HomeMy WebLinkAboutCascade Village Traffic Study 1985CASCN)E I.IASTER PLAN
DRAFT TRAFFIC STUDY
Prepared for
ROMA
October 1985
P85201-0-1
DKS Assocnfes
Section I
GEIIERAT TR,AFFIC OPERATIOIIS A}IALYSIS
DKSAssocafes
TMFFIC DATA
The traffic data used for this analysis is taken from the Glen Lyon EIR
(September L977) and the Centennial Engineering Report for the City of
Yail (February 1984). The Glen Lyon EIR, the original traffic asses$tent
presented for Cascade Village, provides traffic data on the South
Frontage Road in the project vicinity. (The count data from the Glen
Lyon EIR was updated to existing levels by applying an annual grovrth
factor of 7.7 percent, as referenced in the Sno-Engineering Report.)
TRIP GEt'lERATI0t'l
The number of trips generated by the Cascade Village upon build-out(projected as the fall of f989) is based on information provided by Andy
Norris on the revised Cascade Master Plan. The total nunber of dailytrips which will access Cascade Village via Westhaven Drive upon project
build-out is 3,124. A breakdown of these trips by Iand use is provided
in Table 1.
The trip generation rates used to estimate the total daily vehiculartrips accessing Cascade Yillage are shown in Table 2. In addition, the
source of the trip generation rates are given.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The primary directional movenent for existing and future Cascade Yillagetraffic is to and from areas east of the proiect. Traffic counts taken
at the South Frontage Road/llatterhorn Circle intersection for the Glen
Lyon EIR indicate a directional split for traffic accessing the South
Frontage Road from l4atterhorn Circle of 70 percent destined to the east
and 30 percent destined to the west.
The 70/30 split was applied to traffic accessing the South Frontage Road
from Cascade Vi I I age vi a l,lesthaven Dri ve .
DKS Assocntes
Tab'le I
ESTII{ATED IIIJI'IBER OF T}AILY AUTOMOEILE TRIPS
AT BUILD-OUT USING I{ESTHAVEII DRIYE ENTRA}ICE
l,lestin llotel
340 {nj+s+",,-- ,.-r.-,, -.
173 Mul ti -Family Dwel l ing UnitsMil'lrace Condos - 38 units
FOR CASCADE YILLAGE'-(;;;;'';:-;asi )
(rnvffi-
1 ,405
203
187
240
103
124
W
- + lt .
; .,| !..
y.,i,,r;'' - -'4J
v|{''tt!''"
t-
i r-,- . J k.r,.^- ,
' .i/ "t,ri
d, (13 primary units, 25 secondary)
Mansfield Village Condos - 35 units(12 primary units, 23 secondary)
.,1
Co'l d.Strean Condos - 45 units(t5 primary units, 30 secondary)
Club Condo'- 25 units{hotel type occupancy)
BuildingC-30units
^(hotel type occupancy)to4 UuPtt-
5" fr+€ Family Dwelling Units
Glen Lyon Hones - 52 units(4ffirimary units, ttr secondary)
Health Club Facility.{t2O0-s.f. facility1-' oc C\
Col orado l'lountai n Col I ege Center
160 students
Transit service (buses)
Town of Vail
Beaver Creek -\
c\i,- r $lqshqre. Proiects/ !')viir ' ' )
(tl -t, | rc;: ,-.-
ESTIMIITED TOTAL DAILY TRIPS
- ' i Lrt" ll'( "tt f"r , " "" .t't
!.r t a
, i,-.t,.. < e1' :
28
104
68
44
3,279
503 {
t 3ry.'dv'tr
l,' t{,-:., .
\'r'" ' '' '
'tr't '!lO a r'-l
DKS Assocrafes
Tab'le 2
TRIP GEIIERATION
CASCADE I'TASTER
Land Use
CASCADE VILLAGE
Trip
Rate
Occupants
Per Unit
(bcupancy
Rate
RATES
PLAII .
