $ : 6 Village Redevelopment o West Lionshead Area Redevelopment g (Ever Vail) P a 0O s o. �a a 3� o ro s � Matterhorn Cir. e e 1 ( %3 LEGEND + W. Gore Crk. Dr Key Study Areas West Vail Interchange Figure 1 Town of Vail Study Area Norl� rannarepvuiwn eorvx:ecm •m aiave •• •........• •••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••• • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ! ! For this Master Plan effort, progress meetings were held on a regular basis with Town staff, and ! CDOT was involved in many of the progress meetings as well. The conduct of this study coincided with other major planning efforts within the Town of Vail. These included: • i ► West Lionshead Redevelopment (referred to as Ever Vail) • ► West Vail Redevelopment planning ! ► Potential redevelopment of the Lionshead Parking Structure Regionally, other transportation planning efforts were occurring as well including: ! • ► Interstate 70 Central Mountain Transportation Corridor Coalition, Draft Recommendations • for the 1 -70 Mountain Corridor on Travel Demand Management prepared by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. The document outlines a series of travel demand • management strategies designed to shift travel to outside peak times and encourage transit • and high occupancy vehicle travel. ! ► Intermountain 2035 Regional Transportation Plan recognizes the need for the Simba Run underpass, Frontage Road improvements, an inter -modal facility, West Vail Interchange ! modifications, trail /pedestrian improvements, noise barriers, and various transit items on the i preferred plan. However, only transit - related items were listed in the Region's Fiscally Constrained Plan. • ► Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority's (ECO) Transit Vision 2030 which ! encourages appropriate land use patterns, local supplemental bus services„ and the • potential for an eventual fixed guideway service extending from Gypsum to Vail. • ► 1 -70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic EIS which considered alternatives along 1 -70 from • C -470 to Glenwood Springs. Within Vail, the effort recognizes the potential for a new underpass of 1 -70 as well as an intermodal site, and widening of 1 -70 at Dowd Junction. The • current draft PEIS also recognizes preservation for future rail service between Denver and • Vail's Transportation Center. i i • i • • • • • • • HOLT & uLLEV1G Page 3 I Vail Transportation Master P1ai: Update • i i • II. EXISTING CONDITIONS • • Developing a plan to solve future transportation issues first requires a solid foundation of i understanding where Vail is today relative to transportation. This chapter describes current conditions. i A. Traffic Conditions • 1. Traffic Volumes - Peak Season i Peak hour turning movement counts have been collected at numerous locations throughout Town at various peak time periods; the peak winter time periods were the focus of the collection • effort. Intersection turning movement counts were collected over a variety of times including the Christmas holiday, Martin Luther King weekend, Presidents Day weekend, and Spring Break times in 2005 and 2006. AM and PM intersection turning movement counts were collected, and • adjustments were made for balancing reasons between successive intersections. i Figure 2 shows the existing peak season AM and PM peak hour traffic flows. These represent • reconciled traffic counts which were collected over a series of peak times, raw traffic data are shown in Appendix A. The PM peak hour traffic demands tend to be greater than the AM peak • hour traffic, but some of the predominant patterns are reversed. During the morning peak hour, • movements tend to be oriented toward the parking structures. The interchanges experience far more traffic exiting 1 -70 than entering during the AM peak hour, and vice -versa during the PM • peak hour. Other characteristics from the data are described as follows: • ► The greatest point of traffic concentration within Vail is at the Main Vail South Ramps /South • Frontage Road/Vail Road roundabout intersection. During the AM peak hour, approximately 2700 vehicles per hour pass through this intersection and 3200 vehicles per hour pass • through it during the PM peak hour making it the busiest intersection in town. Of the peak hour traffic passing under 1 -70 at this interchange, over one -half of the AM traffic is from 1 -70 East. During the PM peak hour, over 40% is oriented to 1 -70 West. Between 30 and 40 • percent is estimated to simply cross 1 -70 (both peak hours). ► The West Vail interchange serves a relatively significant pattern of traffic to /from Down Valley. Given this traffic pattern combined with the traffic generated by the West Vail • commercial development, the West Vail north roundabout serves about 2500 vehicles per • hour during the PM peak hour (only 1,150 during the AM peak hour), making it the second i busiest intersection within Town. Of the PM peak hour traffic passing under 1 -70 at this point, approximately 10 percent is oriented to /from 1 -70 east, 45 percent to /from 1 -70 west, and 45 • percent is estimated to simply be crossing 1 -70. • ► The South Frontage Road carries far more traffic than the North Frontage Road. East of the • Main Vail Interchange, the South Frontage Road serves nearly 2000 vehicles per hour at peak times. This is the heaviest traveled roadway segment within Town (other than 1 -70). Of • the 2,000 vehicles per hour, approximately 30 percent are comprised of trips between the i Main Vail roundabout and the Vail Village parking structure. • • • . FELSBURG • C� HOLT ULLEVIG Page EElSBURI: ' 480 1 200 i U L L E V l l; 350 285 200 mi 1 r00 m - 650 ® 185 ' 905 40 v\. i / _ 6001� so 7 OS ) r 70 .I 350 16 say 370 c 5 Bop � 1 r ° W uiu (29% R�R7 (i0 � e r 5ouin Froma9r. ran a`m a p�s � -'► 25 7 sJ a° 5 75 �'� ° 35 f2o.. 'gyp° p 2f_ '20I 50 • 'so ((tt20Jf N 25 I t5o (25235 270(200) ,rte 9yg6 . ^ `p0 [270 400 �•. , n m om r m a° rym • gp ® ® ;� o-yry 5 enrne.a 30 Ci I W © [, it h .y�® `�` .�• ©cam ,� � �'o° sa -� �� as • . ,5 • 410 S �p0 °sf Rif` P M p Cam. r s �,ipp m m�Menernorn Cu 6 O , m LEGEND X , �g m �sa9 XXX = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes IXXX] = AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes fat Interchanges) 6 = Count Locations p g "9 /a a7 1' pg9 , �° R - Less Than 5 Vehicles per Hour G ®/ y W. Gore Crk. Gr. f ay�3 i .o p Figure 2 Existing Peak Season Traffic � 1 Ner1N Vail Transportation Master Plan Update The interchanges, West and Main Vail, are locations of significant traffic concentration because w they serve as the access to/from 1 -70 and they are the only means of crossing 1 -70. As roundabout intersections, the ramp terminal intersections also serve through movements along the Frontage Roads which further contributes to the traffic concentration that takes place at • these points. Along the Frontage Road, the other notable heavier - traveled cross - streets during peak times including: Lionshead Parking Structure Access — Heavier demand is due to this being a major parking facility within Town. ► Village Parking Structure Access — Heavier demand is due to this being a major parking w facility within Town. • ► Vail Valley Drive — Heavy demand can be attributed to activity associated with the Golden Peak lift area and associated programs that based there. ► West Vail Commercial — Numerous driveways serve the shopping area in West Vail. Individually, the traffic levels served by each driveway is less than the three heavy cross - streets i stated just above, but collectively they represent a major generating center within town. Numerous other cross - streets intersect with the Frontage Roads, but many of these serve • localized areas and do not carry significant levels of traffic. The Frontage Roads serve as Vail's arterial system serving the vast majority of the vehicle -miles traveled within the Town. • 2. Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) were calculated for numerous intersections including the roundabouts at the interchanges and many of the cross- street intersections and access points along the North and South Frontage Road. For nearly every case, the PM peak hour traffic was the focus of the LOS analyses. The exceptions include the Main Vail interchange and West Vail interchange intersections where the AM peak hour was also analyzed. LOS is a traffic a qualitative measure described by a letter designation ranging from A to F. LOS A represents minimal or no delay while LOS F represents excessive delay. The calculations are geared toward estimating the delays for traffic movements and then converting the results to a LOS measure (based on the Highway Capacity Manual published by the transportation Board) with • the following: ► LOS A, 0 -10 seconds for STOP -sign controlled movements, 0 -10 for roundabouts ► LOS B, 10 -15 seconds for STOP -sign controlled movements, 10 -20 for roundabouts ► LOS C, 15 -25 seconds for STOP -sign controlled movements, 20 -35 for roundabouts ► LOS D, 25 -35 seconds for STOP -sign controlled movements, 35 -55 for roundabouts j ► LOS E, 35 -50 seconds for STOP -sign controlled movements, 55 -80 for roundabouts i ► LOS F, greater than 50 seconds for STOP -sign controlled movements, 80 for roundabouts i� • The roundabout intersections are located at the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges, and their operation has an impact on the ease of access to /from 1 -70 as well as the ability to cross 1 -70. If the roundabout intersections don't function well, the Town's entire transportation system suffers. Because they are critical junctures, the levels of service were calculated for inclement weather r • IN FELSBURG • HOLT & ■ ULLEVIG Page 6 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update conditions. Results for all of the LOS calculations are shown in Figure 3, and worksheets are presented in Appendix B. For the roundabouts, the software package Sidra was used to estimate the LOS's. Parameters in this software package were adjusted in attempt to calibrate delay results against delays that • were observed in the field at the West Vail interchange. Further, adjustments were made to try and account for poor weather. The following adjustments were made to SIDRA as part of a roundabout calibration process: ► Lane storage lengths and diameters were adjusted to match field conditions ► Approach speeds were reduced from the default of 40 MPH to 25 MPH ► The North American Driver "environmental factor" was used (1.2) ► A peak hour factor of 0.79 was used for ideal conditions, 0.68 for snowy conditions (approximately representing a 20% loss in capacity due to snow). The lower- than - normal (15% less) peak hour factor for ideal conditions was based on the Highway Capacity Manual statement that a roundabout is at its capacity when V/C = 85% For Vail, acceptable operations were established at a LOS C or better. Typical LOS threshold objectives in larger busy urban areas are usually LOS D, sometimes LOS E, during peak hours • of the day. In extreme cases, LOS F is tolerated. Smaller rural communities will tend to establish LOS C as their criterion objective relative to traffic operations along their streets. A LOS C /LOS D threshold, for peak hours during peak seasons, was chosen as the appropriate threshold for Vail given its resort stature and the desire to provide a highly functional transportation system to • enhance the guest experience. Exceptions for poorer LOS that would be acceptable include inclement weather in which a LOS D /LOS E is considered acceptable. In addition, a LOS D or even worse is acceptable for a movement with extremely low traffic flows. The LOS's for the STOP - controlled intersections were calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual procedures per HCS software; no inclement weather factors were used to evaluate the stop - controlled intersections. • Figure 3 shows the LOS results for existing conditions. The roundabout intersections all currently operate at acceptable LOS's with each approach being at a LOS C or better. Several of the Frontage Road cross - street intersection movements operate poorer than LOS C. • Intersections with a LOS E or LOS F include: i M FELSBURG • � i HOLT & • ULLEVIG Page 7 FELSRURO ( IHOLT 6, mt ULLE VI() m d n 3v > B. LL ' South Fronlege Pd �� e ' lel b _ c tbl Q le A [Cl r. • CI ® o \9 [C] a _ 0 �9 m y � __ a ]al �.� B LOOD L,Onnr Cimle Wheel � r Q Q y S 9 �j'.v •. r/ P S C f� 4 ®; � � Q NOTE: Roundabout LOS's reflect poor weather conditions V � • q t y � l B[A] `a \ ® m ,/,\:' LEGEND _ X = PM Peak Hour Level 01 Service e tax m C [A] [X] = AM Peak Hour Level of Service rr w. core ca or. l8J I a 4 (Interchanges Only) PMiAM) = Snow conditions = count Locations a ,•� l9j ® O — Roundabout �b1b 6�6 Figure 3 l n 1 0 Existing Levels of Service xerin yr n.. s.,.�.. os reeao,aao Vail Trattsportatiott Master Platt Update • • ► Village Structure Access — The specific traffic operation issue here is the ability to turn left out of the structure onto the South Frontage Road. The LOS estimate at peak times is LOS E. The delay incurred by these drivers exiting the parking structure is above and beyond the delay that these drivers incur within the structure to pay the parking fee. In fact, the fee • booths inside the structure tend to meter outbound traffic. Otherwise, the outbound peak hour traffic demand counts would likely be greater. ► Lionshead Structure Access — The outbound movement from the structure experiences a • LOS D during peak times. Similar to the Village Structure Access intersection, these drivers are incurring additional delay beyond the LOS D due to waiting in the structure to pay the • fee. ► East Lionshead Circle — The East Lionshead Circle approach to the South Frontage Road • operates at LOS E during peak times. This movement includes In -Town shuttle vehicles, and this intersection's poor operations has a negative impact on the Town's transit system. ► Safeway Access — In West Vail, there are numerous access points onto the North Frontage • Road serving retail uses. The access in front of the Safeway is the heavier -used access • based on the traffic count data. This access approach onto the North Frontage Road operates at a LOS E during peak times. The East Lionshead Circle access operation has an effect on the In -Town Shuttle bus routes as i this bus is required to turn left onto the Frontage Road as part of its normal scheduled route. The Vail Valley Drive intersection does not have any movements operating in LOS E or LOS F, ! but interestingly this intersection is characterized with a greater number of movements subject ! to delay. Total vehicular delay at this intersection is greater than many of the other intersections in Town due to the unique stop configuration. (Frontage Road approaches both stops, Vail • Valley Drive approach is given the right -of -way due to grade). In addition to intersection LOS calculations, Town staff has also recorded travel times between • activity areas. Staff made numerous runs between activity areas during peak and non -peak times, as well as under varying weather conditions. Table 1 summarizes average travel times between the key activity areas, and the detailed data collected are presented in Appendix C. • i • • • • • • • • • • M FELSDURG • r' HOLT & • 11 ULLEVIG Page • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Table 1 2005 -2006 Season Travel Time Summa • Peak Season Non -Peak Season Origin/ Destination /Route Non -Peak PM Peak Non -Peak PM Peak Hour Hour Hour Hour Village Structure to Safeway South Frontage Road -Clear 7:11 -Wet 8:01 -Snow pack 7:21 12:08 North Frontage Road -Clear 5:32 5:47 -Wet 8:52 -Snow pack 5:57 8:33 1 -70 -Clear 4:57 -Wet 4:32 • -Snow pack Safeway to Village Structure North Frontage Road -Clear 5:40 5:56 -Wet • -Snow pack Lionshead Parking Structure to Safeway South Frontage Road -Clear 4:45 4:57 5:19 -Wet 5 :25 -Snow pack 4:59 4:52 • North Frontage Road -Clear 5:53 -Wet 6:23 -Snow pack 10:49 6:55 1 -70 -Clear 4:50 -Wet 5:17 -Snow pack Safeway to Lionshead Parking Structure • South Frontage Road -Clear 4:45 5:50 i -Wet -Snow pack Red Sandstone Road to Cascade • WB Frontage Route -Clear 5:31 • -Wet 7:25 -Snow pack 5:40 EB Frontage Route -Clear 5:32 • -Wet 6:45 -Snow ack 5:51 IN FELSSURG • � � HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 10 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i • 3. Accident Data i Approximately six years worth of traffic accident data were compiled from the Town of Vail • Police Department's records which identified 2$$ accidents occurring between 1999 and 2005. CDOT data were also explored, but the Town's accident records identified more accidents than CDOT's database along the Frontage Roads. It is likely that many of the accidents recorded by • the Town along the Frontage Roads do not reach CDOT for inclusion in their database. As • such, the Town's Police Department records were used in this analysis. The data are summarized in Table 2. Collision diagrams of each intersection are shown in i Appendix D. Observations of interest generally included: ► South Frontage Road /Matterhorn Circle — Recently, this intersection was improved to i include an exclusive turn lane. This widening is thought to have provided a significant benefit to any safety issues at this intersection since the data show that most of the accidents at this location occurred in 2002 or earlier. • ► West Vail Interchange, North roundabout intersection — A fairly pronounced pattern of i rear -end collisions along the 1 -70 westbound off -ramp show up in the data. Many of these i occurred with a slick roadway surface, and the downgrade of the ramp may be a contributor to this pattern of collisions as well as the shading patterns caused by the 1 -70 embankment. • ► Vail Valley Drive — A noticeable pattern (approximately two- thirds of the accidents) at this i intersection includes collisions with eastbound through movement vehicles. The collision i diagram suggests that eastbound Frontage Road drivers do not always understand that they are subject to stopping and that the side - street approach has the right -of -way. ► The Main Vail Interchange experienced a fair number of accidents within the study period, but when compared against the "exposure" of traffic, the accident occurrence at this • interchange is not alarming. ► Approximately 40 percent of all traffic accidents recorded along the Frontage Roads, including the roundabouts and the cross- street intersections, occurred on slick roadway surfaces. +, The Colorado Department of Transportation maintains accident statistics along all of its roadway facilities and typically produces average accident rate statistics stratified by facility type. The rates are determined by segment rather than by intersection and the Department typically calculates the number of accidents per million - vehicle -miles of travel for a given segment of • road. As such, it is not possible to directly compare the results in Table 2 to industry standards. However it is possible to convert the data in Table 2 into segment data to allow for a i comparison to CDOT data. Assumptions have been made with respect to daily traffic from the peak hour traffic counts. In addition, continuous traffic data from CDOT's files were used to estimate seasonal variations in daily traffic data toward estimating the total annual traffic served i by each segment. Of the state highway locations with continuous traffic count data, US 6 near Keystone was used for this assessment with respect to seasonal variations. While a counter on 1 -70 near Down Junction is available and was reviewed, the 1 -70 traffic demands at that location peak during the summer months, whereas Vail roadways are busiest in the winter months. The • US S permanent counter near Keystone displays seasonal patterns that are more in line with traffic demand fluctuations experienced along Vail's Frontage Roads. Therefore, the US 6 i counter was used for only gauging seasonal fluctuations with respect to calculating annual • accident rates for roadway segments. . FELSBURG • HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 11 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • i The following shows the converted accident data and how it compares with CDOT data for urban minor arterial road facilities. ► N. Frontage Road, Chamonix to Buffehr Creek — 3.5 accidents /million vehicle -miles • ► N. Frontage Road, Buffehr Creek to Main Vail — 3.0 accidents /million vehicle -miles • ► S. Frontage Road, W. Vail Roundabout to Forest Road — 2.5 accidents /million vehicle -miles ► S. Frontage Road, Forest Rd. to Vail Road - 3.5 accidents /million vehicle -miles • ► S. Frontage Road, Vail Rd. to Vail Valley Drive — 4.0 accidents /million vehicle miles • Based on the most recent CDOT data available (2004), urban minor arterial state highways have experienced 3.45 accidents per million vehicle -miles of travel in 2003 and 2004. The accident rates listed above for the Frontage road segments are close to this or are less, except for the segment between Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive which is slightly higher than the CDOT data. This segment of roadway is the busiest road section in Town (other than 1 -70), and • increased traffic increases the exposure and correspondingly the accident rate. IN A • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FELSBURG �' HOLT & 11LLEVIG Page 12 • Vail Transportation Master Plait Update Table 2 Vail Frontage Road Accident Summary - Six Years Percentage Accidents Rear- Run due to per Million Intersection End Broadside Off Other Total Slick Vehicles Comments Road Roads Enterin South Frontage Road West Vail South 2 3 0 0 5 20% 0.5 Roundabout W. Gore Creek Drive 2 5 3 1 11 55% 1.3 Lane improvements may have Matterhorn 13 4 7 1 25 36% 2.8 already alleviated accident occurrences. Westhaven Drive 1 4 1 4 0 1 9 56% 1.0 Forest Road 5 1 1 1 8 38% 1.0 W. Lionshead Circle 8 4 0 3 15 33% 1.9 E. Lionshead Circle 10 4 2 1 17 53% 2.0 Lionshead Parking 4 1 3 1 9 22% 0.9 Main Roundabout 8 5 2 5 20 15% 0.9 Village Center Drive 0 1 0 2 3 67% 0.2 Vail Transportation 10 7 0 2 19 16% 1.4 Center Access Vail Valley Drive 4 9 0 2 15 13°% 1.6 2 /3 accidents involve EB vehicle erha s not stoppin Ford Park East Parking 1 2 0 0 3 33% 0.7 Lot Vail Valley East Drive 1 1 1 5 8 25% 1.8 Aspen Lane 0 0 6 7 13 31% Possible speeding and /or lighting issues in this area hl K(i l'IJ.I:Alu ['age 13 0... 