TC Council Packet 08-11-2009
TOWN OF AVON
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Prepared For:
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Prepared By:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
6300 S. Syracuse Way
Suite 600
Centennial, CO 80111
(303) 721-1440
Project Manager: Charles M. Buck, P.E., PTOE
July 29, 2009
FHU Reference No. 08-159
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
CHAPTER 1. ROADWAY SYSTEM--------------------------------------------------------------------------1-3
1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------1-3
1.1.1 Roadways-------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-3
1.1.2 Traffic Volumes and Operations---------------------------------------------------1-8
1.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------1-14
1.2.1 Land Use------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-14
1.2.2 Traffic Volume Projections--------------------------------------------------------1-15
1.2.3 Future Traffic Operational Results----------------------------------------------1-19
1.2.4 Roadway Improvement Requirements-----------------------------------------1-25
1.2.5 Traffic Impact Evaluations---------------------------------------------------------1-26
1.3 TRAFFIC CALMING AND SAFETY------------------------------------------------------1-32
1.3.1 Alternatives----------------------------------------------------------------------------1-32
1.3.2 Application-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1-32
1.3.3 Sight Distance------------------------------------------------------------------------1-33
1.4 TOWN STANDARDS-------------------------------------------------------------------------1-34
1.4.1 Roadways-----------------------------------------------------------------------------1-34
1.4.2 Traffic Impact Study Guidelines--------------------------------------------------1-40
CHAPTER 2. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM-------------------------------------------------2-1
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------2-1
2.1.1 Regional Trails System--------------------------------------------------------------2-1
2.1.2 Recreational Trails--------------------------------------------------------------------2-1
2.1.3 Local Bicycle/Pedestrian Connection---------------------------------------------2-3
2.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS-----------------------------------------------------------------------2-6
2.2.1 Regional and Recreational Trails Planning-------------------------------------2-6
2.2.2 Local Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections-------------------------------------------2-7
2.2.3 Potential Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings----------------------------2-8
CHAPTER 3. TRANSIT SYSTEM-----------------------------------------------------------------------------3-1
3.1 EXISTING SERVICES-------------------------------------------------------------------------3-1
3.1.1 Town of Avon Shuttle-----------------------------------------------------------------3-1
3.1.2 Wal-Mart and Buffalo Ridge Demonstration Service----------------------3-15
3.1.3 ECO Transit Routes----------------------------------------------------------------3-16
3.1.4 Stops and Stop Amenities---------------------------------------------------------3-18
3.1.5 Fleet and Facilities------------------------------------------------------------------3-21
3.1.6 Budget and Funding----------------------------------------------------------------3-22
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------3-27
3.2.1 Planned Development--------------------------------------------------------------3-27
3.2.2 Transit Demand----------------------------------------------------------------------3-27
3.2.3 Alternatives----------------------------------------------------------------------------3-32
3.2.4 Bus Stop Improvements-----------------------------------------------------------3-39
3.2.5 Maintenance/Operations-----------------------------------------------------------3-41
3.2.6 Capital and Operating Costs------------------------------------------------------3-41
3.2.7 Funding Options---------------------------------------------------------------------3-42
3.3 Bus Stop Guidelines--------------------------------------------------------------------------3-44
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS------------------------------------------------4-1
APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS
APPENDIX B EXISTING LOS ANALYSES
APPENDIX C FUTURE LOS ANALYSES
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 Roadway System--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-4
Figure 1.2 Existing Summer Traffic Volumes-----------------------------------------------------------1-9
Figure 1.3 Existing Winter Traffic Volumes-----------------------------------------------------------1-10
Figure 1.4 Existing Summer Level of Service--------------------------------------------------------1-11
Figure 1.5 Existing Winter Level of Service-----------------------------------------------------------1-12
Figure 1.6 Future Summer Traffic Volumes-----------------------------------------------------------1-20
Figure 1.7 Future Winter Traffic Volumes-------------------------------------------------------------1-21
Figure 1.8 Future Summer Level of Service----------------------------------------------------------1-22
Figure 1.9 Future Winter Level of Service-------------------------------------------------------------1-23
Figure 1.10 Arterial Cross-Section------------------------------------------------------------------------1-35
Figure 1.11 Collector – Urban Cross-Section----------------------------------------------------------1-36
Figure 1.12 Collector – Rural Cross-Section-----------------------------------------------------------1-37
Figure 1.13 Local – Rural Cross-Section----------------------------------------------------------------1-38
Figure 1.14 Local – Rural Cross-Section----------------------------------------------------------------1-39
Figure 1.15 Town of Avon Transit Supportive Subareas--------------------------------------------1-43
Figure 2.1 Existing Trail System---------------------------------------------------------------------------2-2
Figure 2.2 Sidewalk Discontinuity – East Beaver Creek Boulevard------------------------------2-4
Figure 2.3 Areas of Existing Sidewalk Deficiency-----------------------------------------------------2-5
Figure 2.4 I-70 Underpass Near Metcalf Road---------------------------------------------------------2-9
Figure 2.5 Avon Road Overpass Alternatives--------------------------------------------------------2-11
Figure 2.6 Railroad Pedestrian Crossing at Stonebridge Drive----------------------------------2-13
Figure 3.1 Existing Local and Regional Bus Routes--------------------------------------------------3-2
Figure 3.2 Winter Boardings by Hour by Route--------------------------------------------------------3-6
Figure 3.3 Summer Town Route---------------------------------------------------------------------------3-7
Figure 3.4. Ridership by Stop – Winter and Summer-------------------------------------------------3-9
Figure 3.5 Summer Boardings by Hour and Route-------------------------------------------------3-10
Figure 3.6 Avon Transit Ridership by Route by Month---------------------------------------------3-11
Figure 3.7 2008 Beaver Creek Shuttle Boardings by Month--------------------------------------3-12
Figure 3.8 Avon Transit Service Hours by Route----------------------------------------------------3-13
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
Figure 3.9 2008 Beaver Creek Shuttle Service Hours---------------------------------------------3-14
Figure 3.10 Historic Cost per Service Hour for Town Routes--------------------------------------3-25
Figure 3.11 Cost of Transit Service per Passenger--------------------------------------------------3-26
Figure 3.12 Planned Roadway and High Speed Rail------------------------------------------------3-28
Figure 3.13 Town of Avon Transit Subareas-----------------------------------------------------------3-30
Figure 3.14 Increase in Ridership as Town Builds Out----------------------------------------------3-31
Figure 3.15 Near -Term Transit Plan---------------------------------------------------------------------3-36
Figure 3.16 Areas Served by Avon Transit at Buildout----------------------------------------------3-38
Figure 3.17 Suggested Stops------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-40
Figure 4.1 Recommended Improvements---------------------------------------------------------------4-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1 Improvement Cost Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------ii
Table 1.1 Land Use Summary---------------------------------------------------------------------------1-14
Table 1.2 Mode Split---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-15
Table 1.3 Summer Season Trip Generation---------------------------------------------------------1-16
Table 1.4 Winter Season Trip Generation------------------------------------------------------------1-18
Table 1.5 Intersection Levels of Service--------------------------------------------------------------1-24
Table 1.6 Roadway Levels of Service-----------------------------------------------------------------1-25
Table 1.7 East Town Center Summer Trip Generation-------------------------------------------1-26