T
Hotel I
Multi-Famlly DU3
Primary
Secondary
Single-Family OU4
Prinary
Secondary
Heal th Cl ub5
CMC Center6
10/uni t..,'i ",.,8.3/unit v.','
P{70;
N/A
n/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
,{"
rl
other than ski triPs.
the l'lestin Hotel are
ski tripsy ot 7o-' i Ut"'
Glen Lyon EIR.
Trip Generation
Trip Generation
Trip Generation
2.86/personZ
4," \" "'
6/unJt' 5/uni t
1. Uroom
NlA2,
N/A
N/A
N/A
trrrr;f'
II rdLtllt'I- trf ti,
C.(ttft;
t40\,^
N/A
N/A)-
t'ltt"\
lL.l/]<000' s.t.
3-1, oo o
1.55/student
1. Based on In-room transportation surveys conducted by P'B'Q & D 7
in Snomass, Colorado.
2. The 2.86 trips per person is for trip PurposesAll of the patnons who make ski-re'lated trips from
assrmed to.utilize the proposed ski lift for their
br'- -:| \t'LLl3. Based on trip generation rates taken from the
4. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Report, 1982.
5. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Report, 1982.
6. Source: lnstitute of Transportation Engineers
Report, 1982.
U.
tL(': "lDKSAssocntes
4
TRIFFIC OPERATIONS
.nJ''. ,''lt ,,,'
' t
4 ,,, ['' ,ti' ., tr ", ,,.r/ "' '
The capacity of the South Frontage Road/l'lesthaven Drive intersection can
be measured by using the unsigna'l ized intersection capacity method
outlined in the Interim llaterials on Highway Capacity", Transportation
Research Board, Circu'lar No. 212, 1980. The operational characteristicsof an intersection are quantified by establishing a "level of service" -a neasure of the mobility characteristics, as determined by vehicle delay
and a secondary factor, volune/capacity ratio.
The level of service at unsignalized intersections i"s determined on the
basis of the average delay experienced by stopping vehicles. Delay tothe stopped vehicles on the minor street is dependent on the volume oftraffic on the mqjor street. Vehicles can pull out,into the trafficstrean only when.acceptable gaps occur on the mdor street.
The intersection level of service is based on the amount 6f'reserye ,.'lcapacity" available for mihor street traffic to pul'l out 'into or across ,.-,,- ,,ithe major street traffic. The higher the reserve capacity,-the higher ." d' {the number of additional autos on the minor street that could be I i' -t',
accomodated at the intersection. A table showing the relationship ^i
\,'l-
:itffi:.:"i"mter{ice, reserve capaclty and vehicle delay ranses is " .tr,,ri ,.,
'uitt "t/ -\ /The South .frqntage Road/ltesthaven Orive intersectioqbperateF_at a. level rrt' ,,,, 'of service"A'during both the a.n. and p.m. peak hour'periods for the .' .,build-out (ygar_ 1989) scenario. Yehicles using this intersection will . oi' .,{''experience little or no delqy during typical rinter weekday peak'periods.
The most critical movenent at the l'lesthaven Drive access.fs the inboundleft turn from the South Frontage Road into the Cascade Village.
Projections of traffic volunes at this intersection for the build-out
scenario are shown on Figure 1. The volume of 97 westbound Ieft turns
opposed by 445 eastbound through trips warrants an exclusive westbound'left-turn lane on the South Frontage Road at l{esthaven Drive.
NillSince the South Frontage Road/Hesthaven Drive intersection,operat{l at alevel of service'A"during both the morning and evening peait irour periods,
there is a significant level of reserve capacity in the modified
intersection design. The irbound left turn movement from the South
Frontage Road onto I'lesthaven Drive is projected to have a'theoretical
reserve capacityo of approximately 480 vehicles during the a.m. peak hour
and approximately 360 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour for the year
1989 (assuming the projected annual increase of traffic on the South
Frontage Road of 7.7%1 . The actua'l capacity of the left turn storage
lane would be limited by the length of the left turn bqy: approximately
325 vehicles per hour, or an additional 228 vehicles during the p.n. peak
hour. r -;\.( f ;l 1-: v.' '1. 1.,' '* lt ' 'r ;' '.' t: t l
,,11r\r1o,Ut
F
'0.