0......00000000000000000000000000000000 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update "fable 2 Vail Frontage Road Accident Summary - Six Years (Continued) Percentage Accidents Rear- Run due to per Million Intersection End Broadside Off Other Total Slick Vehicles Comments Road Roads Enterin North Frontage Road Arosa Road 0 1 3 0 4 75 % All on outside of curve - 75% in adverse weather West Vail North 14 19 1 1 35 34% 2.5 Large % of accidents at 1 -70 off Roundabout ram - possibly seed Buffehr Creek 2 3 1 0 6 83% 0.5 Post Office 10 2 0 0 12 83 % Nearly all involve outbound vehicle on slick surface. Lions Ridge Loop 6 2 1 0 9 44% 0.9 Red Sandstone Road 13 4 4 1 22 73% 2.0 7 rear ends occur on Southbound approach Main Vail Roundabout 13 10 1 1 25 40% 2.2 P F FL SRURG MOLT � ULLEVIG Page14 i Vail Transportation Master Plait Update B. Parking Currently, the Town owns and maintains two large parking structures in Main Vail. The Village Structure, located east of the Main Vail interchange, provides 1300 spaces for skiers and activity at Vail Village. During ski season, a fee is assessed to park during the day if a vehicle stays at least an hour and a half. Employees and residents have an option of purchasing seasonal parking passes, . each providing a different set of privileges. Without a pass, an all -day fee is currently $25.00. This structure generally fills between 50 and 70 times per season and occasionally during summer activities (when parking is free). When full, drivers are directed to the Lionshead Parking Structure. The Village Structure also serves as the Town's Transportation Center serving as a hub for a variety of bus and transportation services. The Lionshead parking structure is located approximately one -half mile west of the Main Vail • interchange. It can accommodate 1200 vehicles. During winter season, the Lionshead Structure generally fills only after the Village Structure fills. The structure fills an estimated 20 to 40 times per season, and once full, vehicles are directed to parallel -park along the South Frontage Road. An i extreme peak day can sometimes see over 1000 vehicles parked along the South Frontage Road. The location of the parking supply within the Main Vail area (Lionshead and Vail Village) is not i entirely in alignment with the parking demand generators. The Lionshead parking structure contains only slightly less than the Village Structure, but there is considerably more parking demand generation in the Village area. The following illustrates the imbalance: ► Village Structure • 1300 spaces of supply • 300,000 square feet of commercial services being served • Approximately 55 percent of the lift capacity • 85 percent of the skiable terrain (east of Vail Road) ► Lionshead Structure • 1200 spaces of supply • 150,000 square feet of commercial services being served • Approximately 45 percent of the lift capacity 15 percent of the skiable terrain (west of Vail Road) The ski area is oriented easterly from the Main Vail interchange. The Vail Village parking structure is located approximately at a central point to the ski area on the mountain. The Lionshead parking structure is skewed to the west of the ski area. Because of their relative locations, skiers tend to fill • the Village Structure before the Lionshead Structure. General parking demand for the Village Structure is further highlighted by the fact that there is more commercial space nearby and that the lift usage is greater than that in Lionshead (even though lift capacity is approximately balanced). The commercial space produces additional parking demand by virtue of the need to accommodate these visitors who only want to shop and the employees needed to operate the commercial activity. i i FFLSBURG • IIOLT & ULLEVIG Page 15 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Other parking areas are also provided throughout town, but most are relatively small providing up to 15 spaces. Other locations such as Ford Park and the Soccer Fields (located east of Golden Peak) can accommodate more vehicles, but these are restricted to permitted vehicles only. The Town of Vail has continued to explore means of adding public parking to the supply within the • central areas of Lionshead and Vail Village. A current need of at least 400 additional spaces has been identified by the Town in attempt to reduce the number of days that the Frontage Road is pressed into service to accommodate overflow parking. The 400 spaces are needed to maintain a supply accommodating 90 percent of the demand days, a Town parking objective. This is based on many seasons of collected Frontage Road parking data. However, 1,000 additional spaces would accommodate 99 percent of the current demand days. Over the long -term (20 years), the 1,000 spaces are estimated to accommodate 90 percent of the future demand days. More detail with respect to further parking needs is described later in this report, but the Town's ultimate goal is to add 1,000 spaces for general public use to meet their 90 percent objective. C. Transit The Town of Vail operates a free bus service for residents and guests. The service is among the busiest in the state serving approximately three million riders per year. The heaviest used route is the i In -Town shuttle which continuously travels between Lionshead and Vail Village; this route makes up 60 to 70 percent of the Towns bus service ridership, and it typically serves with five to seven buses; i peak times can see 8 to 10 buses traveling along this route depending on time of day with headways ranging from 5 to 7 minutes. s Outlying bus routes each serve a different area of Vail. The East Vail and West Vail bus routes • experience the most ridership outside the In -Town Shuttle. West Vail, having a frontage road along the north and south side of 1 -70, is served by opposing loop services in which one West Vail route runs clockwise along the South and North Frontage Road and the other runs counter - clockwise. While these two routes have offset start times from the Transportation Center, buses along these two opposing routes cross in the Meadow Creekhntermountain area, and this area receives relatively infrequent service (because two opposing buses drive by at the same time). Most outlying areas are provided service every 15 to 20 minutes; the Meadow Creek/Intermountain area, in which the opposing West Vail bus routes cross, experiences service every 30 minutes, albeit with two buses. This quirk in the service is the result, in part, of limited 1 -70 crossings and the need to serve both sides of 1 -70 with transit. Existing Transit routes are presented in Figure 4. Other characteristics of the Town's bus system include: ► Heavy end -of- the - day -use of the In -Town ► shuttle as skiers utilize this service to return to their parked vehicle or residence. ► Congestion at the Golden Peak portal; this creates delay to the In -Town shuttle. This is most prevalent on Saturdays. ► Challenges with the In -Town shuttle serving the western -most reaches of Lionshead due to • delays associated with turning left onto the Frontage Road (from East Lionshead Circle). ► Outlying bus routes that serve Main and West Vail are subject to passing through the interchanges which can add delay to the service due to traffic congestion. ► West Vail routes experience overloading mostly at Timber Ridge during morning hours. The West Vail Green route (which is clockwise) also experiences overloading in the evening between the • West Lionshead Plaza and the residential areas west of Cascades. • IN FFLSBURG • �� HOLT ULLEVIG Page 16 FELSBURG C ' HOLT & ULLEVIG SarrlsEOne tr' s d' g m. Poma�e n,. westvai _ �^�,\ / Va8 W Had Nor Q ` \ ,� ,� J �(�� No. Exit . Igo 0 W. O Vail [ae FNniB9° // No. 176 _,,aa pd.� �tlmm hti ysyge Lloesheac � U pHmN7��' Gdt __UM* n 1� Fas[Vail J .'� Wsat raedrrx �� � I I J — Ford park \ west va8 \ Green Sotr u Village � ve1 odermamtaln Bol ,an 1 L Peak Gotl Cwrse LEGEND East Vail Golf Course = Ford Park (Winter Only) = In -Town Shuttle = Sandstone Lionsridge Loop West Vail Loop, North to South = West Vail Loop, South to North Figure 4 Existing Vail Bus Routes North Vail Transportation Services 05 -168 6/9108 • Vail Trattsportatioti Master Platt Update • • • The Transportation Center, located atop the Village Parking Structure, is at its capacity. Besides Town routes, this Center also serves the Eagle County bus system, charter services, regional • services as well as other transportation providers. The Center also serves as a location to switch out buses during the day and as a place for drivers to take a break. The increase in ridership amongst all providers has maxed -out the facility's capacity, and potential increases in transit use in the future has the Town considering a second transportation center facility somewhere. This is discussed in a later chapter of this report. • III. ANTICIPATED GROWTH • • A. Development As mentioned, the Town initiated this effort to ascertain the impacts of foreseen and potential growth throughout the Vail Valley. The growth includes the following: ► Development that is currently under construction, ► Development that has been approved by the Town, but had not yet been constructed, ► Development that has been submitted to the Town for consideration, but not yet approved, and • ► Parcels of land that have the potential for redevelopment for more density. • Town staff have carefully considered parcels throughout town subject to being developed or redeveloped. While these land uses are intended to represent year 2025 conditions, the expectation • is that much of the development and redevelopment assumed in this report will occur within the next five years. Appendix E shows the specific details, but overall anticipated growth can be characterized as follows: • ► Approximately 3000 net new residential and hotel units ► Over 1500 replaced residential units ► Approximately 700,000 net square feet of retail development • Areas within Town that are anticipated to experience the greatest amount of growth include the following: • ► West Vail - The existing shopping center has the potential of being redeveloped to include approximately 130,000 square feet of additional commercial space than currently exists and a net increase of approximately 210 units. This is estimated to take place within ten years. • ► West Lionshead (currently referred to as Ever Vail) - This includes redeveloping the Vail Resorts maintenance yards and relocating the South Frontage Road up against 1 -70. Current plans are still evolving, but the potential exists for approximately 590 units (although the latest • proposal only includes 425), 165,000 square feet of commercial space (including 35,000 square feet of office space) and additional access to the mountain (including a new gondola). The • proposal would also include additional public parking (400 spaces). This is estimated to take place within five years. ► Timber Ridge - This is a redevelopment of an employee housing complex located on the north side of 1 -70 approximately just west of the Post Office. This complex could include 325 new units and the redevelopment of another 198 units. This is estimated to take place within five years. • F USBU RG • C � HOLT & • ULLEVIG Page 19 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ► Lionshead Parking Structure — The Town is currently considering to entirely replace the Lionshead Structure with a larger structure (adding 300 more public spaces), approximately 365 units, 70,000 square feet of commercial space, and 20,000 square feet for a conference center. This is anticipated to take place within five years, +� Most of the other development considered in this report is comprised of numerous smaller parcels, many of which are located within the Lionshead area and the Vail Village area. B. Parking • The additional needed parking supply is based on historic parking counts (along the Frontage Road during peak days) and on projected demands tied to growth within the region and along the Front ! Range. Since the 2000 -2001 ski season, the 15th highest parking day (Vail's objective design level) has produced anywhere from 214 to 541 number of vehicles parked along the Frontage Road (when it is pressed into service). The annual average has ranged from 325 vehicles to 483 with an overall average of about 350 vehicles. The 10th highest day has averaged approximately 465 vehicles of overflow parking since the 2000 -2001 ski season. From this, the Town has identified the need to . establish another 400 spaces over the short -term planning horizon. The Ever Vail development project may fulfill this need, but these additional spaces would be west of the primary parking "desire" locations. Over the longer term, the expectation is that an increase in population and employment (locally, ! regionally, and state -wide) will only add to the parking demands that Vail will need to accommodate. The following describes, given rough assumptions, the nature of additional parking demand in Vail ! over the long -term. • ► Local Skier Merchant Passes — The Town estimates that jobs within Eagle County could approximately double by the year 2030, but that merchant pass holders may increase at a rate less than this, say 60 %. This would produce 3000 more merchant pass holders. Assuming 30 percent use their pass on a ,peak day, approximately 900 new pass holder skiers would visit Vail . on a peak day. Assuming 50 percent use their car at two persons per vehicles, an additional demand of 225 parked vehicles would be generated. ► Eagle County Part Time Resident — Approximately 12,000 additional units are planned throughout Eagle County; approximately 2000 of these will be affordable homes. Of the other 10,000, it is estimated that 30 percent of the homes would be occupied at peak times with an average occupancy of three people per unit. Assuming 10 to 12 percent of these people ski at Vail and 50 percent utilize their automobile with three people per vehicle, an additional demand of • 175 parked vehicles would be generated. ! ► Front Range Visitors — The Front Range population is projected to increase by one million persons in the next 20 years or so, and 10 to 15 percent of this increase is estimated to be skiers. ! This could add 125,000 prospective skiers to the Colorado market. Currently, a peak day could see Vail serving 0.5 percent of this market, or the equivalent of 600 to 700 additional skiers. Assuming 95 percent reach Vail via automobile at three people per car, this component would generate an additional demand of 200 parked vehicles. ! . FELSWRG ItOLT & L L Page20 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ► Employees — The number of jobs within Eagle County is projected to increase significantly by 2030. Within Vail, new development is estimated to add 3600 jobs. With 30 percent of these employees being housed within town, 2520 employees would be out of town needing transportation. Employees are also subject to shifts and do not work everyday. As such, they do not generate the concentrated parking demand that other users above might. Further, assuming 50 percent drive at two persons per vehicle, an estimated additional parking demand of approximately 325 vehicles would be generated. In considering the combination of the above four components, an estimated 925 spaces would be needed to accommodate growth over the next 20 to 25 years. When adding in the 400 spaces • needed to address current parking shortfalls, a total of 1325 spaces could potentially be necessary. However, a planning level of 1000 spaces is considered appropriate when considering: ► The managing of parking may be more aggressive in the future ► Some of the employee- generated parking demand may be served on -site (at the place of employment) ► A portion of the part-time residents may participate in "parking clubs" ► The potential of some double counting in the 4 components above. The long -term "target" of providing an additional 1000 spaces is appropriate for the Main Vail area. • Areas where this supply may be increased are described as follows: • ► Ever Vail Redevelopment. A range of 300 to 500 public spaces have been identified for this i area. The analysis presented herein assumes 400 public spaces (which is consistent with current development plans). To the extent possible, the Town should pursue as much as is reasonably possible, realizing that access to /from the Frontage Road (roundabout intersection desired) and bus stop facilities will also be necessary. S ► Lionshead Structure. If this is redeveloped, a total of over 2,000 parking spaces will be provided • as part of this development. Over 600 of these spaces will be dedicated to the development, but over 1,400 would be available for public use (a 200 to 300 space increase). This too, along with a possible transit center, will drive the need for one or two major intersections onto the Frontage • Road, perhaps being served via a roundabout. ► Ford Park. Potentially, 300 to 600 net new spaces could be provided in a structure at Ford park. Transit service connecting it to the Village would be necessary during winter, but the parking could also be used for various events at the park during other times of the year. Between these three areas, the potential exists for the Town to add far more than the minimum 400 spaces in a manner that allows the parking supply to be spread around the Main Vail area. However, most of the new spaces would be located in Lionshead or the western side of the Main Vail area. As r! mentioned, most skiers vie to access the mountain through Vail Village since the vast majority of the ski area's acreage is oriented to the east of the Villages. While the additional parking supply in the Main Vail area would be a boon to the Main Vail area, it may better serve the Main Vail area if most of the new supply was located in Vail Village rather than Lionshead (east rather than west). A map showing parking locations in relation to other activities is presented later in this report. N FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG Page 21 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update I � I� C. Inter - Relationship of the Various Modes • Clearly, a cohesive transportation system requires integration of all modes of travel. Public parking areas, for example, naturally attract traffic and can experience heavy concentrations of traffic depending on size and location. In addition, the parking areas are also candidates for transit service, especially where parking areas are located away from prime uses. Because Vail's "base" area is large and spread across multiple villages, parking areas are also spread across the villages along the Frontage Road. So the planning for one mode affects another; parking attracts traffic and requires frequent transit service at peak times. Areas that can accommodate large amounts of parking are limited at Main Vail, so their locations are somewhat predetermined. This, in turn, shapes the traffic and transit patterns and service that is needed. The modes are also interrelated in that roadway improvements to alleviate traffic delays and congestion also help transit service as buses are part of the traffic mix. Also, the policy to manage parking and skier -drop -off activity can affect traffic and transit demands and the trade -off thereof. Vail's Transportation and Parking Committee continuously monitor parking trends and develop strategies to help alleviate parking problems within town. These strategies can have an impact on how many users are willing to drive versus utilize transit or another mode. As such, parking policy, • management, and location directly impact traffic demands and transit demands. The process is dynamic. Traffic, transit, skier drop -off and parking, while inter - related, also need to be appropriately planned with respect to the ski -area terrain location, access to the ski area, and proximity to the commercial development. Future plans for Main Vail will increase commercial space as follows: • ► Vail Village — from 300,000 to 350,000 square feet ► Lionshead Village — from 150,000 to 250,000 square feet • ► West Lionshead (Ever Vail) - approximately 165,000 square feet (retail and office) In addition, West Lionshead is anticipated to be served by a new ski lift onto the mountain and this development is being planned to accommodate skier drop -off activity, particularly for charter buses and shuttles. Additional parking areas are possible at Ford Park, Lionshead Parking Structure (as part of potential redevelopment), and West Lionshead. The new lift and the new parking areas have the potential of attracting traffic to that localized area and each warrant consideration for transit service embellishments. In essence, the addition of parking, commercial space, and skier access to • Main Vail and the fact that each of these will be more spread out than current conditions requires embellishments to the transportation system with respect to carrying traffic and providing transit • service. FELSBURG • 01 A HOLT &' ULLEVIG Page 22 Vail Transportation Master Plait Update • i IV. PROJECTED 2025 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC i CONDITIONS • • A. Traffic Voluiiie Forecasts Projected traffic demands along the Frontage Road system are key to assessing and mitigating future • transportation conditions. As mentioned, the PM peak hour traffic is generally heavier than the AM peak hour, with a few pattern exceptions. As such, year 2025 traffic forecasts have focused on the • PM peak hour time period for analysis, with exceptions being the Main Vail and West Vail Roundabout Interchanges where cursory-level AM peak hour forecasts were developed as well. • The total PM peak hour forecasts were developed with the use of a travel demand model utilizing the TRAFFIX software package. The model was developed by estimating the amount of additional PM peak hour trips for each development and redevelopment proposal, and then assigning these new trips to the street system. Forecasts then resulted from the additive nature of the new trips in • combination with the existing traffic which was increased modestly (0.5% per year) to year 2025. The AM peak hour traffic was developed by applying an approximate 35 percent flat growth factor to the existing AM peak hour; the 35 percent was based on the level of growth resulting from the 2025 PM peak hour projections (as compared to existing traffic levels). • Table 3 shows the trip generation rates that were used, and Figure 5 shows the trip distribution i assumptions that were used in this analysis. Trip rates were based on a combination of sources including the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation and the Lionshead Transportation Master Plan. ITE trips rates were primarily applied to development located away from • the Vail base areas. Because of the heavy transit use and the fact that much of the development is i mixed and close -in (lending itself to trips made via walking), the trip generation rates used in this study are less than the ITE rates because the ITE data are intended for more typical suburban settings where commuter activity is prominent. At peak times in Vail, tourist activity is prominent. The • close -in trip generation rates used in this analysis are in line with ITE's Recreational /Home category. Areas where the close -in residential trip rates were applied are shown in Figure 6. A 20 percent reduction in trip generation rates was applied for the close -in areas. . The increased retail uses within the villages were also subject to reduced trip generation rates as compared to ITE's shopping center category data. A PM peak hour trip reduction of 65 percent was • applied due to the following reasons: • ► The retail and commercial activity, being located at the base of the ski area, is heavily dependent upon people who are already in the village for skiing purposes. • ► There are many units located close to the new retail uses which tends to induce walking trips to . rather than vehicular trips. ► Many of the employees of the retail uses are typically discouraged to drive themselves to work, in part due to the parking fee at the structures. i A cursory-level evaluation of existing retail trips was conducted by reviewing the level of traffic turning into the structures today. During the PM peak hour, the outbound traffic contains a significant amount of skier trips, so it is not appropriate to include these outbound traffic with respect to gauging trip generation ` rates. Inbound PM peak hour traffic contains trips associated with retail and some other uses, so while it i is not 100 percent retail traffic, it does serve as an upper limit. At the Lionshead Parking Structure, 150 i I=E1 tiRIiRG i �HOLT ULLEVIG Page 23 �' • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i • inbound PM peak hour trips exist current; the Lionshead Village contains approximately 150,000 square • feet of retail- related use. At the Village Structure, 310 vehicles entered during the PM peak hour; that village contains approximately 300,000 square feet of retail /commercial. These traffic numbers represent a 45 to 50 percent reduction in ITE shopping center trip rates if they were all retail- related, but they are i not. Other trip types that are part of the inbound movements to the structures include: • ► Library trips (which is open until 6:00 PM on weekends, later on weekdays) • ► Dobson Ice Arena trips (which typically has a full schedule including hockey events, figure skating, lessons, and public skating) ► Adventure Center trips. The Adventure Center provides other recreation including tubing, ski biking, snowmobiling, snowshoeing, and a trampoline, and it is remains open until 9:00 PM on • weekend nights. • ► Residential uses. Several residential complexes within the villages are not able to adequately • park their own overnight guests, so the parking structures are used instead. At Lionshead, staff estimates that approximately 100 vehicles are parked overnight at peak times related to selected residential uses. At the Village Structure, between 200 and 300 vehicles are parked overnight • related to some of the residential uses there. • ► Special events. Both villages routinely host evening events such as concerts, festivals, exhibits, and other attractions. All of these attract trips beyond the retail /commercial attraction. As such, the true retail trip rate is • even less that the 45 to 50 reduction quoted above. As such, using rates that equate to a 65 to 70 percent reduction for the new retail development is not inconsistent with current trip - making trends in • Vail. Again, Appendix E shows the trip estimates for each of the development areas. 