Table 1.8 East Town Center Winter Trip Generation----------------------------------------------1-27
Table 1.9 East Town Center Total Future Travel Demand---------------------------------------1-27
Table 1.10 West Town Center Summer Trip Generation------------------------------------------1-28
Table 1.11 West Town Center Winter Trip Generation---------------------------------------------1-29
Table 1.12 West Town Center Total Future Travel Demand--------------------------------------1-29
Table 1.13 Village at Avon Summer Trip Generation-----------------------------------------------1-30
Table 1.14 Village at Avon Winter Trip Generation--------------------------------------------------1-30
Table 1.15 Village at Avon Total Future Travel Demand-------------------------------------------1-30
Table 1.16 Transit Ridership as a Percentage of Vehicle Trips----------------------------------1-42
Table 2.1 Recreational Trails Capital Improvement Projects--------------------------------------2-6
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
Table 3.1 2007/2008 Avon Winter Route Hours and Frequency of Service-------------------3-3
Table 3.2 2008/2009 Avon Winter Route Hours and Frequency of Service-------------------3-3
Table 3.3 Ridership by Stop February 18, 2008------------------------------------------------------3-5
Table 3.4 Summer Route Hours and Frequency of Service---------------------------------------3-7
Table 3.5 Ridership by Stop July 26, 2008-------------------------------------------------------------3-8
Table 3.6 2008 Boardings per Hour by Month------------------------------------------------------3-14
Table 3.7 Potential Increase in 2008 Peak Winter Day Ridership-----------------------------3-15
Table 3.8 ECO Transit Routes, Frequencies and Fares------------------------------------------3-17
Table 3.9 Transit Stop Amenities-----------------------------------------------------------------------3-21
Table 3.10 Fleet Roster-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-22
Table 3.11 Productivity by Service Type---------------------------------------------------------------3-24
Table 3.12 Mode Share Estimates-----------------------------------------------------------------------3-29
Table 3.13 New Avon Transit Demand at Buildout (Average Winter Day)--------------------3-29
Table 3.14 Town of Avon Annual Ridership Projections at Buildout----------------------------3-31
Table 3.15 Operating Costs and Service Hour Estimate-------------------------------------------3-41
Table 3.16 Fleet Costs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-42
Table 4.1 Improvement Prioritization and Preliminary Cost Opinions---------------------------4-4
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Avon, located in the central mountains of Colorado, has experienced rapid growth
in recent years. As the gateway to the Beaver Creek Resort, Avon provides a focal point for
housing, lodging and services. With abundant year-round recreational opportunities throughout
the area, Avon has become an increasingly desirable place to live, work, and visit. Like many
communities along the Interstate 70 mountain corridor, increasing travel demand in Avon has
accompanied the regional growth in both residential and commercial development.
Planned re-development of the Avon Town Center, along with anticipated new development in
the Village at Avon, will also place increasing pressure on the Town’s existing transportation
system. As traffic volumes grow, so too will the demand for alternative transportation modes. To
maintain the quality of life in this mountain community, an integrated approach to planning for
future roadway improvements, transit service enhancements, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities is
required.
Previous transportation planning efforts include the following reports:
• AVON TRANSPORTATION PLAN, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, December 1991.
• TOWN OF AVON TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE, MK Centennial, November
1996.
• US 6 AND I-70 G CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, PBS & J,
March 2004.
These previous efforts have focused primarily on vehicular traffic, with only minimal attention to
alternative travel modes. Recognizing this shortfall, the Town adopted the 2006 Comprehensive
Plan that envisions a balanced, multi-modal transportation system.
The purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan is to support this vision by forecasting
the potential future travel demand and its impacts on the multi-modal system in Avon. Existing
and future deficiencies have been identified for roadways, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and the
transit system. Improvement alternatives for each mode have been developed to ensure
adequate capacity through the projected year 2035. It is the Town’s goal to encourage the use
of alternative transportation modes, such as walking, biking, and riding transit, by providing safe,
inviting paths, walkways, and convenient bus service. A higher priority is placed on the safety
and quality of the experience for pedestrians and bicyclists, with secondary consideration for
roadway capacity improvements for vehicular traffic.
The transit component has been structured such that it may serve as a stand-alone “Strategic
Transit Plan” to assist the Town in pursuing funding options. In addition, Roadway Standards
and Traffic Impact Study guidelines have been developed to assist the Town in addressing the
multi-modal transportation impacts of new developments.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page ii
Preliminary opinions of probable capital construction costs were developed for the roadway and
pedestrian improvements. For the transit element, annual operating costs for three alternative
service plans were prepared. The improvements, and potential estimated costs, are
summarized as follows:
• Roadways. In general, the existing and planned roadway system in Avon will
accommodate the projected future traffic volumes. However, US 6 would require
widening to four through-lanes at a preliminary opinion of probable cost of $34.5 million.
• Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities. Improvements include sidewalk construction,
recreational trail enhancements and construction, and alternative pedestrian grade
separations (overpasses or underpasses) of I-70, Avon Road, and the UPRR. The range
of potential costs for these improvements is $3.85 million to $7.22 million, depending on
alternatives.
• Transit. Proposed service plans includes costs associated with enhanced service on
existing routes, new routes, ridership increases, transit stops and shelters, fleet
additions, and maintenance. The Near Term plan would have an annual operating cost
of about $2.0 million. The range of annual operating costs in the Long Term future is
between $4.3 million and $4.9 million per year.
The following summarizes the above costs:
Table ES-1 Improvement Cost Summary
Mode Description
Cost
(Millions)
US 6, widen to 4 lanes $34.5
Swift Gulch/Nottingham Roundabout $1.0Roadway
Beaver Creek Boulevard Streetscape and Lane Reductions $0.75
Sidewalk Construction $1.43
Recreational Trails $0.77
I-70 pedestrian crossing at Metcalf Road $0.97 to $2.2
Pedestrian Crossing over Avon Road at Main Street $0.51 to $1.8
RR Pedestrian Crossing at Eaglebend $1.4 to $2.2
I-70 Pedestrian Crossing from Buffalo Ridge $2.0
Metcalf Road Bike Lanes $0.5
Pedestrian Connection under US 6, over River $1.5
Nottingham Road/Buck Creek Connection $0.05
Non-Motorized
West Beaver Creek Boulevard/Nottingham Park Connection $0.05
Near Term (annual operating cost) $2.0Transit Long Term (annual operating cost) $3.4 to $5.3
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-3
CHAPTER 1. ROADWAY SYSTEM
1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1.1 Roadways
The Town of Avon is situated along Interstate 70 between Vail and Edwards. US 6, which
parallels the freeway, provides local access as well as secondary east-west regional connection
within the Vail Valley. Avon Road provides primary access to the freeway, linking I-70 with US 6.
Secondary interstate access is available at Post Boulevard, located east of Avon Road within
the Village at Avon. Between I-70 and US 6, the Eagle River and the Union Pacific Railroad
Tennessee Pass line (now inactive), constrain the ability to expand the existing roadway
system.
The existing roadway system within Avon is depicted on Figure 1.1. A field inventory was
conducted to establish existing physical characteristics for primary roadways within the Town.
Primary Arterials
I-70. Providing primary east-west regional connection through Colorado, this four-lane
freeway bisects the Town of Avon. Interchange accesses are provided at Avon Road and
Post Boulevard. East of Avon, I-70 is posted at 65 miles per hour (MPH). To the west, the
speed limit is posted 75 MPH.
US 6. This arterial state highway consists of a basic two-lane cross section with auxiliary
turn lanes at major intersections and access points. Shoulders are generally paved with a
minimum width of 2 feet. The posted speed limit varies between 35 and 45 miles MPH, with
a 25 MPH school zone within Eagle-Vail. A detached bike/ped trail parallels US 6 for much
of its length through Avon; the trail is discontinuous between West Beaver Creek Boulevard
and Benchmark Road and east of Stonebridge Drive. Adjacent land uses include both
residential and commercial uses.