2
DKSAssocnfes
'7
r t a.faI >-TMFFIC OPERATIONS (CONTI}IUED)
The design length of the left-turn storage'l ane is approximately 325feet. The projected vehicle travel speed for this section of the South
Frontage Road is 35 m.p.h. The turning bay has more than sufficientcapacity for the projected turning volumes into Cascade Vfllage (l); theleft-turn bay has been designed to provide additional access to CascadeVillage via a proposed future access to Mansfield Yillage.
DKS Assocrafes
Table 3
UNSIGI{AIIZED II.ITERSECTIOII AMTYS IS
LEVEL OF SERVICE AND EXPECTEO DELAY FOR RESERVE CAPACITY RA},IGES
Reserve Del ay RangeLevel of
Serv iceCaoac i t
400 or more
300 to 399
200 to 299
100 to 1990to99less than 0
ted Traffic OeI (Sec. per stopped veh.)
AI
c
0
E
F
Little or no delqy
Short traffic delays
Average traffic delays
Long traffic delays
Very long traffic delays
Fai I ure
0
5
10
15
30
60
-5-10-15-30-60or more
DKS Assocntes
Section 2
TRA}ISIT FACILITY AMLYSIS
DKSAssocafes
TRAI,ISIT FACILITY DEI.IAXD
The installation for a transit facility at Cascade Village is based upon
the demand for the addition of a proposed ski lift to serve Vaill{ountain. The proposed ski lift. would serve residents and visitors of
Cascade Yillage (pedestrian access), overnight skiers from nearby hote'l
and condominium facilities (bus access as provided by shuttles), andlocal employees (Towrt of Vai'l bus system). These three types of facility
users have been identified as providing the primary demand, the secondary
demand and the tertiary demand, respectively.
The projected demand for the proposed ski lift for the year 1989(build-out of Cascade Village) is shown in Table 4. A breakdown of thespecific denand generated by each facility in the ski lif! vicinity isprovided. The projected total daily demand for the ski-lifl in the year
1989 is 1,726 persons. The daily ski lift demand by trip type is as
fol I ows:
l{alk Trips (Cascade Village) - 728
Shuttle Bus Trips - 543
Town of Vail 8us Trips - 348
AuiJ iripi (Employeei) Lol 4 r;.r.'P
The total demand for the transit facility is therefor"@ p""ron-trips
on a daily basis. The peak period of service would occur betreen 3 p.m.
and 4:30 p.m., rfien 80 percent of the ski lift users rould depart from
the mountain.
TRA}ISIT SERYICE
The proposed transit facility will have three separate loading areas to
serve buses making trips to Cascade Village. The Town of Vail bus and
the Beaver Creek bus will each have their own stops. The shuttle buses
fron the outlying areas, which comprise the secondary demand, will sharethe use of three gnaller bus stops.
The Town of Vail bus is a 40-passenger bus which wi'l I arrive at l5-minute
intervals during the peak periods - from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 2:30
p.m. to 6 p.m. The Eeaver Creek Bus is a 40-passenger bus which will
arrive at 30-minute intervals. The shuttle buses are carry 24 passengers
and do not operate on pre-arranged time schedules. -z
/z-"---\IThe capacity of the proposed transit facility&i]l--bd analyzed during the
projected peak access period (3:00 to 4:30 p.rnJ nhen 80 % of the skiers
typically depart from Vail lbuntain. The demand for the Town of Vail
bus, operating between six and seven buses during this 90 minute period,will be approximately 280 passengers. These skiers would use between
100X and lL7% of the total capacity available on the Town of Vail bus
system.