'In total, all of the considered development could generate an additional 2,800 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. The following summarize some of the bigger trip generators: ► West Vail — the net increase in square footage and residential units could generate a total of 470 additional trips during the PM peak hour. This would be above and beyond the estimated 800 to 1000 trips per hour generated by the West Vail development today. • ► Timber Ridge is estimated to generate an additional 180 trips per hour during the PM peak hour. • ► West Lionshead (Ever Vail) has the potential of generating an additional 580 trips per hour • during the PM peak hour. • ► Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment is estimated to generate 275 trips during the PM peak hour. ► The Lionshead Village area (excluding the Lionshead parking structure) is projected to generate • an additional 490 PM peak hour trips given the collective development. The Vail Village area redevelopment is projected to generate an additional 260 PM peak hour trips given the collective development potentials. • • • . FELSBURG • �' HOLT & U LLE VIG Page24 • FELSBURG C ' HOLT & ULLEVIG 9 @ N d P 9 I -70 East 25% �" "snA9e W i- ionshead mai o m u r 9 Circle W `o_ ruin "a l s "- Lionshead o `' 9 ° P10 %ng East Vail 949 ' Village Frontage via L Parking 15 % Road 5% � 4m yoJ` F` G o N \ � Maaerhnm Cyr L West Vail Area 15% '+ w Gor or LEGEND 0 XX% = Trip Assignment Percentage 1 -70 West 30% Figure 5 Trip Assignment Distribution North Vail - ransportation Services 05 -168 619108 • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I• Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • i Table 3 Trip Generation Rates • Trip Generation Rates (per DU for Res, per 1000 SF otherwise) • Use ITE Vail- Remote Vail -Close In Daily P Mk Daily Peak Daily Peak Residential - New 5.86 0.54 5 0.5 4 0.4 Residential - Replace NA NA 0.75 0.08 0.6 0.06 Commercial - Office 11.01 1.49 11 1.49 11 1.49 Commercial - Retail 42.94 3.75 42.94 3.75 15 1.3 Hospital 17.6 1.18 17.6 1.1 NA NA Figure 7 shows the 2025 total PM peak hour traffic projections at the Town's roundabout intersections and many of the Frontage Road cross - streets. In general, future PM peak hour traffic flows along the frontage roads are projected to increase an estimated 30 to 40 percent over existing traffic flow levels at peak times. The interchanges will experience a greater concentration in traffic with the additional trips. Major cross - streets will still include Vail Valley Drive, both parking structure access points, and West Vail accesses (if access modifications are not constructed). Moderately traveled cross - streets include all of the Lionshead Circles, Village Drive, • and Forest Road (given Ever Vail redevelopment and if left intact). • • B. Traffic Operations • Similar to the existing conditions LOS analysis, the roundabout intersections were analyzed for ideal conditions as well as for snow conditions using the same factors and adjustments mentioned before. Figure 8 shows the results of the PM peak hour analyses. Noticeable capacity deficiency • highlights include: • • ► Main Vail Interchange - The north roundabout is projected to operate at a LOS F during the PM peak hour. The south roundabout is projected to function at LOS D, but several approaches are expected to operate at LOS E or LOS F. ► West Vail Interchange - Both roundabouts are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM • peak hour. • • • i • • • • • • • FFLSRURG ( COLT & ULLEVIG Page 26 • FELSBURG C i HGLT & ULLEVIG CI P 9 a N w� 0 co m m m 9 0 m m m a) C a 0) °' wU .gym Fr ��a9e q J U Ja d W.Lionshead 3 v a a o Circle W. ¢ 2 3 m v > 9 m a I I LEGEND Ski Lift 1 Gondola Figure 6 Residential "Close -in" Areas for Trip Generation North Van Transportation Services 05 -168 216/09 •• 1000000••• •••!•• FELS6L19Ci 690 1770 - HOLT 6 ® 460 1 12p U LLEVI(7 B5�0 — S5 0 m - 9 1o.. ® 33 770 2S� 5 p 100 6 Q 9 � 'I 3J -' i5 305 60 b yo 65 0 • I� Q 315 © 95 4 v - �0p ° _ 5 a` 3v > ° m 5 e 9< ,� # r soum Fronle9a N4 _ U c m 95 5 5 60 50 • ®' 375 5 �225 315 965 g in - 425 -_ - X 65 .+� y 150 • O� - -- 1 Po® r p° • 1 "I,t5 Yf 9' `�yne9•�po0- .uorenwa ^� r a mlew "• ® 60 5� O ,y a \moo y`y m � 6 O m P5 6p5 1 5 $ Zp55 . 1�,�p F � o c• v 0 �Q 1 pryp m m Meoerlrom � s ® ° m m 5 o LEGEND �apP� 3�p p5 X25 m 5p XXX = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ,S 6 �• ® = Inlersection Number *° �p c • �3 m �� e 9 �0 # = Less Than 5 Vehicles per Hour •� o � w.comcrk.or a$s 5 r • S70 M1p � r 5 9y y • / 9 qp r 70 ti i �• 55 f • 7 D • S 3 Figure? n S 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections No41M1 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ► Cross- street intersections that are projected to have a LOS F left turn movement include: • Village Parking Structure Access • Lionshead Parking Structure Access • Vail Valley Drive (left FROM the Frontage Road) ► Cross - street intersections that are projected to have a LOS E left turn movement include: • • West Vail commercial accesses • • East Lionshead Circle (which impacts the heavily - traveled In -Town shuttle bus service) • • Village Center Drive • West Lionshead Circle LOS E and LOS F were described in Chapter Two with respect to corresponding motorist delay • levels. These poor LOS's indicate that mobility within Vail will be severely limited during busy times. This impacts not only private automobile users within town, but it also will have a significant impact on the Town's ability to provide transit service. Given poor weather conditions, many drivers will be • frustrated traveling within Vail, thereby exacerbating a visitor's resort experience. In addition to intersection LOS's, travel time estimates between Safeway and the Village Parking • Structure, as well as Safeway and the Lionshead Structure, have been developed for the PM peak hour of projected Year 2025 conditions as follows in Table 4. Table 4 Travel Time Comparison - Year 2025 Peak Season, PM Peak Hour Safeway to Village Village Structure to Structure Safewa North South North South Safeway to Cascade Red Route Route Route Route LH LH Structure to Red Sandstone Structure I to Safeway I Sandstone I to Cascade • Existing Ideal 5:30 6:30 6:00 8:00 5:00 5:00 5:30 5:30 Snowy 7:30 9:00 8:30 10:30 5:00 5:00 6:30 6:45 2025 (without any improvements) Ideal 6:30 7:30 8 :30 10:00 7:00 13:00 6:00 6:00 Snowy 9:00 12:30 15:00 14:00 10:00 17:00 8:45 7:15 . FELSBURO • C i HOLT & • ULLEVIG Page 29 • • Vail Transportation Master flan Update • • As shown, travel time within Vail during peak times could increase by as much as 12 minutes depending on conditions and routing. Much of the additional delay will occur at the intersections where LOS's are anticipated to be poor • Beyond the comparisons shown in Table 4, travel time estimates were also developed between Cascade Village and West Vail. Given the LOS results of Figure 8 (and corresponding delays), year 2025 snowy conditions would require 8 to 10 minutes of travel between these two areas. These trips would experience significant travel delay would be incurred at the West Vail interchange roundabouts • and through turning onto the Frontage Road. In addition to the peak hour projections, daily traffic projections were developed along the frontage roads which is shown on Figure 9. The daily traffic is shown as a means of quickly comparing the order of magnitude changes in traffic due to growth, as well as the resulting demands due to implementing the recommended plan (discussed later in this report). • • • • i • • • • • I I i • • • ! • • • • • • • IN FELSBURG � � HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 30 HOU R( HOLY 6 m l LILLEVIU Z u ¢ m 2® ?® �i fl > V g j P 'f NA �, �pwa0e a a° 'x 'o Pa c 4oaD ^ r �m 4 m m ®�. LEGEND b / • " m m o n _ x = PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes . m y •,<• [x] (at interchanges) angs) Bic Volumes ® - Intersection Number 8 �2?,q, ■ . O = Less Then 5 Vehicles per Hour •r r i W.Gon Crk,Dr / Q '• 9 ,,� ® �(7' NOTE: Roundabout Los's reflect poor weather conditions • Figure Year 2025 Peak Hour Levels of Service •••• •••••••• • ••••••••••• : •••••••••••••••••• 7600 FELSBURG [11,500] H O L T & {9500} ULLEVIG 9\. a m W A m ° m 7200 0� a [11,500] 9 J u U a' South {11,000} 3� 9800 14,100 >" o o on rage [16,300] [24,500] ci o� �0 " U onsr`d9B�OOF W.Lionshead [18,0001 {23,300} 19,600' m 4900 Circle W. [28,500] [7900] a r {27,800} ' {12,500} 9m�6 my 9 LEGE m XXXX = Existing Traffic 8200 m �9 a [13,600] m 10,000 [XXXX] = Year 2025 Projected Traffic {17,000} a. 'gy [16,500] Without Improvements {18,500} o a9 O {XXXX} = Year 2025 Projected Traffic 1;. With Recommended System � Improvements d� @� Matterhorn at. Proposed new 1 -70 underpass s t 18,700 s [27,000] 10,700 {23,000} [17,400] {13,500} C d� Q W. Gore Crk. Dr. Figure 9 12,000 Vail Frontage Road Dail Traffic {14,000} g y 0 During Winter Peak Season North Vail Transportation Services, 05-163,017/09 • Vail Transportation Master Plan update ! • • V. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES Based on the traffic operations presented in the previous section, improvement alternatives were developed and analyzed relative to their impact on the critical street system components within Town. • The critical consideration areas include the following: • i ► Main Vail Interchange • ► West Vail Interchange • ► South Frontage Road from Vail Road to Ford Park (Village Frontage) • ► South Frontage Road from Vail Road to Forest Road (Lionshead Frontage) ► West Vail Redevelopment Area • Alternatives were identified and analyzed for each of these critical areas to determine the most appropriate alternative (or combination of alternatives) to mitigate projected traffic demands. A. Main Vail Interchange ! Numerous peak hour traffic patterns are served by this interchange, and many are in direct conflict • with each other. The predominant PM peak hour traffic pattern consists of movements from the Village Structure Frontage Road "leg" to the westbound 1 -70 on -ramp. But other noticeably heavy patterns during the PM peak hour include movements between the Lionshead leg and the eastbound • on ramp, the westbound off ramp and the South Frontage Road (both directions) and movements simply crossing 1 -70. Additionally, a major pattern during the AM peak hour is westbound 1 -70 traffic • exiting the freeway and turning south heading to the parking structure. Alternatives that were • considered to alleviate poor LOS's can be categorized as either capacity improvements, travel • demand measures, or provision for alternative routes. • Tables 5 and 6 were developed to clarify the issues associated with each of the interchange's • roundabouts during the PM peak hour. The tables show realistic improvements as well as supplemental mitigation considerations to achieve acceptable LOS's. Table 5 presents material associated with the north roundabout and Table 6 presents information relative to the south • roundabout. ! • • • • • • • M FEISRURG • � � HOLT k ULLEV[G Page 33 • I � Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Table 5 Main Vail Interchange North Roundabout - Alternatives Assessment • Main Vail Interchange, North Roundabout LOS F projected along WB off -ramp and Spraddle Creek Approach (Snowy and Ideal Conditions Primary Issue(s): Major traffic conflict is between NB left turn movement (to WB 1 -70 and Frontage Road) and WB left turn movement from WB 1 -70 off-ramp. Expand to a full two lane roundabout; add northbound approach • Realistic Capacity Improvement(s): lane from under 1 -70 (possibly reversible lane); add bypass lane from Frontage Road to WB 1 -70. Supplemental Traffic Reduction Still Still need to reduce PM peak hour forecasts by 50 to 100 . Needed for LOS D on otherwise p oor operating approaches (Snow vehicles per hour, or 2 to 4 percent. 2025 Traffic Composition: 30% is from proposed development. Potential Measure Traffic Flow Effect Relative Cost • (as Isolated Measure) Total traffic reduced by 150 to 200 High, but measure would 1. Add Simba Run underpass. vph (6 to 8 %). provide other benefits as . well. 2. Encourage use of East Vail Estimated ramp traffic removed is Low; would require VMS • Interchange between 100 and 150 vph (4 to along 1 -70 and along 6% . Bighorn Road. Estimated traffic removed is Low; would impact parking 3.Parking Management Measures between 100 and 150 vph (3 to policy. 5%). 4. Express Bus Service linking West Estimated traffic removed is Vail, Lionshead, and Vail Village between 50 and 100 vph (2 to Medium. • 4 % . 5. Extended Skiing Hours Estimated traffic removed is Low. between 25 and 50 vph (1 to 2 %). 6. Metering of Outbound Structure Estimated traffic removed is Low; toll booths already in Traffic (toll booths) * ** I between 50 and 75 vph (2 to 3 %). place. Other Considerations Mixed Use Trip Gen Reduction Could reduce intersection's PM peak hour traffic by another 25 (WV) *' • vph 1% • Employee housing auto disincentive Could reduce intersection's PM peak hour traffic by another 25 to (Timber Ridge} 50 vph 1 to 2% Combining measures will reduce the effect of certain measures as some mitigation measures target the same traffic "group ". ** This consideration entails redeveloping the West Vail area to better balance uses and incite internal trip- making. • ** *Potentially, improvements in parking control equipment over time may allow for a more rapid exit flow rate. While this will be advantageous to those attempting to exit, it will contribute to the peak traffic concentration • along Town roads. Metering this outbound flow would provide a little benefit to traffic operations. FELSRURG • �� HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 34 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Table 6 Main Vail Interchange South Roundabout - Alternatives Assessment Main Vail Interchange, South Roundabout LOS F projected along WB Frontage Road Approach and along Vail Road approach snow . i Primary Issue(s): Major movement is WB right turn to under 1 -70 (much of which is oriented to WB 1 -70). Largest conflict with this movement includes the combination of movements onto the EB on-ramp. Realistic Capacity Improvement(s): Incorporate second northbound lane under 1 -70 and re- designate WB Frontage Road lanes to utilize it (right, through /right, and left/through). Still need to reduce PM peak hour forecasts by 50 to 100 vehicles per Supplemental Traffic Reduction Still hour, or 1 to 2 percent. Additional reduction may be desirable to Needed for LOS D (Snowy): provide excess capacity for U -turns from /to the west (due to right- in/right-out access restrictions nearby). 2025 Traffic Composition: 25% is from proposed development. . Potential Measure Traffic Flow Effect (as Isolated Measure)* Relative Cost • Total traffic reduced by 150 to 200 vph (3 High, but measure would 1. Add Simba Run underpass. to 4 %) provide other benefits as well. Estimated ramp traffic removed is Low; would require VMS 2. Encourage use of East Vail between 50 and 100 vph (1 to 2%). This along 1 -70 and along • Interchange measure would also create some "shifts' Bighorn Road. in traffic entering the roundabout. • 3. Parking Management Measures Estimated traffic removed is between Low; would impact parking • 125 and 200 vph (2 to 4%). policy. 4. Express Bus Service linking West Estimated traffic removed is Vail, Lionshead, and Vail Village between 50 and 100 vph (1 to 2 %). Medium. 5. Extended Skiing Hours Estimated traffic removed is between 25 Low. and 50 vph (1 /o). 6. Metering of Outbound Structure Estimated traffic removed is between Low: toll booths already in Traffic (toll booths) * ** 100 and 150 vph (2 to 3 %). place. Other Considerations Mixed Use Trip Gen Reduction Could reduce intersection's PM peak • (WV)`" hour traffic by 25 (<1 %). Employee housing auto disincentive Could reduce intersection's PM peak Timber Ride hour traffic by another 25 to 50 vph 1 % Hospital Access onto Fr. Road Combining measures will reduce the effect of certain measures as some mitigation measures target the same traffic "group ". " This consideration entails redeveloping the West Vail area to better balance uses and incite internal trip - making. 'Potentially, improvements in parking control equipment over time may allow for a more rapid exit flow rate. While this will be advantageous to those attempting to exit, it will contribute to the peak traffic concentration along Town roads. Metering this outbound flow would provide a little benefit to traffic operations. P -9 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 35 a Vail Transportation Master Plait Update Improvements that show promise for the Main Vail interchange's PM peak hour operation include: ► Simba Run Underpass. This improvement is estimated to attract 3 to 4 percent of the traffic passing through the south roundabout and 6 to 8 percent of the traffic traveling through the north . roundabout. The Simba Run Underpass would provide some needed relief to the Main Vail interchange by giving local drivers another option to cross 1 -70. This is a relatively expensive improvement, and the relief it provides to the Main Vail Interchange alone is probably not enough . justification for its construction. However, the Simba Run underpass would provide other benefits • such as: • Provide significant relief to the West Vail interchange intersections, i • Provide a safe means of crossing 1 -70 to serve pedestrians and bicyclists, Allow a greater level of flexibility for the Town's bus system, which would increase the system's efficiency, i . Allow faster response time for emergency vehicles ► Widening /enhancing the roundabouts (particularly the north roundabout) to establish continuous double lanes carrying traffic from the Village South Frontage Road "leg" to the 1 -70 West on -ramp • "leg ". Signing will be crucial with this improvement to clearly guide motorists through the interchange. The roadway below 1 -70 would need to be striped and signed to clearly show two northbound lanes and one southbound lane. There is 34 feet of width allowing for three 11 feet • lanes. A potential embellishment could be the provision for the center lane to be reversed during the AM peak hour through dynamic traffic control planning involving temporary barriers and signs, i but both roundabouts will need to be properly designed to accommodate this potential. Providing • a full four lanes under 1 -70 would be an ideal long -term consideration when the 1 -70 bridges are replaced by CDOT (which may not be for many years given CDOT's favorable Sufficiency Rating of these bridges being in the low 90's). ► Alternatives that involve parking management could collectively make a difference as well. With the Town "core" located right at the interchange and much of the public parking associated with "core" activity (skiing, dining, shopping, etc.), the ability to manage afternoon traffic spikes generated from the parking structures can lessen some of the concentration of traffic experienced at the Main Vail interchange. Management could also include providing real -time information to guests with respect to travel conditions along 1 -70 and /or existing the structures. Guests may opt to stay in town longer after a day of skiing if they learn about real time congestion problems prior to reaching their vehicle. There may be other parking policy and /or economic consequences in applying these management techniques, but properly managing the parking could have an impact on peak traffic demands. ► Encourage use of the East Vail interchange via dynamic signing can also remove an element of the traffic from the Main Vail interchange. The primary means of conveying information to drivers • would be via dynamic signing upon exit of the Village Parking Structure and along westbound 1 -70 prior to the East Vail interchange. The one drawback of this alternative is that it would place more traffic along the Frontage Road east of Ford Park, but this section of Frontage Road has excess capacity as a two -lane road given that it carries less than one -half of the traffic the other Frontage • Road segments carry. This alternative would be most effective to relieve the AM peak hour time period by intercepting traffic arriving from Vail Pass (which is significant during the AM Period) and will be essential to accommodating AM peak hour concentrations of traffic exiting 1 -70 from the east. Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) mitigation measures should be implemented to . FELSRURG • (411OLT & ULLEVIG Page 36 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update the extent possible to optimize existing transportation infrastructure. Providing public parking at Ford Park would complement the notion of encouraging usage of the East Vail interchange. Another consideration listed in Table 6, but not specifically quantified, is the modification of the Hospital's access. The Vail Valley Medical Center is currently served by Meadow Drive via Vail Road. As such, nearly all of its traffic impacts the south roundabout intersection along the Vail Road (south) leg. The Center is in the planning process to reconfigure its facility such that it might have an access . directly onto the Frontage Road west of the roundabout, across from the Municipal Center. This would "shift" some of this facility's traffic out of the south roundabout and off of the south roadway "leg" which is projected to operate at a poor LOS. This scheme requires coordination with the other nearby uses' access points, but it could offer a small dose of traffic relief to the heavily -used south roundabout. , B. West Vail Interchange � The predominant movements through this interchange during the PM peak hour include movements from the North Frontage Road and from the South Frontage Road to westbound 1 -70. AM peak hour • traffic patterns illustrate the reflection, but the magnitude of traffic during the AM peak hour is much • less than that of the PM peak hour based on the existing counts. Part of this phenomenon is due to the commercial activity in West Vail (north side of 1 -70) which is a more significant generator during the PM peak hour than during the AM peak hour. The PM' peak hour major movements all merge within the north roundabout, and the north roundabout intersection is the most challenging component of the interchange complex. Like the Main Vail interchange bridges, the West Vail 1 -70 bridges have a very high Sufficiency Rating, and CDOT is not likely to replace these any time soon. • Tables 7 and 8 show the effectiveness of various alternatives on the PM peak hour operations of this interchange. A key improvement for this interchange is the establishment of two northbound lanes • under 1 -70 from the south side and maintaining two continuous lanes to westbound 1 -70 (through the roundabout). Like the Main Vail interchange, there is adequate width to accommodate these (35 feet, allowing for three 11 feet lanes), but striping and signing enhancements will be necessary to clearly convey this lane configuration to drivers. Also, the southbound Chamonix approach into the • roundabout should be widened to include two entering lanes. The nature of the West Vail area being removed from the skiing "core" of Vail results in less . effectiveness of the travel demand measures considered in the Main Vail interchange alternatives analysis (including managing traffic demand from the parking structures). The most effective mitigation measure for West Vail would be the construction of a Simba Run underpass. This • improvement would remove 10 to 12 percent of the PM peak hour traffic utilizing the interchange • complex. P -9 .SBURC VOLT U L L E V I C Page 37 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • Table 7 West Vail Interchange North Roundabout - Alternatives Assessment West Vail Interchange, North Roundabout LOS F projected along WB Frontage Road Approach and LOS E • along SB Chamonix Drive approach (snowy). Primary Issue(s): Major movement is WB left turn to under 1 -70, to WB 1 -70, and NB • approach to EB Frontage Road and onto WB 1 -70. Largest conflict involves NB left turn onto WB 1 -70 with the left turns from WB • Frontage Road. • Realistic Capacity Improvement(s): Add northbound approach lane from under 1 -70. Should also add SB Chamonix approach lane. Supplemental Traffic Reduction Still Still need to reduce PM peak hour forecasts by 200 to 250 Needed for LOS D (Snowy): vehicles per hour, or 6 to 8 percent. 