Avon Road. This arterial Town road consists of a basic four-lane urban cross section
between I-70 and US 6, with some auxiliary laneage at major intersections. Traffic control is
accomplished through roundabouts at major intersections. Shoulders have been replaced
with curb and gutter, and a sidewalk is provided along both side of the roadway. The posted
speed limit on Avon Road is 25 MPH. Adjacent land uses are generally lodging or
commercial.
Roads North of I-70
Nottingham Road. An extension of Avon Road, this collector roadway trends north and west
from the I-70 interchange. The cross-section is generally two- lane, with no bike lanes, and
the shoulders vary from unpaved to paved with a maximum width of two feet. There is a
parallel, paved separate bike/pedestrian trail along the south side of Nottingham Road. The
posted speed limit is 30 MPH. The adjacent land uses are high-density residential and
commercial uses with numerous accesses.
Roadway System
Figure 1.1
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 5/26/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT &
ULLEVIG
= AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
= Daily Traffic Volumes
= AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized
Intersection Level of Service
= AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized
Intersection Level of Service
= Site Trip Distribution
= Stop Sign
= Traffic Signal
XXX(XXX)
LEGEND
X/X
x/x
XX%
XXXX
= AM(PM) Peak Hour Weave Level of Service
= (Type in what this represents)
= Turning Bay
= Lane Drop
= Roundabout
LEGEND (Specialties)
✽
X/X
Road Name
Road
Road Future
Interstate
SITE
Dash Line Library
Waterway
Railroad 2
Railroad 1
Crosswalk
Curb Dash
Measurement
300'
NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
MAXIMUM SIZE
for Site Plans (estimates)
8.5x11
vertical > Width = 7.35" / Heigth = 8.9"
horizontal > Width = 10" / Heigth = 6.25"
11x17
vertical > Width = 10" / Heigth = 14.7"
horizontal > Width = 15.8" / Heigth = 8.8"
Page #
50%50%50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%E-470E-470
STOP
ALL WAY
STOP
1196611966
74
28
90Bus25
465
40285
3707
C470C47040285
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
engineeringpathstotransportationsolutions
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-5
Metcalf Road. This two-lane collector facility trends north from Nottingham Road into
mountainous terrain. There are no bike lanes, and the shoulders are unpaved with a
maximum width of two feet. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH with 25 MPH posted through
the commercial area. The adjacent land uses transition from commercial uses on the south
to multi-family residential housing.
Wildridge Road. This two-lane local road is an extension of Metcalf Road, winding through
low-density residential housing on the mountainside above the Avon core area. A paved
bicycle/pedestrian lane has recently been added to Wildridge Road, beginning at the Old
Trail Road intersection. This lane varies from six to eight feet in width and is denoted with
channelizing lines, pedestrian symbol pavement markings, and rumble strips. The speed
limit is posted 25 MPH.
Wildwood Road. Branching east from Metcalf Road, this two-lane local road follows steep
grades and sharp curves. There are no marked bike lanes, and the shoulders vary between
paved and unpaved, up to two feet in width. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. The adjacent
land uses are primarily residential.
Buck Creek Road. This two-lane collector extends north from Nottingham Road, trending
west and north into low-density residential neighborhoods. Buck Creek Road connects with
Wildwood Road, providing an alternative to Metcalf Road as a means of access for
residential uses to the west. There are no marked bike lanes, and the shoulders vary
between paved and unpaved, with a maximum width of two feet. The speed limit is posted
30 MPH.
Swift Gulch Road. Running along the north side of I-70 from Nottingham Road east to Post
Boulevard, this two-lane collector roadway serves multi-family uses as well as Town of Avon
municipal facilities. The shoulder widths vary between two and four feet (paved), and there
is a parallel paved pedestrian/bike trail along much of Swift Gulch Road. The posted speed
limit changes from 25 MPH at the east end to 30 MPH at the west end.
Roads East of Avon Road
East Beaver Creek Boulevard. This collector roadway extends east from Avon Road to Post
Boulevard. Immediately east of Avon Road, the cross-section transitions from five lanes to
two plus a center left-turn lane. The existing land uses consist of lodging and commercial
within the core area. Although sidewalks are present along both sides within the core area,
they are discontinuous in places. The posted speed limit on this section is 25 MPH. East of
Beaver Creek Place, the roadway narrows to two-lanes with a posted speed limit of 30 MPH
to Post Boulevard. Although there are no marked bike lanes, there are paved shoulders of
between 4 and 6 feet in width along both sides of the roadway. This is a temporary
alignment, pending adjacent development within the Village at Avon. Adjacent land uses
east of Chapel Place include a day-skier lot for overflow parking, a community recycling
center, rodeo grounds, and a commercial snow storage site.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-6
Post Boulevard. This four-lane divided arterial road extends south from Swift Gulch Road to
US 6 and has an interchange with I-70. Roundabouts at intersections provide traffic control.
Curb and gutter, and attached sidewalks are provided along both side of the roadway. The
posted speed limit on Post Boulevard is 30 MPH, changing to 35 MPH at the north end.
Adjacent land uses are primarily commercial (Home Depot, Wal-Mart).
Yoder Avenue. Trending east from Post Boulevard, this collector roadway has a basic two-
lane cross-section with center left-turn lane striping. An attached sidewalk is provided along
the south side of Yoder Avenue. The posted speed limit is 25 MPH. Adjacent land uses
include commercial (Home Depot, Wal-Mart) and a public charter school (Stone Creek
School). The school is an interim use pending development by the Public Works
Department.
Fawcett Road. This collector extends between Post Boulevard and Yoder Avenue, serving
adjacent commercial uses. Fawcett Road has a two-lane cross-section with left-turn lanes at
accesses. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk is generally provided along both sides of the roadway.
There are no marked bike lanes and no speed limit signing.
Benchmark Road. Extending east from Avon Road to Beaver Creek Place, this urban
local/collector roadway has a basic two-lane cross-section. Benchmark Road serves lodging
and commercial land uses, and has some on-street angle parking. Curb, gutter, and
sidewalk is provided along both sides; however, the sidewalks are discontinuous in places.
There is no speed limit signing.
Beaver Creek Place. This urban local/collector roadway forms a loop, connecting at both
ends to East Beaver Creek Boulevard. With a basic two-lane cross-section, Beaver Creek
Place serves lodging and commercial land uses. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk is provided
along both sides with some discontinuity of the sidewalks. There is no speed limit signing.
Chapel Place. This urban local roadway has a basic two-lane cross-section, extending
between Beaver Creek Place and East Beaver Creek Boulevard, serving commercial land
uses. Curb and gutter is provided adjacent to development; paved shoulders with a
maximum width of two feet are provided adjacent to undeveloped properties. Some sidewalk
is provided adjacent to development, but it is discontinuous in places. There are no marked
bike lanes. The speed limit is posted 25 MPH.
Hurd Lane/Eaglebend Drive. Paralleling the Eagle River between US 6 and the UPRR line,
this two-lane local roadway provides access to Avon Road for some commercial, but
primarily residential, land uses. There are no shoulders, but a paved bicycle/pedestrian path
is provided between Avon Road and Stonebridge Drive. The speed limit is posted 25 MPH.