o.'Jf):':-A"b
DKSAssocnfes
Tabl e 4
DEII'IIID FOR PROPOSED SKI LIFT
YEAR 1989 - CASCADE YILLAGE
Pe rso ns
Per Unit Partici
Primary Demand
IleEi-n--HdteT-l{illrace Condos
Coldstream Condos
Club Condos
Pl aza Condos
Mansfield Condos
Gl en Lyon HomesVillage Residents
Fal I Li ne
Park l4eadows
1.7
4
4
3
3
4
340
41
45
24
25
42
48
30
54
33
150
l16
74
84
80
54
90%
50c
50%
95%
8076
60?6
50?
100%
90z
85%
903
80x
70x
85%
803
75z
N/A
N/A
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
30%
?0%
80u '
70%
416
26
32
55ta
42
40
15
97
49-T57
-128
728
331
110
62
175
L28
99
TUs'
-362
Secondary DemandStreamsl-dq;
Raintree ffi"
Roost Lodge
Sandstone Creek
Simba RunYail Run
5.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Total
3.5
t.7t.7
3.5
3
3.5
Total
N/A
N/A
Total
Less Skiers Using
0ther Facilities
NET PRIMARY DEMAND
702
7M
702
701
70?
702
Less Skiers Using
Other Facilities
NET SECOI'IOARY DEMA}ID 543
Empl oyees
0ther Employees
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
348
126nT{
Less Skiers Using
Other Fac'ilities
NET TERTIARY DEI'IAND 455
TOTAT DEI4AilD I,726
-19
Terti ary Demand
DKSAssocafes
IRAI{sIT SERVICE (CO}ITIIIUEOI -:
The demand for the shuttle buses will be approximately'435 passengers
during the 90-minute evening peak period. A combinatio-fr-of service by
the Beaver Creek buses (three during the peak period) and the variousshuttle buses (15 buses in three loading bays, assuming a 2O-minutewaiting period to load each shuttlel rould provide for a capacity of
approximately it80 passengers. The skier demand for transit facilities
would occupy approximately 90% of this available capacity during the
evening peak period. (A 20-minute waiting perfod for the shuttle buses
would mean the shuttlep frq each outlying proiect rrould arrive every 40
minutes during the peak period.)
In order to provide coordinated transit seryice, daily arrival and
departure schedules should be assigned for each of the shuttle buses
using the transit facil ity. Each shuttle service should be assigned to a
permanently designated bus stop. The schedules should incorporate a
maximum waiting period in order to allow for use of each bus stop area by
mul tiple shuttle services.
The Beaver Creek bus and the shuttle buses serving the transit facility
provide adequate capacity for the projected ridership demands during the
peak ski lifl operational periods. The Town of Vail bus will be heavily
loaded during the peak flows. The provision of several direct buses from
Cascade Village to Yall durfng the evening peak period should be
considered to alleviate the antlcipated congestion. The nunber ofadditional buses will be dependent upon the number of non-ski trips made
on the Tom of Vail bus during this period
PEDESTRIAil CAPACITY
The capacity of the walkwqys and waiting areas for pedestrian activitiesis an important factor in the design of the transit facility. 0f the
1,726 daily skiers using the proposed Cascade Village ski lift,
approxlmately 1,380 will depart betmen 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. The
breakdown of pedestrian trips by destination during the eyening peakperiod is as follows:
l,lalk Trips to Cascade Yillage - 582
I'lalk Trips to Shuttle Buses - 434
l{alk Trips to Town of Vail Bus - 278ttalk Trips to Garage - 86
The two primary capacity constraints for these pedestrian movernents are
the proposed stairs at the base of the ski lift dividing the twostructures of Building C and the waiting areas at the shuttle bus stops.
?