2025 Traffic Composition: 21 % is from proposed development. Potential Measure Traffic Flow (Effect Relative Cost • (as Isolated Measure* Total traffic reduced by 400 to 450 High, but measure would 1. Add Simba Run underpass. vph (10 to 12 %). provide other benefits as i well. Estimated traffic removed is Low, would impact parking 2. Parking Management Measures between 25 to 50 vpd (less than • policy. 1% 3. Express Bus Service linking West Estimated traffic removed is • Vail, Lionshead, and Vail Village between 75 and 100 vph (2 to Medium. • 3%). 4. Extended Skiing Hours Estimated traffic removed is less Low. than 25 vph (<1%). Low; toll booths already in Traffic (Vill • 5. Metering of and LH toll Outbound Structure Estimated traffic removed is place. Metering outbound ° • booths) * ** between 25 and 50 vph (1 to 2%). West Vail commercial traffic • ma be beneficial. . Other Considerations Mixed Use Trip Gen Reduction Could reduce intersection's PM (WV) ** peak hour traffic by 25 to 50 vph 1% Employee housing auto disincentive Could reduce intersection's PM • (Timber Ridge) peak hour traffic by less than 25 vph <1 • Could reduce intersection's PM • Less West Vail Development peak hour traffic by 25 vph per • 10,000 SF reduction in retail. * Combining measures will reduce the effect of certain measures as some mitigation measures target the same traffic "group ". ** This consideration entails redeveloping the West Vail area to better balance uses and incite internal trip - making. • ** *Potentially, improvements in parking control equipment over time may allow for a more rapid exit flow rate. While this will be advantageous to those attempting to exit, it will contribute to the peak traffic concentration along Town roads. Metering this outbound flow would provide a little benefit to traffic operations. i • • • .1 ELSBURG ULLEVIG Page 38 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update � i Table 8 West Vail Interchange South Roundabout - Alternatives Assessment West Vail Interchange, South Roundabout • LOS F projected along EB Frontage Road Approach (relative minor ) and along EB Off -ram (snowy). Primary Issue(s): Major movement is WB right turn to under 1 -70. This movement's • largest conflict includes the eastbound off -ramp left turn to under I- 70. Realistic Capacity Improvement(s): Add northbound approach lane from under 1 -70 (extended back to the south roundabout Supplemental Traffic Reduction Still Still need to reduce PM peak hour forecasts by 100 to 150 Needed for LOS D (Snowy): vehicles per hour, or 3 to 5 percent. . 2025 Traffic Composition: 21 % is from proposed development. Potential Measure Traffic Flow Effect Relative Cost (as Isolated Measure) Total traffic reduced by 400 l0 450 High, but measure would 1. Add Simba Run underpass. vph (14 to 1redu provide other benefits as well. • 2. Parking Management Measures Estimated traffic removed is © Low; would impact parking • between 25 and 50 vph (1 to 2/0). policy. 3. Express Bus Service linking West Estimated traffic removed is Vail, Lionshead, and Vail Village between 75 and 100 vph (3 to Medium. • 4 % ) . 4. Extended Skiing Hours Estimated traffic removed is less Low • than 25 vph ( <1 %). • 5. Metering of Outbound Structure Estimated traffic removed is Low; toll booths already in Traffic (toll booths) "` between 25 and 50 vph (1 to 2 %). place. Other Considerations • Could reduce intersection's PM Mixed Use Trip Gen Reduction (WV) peak hour traffic by 25 to 50 vph 1 to 2 . Employee housing auto disincentive Could reduce intersection's PM (Timber Ridge) peak hour traffic by less than 25 vph <1% • Could reduce intersection's PM Less West Vail Development peak hour traffic by 25 vph per 10,000 SF reduction in retail. • Combining measures will reduce the effect of certain measures as some mitigation measures target the same traffic "group ". '* This consideration entails redeveloping the West Vail area to better balance uses and incite internal trip- • making. — Potentially, improvements in parking control equipment over time may allow for a more rapid exit flow rate. While this will be advantageous to those attempting to exit, it will contribute to the peak traffic concentration along Town roads. Metering this outbound flow would provide a little benefit to traffic operations. FELSBURG 11OLT & ULLEVIG Page 39 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update As mentioned, the Simba Run underpass would be an expensive improvement. It would provide some • benefit to the Main Vail interchange, but it would provide far more traffic operations benefit to the West Vail interchange. In addition, this underpass's provision for a third crossing of 1 -70 provides more flexibility for transit service and bus routing as well as provision for pedestrians and bicycles. A more . detailed Simba Run Feasibility Study should be considered to fully flush out all pros, cons, and impacts associated with this potential improvement project. w♦ C. South Frontage Road - Vail Road to Ford Park This stretch of the South Frontage Road is characterized as being the heaviest traveled segment of Frontage Road in Town (just east of Vail Road) and by having heavy cross - street movements, namely the Village Parking Structure and Vail Valley Drive (also known as Blue Cow Chute). Further, the Vail Valley Drive intersection is characterized by a unique stop -sign configuration in which approaches along the Frontage Road are stopped and Vail Valley Drive traffic approaching the intersection is provided the right -of -way. This is unique in that it is the only Frontage Road intersection in Town with this traffic control configuration. As mentioned, some of the accidents that have occurred at this intersection appear to be caused in part by this unique configuration and the fact that drivers traveling • along the Frontage Road do not expect the need to stop. Other intersections which exist within this stretch of roadway include bus and top -level parking access points to the Village Structure as well as Village Center Road located just west of the Village Structure. Much of the Frontage Road is five lanes wide, but it narrows to a two -lane section east of Vail Valley Drive. Numerous alternatives (and sub - alternatives) were considered to better accommodate traffic demands along this stretch of Frontage Road. Some of the alternatives were intended to mitigate localized deficiencies like tough -to -make left turn movements onto the Frontage Road. Others are intended to mitigate forecasted deficiencies like traffic generated by a potential major parking area at (or under) Ford Park. Also, the considered concepts look to alleviating some of the difficult left turn movements from the side streets by allowing (or forcing) these drivers to turn right, travel a short distance, and then make use of a new roundabout to u -turn back west, effectively making a left turn onto the Frontage Road. Table 9 shows the alternatives and intersection sensitivity LOS results for each alternative. From the table, it can be seen that 2 -lane roundabouts would function well along this stretch of the South Frontage Road. However, this size of roundabout requires a significant amount of space (150 feet minimum diameter). Preliminary roundabout layouts showed that this concept would not properly fit • between 1 -70 and the Parking Structure unless allowance was made to encroach into 1 -70. Potentially, • grade adjustments could be made to 1 -70 and /or the Frontage Road to accommodate vertical design issues, but the horizontal encroachment of a roundabout into the 1 -70 mainline would likely not be accepted by CDOT or FHWA officials. The notion of encroaching into the "development side" of the frontage road also offers challenges by virtue of the existing parking structure. This would not be an easy facility to move to allow for more space. Other locations along the frontage roads have similar challenges in that the freeway constrains widening on one side and development on the other. The • development side of the frontage roads can also pose grade challenges with respect to the served cross - street. But in light of the freeway, all improvements along the frontage roads should not encroach beyond the "B" line of 1 -70. Other considerations for this stretch of Frontage Road include: ► Heavy left turn movements from the Village Structure ► Unique traffic control configuration for the Frontage Road/Vail Valley Drive intersection, due in part to the steep upward grade to the Frontage Road (and eliminating a high flow of traffic stopped on a slick roadway approach slope). ► The potential that Ford Park may be the site of additional parking supply in the future. P FELSRURG • �� HOLT ULLEVIG Page 40 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Table 9 South Frontage Road Alternatives Analysis - East of Main Vail • Interchange - 2 025 Traffic • Intersection PM Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Village Village Blue New Vail Center Structure Chas Valley Dr. No Action E F F na Signal or Manual Traffic Control at Village Structure E B F na • Alt la- Roundabout at Vail Valley Drive E F D na • Alt 1 b- Same as 1 a, but make Village Structure 3/4 F 2 la ne movement (forcing left outs to turn right and u -turn E C la Na through roundabout) roundab out)_ Alt 1c- Same as 1a, but make Village Center Drive E (A if 2 3/4 movement (forcing left outs to turn right and u- C F lane Na turn through roundabout) roundab i out ) • Alt 2a- One Way Vail Valley Drive with new connection onto Frontage Road near Ford Park E F A F • (new bridge over Gore Creek with one way eastbound circulation Alt 2b- Same as 2a but with one -lane roundabout intersection for the new one -way out intersection E F A D near Ford Park Alt 3a- Roundabout at Village Structure (2 -lane) E A F Na Alt 3b- Same as 3a, but make Village Center Drive 314 movement (forcing left outs to turn right and u- C A F Na turn throw h roundabout Alt 3d- Same as 3b, but also make Vail Valley Drive F* F" e (NB right (A if 2 lane 3/4 movement and add another roundabout at west C A Turn round end of Ford Park to accommodate U- turns. onl ut ) Recommended Alternative (see below)— Ford Park • Roundabout, 3 /. quarter movement of Vail Valley C B A NIA Drive with Lane Addition to Ford Park, Police • Control at Village Structure Access . FELSBURG � � HOLT & ULLEWIG Page 41 I Vail Transportation Master Plan Update r Given the host of considerations, constraints, and projected traffic operations, the following plan components are recommended relative to the South Frontage Road, east of Vail Road: ► Roundabout at Ford Park to serve as a means of "u- turning" (eastbound to westbound) and to i potentially serve a future parking structure. ► Restrict the Vail Valley Drive to three - quarter movement (no left out) and add a continuous right turn lane along the South Frontage Road (along the Wren's frontage) allowing for free -flow right turn movements from Vail Valley Drive onto the Frontage Road and extending to Ford Park (and the new roundabout). ► Provide police officer traffic control at the Village Parking Structure during the PM peak hours on • peak days of activity. This would effectively serve as a manual traffic signal (but without lights, poles, mast arms, etc.). ► Leave the Village Center Drive intersection as it exists. Drivers attempting to turn left onto the Frontage Road at this location might experience some delay at peak times, but there is the option to instead turn right and travel to the roundabout at Ford Park to "U- turn ". This left turn movement is not anticipated to be heavy. This recommended alternative creates "out of the way travel" for motorists attempting to go westbound along the South Frontage Road from Vail Valley Drive or any other access between Vail • Valley Drive and the recommended Ford Park roundabout. Though the perception of this additional • travel time inconvenience may seem to be onerous, it is outweighed by the safety and traffic operations improvements. The majority of accidents which occur at this intersection are due to the odd configuration at this intersection and driver expectation. Due to the high volume of thru movement traffic crossing the Frontage Rd., requiring Frontage Rd traffic to stop, the LOS for the ! Frontage Rd. during peak times is currently at a C and D with the future expected to worsen to D and F. The recommended alternative improves the existing and future LOS for the Frontage Road. to an • A and lowers the LOS on Vail Valley Drive from an A to a B. The need to travel out of the way is not new to Vail. Vail is a community divided by the interstate with • only two points for crossing; and therefore today it is the norm for many motorists to have to backtrack and drive out of the way to get from one side of the interstate to the other (i.e. traveling ! from Red Sandstone area to Lionshead area). This new imposed movement at Vail Valley Drive will be similar, yet on a much lesser scale. It may be expected to cause frustration at first, but become the norm within time. It is estimated that the additional length of travel is approximately 1800 feet or ! 60 seconds of additional travel time assuming an average speed of 20 mph. • Options 2a and 2b consider a new traffic pattern allowing only one way traffic along Vail Valley Drive, exiting to the east via a new bridge over Gore Creek at the east end of Ford Park. This option ! minimizes the conflicts at the current Vail Valley Drive and S. Frontage Rd. intersection, however these options incur far more "out of the way travel ". It is estimated that the additional travel would be approximately 4800 feet or an additional 2 minutes and 40 seconds. These options also require a ! long span bridge over Gore Creek that would double or triple the cost of the improvements. The ! recommended plan is estimated to be approximately $3 million, with the majority of these costs being burdened by any expansion of Ford Park (i.e. Parking, Recreational or Cultural facilities). • FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 42 Vail Transportation Master Plazz Update � This plan provides the benefits of: • ► Converting the South Frontage Road/Vail Valley Drive intersection into a more conventional type of intersection that would provide for free flow along the Frontage Road approaches (and a potentially safer intersection). • ► Alleviating the poor LOS of turning left out of the parking structure. • ► Providing a major access point for Ford Park to serve its activities including events and potentially • increased parking (for skiers). D. South Frontage Road - Vail Road to West Lionshead (Ever Vail) � This stretch of roadway is also heavily traveled at peak times, especially the segment just west of Vail Road. The major access onto this stretch of road serves the Lionshead Structure. The cross- section j of the road at the Vail Road roundabout is five lanes, but this transitions to two lanes west of the Municipal Center (approximately 1000 feet west of Vail Road). As part of the Lionshead Master Plan adopted by the Town in 1998, the section of frontage road west of the Municipal Center is planned to • be widened to include a westbound bike lane (also to be used for overflow parking), a center median for left turn movements, and a continuous accel /decel eastbound right turn lane (although two • continuous westbound lanes are included as far west as Lionshead Parking Structure). Projected traffic levels along this stretch of the South Frontage Road are on the order of 14,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day during peak times (as was shown in Figure 9). Between the daily traffic projections and the peak hour projections, widening of much of the frontage road system is required as the traffic • demand levels would support the need for four or five lanes of traffic. Further, adequate width is needed to accommodate snow storage during the winter. The planned frontage road cross - section within the Lionshead area is discussed later in the report. Moderately traveled cross- streets in this stretch of roadway include both West Lionshead Circle intersections as well as East Lionshead Circle. The intersection at East Lionshead Circle is also a critical consideration in the master planning of the Frontage Road because it serves Vail's busiest bus route; the In -Town shuttle. These buses are required to turn left onto the Frontage Road from East Lionshead Circle to cover the western Lionshead area, but this can be a difficult left turn movement to make during peak times due to heavy traffic flows along the Frontage Road. Other considerations that play into developing a plan for this stretch of the Frontage Road include the potential redevelopment of the West Lionshead area and associated realignment of the Frontage • Road adjacent to 1 -70. The Ever Vail development proposal is currently under consideration by the Town and it includes this Frontage Road realignment. Further, the Lionshead Parking Structure is proposed to be redeveloped to include more parking, residential uses, commercial, and potentially • community uses, as mentioned. As part of the Ever Vail development proposal, a section of the South Frontage Road is planned to be i realigned up against 1 -70. Discussions between Town and CDOT staff have revealed the need to i recognize a legally established Barrier Line (B -Line) along the south side of 1 -70. With the realignment and the widening of the remainder of the South Frontage Road, the ultimate Frontage i Road width cannot impede beyond the B -Line. All future planning and engineering of the South Frontage Road expansion needs to recognize this. The north -side South Frontage Road right -of -way line could coincide with the B -Line, but it cannot extend beyond it. Given these considerations and all of the past planning, improvement alternatives were not specifically considered for this stretch. Rather, the following guidance has been provided to development planners: . P -9 FELSBURG 110LT & ULLEVIG Page 43 i Vail Trattsportatiort Master Plan Update ► West Lionshead Area (Ever Vail) — With the Frontage Road likely being realigned adjacent to I- 70 (in the Forest Road area), the potential exists to incorporate a major intersection in the form of a roundabout. This intersection could be located such that it connects Forest Road and West Lionshead Circle into a common intersection. Potentially, the Forest Road leg could also be a major access for the West Lionshead redevelopment. This would help mitigate that redevelopment's traffic impacts and at the same time better serve the difficult left turn movement onto the South Frontage Road from West Lionshead Circle. Two existing intersections could be consolidated into one, served by a roundabout. • ► Lionshead Structure Redevelopment — If this entails a total demolition and reconstruction of the current structure, the potential exists to combine its primary access with East Lionshead Circle as a roundabout intersection. This design would better serve the Lionshead Structure in terms of accommodating left turn movements onto the South Frontage Road. This design would also better accommodate left turn movements from East Lionshead Circle onto the Frontage Road, including In -Town shuttle bus movements. The fact that this redevelopment entails an entire "re- do" of the facility could also lend itself to explore grade - separating movements into or out of the parking area from /to the Frontage Road. The exact configuration of the roundabout at the East Lionshead Circle intersection should be defined at the time the precise redevelopment plan is considered. ► Hospital Redevelopment — Specific plans are continuing to take shape for the Hospital. The facility is currently located along West Meadow Street which provides all of its access. The site does have frontage onto the South Frontage Road, but there are grade difference challenges. Redevelopment plans may include the incorporation of an access onto the South Frontage Road which would at least require an assessment of the Frontage Road width at that location. This access would relieve traffic from Vail Road and reduce the amount of peak hour trips entering the Main Vail Roundabout. These concepts have been forwarded to the appropriate development design teams for possible integration into their respective plans. E. West Vail Redeveloprnetit Numerous access options were considered during the planning of the West Vail redevelopment located on the north side of 1 -70 just east of the West Vail Interchange. A few alternatives that were • considered and their dispositions were as follows: ► Access Chamonix Lane along the north side of the development. This concept would rely on • other intersections to access the North Frontage Road, namely Chamonix Road into the northern leg of the West Vail roundabout and Buffehr Creek Road. However, encouraging most of the redevelopment's traffic onto Chamonix Lane (located along the backside of the West Vail commercial development) will change that roadways local character. Analysis has also revealed i that focusing too much West Vail redevelopment traffic into the roundabout via the north leg (Chamonix Road) would be problematic. As mentioned, the two major traffic streams from the South Frontage Road and from the North Frontage Road to 1 -70 west merge at this point within the roundabout creating very few gaps for traffic entering the roundabout from the north. • ► A series of access points along the West Vail Frontage. This would be similar as exists today for this center. Analysis has indicated that the South Frontage Road's increase in traffic over time will create greater difficulty for drivers attempting to turn left onto the South Frontage Road. Because of this increased difficulty and the potential for increased left turn movements onto the Frontage Road, this option was not pursued. • FELSBURG • �� HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 44 • Vail Transportation Master Plait Update The option that is being recommended includes the establishment of a major access intersection, perhaps in the form of a roundabout. A traffic signal has been raised as a possibility for this major i intersection, but the overall community has maintained that traffic signals should not be used in Vail. The precise location of the roundabout can be made in concert with the redevelopment program as needed. Beyond this, a right -in /right out access could possibly be provided on either side of the • roundabout intersection, subject to intersection spacing and the closure of the existing access points. The final plan should be clearly coordinated with redevelopment planning efforts and it would likely result in fewer access points onto the North Frontage Road than exist today. • F. Other Improvements Sub - sections A through E in this chapter provided analytic information for mitigation measures for the . critical sections with Vail. Beyond these, other cross - street intersection improvements are needed as well based on the projected traffic volumes. These are described as follows: ► Simba Run Underpass Roundabouts — As mentioned, there would be a benefit of providing another crossing of 1 -70. Several intersection configuration options were assessed for the Simba Run underpass intersections onto the Frontage Roads. Options included straight tee intersections as well as an angled crossing that would favor a continuous traffic flow between the North • Frontage Road west leg and the South Frontage Road east leg (with the two frontage Road legs "teeing" into this continuous frontage road). LOS analyses clearly favored roundabout intersections as minor street left turn movements in the other two options were projected to . operate at a LOS F. As single -lane roundabouts, the Simba Run intersections are projected to operate at a LOS D under snowy conditions during the PM peak hour. While single -lane roundabouts would be appropriate, certain movements should be provided with a by -pass lane to ensure adequate operation at peak times. These assessments should be pursued further as part of a Simba Run underpass feasibility study. ► Based on the State Highway Access Code turn lanes should be added at the intersections of: • North Frontage Road /Red Sandstone Road — right turn lane and center left turn lane. • North Frontage Road /Lionsridge Loop — center left turn lane • • North Frontage Road /Buffehr Creek — center left turn lane • One other consideration in Frontage Road improvements is the access into Red Sandstone Elementary School. The Frontage Road is two lanes at this location, and there is a concentration of turning movements before and after school. This condition is prevalent when school is in session and involves bus turning activity as well as private vehicles. Because the turning movements are fairly concentrated due to school activity, a center left turn lane should also be considered at the school's entrance. G. Frontage Road Cross Section i Some of the frontage roads segments will need to be widened to accommodate higher concentrations of traffic and other activities. The fundamental characteristics of these cross - sections involve the following (See Figure 14): FELSBURU Ci HOLT ULLEVIG Page45 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ► A minimum 6' paved shoulders along two lane sections of the Frontage Rd. to accommodate adequate shoulders to meet CDOT minimum standards and to function as shared bicycle lanes. ► A continuous auxiliary lane along the developed side of the roadway, where required in high density areas, the commercial cores. This lane will serve as a continuous right -turn acceleration • and deceleration lane for high traffic access points. ► A left turn lane for access points where necessary, along with raised medians in the high density commercial core areas to provide access control and provide landscape areas for signage, wayfinding and aesthetics. ► A combined 10 -foot at grade paved shoulder /shared bicycle /overflow parallel parking lane on the freeway side of the frontage road in the village commercial core areas. This will provide safe accommodations for multiple uses including; break down lane, maintenance bypass lane, bicycle lane, and for emergency overflow parking in the near term; designed so that it may be converted S into an additional thru lane if needed in the future, if traffic warrants and overflow parking is no longer an issue. Parking on the development side of the roadway should be prohibited as it will create sight distance problems for vehicles pulling out of the side - streets attempting to turn onto the Frontage Road. Further, the clear zones required along the development -side of the frontage i roads to accommodate an access and provide for some sight distance would greatly reduce the amount of parallel parking that could be provided. i ► A 10' raised and separated multi -use recreational path along the development side of the Frontage Rd. This wide cross - section is intended to accommodate winter conditions when spill -over parking occurs most frequently as well as summer conditions when bicycling (and not spill -over parking) is more prevalent. Later in the report, these characteristics are "captured" as part of a 5 -lane cross- ` section prototype. H. Transit Growth within Vail and within Eagle County will require enhancements to Vail's transit service for guests and residents. In addition, the construction of certain roadway improvements, such as the Simba Run underpass of 1 -70, provides increased routing options for Town buses. The areas of Town that could experience the most growth, and hence the most potential for transit demand increases, are West Vail, Timber Ridge, West Lionshead, throughout the Lionshead Village, and throughout Vail . Village. Realizing all of this, options for service could include the following: ► Establishment of a "line -haul" service entailing the routing of buses between the West Vail commercial center, Timber Ridge, West Lionshead, Lionshead, and the Village (and possibly Ford • Park). The Simba Run Underpass would be key for this service, and then the complementary bus routes would "feed" those riders to the Line Haul route, thus providing those who reside away from the Line Haul route. . ► Service to West Vail and to outlying areas north of 1 -70 could be focused around a new transit center at Lionshead, perhaps on the North Day Lot. As mentioned, the Village Transportation Center is at its capacity, and the Town is pursuing another site within Lionshead as a means of relief. The Lionshead Transit Center could be that site in which the Sandstone route, the . Lionsridge Loop route, and potential opposing -loop West Vail routes are based. Riders served by these routes destined to the Village or Golden Peak could transfer to the In -Town shuttle at the Lionshead Transportation Center. To supplement the additional demand placed on the In -Town Shuttle, a high frequency express route could be provided connecting the two transportation • M FELSBURG • �� HOLT ULLEVIG Page 46 i Vail Transportation Master Plat! Update � centers as well as West Lionshead given the parking and new ski lift planned in that area; this could effectively be referred to as a Village Express route. • ► With the possibility of four bus routes terminating at the Lionshead Transportation Center rather , than the Village Transportation Center and with the potential for significant parking supply taking place at Ford Park, supplemental service to the already heavily used In -Town Shuttle makes sense. During the day, the In -Town shuttle could run from the Lionshead Mall (on the southwest . corner of the Lionshead Parking Structure) to Golden Peak. In addition, a separate "extension" shuttle service between Ford Park and Golden Peak could be provided given the potential of additional parking spaces that may be provided at Ford Park. An "extension" service route could also be provided at the west end connecting West Lionshead (Ever Vail) to the Lionshead Mall. In • the evening, both of these "extension" services could be discontinued, and the routing of the In- Town shuttle could be extended from West Lionshead to Ford Park. Golden Peak could be served via the golf course route in the evening. Without the Simba Run underpass, transit service within Vail will continue to be similar as it exists today; there is limited routing flexibility in serving future demands. A line -haul system is not possible without omitting at least one of the major interstate crossing bottlenecks and adding travel time by • forcing buses to pass through interchanges. The Lionshead Transportation Center would be more effective with the Simba Run underpass as the Center would be better suited to serve West Vail, both i sides of 1 -70. The better suited that the Lionshead Transportation Center can be, the more relief it can • provide to the Village Transportation Center. A Simba Run feasibility study should be pursued to better understand the pros and cons of this improvement, but one advantage includes the synergy it helps build with a new Transportation Center at Lionshead. • There will be a genuine need to establish a transportation center in Lionshead. Today, Lionshead is a major hub including a gondola and ski lift, a major parking structure, and tourist - oriented commercial space, and condominium units. Recent redevelopment such as the Arrabelle and planned redevelopment, as described in the Lionshead Master Plan and contemplated redevelopment at the Lionshead Parking Structure will establish Lionshead as a near equal rival to the activity in Vail Village. Currently, the Lionshead Village area is anticipated to see approximately 1500 net new units and 290,000 additional square feet of non - residential development given current plans. With the potential to construct a new underpass of 1 -70 at Simba Run, a Lionshead i Transportation Center will be in a much better position than the VTC to serve as the ski -area access • hub for western Vail with respect to transit; the synergy that could be developed by a Lionshead • transit center and the Simba Run Underpass together will be an extraordinary enhancement to transit service in West Vail • A Lionshead Transportation Center will also provide needed redundancy to VTC. Today, it is not uncommon for the VTC to experience more buses on -site than bus - spaces. The VTC is also a designated area for bus drivers to take a break. Regulations require drivers to park their vehicle and rest at minimum specified intervals, and the VTC has historically served in this capacity. Vail is ideal for ECO service driver breaks given that Vail is the terminus of many ECO routes. With the potential i of more service, regionally and locally, there will be greater demand for a dedicated driver break area. The VTC will not be able to accommodate all services, all routes, and all driver break activity in the future. Another means is necessary to relieve the VTC; a Lionshead Transportation Center would be able to provide this relief to the VTC. So, the need for a Lionshead Transportation Center is driven by: ► The need to provide a high level of transit service to a dense area of activity within Vail. ► The intent to leverage the future Simba Run underpass to vastly improve the nature of transit service connecting western Vail to Central Vail. FELSBURG C � HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 47 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ► The need to relieve the VTC of some of its transit- related demands with respect to regional routes and driver break areas. • ► The need to "clean up" significant conflicts which occur at the Lionshead Mall/Lionshead Parking Structure entry area, particularly with pedestrian activity. ► The desire to better accommodate hotel shuttles. ► The desire to better establish an official, organized skier drop off area. The Town may also want to explore the possibility of using different sized buses. Some routes clearly experience major spikes in demand that might be better served with higher - capacity buses. Increased frequency could also be a consideration, but too many buses along a particular route eventually results in dimensioning returns and becomes a waste of resources. With an additional Transportation Center at Lionshead and an additional means of crossing 1 -70 (Simba Run Underpass), there are numerous options for the Town. As is the case today, routing will be dynamic and adjustments will need to be made every season in response to changing conditions i within the Town. The Eagle County bus system (ECO) would also make use of the Lionshead Transportation Center. It is anticipated that demand served by ECO will grow in the future given the strong potential for growth . Down Valley within Eagle County. Potential routing of this service within Vail could also be enhanced with a Simba Run underpass. L Parking i Currently, the town -owned Village Structure and the Lionshead Structure provide 2500 total spaces of public parking. Ford Park offers parking for an additional 250 vehicles during ski season supplemented with transit service to the Village; this parking is restricted to permitted vehicles only. As previously mentioned, the Town has set a goal to establish 400 additional public parking spaces • for the near -term planning horizon and a total of 1000 additional public parking spaces for the long- term. These objectives are based on winter season parking data relative to the frequency of using the Frontage Road to serve overflow parking demands, and the additional parking is intended to reduce how often the Town's supply is exceeded. Frontage Road parking statistics are collected nearly every time the Frontage Road is pressed into service. The Town has established an objective to accommodate the 90 percentile design day, which is approximately equal to the 15 busiest day during winter ski season; the 400 and 1000 space increase would meet this goal for the short-term and long -term time - frames, respectively. Location options to place the increased parking supply include the following: ► Vilest Lionshead (Ever Vail) as part of that area's redevelopment. Between 300 and 500 additional public parking spaces are being considered as part of the West Lionshead plan (beyond parking to be dedicated to development uses). In association with this and the new lift planned for West Lionshead is the potential for a roundabout intersection onto the Frontage Road and transit facilities. ► Lionshead Structure as part of its possible redevelopment. The redevelopment of the Lionshead Structure could incorporate an additional 200 to 300 public spaces for public use (beyond the parking needed to support the proposed uses). I� FELtiBURC; r 4 1101-T & ULLFVIU Page 48 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update > Ford Park - Preliminary study conducted by the Town has yielded the possibility of adding 300 to 600 spaces at Ford Park, likely below the playing fields. The potential of constructing a • roundabout at Ford Park would support the additional of parking in this area relative to access onto the Frontage Road, and transit service providing connectivity to the Village would be ! necessary to support this concept. Besides serving parking demands during ski season, the • provision of parking at Ford Park would support event activity during the summer. The future location of the parking supply within the Main Vail area (Lionshead and Vail Village) may remain a bit out of alignment with the parking demand generators. If the development and • redevelopment of Vail comes to fruition as described in this report, there will be a bit of a mismatch • with respect to the placement of the parking versus the demand for the parking. Figure 10 illustrates • the imbalance. As mentioned, the ski area is oriented easterly from the Main Vail interchange. The Vail Village , parking structure is approximately located at a central point to the ski area on the mountain. The Lionshead parking structure is skewed to the west of the ski area, and the West Lionshead (Ever Vail) is skewed to the west even more -so. Because of their relative locations, skiers tend to fill the • Village Structure before the Lionshead Structure. • Additional parking provided in the Main Vail area would better serve the Town if it can be located to the east. However, the location of parking must also be balanced with site opportunities to provide it. • Currently, the most promising opportunities to gain parking supply is via the Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment, Ever Vail and Ford Park. Two of these three are located to the west, a bit aside from the skiable terrain. While the Town should look to capitalize on these opportunities, the • Town should also pursue parking opportunities in the eastern area of Main Vail to better balance supply and demand locations. An improved balance translates into less travel within and between the Vail areas (much of which would need to be served by transit service). The provision of additional • parking supply in the eastern reaches of Central Vail would also support a travel demand recommendation that entails encouraging usage of the East Vail interchange and the Main Vail interchange (discussed more later in report). • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • fELSRURG !. C BOLT & ULLEVIG Page 49 • •••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• FELSBURG C ' HOLT & ULLEVIG m o• N d % CD p = 1500 a w c y F �OhS ou Lu W.Lionshead 3: o a °, 300 -S00 Circle W. YI o ' N 1300 �° '? 9 � �� 300 -600 LIONSHEAD VILLAGE. VAIL VILLAGE 2000 to 2300 spaces -4 ............ Parking ............ 1. 1600 to 1900 spaces 350,000 -4 -- - - - - -- Commercial SF ........ ► 350,000 1 15% �4- - -••••• Skiable Terrain ........ ► 85% 1 51%.* ......... Lift Capacity ......... t► 49% LEGEND xxx -xxx = Existing Public Parking Spaces Figure 10 XXXX = Additional Parking spaces Proposed Central Vail Parking Imbalance - Buildout North Vail Transco -lion Services 05 -168 2/16'09 Vail Transportatioti Master Plan Update VI, FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN As the Town's Transportation Plan was being developed through this process, CDOT and the Town agreed to develop an Access Management Plan (AMP) for the North and the South Frontage Road. The AMP will serve as a planning tool for CDOT and for the Town in that it defines allowable access from which proposed development can plan. The AMP is a document that CDOT and Town staff agree to in principal; it is not subject to a formal IGA and agency adoption. The plan is intended to show the long -term access onto the Frontage Roads. It is NOT the intent to • use the plan as a means of closing access to an existing thriving use. Rather, the plan is used as a framework for new development and redevelopment of properties. If development or redevelopment does not occur, then access will continue as it exists today, barring a safety issue. Further, the access i locations are not meant to be precise. The plan shows potential access locations that are plus /minus 50 feet or so, and shifts larger than this might be possible as well. Besides showing access onto the roadway, the plan also shows each parcel's access if it is not onto the Frontage Road. Examples of this include a parcel accessing a cross- street (rather than the frontage road) or gaining access through an adjacent parcel. Further, the AMP is based on the assumption that individual parcels will remain under individual ownership. In the event that a • development plan incorporates numerous individual parcels as part of a common proposal, then the access scheme needs to be carefully evaluated and could be different than what the AMP shows. The AMP is shown in Appendix G and it recognizes the elements of the plan that have been described to this point. Many of the existing access points are recognized in the plan. The most notable intersection /access change is the Simba Run underpass of 1 -70. This will create two major intersections • onto the frontage road system. Other areas of anticipated change include the following: ► A new access to serve the Vail Valley Medical Center is shown along the South Frontage Road • approximately 900 feet west of Vail Road. Additional coordinating with the Medical Center may be needed as their plans continue to evolve. Potential access consolidation should be pursued. ► The redevelopment of the Lionshead Parking Structure will alter the access for this site. Specifically, a "front door" access is being proposed as well as a major access to the parking area at approximately the current location. One the major differences is that the parking access may include a grade- separated ramp for the westbound left turn in movement. A planned roundabout at the East Lionshead Circle intersection onto the South Frontage Road will also serve access needs for this redevelopment. . ► The West Lionshead Redevelopment Plan, otherwise known as Ever Vail, entails relocating the i South Frontage Road to adjacent to 1 -70 in the proximity to Forest Road. This along with the development planned in that area will introduce five access points onto the Frontage Road (including the Forest Road roundabout), but it will eliminate 10 accesses serving current uses. . ► West Vail commercial uses are potential candidates for redevelopment at the future time. • However, a master plan has not been finalized and there are numerous land owners in this area that still need to coordinate. However, the AMP is showing a roundabout access and additional partial movement accesses. This would eliminate other access points along the North Frontage • Road. . ► Timber Ridge is a planned affordable housing project located along the North Frontage Road approximately equidistant between Lions Ridge Loop and Buffehr Creek Road. Its potential access scheme includes two accesses onto the Frontage Road. . FELSBU RG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 51 • i • Vail Transportation Master flan Update • i • • VII. RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN • From the analysis shown in the previous chapters, a Town Transportation Plan has been developed and is presented in this chapter. The Plan is comprised of several elements including: • ► Roadway Improvements i ► Parking • ► Transit ► Travel Demand Management Considerations ► Access Management Plan ► Cost Estimates and Potential Funding Sources A. Roadway Improvements Figure 11 conceptually shows recommended roadway improvements needed to accommodate travel demands within the Main Vail area and Figure 12 conceptually presents improvements that would be • planned for West Vail. The major components include the following: • 1. The Simba Run Underpass • This is a critical component to serve Vail's traffic needs in that it provides some relief to the Main Vail Interchange and a fair amount of relief to the West Vail interchange. Additional benefits realized from • this improvement include the provision for an additional pedestrian crossing of 1 -70 and a dramatic increase in bus routing flexibility within Town. This underpass of 1 -70 will greatly improve mobility within Vail and it benefits all modes of travel. • Traffic -wise, this improvement will provide moderate relief to the Main Vail interchange approximately improving operations by one -half a LOS (some approaches more than others). It's most significant • traffic operations benefit is realized at the West Vail Interchange in which peak hour operations have • the potential of improving by up to two Levels of Service at peak times. The grade - separation of 1 -70 will provide for crossing capability without relying on the interchanges where traffic concentrations • occur due to 1 -70 access. This underpass is anticipated to reduce traffic by approximately five percent • and 12 percent, respectively, at the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges. Further, the increased • ease of crossing 1 -70 would reduce total travel along the Frontage Road system. • • • I• 1• • • � FELSBURG C o HOLT & U L L E V I G Page 52 � Vail Transportation Master plan Update � � Figure 11 Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Fan - Central Vail � � � � }�� -�- - - - - - -- - - -- � � � = . ; .�6 ■�a. 777 /�B � }�� }�� � i� k ■% :�! ■2 $ � e|; !| ;|■ �� � � 2� � ■�� �. [� �� 4,y C , _ t0 e :E \ 7f| OL co \w 2 T. | §D |� E � § ;} ■ § \k |\ & \ \ R � � � � N FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEV,O Pa � See Access Management Plan C FELSBURG for specifics on access points ' HOLT 6 ULLEVIG Provide primary full- movement access; either a roundabout or a traffic signal. a 0 rQ vy Add second SB approach lane. ChamonrxLane West Vail Planning Area (No public road _ — — R d / through Planning Area) Nort Frontag Off -site improvement; Construct Simba Run underpass. Frohta9e Rd Sa �th 1 Restripe for 2 NB lanes under 1 -70. Figure 12 Recommended Frontage Road Improvements Plan - West Vail North Vail Transpocation Services - Env ramen.al Study. C51,68.0216109 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Transit -wise, the Simba Run underpass would provide an excellent opportunity to enhance service and increase efficiency. The areas served by the West Vail routes are awkward given major origins and destinations along both sides of 1 -70. Buses, like all traffic, are forced to cross 1 -70 at the Main Vail and the West Vail interchanges, and the circular routing through town is cumbersome. The underpass would allow for a host of route revisions resulting in far fewer vehicle -miles of bus travel • required for service level (or better). With major activity centers possible along the North Frontage Road west of the new underpass as well as along the South Frontage Road east of the new underpass, the potential exists to establish a "spine" or line- haul" service connecting all of these • centers. Other routes within town would then "feed" into the line -haul service. Pedestrian -wise, the Simba Run underpass would provide a crucial link between the north and south • sides of 1 -70. Pedestrian activity has been known to take place across 1 -70 at -grade near the Simba . Run location. It is an extremely unsafe situation when pedestrians are crossing the high -speed freeway. Fencing barrier exists along both sides of 1 -70, but openings in the fences are often created (illegally) allowing pedestrian activity to cross the interstate. The Simba Run underpass would i mitigate this issue. Further, the Simba Run underpass would provide an excellent means for bicyclists to cross I -70, allowing riders an alternative to pedaling through the roundabout interchanges. The crossing could reduce bicycle /pedestrian travel by as much as four miles (depending on the specific • origin /destination along either side of 1 -70). The one drawback of the Simba Run underpass is it's expense. This is the most costly element in the Transportation Plan. However, it is also an improvement that provides a significant level of benefit to • the Town's mobility for all modes of travel. As a next step, the Town should undertake a more detailed feasibility study to fully appreciate the impacts, costs, benefits, and potentially identify a means of funding. A schematic layout of the Simba Run underpass is shown as part of Appendix F. 2. Main Vail Interchange Roundabout Enhancements. The key enhancement at this interchange is to establish two continuous lanes from the east leg of the • South Frontage Road to the 1 -70 west on -ramp. Signing, striping for two northbound lanes under 1 -70, and enlargement of the north roundabout are the primary elements to this improvement. These improvements would greatly alleviate poor Levels of Service improving the overall LOS to LOS E from LOS F during snowy conditions. This improvement alone is not adequate to mitigate traffic impacts, • but it serves as a piece of the ultimate transportation plan in attempt to achieve acceptable conditions at this interchange. 