Stonebridge Drive. This short, two-lane local connects Eaglebend Drive to US 6 via a bridge
over the Eagle River. Stonebridge Drive provides an alternative means of access to US 6 for
residential uses along Eaglebend Drive. There are no shoulders; an attached sidewalk is
provided along the west side between US 6 and the bridge. The speed limit is posted 25
MPH.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-7
Roads West of Avon Road
West Beaver Creek Boulevard. This collector roadway extends west from Avon Road,
trending south to intersect with US 6 at Prater Road. Immediately west of Avon Road, the
cross-section is basically five lanes including auxiliary turn lanes. West of Lake Street, the
cross-section transitions to two lanes. South of the Eagle River bridge, and approaching US
6, the roadway widens to provide a center left-turn lane. Sidewalks are present along both
sides in various places but are discontinuous. A bike lane has been striped along the south
side of West Beaver Creek Boulevard for much of its length. Adjacent land uses include
lodging and commercial development between Avon Road and Lake Street, transitioning to
primarily residential uses, with commercial development at the intersection with US 6. The
posted speed limit is 25 MPH, except through a school zone, where it is posted 20 MPH.
The intersection of US 6/West Beaver Creek Boulevard/Prater Road is signalized; this is the
only signalized intersection in Avon.
Benchmark Road. Extending west from Avon Road, this two-lane collector provides access
for commercial and lodging developments, as well as the Town of Avon municipal offices,
transit station, and Nottingham Park. A branch of Benchmark Road extends north to connect
with West Beaver Creek Boulevard, serving the library, lodging, and commercial uses. A
transit station is situated on the south side of Benchmark Road. There are sidewalks present
along both sides of Benchmark Road west of the Transit Center; to the east, the sidewalk
continues on the north side only. There are no bike lanes present. The posted speed limit is
25 MPH, with 15 MPH posted adjacent to the transit station.
Lake Street. This two-lane local road winds through municipal and commercial land uses
along the east side of Nottingham Park between Benchmark Road and West Beaver Creek
Boulevard. There are no marked bike lanes. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the
roadway. On-street angle parking is present along much of Lake Street. The speed limit is
posted 20 MPH. Two transit stops are located along Lake Street (one with a shelter).
Riverfront Lane. Running parallel to and along the north side of the Eagle River, this two-
lane local roadway provides access to Avon Road for ongoing lodging and commercial
development. An at-grade crossing of the railroad provides connection to Lake Street north
of the railroad tracks. The cross-section includes curb, gutter, and an attached sidewalk
along the south side. A pedestrian connection to the Avon Transit Center is provided via
Lettuce Shed Lane. The speed limit is posted 25 MPH.
The above descriptions of roadway physical characteristics comprise the primary existing
roadway system in Avon; there are other minor roads that serve local access needs. It can be
seen, however, that Avon roadways range from two-lane rural configurations to multi-lane urban
streets. Within these two types of roadways (rural and urban), there is little consistency or
continuity in the physical characteristics, particularly in the treatment of bicycle/pedestrian
facilities and speed limits.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-8
1.1.2 Traffic Volumes and Operations
AM and PM Peak hour traffic counts were collected at all study intersections on July 28th, 2008
(traffic count data is included in Appendix A). This date coincides with the Town of Avon’s
annual traffic counting program, when 24-hour counts along key roadway segments are
conducted. The morning counts were collected from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and the afternoon
counts were collected from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The peak hours were determined to be 8:00
AM to 9:00 AM and 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM.
Peak hour traffic counts were also conducted during February 2009 at key intersections; these
counts formed the basis for an analysis of peak winter ski season conditions. The existing traffic
volumes are summarized on Figure 1.2 (summer) and Figure 1.3 (winter). These traffic counts
were used as the basis for intersection and roadway level of service analyses.
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operational conditions based on
roadway capacity and motorist delay. The 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL defines six
levels of service, ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing the best possible operating
conditions and LOS F representing over-capacity, or congested conditions. Per current Town of
Avon standards, C is the lowest acceptable LOS for peak hour roadway operations and D is the
lowest LOS for peak hour intersection operations. LOS analyses were completed for both
summer and winter peak hour conditions at all intersections. Roadway level of service analyses
were also completed for Avon Road between US 6 and I-70 Westbound Ramps and for US 6
between West Beaver Creek Boulevard and Avon Road.
Of the ten study intersections, five are multi-lane roundabouts, one is a signalized intersection,
and four are stop-controlled intersections. All roundabouts were analyzed using Sidra
Intersection software. All other study intersections were analyzed using Synchro 7 software.
Level of service worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The existing lane geometries and levels of service can be seen on Figures 1.4 and 1.5 for
summer and winter conditions. During the summer, all roundabouts currently operate at LOS A
during both peak hours. The signalized intersection at US 6/West Beaver Creek Boulevard
(Prater Road) currently operates at LOS C during both peak hours. All movements at all stop-
controlled intersections operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours.
For the peak winter ski season conditions it was determined that, all roundabouts would operate
at LOS A or B during both peak hours, although some periods of congestion may be
experienced due to fluctuations in traffic flow. The winter roundabout analyses included
adjustment factors to account for reduced capacity due to snowy conditions. Winter operations
at the US 6/West Beaver Creek Boulevard (Prater Road) intersection are currently at LOS C
during both peak hours. All movements at the stop-controlled intersections operate at LOS B or
better during both peak hours.
10Miles86420
Existing Summer Traffic Volumes
Figure 1.2
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 05/26/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT &
ULLEVIG
= AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXXX(XXX)
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. Be
a
v
e
r
Hurd
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C reek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.
River
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Road
Road Future
Interstate
SITE
Dash Line Library
Waterway
Railroad 2
Railroad 1
Crosswalk
Curb Dash
Measurement
300'
NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
MAXIMUM SIZE
for Site Plans (estimates)
8.5x11
vertical > Width = 7.35" / Heigth = 8.9"
horizontal > Width = 10" / Heigth = 6.25"
11x17
vertical > Width = 10" / Heigth = 14.7"
horizontal > Width = 15.8" / Heigth = 8.8"
Page #
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
12
0
(
1
0
0
)
27
0
(
2
8
0
)
160(85)95(215)
10
5
(
1
4
5
)
19
0
(
2
8
0
)
75(60)140(315)
29
0
(
4
4
0
)
75
(
5
5
)
22
0
(
3
6
5
)
17
0
(
2
4
0
)
135(250)50(170)30(65)
90(85)95(140)70(65)
4
5
(
1
2
5
)
27
5
(
4
4
0
)
6
0
(
1
4
0
)
3
5
(
1
0
5
)
18
0
(
2
6
0
)
60
(
8
5
)
145(170)
10(25)
10
(
5
)
38
0
(
7
3
0
)
6
5
(
1
2
5
)
5(
5
)
28
0
(
5
2
5
)
70
(
6
5
)
15(45)5(5)50(220)
90(125)
60
(
5
5
)
31
5
(
5
1
5
)
80
(
8
0
)
26
0
(
4
0
5
)
85
(
2
1
0
)
20(40)5(15)
30(55)30(55)
35
(
8
0
)
5(
3
5
)
70(245)5(15)
105(210)40(95)
3
0
(
1
1
5
)
5(
3
0
)
65(155)5(5)
75(125)60(170)
3
0
(
1
6
0
)
5(
2
0
)
105(130)130(210)40(55)
55(185)130(185)95(45)
11
5
(
2
8
5
)
23
5
(
4
0
0
)
40
(
7
0
)
10
(
2
5
)
19
0
(
2
8
5
)
6
5
(
2
1
5
)
30(70)195(345)35(45)
40(65)210(270)95(120)
55
(
1
0
0
)
15
(
2
5
)
30
(
4
5
)
35
(
9
5
)
5(
4
0
)
30
(
5
0
)
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
engineeringpathstotransportationsolutions
NE
W
C
O
L
O
R
P
A
L
E
T
T
E
S
PALETTE 1
C = 64
M = 98
Y = 26
K = 18
C = 30
M = 100
Y = 78
K = 37
C = 3
M = 0
Y = 73
K = 0
C = 48
M = 43
Y = 100
K = 19
C = 100
M = 78
Y = 25
K = 9
C = 5
M = 76
Y = 87
K = 1
C = 0
M = 38
Y = 83
K = 0
PALETTE 2
Pantone
5487
C = 68
M = 11
Y = 35
K = 0
C = 50
M = 3
Y = 24
K = 0
C = 21
M = 60
Y = 43
K = 2
C = 40
M = 65
Y = 55
K = 20
C = 24
M = 82
Y = 68
K = 12
C = 37
M = 28
Y = 2
K = 0
PALETTE 3
Pantone
1675
C = 4
M = 45
Y = 67
K = 0
C = 35
M = 80
Y = 100
K = 46
C = 90
M = 32
Y = 94
K = 23
C = 72
M = 0
Y = 75
K = 0
C = 40
M = 0
Y = 46
K = 0
C = 80
M = 47
Y = 27
K = 0
PALETTE 4
Pantone
1675
C = 35
M = 79
Y = 100
K = 45
C = 0
M = 56
Y = 86
K = 0
C = 99
M = 71
Y = 36
K = 20
C = 82
M = 38
Y = 10
K = 0
C = 57
M = 0
Y = 14
K = 0
C = 26
M = 42
Y = 50
K = 1
PALETTE 5
Pantone
137
C = 24
M = 29
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 41
M = 37
Y = 73
K = 9
C = 48
M = 18
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 73
M = 7
Y = 19
K = 0
C = 67
M = 32
Y = 36
K = 3
C = 16
M = 87
Y = 100
K = 5
PALETTE 6
Pantone
350
C = 85
M = 16
Y = 100
K = 4
C = 93
M = 100
Y = 3
K = 3
C = 39
M = 91
Y = 82
K = 61
C = 37
M = 48
Y = 100
K = 16
C = 12
M = 28
Y = 84
K = 1
C = 7
M = 69
Y = 77
K = 1
PALETTE 7
C = 15
M = 100
Y = 90
K = 10
C = 14
M = 47
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 53
M = 0
Y = 100
K = 0
C = 66
M = 0
Y = 20
K = 0
C = 79
M = 84
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 66
M = 33
Y = 55
K = 0
C = 27
M = 78
Y = 88
K = 20
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
0
8
Creek Blvd.