PEDESIRIA}I CAPACITY (CONTINUED )
The movenent of pedestrians through the proposed stairs at the base of
the ski'l ift should occur at a design flow rate of 2 people per minute
per foot of wa'lkway width or less during peak periods. A total of 1,380
pedestrians traverse the 35-foot wide stai.rvay during the 90-minute peak
period. This results in a flow rate of approximately 0.44 people per
minute per foot of ralkway wldth. The proposed stairway design willallor uninpeded floxr even during peak pbriods for pedestrians departing
from the ski lift.
The waiting areas at the shuttle bus stops should provide approximatelyl0 square feet per person to allow for comfortable standing while waiting
to load the proper bus. The proposed shuttle bus stop areas have seven
foot wide sidewalks and have 45-foot long berths. This design provides
315 square feet of area for pedestrian storage. The total demand for
shuttle buses during the 9O-minute peak period is 434 persons. This is
an average of approximately 100 persons every 20 minutes (the assumed
average waiting time of each shuttle bus). An average bus occupancy of
75? would result in 54 passengers boarding during the 20-minute period-
The remaining 46 passengers would be stored in the three waiting a-reas.
The demand for standing area rould then be an average of 150 sq. ft. per
bus'stop (15 passengeri x l0 sq. ft. per person). This is well within
the 315 square feet of area provided at each of the individual shuttle
stops.
TRANSIT DESIGil
One of the most critical factors in the design of a transit systen is the
implementation of an information system for passengers. It has been
recormended that speclfic bus stop areas be designated for each of the
outlying projects using the shuttle bus transit facility. This will
eliminate the queueing of pedestrians at any sing'le location while they
are awaiting shuttle irrivils. It will also allow for the preparation of
a clear, concise infonnation system which guides all the pedestrians to
their destination in an organized fashion. This information system
should include directional signing, clearly drawn maps and easy-to-read
schedules for each component of the transit network.
The proposed design of the Town of Vail bus stop provides for difficult
access for passengers as the circular driveway design does allow the bus
to stop inmediately adjacent to the curb. Since icy conditions will
occur on the roadway during the winter, it is recommended that heaters be
placed under thls portion of the roadway as wel'l as under the sidewalks
adjacent to the bus stop to al |ow for safe pedestrian access.
1
)
Ct' 0,y ['lo ,l- ./Jrt-' c ,= &, .
TRAXSIT DESIGN ( COI{TI}IUED}
l{hile the sidewalk which serves as a waiting area for each of the shuttle
buses provides an adequate area for storage of standing pedestrians, the
sidewalk width (seven feet) is not sufficient to provide for pedestrians
rfto are ralking to the far end of the shuttle area. The size of the
existing sidewalk width will result in a substantial level of conflict
between skiers waiting to board at each bus stop (and their equipment)
and sklers walking to a stop furthet-.downstrearn. It is recommended that
the sidewalk width be increase<l tof19 feet. In addition, the bus stop
waiting areas (five feet wide) shouYa be separated from the lralk portions
of the sfdewalk (ten feet h,ide) by a railing divider or similar device.
.ll0
iN l l:'TSTATE rlrGt! wAY N o. 7.)
SO --T 11 FRONTAGE ROAl
M lllroce Pnosolf
a'] r -l
i-, We slh c v.cn
l
] U0nCurntn Ums
Co:,code SlfuclureClubPorking
I
WISTITAVIN
-'J t1
l
I
f-
r-
--l
\
I)-)
r-
II
r-t|--_
'-'
t'
r
i
I
I
I
orozo S rilding
-l -r;
rj
l--
l----
ll'r---- t
.
Terroco W Ing -
r____Jl-t
I
\|
lr
litn
Cosgrlll
fiorccl
,.t.. 'a)of@ Lr4/6 ^b/U't€)zt-?uzau./6,V{f .d^Jf,rz//zzzD
r- -rriI -jri
It\L--!
Mi!lroccl'f ole IJ
lo tl
vAll_, co,_0RA00
A'J L