3. West Vail Interchange Roundabout Enhancements These improvements include establishing two northbound lanes under I-70 and entering the north roundabout. Also, a desirable improvement addition to this includes adding a second southbound entry lane along Chamonix Road subject to acquiring right -of -way. These improvements would help alleviate poor Levels of Service (improving to LOS E from LOS F during snowy conditions) for the westbound North Frontage Road approach along the south roundabout and the westbound off -ramp approach at the north roundabout as well as the southbound Chamonix approach into the north roundabout. These improvements alone are not adequate to mitigate traffic impacts given future traffic demands, but they serve as a piece of the ultimate transportation plan an in attempt to achieve acceptable conditions. . 0 -14 FE.3BURG HOLT & • ULLEVIG Page 55 • • Vaal Transportation Master Plan Update i • • 4. Other Frontage Road Roundabouts Roundabouts should be constructed at strategic cross - street locations where volumes are relatively high and poor minor- street left -turn movements level of service are projected (if left under stop -sign control). The roundabouts alleviate the poor left -turn operations. Locations include: ► Ford Park (in association with parking additions) • ► Lionshead Parking Structure redevelopment • ► West Lionshead redevelopment (Ever Vail) ► Simba Run Underpass (both intersections, one onto the North Frontage Road and one onto the South Frontage Road) i ► West Vail commercial redevelopment • These roundabouts should be adequate with one circulating lane provided that bypass lanes are • provided to serve the heavier movements. 5. Roadway Widening • Roadway widening is also needed at selected locations to accommodate projected volumes and /or i improve safety. Locations include: ► Vail Valley Drive to Ford Park - This widening, to a 4 -lane section, entails adding a second • eastbound lane and is in conjunction with the three - quarter movement restriction at South Frontage Road/Vail Valley Drive and the roundabout at Ford Park. ► Municipal Center to West Lionshead — This widening, to a 5 -lane section, is consistent with current plans by the Town and would better tie Lionshead activity areas with the Main Vail • interchange. • ► Turn -lane additions at North Frontage Road /Buffehr Creek Road, North Frontage Road/ Lionsridge Loop, and North Frontage Road /Red Sandstone Road. Turn lane additions may also be appropriate • at development accesses pending the development's precise nature. Timber Ridge may be one • example. Also, there is a need for a left turn lane at the Red Sandstone Elementary School. As part i of these improvements, it may be desirable to incorporate raised islands for reasons of aesthetics. ► Shoulder widening along existing /future 2 -lane sections of Frontage Rd. should occur to bring the i Frontage Rd. up to current CDOT safety standards and provide for a shared bicycle lane. Given the improvements presented as part of this plan, intersection levels of service should be at acceptable levels. Figure 13 shows a color -coded map of the frontage road system symbolizing general widening needs i based on a number of considerations and Figure 14 shows the prototypical cross - section of each. • Traffic loading was one such consideration in which sections anticipated to serve less than 12,000 vpd were prime candidates to be left as two lanes with cross- street/drive way turn lanes at necessary. Four lane roads were identified as those of segments serving volumes greater than 12,000 vpd and/or • needing additional width to accommodate short sections of additional lanes. An example of this includes the South Frontage Road segment between Vail Valley Drive and Fort Park, where an additional i auxiliary lane is provided. The five -lane cross- section is intended for the highest traveled segments in • Town where there is also other activity, like the need to provide overflow parking and the need to accommodate relatively high cross - street traffic loadings. The five -lane category is intended for the segments adjacent to the active Lionshead and Vail Village areas. Figure 15 shows the projected PM • peak hour traffic given the recommended plan improvements, and Figure 16 shows the corresponding • LOS results. All improvements are schematically shown in Appendix F. FELSBURG • �� HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 56 i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update � • • Table 10 shows a summary of the LOS changes for the interchange intersections given the growth to • 2025 and growth with recommended improvements. The table shows that the interchanges would be • congested with the anticipated growth, but that implementing the recommended improvements plan would help alleviate much of it. • Table 10 Vail Interchange PM Peak Hour Levels of Service (LOS) • • Main Main West West • Scenario Vail Vail Vail Vail North South North South • Existing (Ideal) B A B B Existing (Snow) B A 13 C • 2025 Do Nothing (Ideal) F B C F , 2025 Do Nothing (Snow) F D F F 2025 w /Improvements (Ideal) B B B B • 2025 w /Improvements (Snow) D D C D • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page57 • FELSBURG C ' HOLT & ULLEVIG a � yf'y th • /a r c r � mN `� t am CW JU 'O D6 � mn om y ` ILU oU •t* 3v > 0 3 a rontage y - Y ro LLo opsrid9e fool V u W.Lionshead Circle W. o, 9 �i6 0@ � ° 9 Gf O' LEGEND PP S = Two -Lane Cross Section �a g = Four -Lane Cross Section = Five -Lane Cross Section c`a9e o �o NOTE: See cross section details in subsequent figure. o� All access and intersections are subject to additional acceUdecel lanes pending development and � State Highway Access Code criteria. Matterhorn Cir s � w� 1 U, �3 0 � W. Gore Crk. Dr. Figure 13 VN Vail Frontage Road Laneage 0 North Va 17rans , c< t ­ Se ces. 75-1 68 . 2; 1 6.OS P —A FELSBURG 6' 12' Lane t2' Lane 6' HOLT • U LL E V j G Shoulder) Shoulder Bike � t Bike • i • 1 2 -LANE CROSS - SECTION 10' 12' Lane 12' Lane 16' Lane 12' Lane 6' • Walk or Me tan houlder t Bike • `, AL 4 -LANE CROSS - SECTION 6' J 4' 12' Lane 16' Turn Lane & Median 13' Lane 14' Accel /Decl Lane 10' Bike Path arking hldr. � t or Thro� Lane Bike Lane 5 -LANE CROSS - SECTION NOTE: All cross sections are subject to additional laneage with respect to turn lanes. Some adjustment may be necessary for • certain locations. Figure 14 Vail Frontage Road Cross Sections Vail Transportation Services, 05-168, 2/16/09 HII LT 365 1110 ULLEVIG I 84 00 73 • 235 9� 955m 55 m g _® 81 5 13 I0 57�� 305 T 1 750 0 '� o r�• m° 370...0 ` 315 ® 9 RV / by 3v _ 3® o® y (4g0 4v �} \ cis Sau1h Fronbge Rd 13 20 N.% 5 q oyF (5 s o s S JS r (2p r • ,..� R S (B / 1y h ® �`'a h ® 375 5 / : ♦ Op/ 1p A 9 0 480 5 ((75 190 • 8q- ) �,gm ® $ . • ® 300 (90 350 435 28 e $ c� ' 90 (375580 85 �� ` hp (95 160 • ay �y p ' 'o® � u' 9y � ,y d9e� WLionShenC ® 7 c'robW. 10 p 16 � ® p 9 9 afi' j p1 6 y c I'll `op i 3ry y y o� y N t'tl• � ® N6 0$M ® P s 6tp y Ay ��9 '� c Lifm ® y1 y' m m menelno�� ro-. m 1y 6 ay L_ EGEND 9 s � X %X - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes yl p y , 's ,�'s o (XI = AM Estimated y e � ry y� \�� 0 /• m o m e sm s 5 qy ® - Inlerseclion Number /j` ' �' y Ira \ � �� • `O /s o/ s y y '�peo o \d 2g ; = Less Than 5 Vehicles per Hour /S°�pSiS° • y l P � 7 /1 � 1p \y h\ 1 0 W. Gore Grk. 01 /l /`Pf 1 I y II N L • 8� caOSS 2y � • OS y � S ,9 ° �o� `ao J lay � I �, • 7p 7 �f 5 56 ' 7 S / ho g p 13l o` 3yy s ofaJ J Figure 15 n X51 5 y y, 6 p y Year 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections with Recommended Plan N—h M 11T & C It [E] QOrBcer Control I L I � I I % I k; I' . b A[C] - . Officer Control .—rill 7. h A[D] AlAl b b S.1h F—ii,,. R, B I overall 4— A /Al n I, B B [p] IUI o verall vtrall C L— h— A A [A, C'�w W (Al (Aj ON �4 Y SM m�.M /�• \ ® A [B] LEGEND M 1 0� % A 4" x = Optimum Conditions [C](Ai Alllli� M 11 [x] � Snowy Conditions all = Intersection Number M 0 = Roundabout W, W Gore Cdr or. Elm (X) = Estimated AM, Snowy Conditions Figure 16 0,11 Year 2025 Peak Levels of Service With Recommended Plan 4k# •• •••••••••• •••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••• i Vail Transportation Master Plan update B. Travel Demand Management I� Measures should also be pursued to reduce spikes in traffic demands, especially for the Main Vail Interchange. Considerations include: I , ► Encouragement of drivers to use the East Vail interchange, through dynamic signing, when the Main Vail interchange is operating at its capacity. This will be critical toward alleviating operational issues during the AM peak hour. ► Look to meter outbound traffic from the Parking Structures. This occurs some today in the form of • toll booths with drivers needing to stop and pay upon exit. Assuming this continues, the outbound metering will continue as well. ► Ski passes can also be used to help control demand on peak days. The Town should work closely with Vail Resorts on this so as to not encourage inexpensive skiing at times when high travel • demands are anticipated. • ► Provision of real -time information to skiers about conditions along 1 -70 and /or within town (such as how long of a wait to exit the parking structure) could also help manage traffic demand during the afternoon. Again, the Town and Vail Resorts should coordinate to determine an efficient and effective means to inform skiers at the end of the day as to current conditions. If drivers are • forewarned about congested conditions, they may tend to naturally "spread out' over time and be less concentrated at peak times. ► Explore parking management options in which potential fee incentives are applied for drivers who avoid entering and leaving during peak hours. ► Encouraging all potential ride - sharing services including van pools, bus pools, and any other i specialized transit to serve major travel "markets ° including employees, clubs, Front Range • areas, and Down Valley. C. Transit • With Growth occurring in West Vail, Timber Ridge, West Lionshead, Lionshead Village, Vail Village, and potentially Ford Park (in the form of parking supply), establishing a line -haul transit system that directly connects these major activity centers with frequent service would be beneficial. The In -Town Route would essentially remain as -is with the potential for some adjustment at the east end and the west end with variations pending time of day. Other outlying routes would be geared toward moving people to and from the primary line -haul route. i A key consideration for this line -haul concept to function is the Simba Run underpass. This construction improvement is essential to the line -haul concept by routing buses ,past each of the key activity centers without the need for back- tracking. This improvement also builds synergy with a future i proposed Lionshead Transportation Center. This would then be best situated to serve Lionshead and West Vail with this underpass. As the ability of the Lionshead Transportation Center is increased to i serve as a transit hub for the west half of Vail, more relief can be provided to the heavily -used Village Transportation Center. Other routing options can be developed, but the provision of the Simba Run • underpass provides routing flexibility within town and would result in service efficiencies. i • 0 FELSBURG � � HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 62 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • Figure 17 shows a potential bus routing system map of Vail. As previously suggested, the plan would take advantage of the new Simba Run underpass of 1 -70. A brief description of each potential route i follows: • ► In -Town Shuttle -- This route would be similar to the current routing, but one key, and time • saving, change would include eliminating the western -most leg to West Lionshead Circle. This • would eliminate the need to turn onto the Frontage Road; the In -town shuttle would be entirely off of the Frontage Road during peak times. West Lionshead Circle could be served by an exclusive shuttle extension route until a roundabout at East Lionshead Circle onto the South Frontage Road is completed. Time -of -day routing adjustments could be made such that the In -town shuttle's • eastern terminus is Ford Park (given additional parking that would be provided there) once ski activity is completed for the day and Golden Peak is no longer a high - demand area (in the i evening). ► East Vail and Golf Course — Both of these routes would remain similar as they exist today. The • Vail Transportation Center would continue to serve as the hub terminus for these routes. • Additional overflow service should be considered for East Vail at peak times. ► Ford Park — This route is intended to transport users parked at Ford Park to the Vail Transportation Center. This route would remain as it exists today, but the frequency of service may be increased pending the construction of additional parking supply at this area. After peak hours, this route could be served by a re- routing of the In -Town shuttle. A variation could include a shuttle to Golden Peak. • ► West Vail /Main Vail Frontage Road — This route would be the "Line Haul" previously referenced • in this report. Buses along this route would simply travel directly between the Vail Transportation Center and the West Vail commercial area. Major stops along the route would include the planned • Transportation Center at Lionshead, West Lionshead (Ever Vail), and Timber Ridge. The Simba Run underpass is a crucial improvement needed for this route to make sense and be efficient • ► West Vail South — This route would run along the South Frontage Road from the Vail Transportation Center west with stops at the redeveloped Lionshead Parking Structure, North Day Lot, and West Lionshead. Further west, this route would stay on the south side of 1 -70 also serving Cascade Village, West Gore Creek Drive, and Intermountain. To provide transit service • across 1 -70, this route would cross at the West Vail interchange and terminate at the West Vail commercial area before turning around and back - tracking to the Vail Transportation Center (or the i Lionshead Transportation Center) via the South Frontage Road. • • i i • i • • i . FELSBURG • f C i HOLT 4 ULLEVIG Page 63 • M FELSBURG C ' HOLT & ULLEVIG ��� Sandstone Woslvat �— VaR Exit Red NoM 4 Q , Veil Exit O 173 F � qq VeR EWR ..S a 1 1 ap bn ad l sa 0i 1 C.— Limsheao lJ Nar :ma ^a Gott course �l East Vail J West Vail ` I Ford Park Green soum \ Va� -i—D �aeYa tin vlhp Intermount& Golden GoH Course Peak LEGEND East Vail = Golf Course Ford Park (Winter Only) - = In -Town Shuttle Sandstone West Vail North West Vail Express Figure 17 = West Vail South 0 Proposed Vail Bus Routes North Veil Transportation Se 05- 1682116!09 Vail Transportation Master Plant Update � West Vail North — This route would parallel the West Vail South route in that it would utilize the North • Frontage Road. However, it would also utilize the South Frontage for a portion of its travel. This too • would stop at the redeveloped Lionshead Parking Structure, North Day Lot, West Lionshead, Timber Ridge, and the West Vail commercial area. However, it would also serve the Lionsridge area and the residential areas in West Vail on the north side of 1 -70. This route also requires the Simba Run • underpass to efficiently connect with the major stop areas. Sandstone — This route would be remain as it exists today which includes service between the Vail Transportation Center and the Red Sandstone Road area. • The ECO service to Vail would also be able to take advantage of the Simba Run underpass. Potentially, ECO routes could access the Town via the West Vail interchange with programmed stops at the West Vail commercial area, Timber Ridge, West Lionshead, the redeveloped Lionshead Structure, and the . Vail Transportation Center. This potential ECO routing would mimic the "line haul" concept previously described. In addition to regular transit service, charter bus, private shuttle and van services, and general passenger drop -off and pick up facilities need to be enhanced to handle the current need and future growth. Each of these types of services will need to be accommodated at the new Lionshead Transit Center, and at appropriate future Mountain/ Major Destination Portal hubs. Portal hub recommendations • include; ► West Vail Commercial Redevelopment: Hub shall accommodate 3 town of Vail (TOV) bus • routes, ECO bus routes, 2 -3 shuttle/vans, 4-6 passenger vehicle drop -offs ► Cascade Ski Lift: Hub shall accommodate 1 TOV bus route, ECO bus routes, 1 -2 shuttle/vans, 3 passenger vehicle drop -offs ► West Lionshead Development (Ever Vail): Hub shall accommodate the In -Town Bus, 2 -3 TOV bus routes, ECO bus routes, accommodate15 -20 Charter buses during a typical day,3 -5 • shuttle/vans, 20 -25 passenger vehicle drop -offs. This location should provide premier charter bus services, providing arrival services, restrooms, lockers, a meet & greet location, guest information, etc... • ► E. Lionshead Circle 1 Concert Hall Plaza: Hub shall compliment the new recommended transit • center accommodating the In -Town Bus, TOV bus routes, and 4 -6 shuttle/vans. ► Gold Peak: Hub shall maintain existing sevices including the In -Town bus, 1 TOV bus route, 1 -2 Charter buses when needed, 2 -3 shuttles and 20 -27 passenger vehicle drop -offs. Currently DEVO drops off in this location, the Town should continue to work with Vail Resorts in providing a • better location or a better managed operation to accommodate the influx of passenger vehicle drop -offs and pick —up that occur in this location. The congestion it causes creates significant delay along Vail Valley Drive during the AM and PM peak drop -off times. ► Ford Park: Hub shall accommodate 3 TOV bus routes, 2 -3 Charter Buses, 2 -3 shuttle/vans, and 10 -15 passenger vehicle drop -offs A more detailed study to verify the above Portal Hub recommendations at these locations will need to be completed by the Town prior to any implementation. The study will need to take into account the aforementioned potential recommendations in conjunction with transit service frequency as well as look • at other configurations that may accommodate the transit demand. • M FELSBURG f� HOLT & • ULLEVIG Page 65 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update D. Parking The Town should look to expand the public parking supply within Main Vail to reduce the frequency of • Frontage Road use for overflow parking. Based on accommodating a 90'" percentile and based on Frontage Road parking data over the past few ski seasons, 400 new spaces should be developed over the short term. Over the long term, 1000 additional spaces (600 more) should be developed in Main Vail. • To the extent possible, more new public spaces should be located in the eastern sections of the Main Vail area. Potential locations include: ► West Lionshead (up to 400 additional spaces) ► Lionshead Parking Structure (as part of its redevelopment; possible net gain of 300 spaces) ► Ford Park (at least 300 additional spaces, and possibly more if the above- mentioned locations do not include an increase) The addition of these parking areas, along with additional commercial and skier access would "spread out" Vail's base area to approximately 1.6 miles of frontage. Because of the increased density, activity, and distance, the Town's transportation system within and to the Main Vail area clearly needs to be • enhanced to support these activities through the combination of roadway improvements and transit service enhancements. A more detailed parking study to verify these locations and the associated number of additional spaces will need to be completed by the Town prior to any implementation. The study will need to take into account the aforementioned potential recommendations as well as looking at alternative locations, i transit incentives, in combination with parking management solutions that may alleviate the parking situation, which may include outlying lots with bus service. E. Pedestrians and Trails Vail maintains a system of trails to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle activity throughout town. Multi- use routes are provided along the 12 -mile long Gore Valley Trail (GVT) on the south side of town, the 2 long North Recreation Path (NRP) along the north side of town as well as several short "spur" i trails. These trails combine detached recreation paths, attached bike lanes and residential streets to . provide pedestrian and bicycle friendly routes to most areas of the town. In the spirit of maintaining a • multi -modal transportation system, a goal of the trail system is to offer safe and efficient non - motorized routes for both recreational and commuting purposes. The recommended Simba Run underpass will provide an important pedestrian and bicycle connection across 1 -70. In particular, the connection will serve pedestrian activity between the Timber Ridge employee housing development and the ski area. The Town's Recreational Master Plan recommends bike lanes along all Frontage Roads in the town. • The following recommended roadway guidelines (Figure 14) accommodate this goal: ► Widened paved shoulders along all 2 -lane sections of roadways to provide a shared bicycle lane in each direction. • ► Continuous auxiliary lanes in the 4 and 5 -lane sections of roadways to be used as shared bicycle i ways. Vail's peak biking season, the spring, summer and Fall, falls opposite of the peak traffic season, winter, when the auxiliary lanes are most used by vehicles and least by bicyclists. This • IN FELSBURG • C� HOLT l ULLEVIG Page 66 i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update helps minimize bicycle /vehicular conflicts in the auxilary lanes. A well defined signage program • will need be installed to make bicyclists and motorists aware of the "Share the Road" policy. . ► A 10' wide shared shoulder /parking /bicycle lane along the 1 -70 side of the Frontage Roads in the proposed 5 -lane sections of Frontage road to provide a shared bike way. Similar to the auxiliary lanes the parking /motorists conflicts are minimized as the peak seasons of each are opposite. Again a visible "Share the Road" signage program should be installed. • ► A 10' wide multi -use recreational raised and /or separated path shall be provided along the entire • lengths of the highest traffic volume sections of the Frontage Roads, specifically from the Dowd Junction path at the west most end of town to Ford Park along the South Frontage Rd. and from the north West Vail Roundabout to the north Main Vail Roundabout along the North Frontage Road. VIII. IMPROVEMENT TRIP THRESHOLDS • The preceding analysis and resulting Transportation Plan is based on future development throughout i Town. The total PM peak hour trip generation of all new development is estimated to be 2,800 trips. The recommended plan was based on the premise of achieving acceptable Levels of Service at the critical locations within town. This chapter of the report is intended to provide a sense as to the • effectiveness of each improvement toward alleviating a projected poor Level of Service measured against an equivalent trip generation associated with new