Creek
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Benc
h
Pl.
mark
Villag
e
Road
Lake
S
t
.
10Miles86420
Existing Winter Traffic Volumes
Figure 1.3
Avon Transportation Plan REV 08-159 05/26/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT &
ULLEVIG
= AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXXX(XXX)
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. Be
a
v
e
r
Hurd
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C reek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.
River
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Lake
S
t
.
Road
Road Future
Interstate
SITE
Dash Line Library
Waterway
Railroad 2
Railroad 1
Crosswalk
Curb Dash
Measurement
300'
NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
MAXIMUM SIZE
for Site Plans (estimates)
8.5x11
vertical > Width = 7.35" / Heigth = 8.9"
horizontal > Width = 10" / Heigth = 6.25"
11x17
vertical > Width = 10" / Heigth = 14.7"
horizontal > Width = 15.8" / Heigth = 8.8"
Page #
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
45
(
1
2
0
)
34
5
(
2
4
5
)
25(100)295(260)
70
(
1
6
5
)
15
5
(
3
5
0
)
35(40)215(220)
54
5
(
4
4
5
)
95
(
6
0
)
19
0
(
4
7
5
)
20
5
(
3
9
5
)
120(250)35(115)25(50)
110(155)45(120)75(120)
9
5
(
1
8
5
)
55
0
(
2
7
0
)
85
(
2
0
5
)
4
5
(
1
3
5
)
21
0
(
4
6
5
)
15
(
1
2
0
)
150(170)
10(20)
10
(
5
)
65
0
(
4
9
5
)
4
5
(
1
5
5
)
5(
5
)
22
0
(
6
7
5
)
50
(
5
0
)
30(55)5(5)45(170)
80(95)
50
(
5
5
)
60
0
(
3
8
5
)
60
(
4
0
)
23
0
(
6
6
5
)
70
(
1
4
0
)
15(35)5(15)
25(45)25(45)
30
(
7
0
)
5(
3
0
)
60(210)5(15)
90(180)35(80)
25
(
9
5
)
5(
3
0
)
55(130)5(5)
65(105)50(145)
2
5
(
1
3
5
)
5
(
1
5
)
40(195)130(240)40(45)
45(240)170(245)95(25)
21
0
(
2
0
0
)
35
0
(
1
1
5
)
10
0
(
1
9
5
)
10
(
6
0
)
19
0
(
2
9
0
)
65
(
5
5
)
25(60)135(315)30(40)
35(55)260(430)80(100)
45
(
8
5
)
30
(
3
0
)
30
(
5
0
)
30
(
8
0
)
15
(
4
0
)
25
(
4
0
)
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
engineeringpathstotransportationsolutions
NE
W
C
O
L
O
R
P
A
L
E
T
T
E
S
PALETTE 1
C = 64
M = 98
Y = 26
K = 18
C = 30
M = 100
Y = 78
K = 37
C = 3
M = 0
Y = 73
K = 0
C = 48
M = 43
Y = 100
K = 19
C = 100
M = 78
Y = 25
K = 9
C = 5
M = 76
Y = 87
K = 1
C = 0
M = 38
Y = 83
K = 0
PALETTE 2
Pantone
5487
C = 68
M = 11
Y = 35
K = 0
C = 50
M = 3
Y = 24
K = 0
C = 21
M = 60
Y = 43
K = 2
C = 40
M = 65
Y = 55
K = 20
C = 24
M = 82
Y = 68
K = 12
C = 37
M = 28
Y = 2
K = 0
PALETTE 3
Pantone
1675
C = 4
M = 45
Y = 67
K = 0
C = 35
M = 80
Y = 100
K = 46
C = 90
M = 32
Y = 94
K = 23
C = 72
M = 0
Y = 75
K = 0
C = 40
M = 0
Y = 46
K = 0
C = 80
M = 47
Y = 27
K = 0
PALETTE 4
Pantone
1675
C = 35
M = 79
Y = 100
K = 45
C = 0
M = 56
Y = 86
K = 0
C = 99
M = 71
Y = 36
K = 20
C = 82
M = 38
Y = 10
K = 0
C = 57
M = 0
Y = 14
K = 0
C = 26
M = 42
Y = 50
K = 1
PALETTE 5
Pantone
137
C = 24
M = 29
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 41
M = 37
Y = 73
K = 9
C = 48
M = 18
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 73
M = 7
Y = 19
K = 0
C = 67
M = 32
Y = 36
K = 3
C = 16
M = 87
Y = 100
K = 5
PALETTE 6
Pantone
350
C = 85
M = 16
Y = 100
K = 4
C = 93
M = 100
Y = 3
K = 3
C = 39
M = 91
Y = 82
K = 61
C = 37
M = 48
Y = 100
K = 16
C = 12
M = 28
Y = 84
K = 1
C = 7
M = 69
Y = 77
K = 1
PALETTE 7
C = 15
M = 100
Y = 90
K = 10
C = 14
M = 47
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 53
M = 0
Y = 100
K = 0
C = 66
M = 0
Y = 20
K = 0
C = 79
M = 84
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 66
M = 33
Y = 55
K = 0
C = 27
M = 78
Y = 88
K = 20
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
0
8
Creek Blvd.
Creek
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Benc
h
Pl.
mark
Villag
e
Road
10Miles86420
Existing Summer Level of Service
Figure 1.4
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 05/26/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT &
ULLEVIG
= AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized
Intersection Level of Service
= AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized
Intersection Level of Service
= Stop Sign
= Traffic Signal
X/X
x/x
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. Be
a
v
e
r
Hurd
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C reek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.