development. Three critical operational traffic components are considered here including: ► Main Vail interchange, North roundabout, WB 1 -70 Off -ramp approach • ► Main Vail interchange, South roundabout, WB Frontage Road approach ► West Vail interchange, North roundabout, WB Frontage Road approach The effectiveness is measured in terms of the equivalent offset in total PM peak hour trip generation. • In other words, each improvement can offset a certain amount of traffic impact from new development measured in total trip generation. Estimates of the effectiveness were based on a series of sensitivity LOS analyses given varying degrees of trip generation from the new developments (i.e. portions of the 2000 new trips estimated). Table 10 shows the effectiveness of each improvement, and the bottom row of the table shows the needed trip offset to achieve a LOS D under snowy conditions. The structure of Table 10 is a menu . allowing one to pick and choose measures, summing the effectiveness offset values to achieve the figures in the bottom row. All values are given in terms of ranges as these are gross estimates. It should also be noted that actual values will vary depending on where within town development takes place. In addition, values may decrease as more improvements are considered. The north roundabout at the Main Vail interchange is a component requiring the greatest amount of trip "offset" to achieve a LOS D. Only 200 to 300 total PM peak hour trips from new development could occur before LOS E is reached, so 1700 to 1800 new PM peak hour trips need to be offset by improvements (given that all new development will generate nearly 2,800 PM peak hour trips). From Table 10, improving the roundabout and establishing two northbound lanes under 1 -70 at this interchange would be the single most effective measure for the WB 1 -70 off -ramp approach. But this alone would not offset enough impact to achieve LOS D; other measures would also be required such . as the Simba Run underpass and /or a combination of other items listed. . FFLSBURG C �HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 67 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update Table 11 Mitigation Measure Offset; Total New Trips Equivalent i Effective PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Offset Main Vail Interchange West Vail Potential Measure Interchange North Roundabout South Roundabout North Roundabout • WB 1 -70 Off -Ramp WB Frontage Road WB Frontage Road Approach Approach Approach 1. Expand Main Vail North 1400 -1500 0 0 Roundabout • 2. Add NB Lane Under I -70 (Incorporated in 500 -600 300 -400 at both interchanges) Measure 1 3. Simba Run Underpass 500 -600 200 -300 1200 -1300 4. Encourage Use of East Vail • 300 -400 100 -200 0 Interchange 5. Parking Management 300 -500 250 -350 100 -200 Measures 6. Express Bus Service 200 -250 100 -150 200 -300 7. Extend Ski Hours 100 -150 50 -100 <50 8. Meter Outbound Parking 150 -200 150 -200 100 -150 Structure Traffic • Target — Number of Trips from New Development to Offset to 1700 -1800 600 -700 1000 -1100 Maintain LOS D During Snowy Conditions (3) ' Values in columns represent the effectiveness of the improvement in terms of total generated PM peak hour trips from new development. Values will vary for each of the three critical traffic i approaches listed below depending on the specific location of a new development proposal and based on how many of the improvements are packaged together (the effectiveness of each improvement will lessen as the number of measures /improvements to be implemented increase). c sl Measure requires Simba Run underpass for best results. c3) Values in this row show the objective amount of PM peak hour trips that need to be offset by the improvements above or through reducing the level of planned development. Total PM peak hour trips • from new development are estimated to be 2,800 when built out. • At the Main Vail South Roundabout, establishing the second northbound lane under 1 -70 (and installing appropriate striping and signing to take full advantage this improvement) would be the most '♦ effective offsetting measure, but again at least one other measure would also be needed. At West • Vail, the Simba Run underpass is really the only measure that would produce enough effectiveness to alleviate a LOS E. Based on operations at the West Vail north roundabout, Table 10 indicates that the Simba Run underpass should be in place by the time that three - eighths of the proposed • development is completed (bottom row shows the need to offset 1,000 to 1,100 trips out of the 2,800 • total peak hour trips projected). i . FELSB • (� HOLT & ULLEV1G Page 68 • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • As an example in applying Table 10, suppose a developmentfredevelopment proposal is estimated to generate a total of 400 PM peak hour trips. If mitigation measures were to be applied so as to offset . the impact of these trips on the interchange roundabouts listed in the table, then one would select the appropriate mitigation measures such that the offset values sum to 400. Table 10 would suggest that • the impact of these 400 total trips could be offset at the Main Vail North roundabout via encouraging other traffic to use the East Vail interchange (Number 4, 300 -400 trip offset effectiveness). However, this measure would only offset about one -half the impact at the South Roundabout intersection, so one may also choose to provide Express Bus Service (Number 6, 100 -150 trip equivalent) and extend • ski hours (Number 7, 50 -100 trip offset equivalent) to fully mitigate the traffic impact of the development at the south roundabout. • With respect to these three offsetting measures for the West Vail roundabout, Numbers 3, 6, and 8 • would fall just short of offsetting the impact of a 400 -trip development. One other measure would be required, perhaps Parking Management Measures (Number 5, 100 -200 trip offset). Another application of the table is to use it in assessing a particular improvement, say the Simba Run Underpass. If the Town is able to advance this improvement, then enough trip offset would be in place to offset the impacts of 1200 to 1300 trips per hour from new development at the West Vail • Roundabout. However, this improvement would "buy" less impact offset at the Main Vail roundabouts. The table is intended to be guide. Clearly, the location of the development will have an effect on the • relative impact to the roundabouts listed, so some engineering judgment is required in the table's • application. Also, the table only addresses the PM peak hour. As previously shown, there is one notable operational issue anticipated during the AM peak hour in 2025; the north roundabout intersection at the Main Vail interchange. The crucial mitigation measure to alleviate this issue is to encourage approximately one -half of these trips to exit 1 -70 at East Vail (rather than Main Vail) i through the use of variable message signs placed along 1 -70. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FELSBURCi • C � HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 69 ~ Vail Transportation Master Plan Update ! IX. IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES Planning level construction cost estimates have been developed for the Frontage Road improvements. These have been grouped into Frontage Road sections and include the improvement recommendations presented here as well as other maintenance activities such as overlays. ! Figures 18 and 19 show the improvements, their cost, potential funding sources and a rough estimate as to the appropriate timing. These figures were developed by Vail's Public Works staff. The • figures break the frontage road system up into numerous segments, and the improvements called out also include other enhancements to such has recreational paths and medians to be integrated into the overall improvement. Center roadway medians are only shown adjacent to the commercial core areas, West Vail, Lionshead and Vail Village where: +� ► Traffic volumes tend to be highest ► Cross- street movements are most significant ► Delineation and direction are most critical to motorist i Raised medians can provide safety and aesthetic benefits to the traveling public, but they also create increased challenges with respect to maintenance including snow removal. As such, their application • is limited to those segments in which tourist activity is the greatest (and so are the traffic loadings). Besides costs, the figures also identify potential participation by nearby development as well as to a general timing for the improvement as to the time frame of when it should be built. This time frame is based partially on need and partially on the timing of development, when the development participation can be realized. The total cost for the program improvements is approximately $63 ! million in 2007 dollars (2009 costs could be approximately 20 to 25 percent higher). The Simba Run underpass would be the single most costly improvement. However, this improvement would deliver significant benefit to the Town as this report has identified. ! The nomemclature in figures 18 and 19 can be further generally defined as the following; ► Cost: Estimated cost based on 2007 construction costs seen in Vail. Estimates are provided by the Town of Vail staff, with supporting information being provided by FHU ► Development Funding: Provides potential funding sources other than the Town of Vail or CDOT • budgets • ► Improvement: Provides a brief description of general type of Improvement that is recommended • by this plan: Safety: Recommends a safety type of improvement (i.e. shoulder widening, guardrail) ! Rec. Path: Recommends a recreational path improvement (i.e. bike lane 1 adjacent path) Min. Std: Recommends the road to be brought up to Minimum CDOT standards (shoulders) ! Turn Lanes: Requires additional turn lanes Capacity: Requires capacity improvements (additional lanes / roundabout) +♦ Roundabout: Roundabout recommended • Access: Recommended access improvements Medians: Recommends medians for access control and aesthetics Underpass: Recommends a new underpass • Interchange Improvements: Recommends interchange improvements • ► Timing: Provides an estimate timeframe that the recommended improvements should be • implemented FFLSBURG • 0 9 HOLT & ULrEVIG Page 70 P FELSBURG � ' HOLT & ULLEVIG SECTION I Cost $ 3.3 Million Cost $0.8 Million Cost $4.3 Million Development West Vail Dev. / Roost / Timber Development rVa Development West Vail Dev. / Holiday Inn Funding $$$ Ridge Funding $$$ Funding $$$ Improvement Turn Lanes/ Safety/ Rec. Path Improvement Capacity / Roundabout Improvement Safety / Rec. Path Access/ Medians / Safety Timing Completion of Roost & Timber Min Sids I Ridge Timing CDOT Overlay Timing Completion of West Vail Dev. Sandstone gll F Pedeaaiar V overpass West Vail Veil Exit Red North C No. 173 N ottn PA. I Sa tthf t995 � Villagee Lionshead t� J io / e'er O � S ��: f:reakDr. K West Vail Cost $4.5 Million Green South Development West LH /Ritz --1 n Funding $$$ Intermountain Cost $15.5Million Improvement Capacity/ Medians SECTION V & VI Timing Completion of West Development Indirectly through traffic impact Lionshead and the Ritz Cost $5.3 / 2.8 Million Funding $$$ fees and/or TIF Development n/a Improvement Underpass / Capacity Funding $$$ Timing Completion of 2 of the followin Improvement Safety/ Rec. Path (Traffic Trip Threshold in progress) West Lionshead, Lionshead Timing CDOT Overlay Parking Structure, Timber Ridge. West Vail Dev. Figure 18 NOTE: Cost estimates are in 2007 dollars West Vail Front Road Imp rovements ® Accel /Decel lanes may also be needed at select locations. g p North Ve,I r ansp. -lion Se' —5 05 -16B 2 •• ••••• •• ••• ••••••••••••••••••••• MDevelopme N VIII C HOLT & .8 Million RG ' H O LT U LLE V I G SECTION XIV 771 on ` - ' 12im °r' Improvements Safety/ turn Lanes/ through Development 11/o Rec. path pact fees and Funding $$$ Timing COOT Overlay Improvements Safety / Turn Lanes / Rec. Path! Sandstone Improvemetns Capacity at Main Vail Interchange Improvements Roundabout Timing 2009 CDOT Overlay Timing Traffic Trip Threshold Vail Ex8 Vail 6tN No. 276 as )J c 4_ rw;�"e, �,n�u� r- Oga e GO Course Jr � Eeslvall Fold Park vell y Vc , Vdlefle 'i SECTION XII Golden D Grit Course Cost $ 2.8 Million y Cost $2.90Million Peak Development VPH / Solaris / VTRC Development Antlers / LSL/ N. SECTION XI Funding $$$ Funding $$$ Day / Landmark / Concert Hall/ LH Inn Cost $ 8.3 Million Improvements Safety / Roundabout access / Medians Improvements Capacity/ Safety Development LH Parking/Vail International Timing VPH / Soloris ( -2009) Funding $$ / Evergreen / Four Seasons / Timing LH Parking Structure g Municipal Bldg. Improvements Capacity/ Safety Round about access Cost $2.9 Million Timing LH Parking Structure Development East Village / Ford Park Funding $$$ Improvments Roundabout /Capacity /Medians Timing Completion of Ford Park Parking Structure Figure 19 Nora: cost estimates are in 2007 dollars. Main Vail Frontage Road Imp rovements _ Accel /Decel lanes may also be needed at select locations. g p North Vail Transportalion Services 05 -168 2116109 Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i X. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS A. Priorities Improvements in this plan may require time to implement as funding becomes available. Roadway construction including the underpass will take time to fund. As such, the lower cost travel demand • management measures should be pursued first. These include parking pricing policies and • encouragement to use the East Vail Interchange. These should be the simplest measures to implement and "test" for effectiveness. . I Relative to improvement priorities, the Simba Run underpass provides a wide variety of benefits to Vail's Transportation system. Traffic -wise, this improvement relieves both interchanges, provides an , option to cross 1 -70, provides for a pedestrian crossing of 1 -70, provides greater flexibility in routing i Town buses, allows emergency response agencies to react quicker, and it allows for a planned Lionshead Transportation Center to better serve the community and relieve the heavily -used Village Transportation Center. Also, securing funding, obtaining necessary approvals, design, and eventual construction will take time. As such, the Town should consider moving ahead with the approval and clearance processes for the Simba Run underpass. This may best be done by first conducting a more detailed Simba Run Underpass Feasibility Study to better understand and quantify all of the benefits, disadvantages, impacts, and costs associated with this project B. Other Plannirrg Efforts Additional planning studies may be required for various pieces of this plan. Improvements or actions • that impact any portion of 1 -70 or the right -of -way thereof may be subject to State and Federal approval procedures. Modifications to the interchanges are subject to CDOT's Policy Directive 1601 which may require a feasibility study. Environmental clearance will also likely be required for interchange modifications as defined in CDOT's Policy Directive 1601 and in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Transportation Improvements that impact !Ford Park may also be subject to 4F regulations and procedures. • Longer term, the ideas have been raised to perhaps dramatically change 1 -70 through Town. The thought is based on the potential of utilizing the space that 1 -70 currently occupies for development as the value of this property may more than offset the costs of reconfiguring 1 -70. Two ideas have been raised. One includes "cut and cover" in which 1 -70 would be depressed in its current alignment and i structural decking would be placed atop of 1 -70. The other idea includes the potential of re- routing I- • 70 under Vail Mountain south of Town. Far more study is needed to determine if either of these is feasible, but in the event that one of these options is approved and funding is identified the Town' P PP g � s transportation plan should be updated. Under either one of these scenarios, 1 -70 would no longer be the barrier that it is currently, allowing a host of options transportation -wise. In addition, an assessment should be made to determine if, and what, type of east -west roadway would be needed through the Town. If either of these ideas becomes eminent, any improvement recommended in this plan should be reviewed carefully before implementation to ensure it would still be warranted. i P -9 FELSBURG • HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 73 • i Vail Transportation Master Platt Update • C I -70 PETS • CDOT has issued a draft of the 1 -70 PEIS document for public review. This effort considers an extended length of 1 -70 from C -470 to Glenwood Springs including through the Town of Vail. Results of the effort identify the potential for rail service from Denver to the Vail Transportation Center. In • addition, the Town of Vail is a member of the 1 -70 Coalition and is in full support of the Coalitions actions with respect to the PEIS and the future of 1 -70. Their latest activity can be found at http://www.i70solutions.org. A Record of Decision (ROD) is anticipated in year 2011. Further, the Town is a member of the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority and is participating in their high speed Rail Feasibility Study which is expected to be completed by Summer of 2009. Currently the rail study has identified Vail as a potential rail station site. The addition of a high speed rail from Denver, thru Vail and beyond will have a dynamic effect on transportation and transit in Vail. An additional study will be required to determine the impacts on Vail of such an improvement. D. Itnplemetitation of Recotmnet:ded Platt The recommended plan is mainly driven by the anticipated growth and development of Vail. The timeline for implementation also is driven by development. The major infrastructure improvements; ie. The Frontage Road widenings, the construction of roundabouts and roundabout improvements, and the Simba Run Underpass, will need to occur along side the anticipated developments. Other ancillary improvements, noted as safety, minimum standards, or recreational path • improvements should be done regardless of development in a timely fashion, as these types of improvements are not necessarily development driven and are existing needs. i A preliminary prioritization and implementation plan is provided in Figure 20 ( currently provided as a separate document to be discussed with the Town Council and to be included in the plan once adopted It should be noted that this figure assumes all of the major anticipated development occurs and occurs in a timeframe as outlined. The cost estimates provided in Figures 18 and 19 have been transferred to this chart and further broken down into the major funding sources; Town of Vail capital budget, Town of Vail RETT budget, Tax Increment Financing, traffic impact fees, developer required i improvements, and CDOT funding. These funding sources are generalized and limited. Each project, or section of road system, will have a detailed in depth funding scenario completed prior to implementation. The detailed funding scenario will finalize exactly how the projects will be funded, analyze the master plan assumptions, and look at any additional funding mechanisms. • • • • • • • FE LSBU RG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 74 • Vail Transportation Master Plays Update r E. Funding Sources i To fund these transportation system improvements, the Town must rely on some of the following funding mechanisms and sources. * Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) * Federal Agencies (Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration) * Private Developers * Town of Vail Traffic Impact Fees (revised and codified) * Tax Increment Financing (TIF) — Town has a $15 Million Bonding capacity at this time S * Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) — for landscaped areas and paths * Town's Capital Budget * Vail Resorts Inc. $4.3 million parking commitment * Conference Center Fund of $9.3 million for possible reallocation if approved by voters * Selling or leasing development rights on Town of Vail land identified in the Lionshead Master Plan and the western south side of the Village Parking Structure * Required voter approved initiatives o Tax Increases n Improvement Districts o Bonding or refinance the Town debt after 2012 CDOT All of the roadways & interchanges discussed in this memo are under the jurisdiction of the Colorado • Department of Transportation. The Vail Frontage Roads are the number —five - priority of the . Intermountain Transportation Planning area for Region 3;. However, only the first four projects are currently scheduled to be funded between 2005 -2035 given all the other regional priorities. Simba. Run is listed as a project in the 1 -70 PETS. In addition, interchange improvements may be cleared independently of the overall project if there is no mainline roadway improvements associated around them, similar to the Edwards roundabout scheduled interchange project. Once the overall • PEIS record of decision is released in - -2011, individual projects may apply for funding. The cost of the PEIS in 2005 was estimated in excess of $4 billion and to date only $1.8 billion is earmarked for the next 25 years. CDOT schedules asphalt overlays for the frontage roads approximately every 15 years. The next overlay was scheduled for 2009 but has since been pushed out to 2013. It is advantageous to the i Town of Vail to widen shoulders for vehicular and bicycle safety and make other frontage road improvements prior to any overlay to take advantage of a CDOT funded overlay of the whole road. When the overlay is completed the overall project will have a finished look and be a better road in the long run. i P -9 FF,LSBURU � HOLT & U L L E V I O Pa 76 Vail Transportatioti Master Plan Update CDOT has recently proposed we accept $11 million to take over the 11 miles of Frontage roads that run thru Vail. This would give ownership to Vail, making the Town responsible for all the maintenance • and capital costs going forward. Currently the Town receives $115,000 per year from CDOT to perform snow removal and minor pothole maintenance. CDOT is currently responsible for all capital improvements, including maintenance overlays and reconstruction costs. i Federal Agencies The Town of Vail has been awarded $ 2.4 million in 2008 and $ 235,000 in 2009 for a Lionshead , Transit Center. It is unlikely the remaining $4 million will be awarded in 2010 which would complete the town's three year requested and funded amount of $7 million dollars. The Town of Vail is in line to collect an estimated $2 -4 million for the proposed Lionshead transit • center. It was originally scheduled to be released over a three year period starting in Federal FY 2008, however since no specific project was designated it will now have to be completely released to a viable project in 2010. The Town is obligated to contribute a match of at least 20 %, or $0.4 to $0.8 . million. Mike Rose, Transit Manager, went to Washington D.C. as part of the Colorado Association Transit Agencies delegation to finalize the request. Private Developers It is anticipated that all of the developer impacted roads will be constructed by a consortium of developers over time. The main contributors will be the Lionshead Parking Structure, West Lionshead • (Ever Vail) development, Strata, Evergreen, Four Seasons, Solaris, Arrabelle, and the Ritz. As well as, the Timberline Lodge (Roost) and west vail commercial. i Traffic Impact Fees The Town to date has assessed traffic impact fees in excess of over $3.5 million. Many developers have constructed improvements in lieu of paying fees to the Town . The Town has available $584,000 of unallocated dollars for traffic impact mitigation. If they continue to follow the current approach, the Town will end up with few dollars to fund the cost of a Simba Run or Main Vail interchange improvements. Increasing the traffic impact fee would allow the Town to collect additional dollars to offset the cost of the future improvements. Relying on traffic impact fees to offset the cost of the improvements is relative to timing. Both the Lionshead Parking Structure and West Lionshead (Ever Vail) developments are expected to create significant transportation improvements. The value of the fee would be significantly less than the value of the improvements. Additionally, these developments • will greatly influence the need for Simba Run and Main Vail. i West Vail on the other hand would not have to construct significant improvements relative to the size of project that could be developed and therefore could generate more impact fee dollars to be used • elsewhere. however, this would most likely be the last place for significant development, again thus causing a timing issue. The Town is currently under contract for a traffic fee Nexus study, however it is currently on hold until the i recommended improvements are adopted. The nexus study is critical for two reasons: one to determine if any adjustment should be made to the current fee, and two, to officially codify the traffic impact fee requirements. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Using Tax Increment Financing to bond the cost of the projects meets the needs we have addressed • above and most of the projects fall under legitimate use of Tax Increment Financing. Again, timing is critical as bonds can only be let with a payback period that expires in 2025. For each year that passes, the payback period is shortened by one year. There may be a need to modify the boundaries P —A FELSBURC HOLT & ULLEVIO Page 77 i i i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i i i of the current Urban Renewal District. There are also streetscape costs not included in the above that i may also need to be funded by a portion of TIF. i The Town Finance Department has estimated the town's TIF bonding capacity at approximately $15 i million at this time i Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) i RETT has and will continue to be used to make improvements to the trail system along all of the frontage roads. In addition, the Town has used RETT for landscaping the medians along the frontage roads. A large percentage of the cost of the work outside the development area can be attributed to the cost of the recreational enhancement to the roadway. In addition, the cost of providing parking for • park and recreation uses is a use of RETT. The RETT can also be bonded against. A significant portion of streetscape has been funded with RETT in the past. There are current and future projects planned for the use of RETT funds for recreation enhancement projects. Capital Budget Previous presentations have shown little or no ability to fund projects from the capital account beyond the capital maintenance to extend the life of existing infrastructure. In 2012, the town makes its final debt payment on its current bonds. The payments have been about $ 2.5 million per year. • F. Next Steps • • Adopt the 2009 Vail Transportation Master Plan • Complete the Nexus study in 2009 for a traffic impact fee to codify the current practice and adjust the fee if desired based on the new transportation need and cost information Complete the Lionshead Transit study in 2009 Prepare a Simba Run and Main Vail interchange feasibility study in 2009. • Prepare a Ford Park Parking Feasibility Master Plan study in 2009 • Continue to participate and complete the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Rail Study • Continue to coordinate long term transportation planning effort with ECO and Eagle County • (Expansion of ECO transit / Regional Rail study) • Present a comprehensive list of all the projected costs for all projects and begin to compare • this to a comprehensive list of funding sources • Expand the Urban Renewal boundaries to allow tax increment financing to be used from West Vail to Main Vail along the frontage roads, interchanges and the location of Simba Run underpass Lobby the Department of Transportation to participate in the funding of these roadway • improvements. The ability to have "shovel ready" projects, as funding scenarios are always changing, is a proactive step in competing for funding. This allows completion of the Vail's master transportation improvements plan to be more of a reality. • Install permanent traffic counters at the roundabout interchanges to monitor trip trends . FELSRURG HOLT uLLEVIG Page 78 i • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • i APPENDIX A • TRAFFIC COUNTS • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix A • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • • • APPENDIX B • ! EXISTING LOS CALCULATIONS ! • • • • • • • i i • • • • ! i • • • • • • • • • • • P-9 FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix B • Vail Transportation Master Plat Update • • • • • • • ! • . i • • ! • • • • • • • • • • ! • • • • • • FELSBURG C � HOLT & ! ULLEVIG • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • �I• APPENDIX C • DETAILED TRAVEL TIME DATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • FELSBURG HOLT & U L L E V I G Appendix C • • Vail Transportation Master Platt Uphite i • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IN FELSSURG • r 4HOLT & ULLEVIG • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update l • • APPENDIX D • ! FRONTAGE ROAD COLLISION DIAGRAMS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • # • • • • • ! • • • ! FELSBURG r� HOLT & • l ULLEVIG Appendix D • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update 0 S r 40 R A FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG ! Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • ! • APPENDIX E • DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES • ! I r • • • • • • • ! • • i • • • w • • • • • • • FELSBURG HOLY & • ULLEVIG Appendix E • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • APPENDIX F • i CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS OF IMPROVEMENTS PLAN i • • • • i • • • • • • • • i • • • • • i • • • • • • • . FELSBURG • l HOLT & l ULLEV lG Appendix F • • i Vail Transportation Master Plait Update i S �I FELSBURG • C i HOLT & ULLEViG i • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • • APPENDIX G • • FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN I • � • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • FELSBURG C � HOLT & ` U L L E V I G Appendix G • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • i i i • • • • • • EELSBURG • r � HOLT & ULLEVIG • • North 1 -70 Frontage Road Access • Number ' Mile Post Side Description Location Current Use /Configuration Proposed Use /Configuration • 1 173.32 Left Former Wendy's Restaurant Access 300 feet west of West Full movement, Closed -down Full movement, Mixed Use Vail Interchange Fast Food Restaurant Development • 2 173.35 Left Former Service Station Access 160 feet west of West Full Movement Closed upon redevelopment and Vail Interchange the ability to have cross access with Access point #1 3 173.38 Both Chamonix Road West Vail Interchange Roundabout - Full Movement Roundabout - Full Movement • 4 173.41 Left Commercial Use 90 feet east of West Full Movement Right In /Right Out, Restricted Vail Interchange Movement S 173.44 Left Commercial Use, Hotel /Motel 260 feet east of West Full Movement Right In /Right Out, Restricted Vail Interchange Movement 6 173.48 Left Commercial Use, Hotel /Motel 560 feet east of West Full Movement 3/4 Movement Vail Interchange • 7 173.54 Left Commercial Use 810 feet east of West Full Movement Right In /Right Out, Restricted Vail Interchange Movement • 8 17160 Left Commercial Use 1,160 feet east of Full Movement Closed West Vail Interchange • 9 173.65 Left Commercial Use 1,430 feet east of Full Movement Roundabout - Full Movement • West Vail Interchange 10 173.70 Left Commercial Use 1,685 feet east of Full Movement Right In /Right Out, Restricted West Vail Interchange Movement • I 11 173.74 Left Commercial Use 1,900 feet east of Full Movement Full Movement West Vail Interchange 12 173.81 Left Zermatt Lane Zermatt Lane Full Movement Full Movement, but Convert to 3/4 • Movement If Safety Conditions • I I Warrant 13 173.83 Left Commercial Use 100 feet east of Full Movement Closed Zermatt Lane 14 173$8 Left Playground /Park Access 310 feet east of Full Movement Full Movement Zermatt Lane 1S 173.96 Left Buffehr Creek Road Buffehr Creek Road Full Movement Full Movement 16 173.99 Left Commercial Use 170 feet east of Full Movement Closed - Provide Access to Meadow • Buffehr Creek Road Ridge Rd instead 17 174.04 Left Commercial Use, Hotel /Motel 400 feet east of Full Movement Convert to Full Movement Out Only . Buffehr Creek Road 18 174.06 Left Commercial Use, Hotel /Motel 540 feet east of Full Movement Convert to Full Movement In Only • Buffehr Creek Road 19 174.39 Left Commercial Use 0.43 miles east of Full Movement Full Movement Buffehr Creek Road • 20 174.52 Left Residential 0.58 miles east of Full Movement Full Movement Buffehr Creek Road • 21 174.54 Left Residential 0.60 miles east of Full Movement Closed - Buffehr Creek Road 21A 174.59 Left Residential 0.65 miles east of N/A Full Movement -Transit Only • Buffehr Creek Road 22 174.63 Left Residential 0.70 miles east of Full Movement Full Movement r• 1 Buffehr Creek Road • 23 174.73 Left Residential 0.25 miles west of 'Full Movement Full Movement - If Possible Connect Lions Ridge Loop to Future Simba Run Underpass Roundabout 24, Otherwise Shift West 24 17478 Left Simba Run Resorts (Future Simba 0.21 miles west of Full Movement Roundabout - Full Movement • Run Under ass) Lions Ridge Loop • • L: \05168 \Access Plan Table \Vail Access Plan Complete Table DRAFT update.xis • 24A 174.81 Left Residential 0.18 miles west of Full Movement Full Movement - If Possible Connect Lions Ridge Loop to Future Simba Run Underpass Roundabout 24, Otherwise Shift East 25 17492 Left Commercial - Vail Run 250 feet west of Lions Full Movement Closed - Provide Access to Lions Ridge Loop Ride Loop instead 26 174 -97 Left Lions Ridge Loop Lions Ridge Loop Full Movement Full Movement . 27 175.04 Left Residential 160 feet west of Red Full Movement Closed - Provide Access through Sandstone Road adjoining property to Red Sandstone Road 28 17507 Left Red Sandstone Rd Red Sandstone Rd Full Movement Full Movement ! 29A 175.17 Left N/A 500 feet east of Read N/A Full Movement - New Sandstone Road Playground /Park Access if 29 is closed . 29 175.20 Left Playground /Park Access 710 feet east of Red Full Movement Full Movement - Close Access if Sandstone Road parcel integrates with neighboring development to the east ! 30 17524 Left Commercial Use 0.17 miles east of Red Full Movement 3/4 Movement • Sandstone Road 31 17532 Left Commercial - Condos 0.23 miles east of Red Full Movement Full Movement Sandstone Road 32 175.36 Left Red Sandstone Elementary School 0.31 miles east of Red Full Movement - Out Only Full Movement - Out Only Sandstone Road 33 175 -39 Left Red Sandstone Elementary School 0.33 miles east of Red Full Movement - In Only Full Movement - In Only Sandstone Road ! 34 1 7552 Left Commercial - Condos 0.46 miles east of Red Full Movement Full Movement Sandstone Road 35 175.98 Left Middle Creek Village 0.20 miles west of Vail Full Movement Full Movement • Rd 36 175.89 Left Middle Creek Village 910 feet west of Vail Full Movement •Inbound Bus Use Only Rd 37 975.93 Left Middle Creek Village 510 feet west of Vail Full Movement Full Movement Rd 38 176.02 Both Vail Rd Vail Rd Roundabout- Full Movement Roundabout- Full Movement ! I L: \05168 \Access Plan Table \Vail Access Plan Complete Table DRAFT update.xls South 1 -70 Frontage Road Access Number Mile Post Side Description Location Current Use /Configuration Proposed Use /Configuration i 39 173.38 Both Chamonix Road West Vail Interchange Full Movement, Roundabout Roundabout - Full Movement 40 173.50 Right Service Station 550 feet east of West Full Movement/ Service Station Full Movement /Service Station Vail Interchange • 41 173.52 Right Service Station 680 feet east of West Full Movement/ Service Station Convert to 3/4 Movement Upon Vail Interchange Redevelopment of Site (Close When No Longer a Service Station) • 42 173.63 Right W. Gore Creek Drive W. Gore Creek Drive Full Movement Full Movement • 43 173.78 Right W. Haven Drive W. Haven Drive Full Movement Full Movement 44 173.85 Right W. Haven Drive W. Haven Drive Full Movement 3/4 Movement • 45 174.01 Right Residential 260 feet west of Full Movement Full Movement Matterhorn Circle • 46 174.05 Right Matterhorn Circle Matterhorn Circle Full Movement Full Movement 47 174.15 Right Donovan Park Access 420 feet east of Full Movement Full Movement Matterhorn Circle 48 174.57 Right Westhaven Drive Westhaven Drive Full Movement Full Movement 49 174.78 Both Future Simba Run Underpass 0.25 miles east of N/A Roundabout - Full Movement • Westhaven Drive 50 174.85 Left Commercial Use 0.25 miles west of Full Movement Closed Forest Rd 51 174.91 Both Commercial Use 805 feet west of Forest Full Movement Full Movement, Align Left and Right Rd Accesses 52 174.96 Right Commercial Use 475 feet west of Forest Full Movement Full Movement Rd 53 175.01 Both Commercial Use 300 feet west of Forest Full Movement Full Movement Rd 54 175.08 Both Forest Rd &Commercial Use on Left Forest Rd Full Movement Full Movement 55 175.13 Right W Lionshead Circle W Lionshead Circle Full Movement Full Movement 56 175 -20 Right Commercial - Vail Spa Condos 490 feet east of W Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements Lionshead Circle 57 175.28 Right Commercial - Lionshead Inn, Vail 200 feet west of W N/A Right In /Right Out Movements • Chophouse, Lionshead Circle 58 175.32 Right W Lionshead Circle W Lionshead Circle Full Movement Full Movement - Convert to 3/4 Movement when operations transfer to Los F. i 59 175.38 Right Commercial - Condos 480 feet east of W Full Movement Full Movement - Convert to 3/4 c Lionshead Circle Movement when Roundabout installed at 60 60 175.52 Right E Lionshead Circle E Lionshead Circle Full Movement Roundabout - Full Movement 61 1175.59 Right N/A 415 feet east of E N/A Full Movement Lionshead Circle 62 175.68 Right Commercial - Parking Structure 805 feet east of E Full Movement Full Movement - Major Intersection • Lionshead Circle 63 175.80 Right N/A 0.22 miles west of Vail, Full Movement Rd • 64 175.83 Both Commercial Use 900 feet west of Vail Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements, Rd Both Sides • 65 175.88 Both Vail Valley Medical Center 740 feet west of Vail Full Movement Full Movement - Atempt to align Rd accesses from both sides upon redevelopment 66 175.93 Right Vail Plaza Hotel 400 feet west of Vail N/A Add Access - Right In /Right Out Rd Movements • 67 175.95 Both Commercial Use 270 feet west of Vail Full Movement Full Movement Rd 68 176.02 Both Vail Rd Vail Rd Roundabout -Full Movement Roundabout - Full Movement • 69 176.05 Right Commercial Use 120 feet east of Vail Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements • Rd 70 176.12 Right Commercial Use 450 feet east of Vail Full Movement Full Movement l Rd - :\05168 \Access Plan Table \Vail Access Plan Complete Table DRAFT update.xls • • 71 176.13 Right N/A 500 feet east of Vail N/A Right 'In /Right Out Movements Rd 72 176.15 Right N/A 600 feet east of Vail N/A Right In Only Rd 73 176.18 Right N/A 725 feet east of Vail N/A Right Out Only Rd 74 176.21 Right Village Center Dr Village Center Dr Full Movement Full Movement . 75 176.23 Right Commercial - Parking Lot 130 feet east of Village Full Movement Transit Only, In Only Center Dr . 76 176.26 Right Commercial - Parking Lot 250 feet east of Village Full Movement Full Movement Center Dr 77 176.29 Right Commercial - Parking Lot 550 feet east of Village Full Movement Full Movement Center Dr 78 176.39 Right Commercial - Parking Structure 87D feet east of Village Full Movement Full Movement - Major Intersection • Center Dr 79 175.42 Right E Meadow Dr E Meadow Dr Full Movement 3/4 Movement - Subject to . Roundabout at 86 • 80 176.45 Right Utility Access? 103 feet east of E Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements - Meadow Dr Subject to Roundabout at 86 81 176.11 Right Commercial - Condos 310 feet east of E Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements - Meadow Dr Subject to Roundabout at 86 i 82 175.48 Right Commercial - Condos 400 feet east of E Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements - . Meadow Or Subject to Roundabout at 66 83 176.53 Right Commercial Use 510 feet east of E Full Movement Closed • Meadow Dr 84 176.55 Right Commercial - Wren 660 feet east of E Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements - . Meadow Or Subject to Roundabout at 86 85 176.57 Right Gerald Ford Park - Service Rd Access West end Gerald Ford Full Movement Right In /Right Out Movements - • Park Subject to Roundabout at 86 86 176.62 Right N/A Gerald Ford Park N/A Roundabout - Full Movement Location To Be Determined • 87 176.80 Right Gerald Ford Park Access 0.40 miles east of E Full Movement In Only - Future Configuration To Be Meadow Dr Determined 88 176.84 Right Gerald Ford Park Access 0.44 miles east of E Full Movement Out Only - Future Configuration To Meadow Dr Be Determined 89 176.89 Right Gerald Ford Park Access 0.49 miles east of E Full Movement Closed • Meadow Dr • • • • • • • • i • • • • L: \05168\Access Plan Table \Vail Access Plan Complete Table DRAFT update.xis • • • ` }} l -ti�0. 1'..t 3 y 1 . '\. 1, �� TO • CNASIONOE ARKET rs C a y. IF •I rEASecTior�tr z m 4 5 .. 13 14 v. • 1 2 3 .�-- N. FRONTAGE RD. W. 12 m • ,: .:'.F 6 7 8 10 11 SiFEivµOiignS = • 9 • 43 N • 39 40 41 - • S. FRONTAGE P0. W. �}2 • _ ' A • `^ ' `• a aceE -0 M O \ TQ • -- 1 p 'Ar / \ A, D L -Exy,o E.TENT 711T y n c • - ;' ,`` �' a LEGEND L•i . • \ a _ � s Y_ y X O • .I YERMO NTkG. i En oM • ' HOLT A c, ,T4 y q • • • • • -T- Yk Mq£,N FF- PEOyEADOW RIO6! Dq, . _ 3 • LL` GU OJT LL N ONLY S ONLY N. FR ONTAGE RD. W, 2 • 15 N 17 j8 Z 45 ti • w 46 !9 w 47 • — N — N • Z Eq. _ 4. FgONTAO! RD. W. y J — OF NEUEVEL EE / T . — \ ,� -' • t ( ' ~ TO - EST n81f5 ONO—E55 W —ENT 1 / IPPE At _OE oO - En E E iENI TIAI • 1 0 O �f yiFS <�RE %E!% DN. / • � +��, / �� LEGEND O x 0 • • • __ ..J i, .1 ,AIL VIEW O • ., � /Is1F"' ��..�_„�_ .ti, EJONSgJ�c�DOP- - - -- - -- r J �� • ' �• r _' 0 !E DETE H . .. `! � '`. ` � yy Q\ 1 • -___._ �� i - ..�' � �-�• `� v i �q Rips �_ - .�'. • � �. .IJny�l� F � per"! I •�` / � • l �I _.� .; 4 00 p , -` • N , • . 1. 4 _ ON M. • RUN I _• ,I [' ✓ . - .rky�. I! • ERP 5 I C • _ N. FRONTAO! RD. W, 'Fi • w 20 21 21A — N 51T DNLY IF POSSIBLE CONNECT _ • lJ ACCESS 22 TO ROUNDABOUT. 23 24 24A OTHERWSE -1 EAST Z IF TO R. 1.E corvnECi 4 _ 48 io rsounone ouT, ST _ • OT CRWISE SHI WE 25 ., .,,.;,� E. FRONTAGE qp, W, z f1 •�. '� 'n1f b • \ - - �� 1 `� ALIGN OPPOSmc, ACCE55Es 4r 4 { 51 A 4 • �� 1';d: ; LEGEND 1 • 7777 a a' o d IILSBURG ~ x ELD AE E. O C HOLT & 1s` 4 u U LL E V I G ALL REODrlLDRQIT wuE eE ENCOU o TO Esrm:,sH cross- AC�ass eD�rcENr • �yb WYELOPYENt i0 THE E%TENI T T O N +IVN IN iERSECTIDN O • 'bt�e.'� COIIO1IEN5 ALtLOW yea • ! ERIM ACCESS PLAN 3 • • • ✓/� x �_ ' N { I • i ' ONE WA N -- f ♦ I • a oxv OMS OL 32 33 • 18 r 3<F 5S wOK.MENi t • * , h�`� R ®' W 29A rvi ° Ei vmN 57 (c o RT TO } WHEN 59 C TO } WHEN I r FN6w� NEW ACCESS IF EIGHB -H ORING NOl1Na -T M OO • I _ * y,t zv is aosco o�VE MENT 55 N iF ey. R Ec y o TIE sT • 27 ss ► _ I i 1i� • • a • � �� ��'�►, � w �yr,' � , ;_'Erma. �� ��� I� • _ Il • � a"`° ° • ._ 1 `z'� d (�r f E• a 52 L _ ,T " ", LOP Rarx w .cc — CENT TO —El • * _ �" ELOPN 0 NE ExiENT THAT I O ONS NLLPw • LEGEND N. • f a . R II -SURo �i X O- .� T iT .• ��� 1� {•- - O a�eOR INTERSECT.. o �PITERIM ACCESS FLAN 4 • • • • 34 _ T* F . • N 60 • W . FRONTAGE M v _ — • tWi� ruLL _ \) 3 � 35 3 r- „ 1 eusES n 37 _ I � m • _ w „ENCi t_�N•�,•i_ u RCN RECESSES y • � � - _,. `� '�. _ r� f _ K 64 Fj FOi1 REDE4TLOGUExi • _ _fy • j// Vy47• • 1 . �' L. � T FGHt • - ; w •.. — t.. - RLL REDEVELORNEni I eE w FncED S _ TO ESiRDL6H GRp RC 55-CE” r M • rrr''' / , �.- YYY } ' , , DC/ELOPMENT iD THE E %TEnT — CON RLLDW b r} r I LEGEND D ow DR. • i [ I 1 1131 i'(� � � �. � O i A� • .� • �I• • • � I r • ,�W4gpmt ,.rT' aa.p.�� e • i' 7®. 71 ' FRONT4OE RD. 72 73 3 � 79 so • Ri a uWy_ y T 82 • a . ' LEGEND 3 ' • r O �`I. � ti. �`' Y • � s _ _ � ..: -.. O a 1 `- Nm n; ulna � • FELSBUR( • UL L E V 1(i -s EDE c�E LL ee ENC.—E. – ; 0 Ell B LIE. C E /BOO 1 wM .-INi .' 0 E IT TO T.E E11ENT INni • '�Y� CyDi0N5 —`1w, ia� • -t00'� 1 1.: • • • • V • - W W Z \ a • 83 • 84 85 :� •:�cr..; . • 86 +• • • • ° �r t N TU E • S - EJECT TO BE DETERMINED NE • _ _ S wRONiAOE 87 88 W , OUT 89 • ' �• To x eE T —ATON • DETERMINED ONLY ONLY • » ? K '4 ^4 — NEDEVELOPM E ENCOU ED TO T 70 EST 2--5 11TI PMN D Oa OM nL Ow NE ExTENT TaT >DJnCENT • ` r: :• %- Al* -,�' � -"RM`R—��'ON•►�'Y+ir LEGEND • 1 FILSRURG ''�� 'a. Z . R l ' L1 -LLVIG • • i • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • APPENDIX H • VAIL 20/20 STRATEGIC PLAN - 2009 • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • P-j I USSURG • 11 O LT & ULLEVIG Appendix H • • • Vail Transportation Master Plait Update • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • FELSBURG • C � HOLT & • ULLEVIG i • I • • Vail Transportation Master Plait Update • APPENDIX I * LIONSHEAD TRANSIT CENTER WHITE PAPER - 2008 • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P FEL5BURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix I • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • • i i • • • •I • • • • • • • i • • • • FELSBURG HOLT & • ULLEVIG • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i • • • • APPENDIX j i EVALUATION OF HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO - 2005 & VAIL NOISE • MEASUREMENTS - Technical Memorandum 2007 • • ! • • • • • • • ! ! • • • • • • • • • FELSBURG • HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix J Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • r IN FELSBURG • HOLT & ULLEVIG • • Vail Transportation Master Plait Update • i APPENDIX K • LIONSHEAD MASTER PLAN - TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS -1998 & 2006 • • • • i • • • • i i i • i • • • • i • • i i i • • i • • i FELSBURG HOLT & • ULLEVIG Appendix K 'i • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update � • • • • • • • i • • • • • i • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • N I 1 I -BURG • 110 LT & • ULLEWIG • • i • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • APPENDIX L • A REPORT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF A PREFERRED SITE FOR THE VAIL TRANSIT CENTER - 2005 i • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . FELSBURG BOLT & ULLE V IG Appendix L • • Vail Transportation Master Platt Update 0 • 0 APPENDIX M 0 VAIL TUNNEL OPTIONS — i 0 SQUARE I DOCUMENT (DRAFT) - 2005 0 • • • • ,• .• • • • • • w • • • • r • • • • • • • • 1• i • P-9 FELSBURG . BOLT & ULLE V IG Appendix M 1• 0 • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • APPENDIX N ! VAIL TRANSPORTATION • • MASTER PLAN UPDATE - 2002 • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • P FELSBURG • � � H ©LT & U L L E V I G Appendix N • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • APPENDIX O ~ VAIL VILLAGE LOADING AND DELIVERY STUDY -1999 • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • . FELSBURG • � � HOLT & U L L E W l G Appendix O • i Vail Transportation Master Plan Update I • APPENDIX P i WEST VAIL INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS -1996 • • • i i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • Old FELSBURG HOLT & • ULLEVIG Appendix P • • i • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update i i APPENDIX Q i FEASIBILITY STUDY i- 70 /CHAMONIX ROAD -1996 • • • • • • i! • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • ii ! • • • • I LLSBURG li0LT & ! ULLEVIG AppendixQ i • • • • Vail Trarisportation Master Plan Update • ! APPENDIX R ! MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY -1995 • • • • i • i • • • f • • • • • • • • ! • • • • • • • FELSBURG • HOLT & U LL E V I L Appendix R • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • • • APPENDIX S • VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN - 1993 i • • w • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ! • • • i • • • . FELSBURG ■ HOLT & ULLEVIG Appendix S • i • • • Vail Transportation Master Plan Update • ! i APPENDIX T • FEASIBILITY OF A PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM I• i, TO REPLACE THE IN -TOWN SHUTTLE BUS ROUTE -1987 • • • i ! • ! • • • • • • • • • i • • • i • • • • • • • • . FELSBURG (� H ©LT & ! l ULLEVIG Appendix T • • 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 N. 303.721.1440 FELSBURG 303.721.0832 fax www.fhueng.com transportation ULLEVIG 25 - years of engineering paths to