River
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Lake
S
t
.
Road
Road Future
Interstate
SITE
Dash Line Library
Waterway
Railroad 2
Railroad 1
Crosswalk
Curb Dash
Measurement
300'
NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
MAXIMUM SIZE
for Site Plans (estimates)
8.5x11
vertical > Width = 7.35" / Heigth = 8.9"
horizontal > Width = 10" / Heigth = 6.25"
11x17
vertical > Width = 10" / Heigth = 14.7"
horizontal > Width = 15.8" / Heigth = 8.8"
Page #
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
b/b
A/A A/A A/A A/A a/
a
a/b
a/
a
A/A C/C
a/aa/a
a/a
a/
a
a/a
a/
c
a/
a
a/aa/a
a/b
a/
b
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
engineeringpathstotransportationsolutions
NE
W
C
O
L
O
R
P
A
L
E
T
T
E
S
PALETTE 1
C = 64
M = 98
Y = 26
K = 18
C = 30
M = 100
Y = 78
K = 37
C = 3
M = 0
Y = 73
K = 0
C = 48
M = 43
Y = 100
K = 19
C = 100
M = 78
Y = 25
K = 9
C = 5
M = 76
Y = 87
K = 1
C = 0
M = 38
Y = 83
K = 0
PALETTE 2
Pantone
5487
C = 68
M = 11
Y = 35
K = 0
C = 50
M = 3
Y = 24
K = 0
C = 21
M = 60
Y = 43
K = 2
C = 40
M = 65
Y = 55
K = 20
C = 24
M = 82
Y = 68
K = 12
C = 37
M = 28
Y = 2
K = 0
PALETTE 3
Pantone
1675
C = 4
M = 45
Y = 67
K = 0
C = 35
M = 80
Y = 100
K = 46
C = 90
M = 32
Y = 94
K = 23
C = 72
M = 0
Y = 75
K = 0
C = 40
M = 0
Y = 46
K = 0
C = 80
M = 47
Y = 27
K = 0
PALETTE 4
Pantone
1675
C = 35
M = 79
Y = 100
K = 45
C = 0
M = 56
Y = 86
K = 0
C = 99
M = 71
Y = 36
K = 20
C = 82
M = 38
Y = 10
K = 0
C = 57
M = 0
Y = 14
K = 0
C = 26
M = 42
Y = 50
K = 1
PALETTE 5
Pantone
137
C = 24
M = 29
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 41
M = 37
Y = 73
K = 9
C = 48
M = 18
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 73
M = 7
Y = 19
K = 0
C = 67
M = 32
Y = 36
K = 3
C = 16
M = 87
Y = 100
K = 5
PALETTE 6
Pantone
350
C = 85
M = 16
Y = 100
K = 4
C = 93
M = 100
Y = 3
K = 3
C = 39
M = 91
Y = 82
K = 61
C = 37
M = 48
Y = 100
K = 16
C = 12
M = 28
Y = 84
K = 1
C = 7
M = 69
Y = 77
K = 1
PALETTE 7
C = 15
M = 100
Y = 90
K = 10
C = 14
M = 47
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 53
M = 0
Y = 100
K = 0
C = 66
M = 0
Y = 20
K = 0
C = 79
M = 84
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 66
M = 33
Y = 55
K = 0
C = 27
M = 78
Y = 88
K = 20
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
0
8
Creek Blvd.
Creek
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Benc
h
Pl.
mark
Villag
e
Road
10Miles86420
Existing Winter Level of Service
Figure 1.5
Avon Transportation Plan REV 08-159 05/26/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT &
ULLEVIG
Lake
S
t
.
= AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized
Intersection Level of Service
= AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized
Intersection Level of Service
= Stop Sign
= Traffic Signal
X/X
x/x
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. Be
a
v
e
r
Hurd
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C reek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./Beaver Creek Pl.
River
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Road
Road Future
Interstate
SITE
Dash Line Library
Waterway
Railroad 2
Railroad 1
Crosswalk
Curb Dash
Measurement
300'
NOTE: Drawing Not to Scale
MAXIMUM SIZE
for Site Plans (estimates)
8.5x11
vertical > Width = 7.35" / Heigth = 8.9"
horizontal > Width = 10" / Heigth = 6.25"
11x17
vertical > Width = 10" / Heigth = 14.7"
horizontal > Width = 15.8" / Heigth = 8.8"
Page #
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
50%50%
50%50%
50%50%50%50%
b/b
A/A A/A A/A A/A a/
b
b/b
a/
a
A/A C/C
a/aa/a
a/a
a/
a
a/a
a/
b
a/
a
a/aa/a
a/a
a/
a
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
engineeringpathstotransportationsolutions
NE
W
C
O
L
O
R
P
A
L
E
T
T
E
S
PALETTE 1
C = 64
M = 98
Y = 26
K = 18
C = 30
M = 100
Y = 78
K = 37
C = 3
M = 0
Y = 73
K = 0
C = 48
M = 43
Y = 100
K = 19
C = 100
M = 78
Y = 25
K = 9
C = 5
M = 76
Y = 87
K = 1
C = 0
M = 38
Y = 83
K = 0
PALETTE 2
Pantone
5487
C = 68
M = 11
Y = 35
K = 0
C = 50
M = 3
Y = 24
K = 0
C = 21
M = 60
Y = 43
K = 2
C = 40
M = 65
Y = 55
K = 20
C = 24
M = 82
Y = 68
K = 12
C = 37
M = 28
Y = 2
K = 0
PALETTE 3
Pantone
1675
C = 4
M = 45
Y = 67
K = 0
C = 35
M = 80
Y = 100
K = 46
C = 90
M = 32
Y = 94
K = 23
C = 72
M = 0
Y = 75
K = 0
C = 40
M = 0
Y = 46
K = 0
C = 80
M = 47
Y = 27
K = 0
PALETTE 4
Pantone
1675
C = 35
M = 79
Y = 100
K = 45
C = 0
M = 56
Y = 86
K = 0
C = 99
M = 71
Y = 36
K = 20
C = 82
M = 38
Y = 10
K = 0
C = 57
M = 0
Y = 14
K = 0
C = 26
M = 42
Y = 50
K = 1
PALETTE 5
Pantone
137
C = 24
M = 29
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 41
M = 37
Y = 73
K = 9
C = 48
M = 18
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 73
M = 7
Y = 19
K = 0
C = 67
M = 32
Y = 36
K = 3
C = 16
M = 87
Y = 100
K = 5
PALETTE 6
Pantone
350
C = 85
M = 16
Y = 100
K = 4
C = 93
M = 100
Y = 3
K = 3
C = 39
M = 91
Y = 82
K = 61
C = 37
M = 48
Y = 100
K = 16
C = 12
M = 28
Y = 84
K = 1
C = 7
M = 69
Y = 77
K = 1
PALETTE 7
C = 15
M = 100
Y = 90
K = 10
C = 14
M = 47
Y = 100
K = 1
C = 53
M = 0
Y = 100
K = 0
C = 66
M = 0
Y = 20
K = 0
C = 79
M = 84
Y = 0
K = 0
C = 66
M = 33
Y = 55
K = 0
C = 27
M = 78
Y = 88
K = 20
Ma
r
c
h
2
0
,
2
0
0
8
Creek Blvd.
Creek
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Benc
h
Pl.
mark
Villag
e
Road
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-13
Roadway segment LOS analyses were also conducted along Avon Road and US 6 for both
summer and winter conditions. The roadway segments were analyzed based on criteria
contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000, Chapter 15). Travel time delays were
calculated using a combination of approach delays extracted from the Synchro output for
signalized and stop-controlled intersections and NCHRP Report 572 for roundabouts. It was
found that both Avon Road and US 6 currently operate at LOS B during both summer and winter
seasons within the study area. These results were then cross-checked with computerized
simulations of roadway traffic operations using SIM Traffic; the simulation output compared very
well with the calculated LOS results.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-14
1.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS
1.2.1 Land Use
Potential future land use increases include the redevelopment of East Town Center and West
Town Center, as well as the completion of the Village at Avon, Riverfront, Wildridge, Buck Creek,
Swift Gulch, Benchmark at Beaver Creek and the Folson Annex. These developments would
result in a total net increase of 4,837 residential units, 140,000 square feet of office space,
250,000 square feet of retail space, and 4,700 square feet of industrial use based on land use
projections provided by the Town. The existing, net increase, and total land use for each sub-area
are summarized in Table 1.1. East Town Center, West Town Center and the Village at Avon will
consist of residential, office and retail land uses. Riverfront will consist of residential and retail
land uses, while the remaining four developments will consist only of residences.
Table 1.1 Land Use Summary
Land Uses
Development Existing Net Increase Total
East Town Center
Residential390 DU 540 DU 930 DU
Office87 KSF 25 KSF 112 KSF
Retail253 KSF 25 KSF 278 KSF
West Town Center
Residential155 DU 538 DU 693 DU
Office75 KSF 15 KSF 90 KSF
Retail50 KSF 70 KSF 120 KSF
The Village at Avon
Residential244 DU 2156 DU 2400 DU
Office40 KSF 100 KSF 140 KSF
Retail353 KSF 155 KSF 508 KSF
Riverfront
Residential181 DU 275 DU 456 DU
Retail31 KSF 0 KSF 31 KSF
Wildridge/Mountain Star
Residential681 DU 270 DU 951 DU
Swift Gulch
Residential0 DU 36 DU 36 DU
Industrial28 KSF 47 KSF 75 KSF
Buck Creek
Residential0 DU 42 DU 42 DU
Public Use0 N/A N/A
Folson Annex
Residential0 DU 65 DU 65 DU
Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Residential2105 DU 915 DU 3020 DU
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-15
1.2.2 Traffic Volume Projections
Future traffic volume projections for roadways within the Town of Avon were developed based
on year 2035 background increases due to regional growth, potential new development within
the Town, and planned redevelopment of existing land uses. Reduction factors were applied to
account for transit use based on current ridership levels.
The first step was to estimate the potential increase in traffic volumes to account for background
growth, which is the growth in traffic associated with regional development outside of Avon.
Because any traffic using the Avon interchange on I-70 would likely be oriented to or from land
uses within the Town, only through-traffic traveling along US 6 would be expected to increase
due to background growth. Therefore, through-volumes on US 6 were increased using CDOT
growth factors and referencing recent traffic projections from the Eagle County traffic model. To
account for future potential development of the Bear Lots at Beaver Creek, traffic volumes at
Prater Road were increased by a factor of 1.5.
Once background traffic growth was accounted for, the next step was to calculate the volume of
traffic generated by proposed developments in the area. As previously described, the
developments included in the trip generation analysis are: Wildridge, Wildwood, Buck Creek,
Swift Gulch, the Folson Annex, East Town Center, West Town Center, Riverfront, and the
Village at Avon. Based on the net increase in land uses for each development, ITE Trip
Generation (ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2008) rates for the various land uses were applied
to determine the total net increase in traffic.
The total number of vehicle trips attributed to the new development was reduced to account for
several factors such as transit, carpool and pedestrian trips, internal trips between various land
uses and seasonal variation in land use occupancy. Table 1.2 summarizes the breakdown
used for mode split. The Core Area was defined as East and West Town Center, Riverfront and
Eaglebend. Mountain Residential includes Wildridge, Wildwood, Buck Creek, Swift Gulch and
the residential portion of the Village at Avon. All other developments were considered to be in
the town peripheral for these purposes. As shown, the assignment of trips to different modes of
transportation was also dependent on the type of development in addition to its location.
Table 1.2 Mode Split
Core Area Outer Core Mountain Residential Land Use Auto Bus TDM 1 Auto Bus TDM Auto Bus TDM
Residential 85% 11% 4% 91% 5% 4% 95% 1% 4%
Retail 90% 6% 4% 95% 1% 4% 96% 0% 4%
Office 93% 3% 4% 95% 1% 4% 96% 0% 4%
1 Travel Demand Management (TDM) consists of programs and strategies to reduce single-
occupancy vehicle trips, including carpooling, flexible work hours, work-from-home, bicycle
programs or other strategies.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-16
After the mode split reduction was applied, the remaining vehicle trips were again reduced to
account for internal trips between various land uses. Trips made between different
developments were assigned to the roadway network, however trips between different land
uses within the same development (i.e.: residential-to-retail trips within West Town Center) were
not. The overall internal trip percentage for the entire study area was 7 percent.
The final step in forecasting future traffic volumes was adjusting traffic volumes to account for
seasonal variation. It was estimated that during the Winter (peak) season, all land uses would
operate at 100 percent occupancy, and therefore no reduction to the trip generation was made.
Based on existing counts, however, it was determined that overall Summer traffic volumes in
Town were approximately 85 percent of winter traffic volumes. Therefore, the total net increase
in traffic during the Summer season was forecasted to be 15 percent less than that of the Winter
season.
Table 1.3 summarizes the resultant trip generation estimates for summer and Table 1.4
summaries the winter trip generation estimates.
Table 1.3 Summer Season Trip Generation
Land Use Type
Size
Increase Units
AM
Total
AM
In
AM
Out
PM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out Daily
East Town Center
Condo/Townhouse 540 DU 172 32 139 203 130 73 2,266
Retail 25,000 SF 19 11 8 71 35 36 822
Office 25,000 SF 31 27 4 29 5 25 218
Sub-Total 221 71 151 303 170 133 3,306
West Town Center
Condo/Townhouse 538 DU 171 32 139 202 129 73 2,258
Retail 70,000 SF 11 7 4 43 20 22 493
Office 15,000 SF 86 76 10 82 14 68 609
Sub-Total 268 115 153 327 164 163 3,361
Village at Avon
Condo/Townhouse 2,063 DU 734 139 593 866 555 312 9,679
Single Family 93 DU 56 14 42 76 48 27 718
Retail 155,000 SF 125 77 48 467 229 238 5,375
Office 100,000 SF 125 107 15 118 20 98 870
Sub-Total 1,040 338 699 1,527 852 675 16,642
Riverfront
Condo/Townhouse 275 DU 88 17 71 104 66 37 1,154
Sub-Total 88 17 71 104 66 37 1,154
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-17
Land Use Type
Size
Increase Units
AM
Total
AM
In
AM
Out
PM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out Daily
Swift Gulch
Condo/Townhouse 36 DU 13 3 10 15 9 6 169
Industrial 47,000 SF 59 52 8 56 9 47 417
Sub-Total 71 54 18 71 19 53 587
Buck Creek
Condo/Townhouse 42 DU 14 3 12 18 11 7 199
Public Use N/A SF 66 58 8 60 10 49 427
Sub-Total 81 60 20 77 21 56 626
Folson Annex
Condo/Townhouse 65 DU 22 4 18 26 17 9 291
Sub-Total 22 4 18 26 17 9 291
Benchmark at Beaver
Creek
Condo/Townhouse 915 DU 326 62 264 384 247 138 4,293
Sub-Total 326 62 264 384 247 138 4,293
Wildridge
Condo/Townhouse 8 DU 3 1 3 3 3 1 37
Single Family 262 DU 159 41 118 214 137 77 2,025
Sub-Total 162 42 121 218 139 77 2,062
Total New Development
Condo/Townhouse 4,482 DU 1,542 293 1,248 1,822 1,167 655 20,346
Single Family 355 DU 215 55 160 290 185 104 2,743
Retail 195,000 SF 155 94 60 581 284 296 6,690
Office 195,000 SF 241 210 30 230 39 190 1,697
Industrial/Commercial SF 125 110 15 116 20 96 844
Total 2,278 762 1,513 3,038 1,695 1,341 32,320
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-18
Table 1.4 Winter Season Trip Generation
Land Use Type
Size
Increase Units
AM
Total
AM
In
AM
Out
PM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out Daily
East Town Center
Condo/Townhouse 540 DU 202 38 164 239 153 86 2,666
Retail 25,000 SF 22 13 9 84 41 42 967
Office 25,000 SF 36 32 5 34 6 29 256
Sub-Total 260 83 178 357 200 157 3,889
West Town Center
Condo/Townhouse 538 DU 201 38 163 238 152 86 2,657
Retail 70,000 SF 13 8 5 50 24 26 580
Office 15,000 SF 101 89 12 97 17 80 717
Sub-Total 315 135 180 385 193 192 3,954
Village at Avon
Condo/Townhouse 2,063 DU 863 164 698 1,019 653 367 11,387
Single Family 93 DU 66 17 49 89 57 32 845
Retail 155,000 SF 147 90 57 549 269 280 6,323
Office 100,000 SF 147 126 18 139 23 115 1,024
Sub-Total 1,223 397 822 1,796 1,002 794 19,579
Riverfront
Condo/Townhouse 275 DU 103 20 83 122 78 43 1,358
Sub-Total 103 20 83 122 78 43 1,358
Swift Gulch
Condo/Townhouse 36 DU 15 3 12 18 11 7 199
Industrial 47,000 SF 69 61 9 66 11 55 491
Sub-Total 84 64 21 84 22 62 690
Buck Creek
Condo/Townhouse 42 DU 17 3 14 21 13 8 234
Public Use N/A SF 78 68 9 70 12 58 502
Sub-Total 95 71 23 91 25 66 736
Folson Annex
Condo/Townhouse 65 DU 26 5 21 31 20 11 342
Sub-Total 26 5 21 31 20 11 342
Benchmark at Beaver
Creek
Condo/Townhouse 915 DU 383 73 310 452 290 162 5,050
Sub-Total 383 73 310 452 290 162 5,050
Wildridge
Condo/Townhouse 8 DU 4 1 3 4 3 1 44
Single Family 262 DU 187 48 139 252 161 90 2,382
Sub-Total 191 49 142 256 164 91 2,426
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-19
Land Use Type
Size
Increase Units
AM
Total
AM
In
AM
Out
PM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out Daily
Total New Development
Condo/Townhouse 4,482 DU 1,814 345 1,468 2,144 1,373 771 23,937
Single Family 355 DU 253 65 188 341 218 122 3,227
Retail 250,000 SF 182 111 71 683 334 348 7,870
Office 140,000 SF 284 247 35 270 46 224 1,997
Industrial/Commercial 47,000 SF 147 129 18 136 23 113 993
Total 2,680 897 1,780 3,574 1,994 1,578 38,024
Trip generation for each land use was then assigned to the roadway network based on existing
traffic patterns and engineering judgment. It has been estimated that of the external trips
(travelling to or from destinations outside of Avon), 35 percent would travel to/from the west on
I-70, 55 percent would travel to/from the east on I-70. The remaining 10 percent of external trips
were assigned to US 6, based on projected congestion levels on this roadway.
The resulting peak hour traffic volumes for the Winter and Summer seasons are shown on
Figure 1.6 and Figure 1.7, respectively.
1.2.3 Future Traffic Operational Results
Operational analyses were completed to determine the expected levels of service at all study
intersections under future traffic volumes. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of
traffic operational conditions based on roadway capacity and motorist delay. The 2000
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL defines six levels of service, ranging from A to F, with LOS A
representing the best possible operating conditions and LOS F representing over-capacity, or
congested conditions. Per current Town of Avon standards, C is the lowest acceptable LOS for
peak hour roadway operations and D is the lowest LOS for peak hour intersection operations.
LOS analyses were completed for both summer and winter peak hour conditions at all
intersections. Roadway level of service analyses were also completed for Avon Road between
US 6 and I-70 Westbound Ramps and for US 6 between West Beaver Creek Boulevard and
Avon Road. Appendix C contains LOS worksheets for future conditions.
Of the ten study intersections, five are multi-lane roundabouts, one is a signalized intersection,
and four are stop-controlled intersections. All roundabouts were analyzed using Sidra
Intersection software. All other study intersections were analyzed using Synchro 7 software.
Level of service worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The future lane geometries and levels of service can be seen on Figures 1.8 and 1.9 for
summer and winter conditions. Table1.4 also summarizes the level of service results for all
intersections. Because of a significant increase in background traffic expected along US 6, the
analyses assume that US 6 would be widened to four lanes through Avon.
During the summer, all roundabouts are expected to operate at LOS A during both peak hours
with the exception of the Avon Road/US 6 intersection which is expected to operate at LOS F
Future Summer Traffic Volumes
Figure 1.6
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 07/14/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
= AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXXX(XXX)
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. B
e
a
v
e
r
Hur
d
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C re ek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Rive
r
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Lake
S
t
.
26
0
(
2
0
5
)
55
0
(
4
9
5
)
270(305)
205(455)
25
0
(
2
8
0
)
27
5
(
4
6
0
)
140(200)
210(475)
46
0
(
7
3
0
)
30
0
(
2
2
5
)
38
0
(
5
4
0
)
37
5
(
4
4
0
)
205(305)
55(175)
40(75)
310(310)
100(145)
75(70)
10
5
(
2
1
0
)
40
0
(
6
6
5
)
12
0
(
2
8
0
)
40
(
1
2
0
)
25
5
(
3
4
5
)
65
(
9
5
)
145(170)
20(35)
45
(
1
1
5
)
45
0
(
8
0
0
)
65
(
1
2
5
)
15
(
3
0
)
33
5
(
6
2
0
)
70
(
6
5
)
60(90)
10(10)
60(230)
100(135)
10
5
(
1
4
0
)
40
5
(
6
7
5
)
90
(
9
5
)
30
5
(
4
7
0
)
90
(
2
2
0
)
30(65)
5(15)
50(70)
30(55)
35
(
8
0
)
5(
3
5
)
70(245)
5(15)
105(210)
40(95)
35
(
1
2
0
)
5(
3
0
)
70(170)
5(5)
95(140)
70(185)
30
(
1
6
0
)
5(
2
0
)
155(205)
595(1060)
40(55)
75(225)
545(1110)
95(45)
16
0
(
3
1
0
)
23
5
(
4
0
0
)
85
(
1
2
0
)
10
(
2
5
)
19
0
(
2
8
5
)
65
(
2
1
5
)
30(70)
630(1330)
50(65)
40(65)
735(1170)
140(180)
55
(
1
0
0
)
15
(
2
5
)
30
(
4
5
)
50
(
1
4
0
)
5(
6
0
)
45
(
7
5
)
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
Creek
Blvd.
Cree
k
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Ben
c
h
Pl.
mark
Villa
g
e
Road
Future Winter Traffic Volumes
Figure 1.7
Avon Transportation Plan REV 08-159 07/14/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
= AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic VolumesXXX(XXX)
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. B
e
a
v
e
r
Hur
d
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C re ek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Riv
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Lake
S
t
.
20
5
(
2
4
5
)
68
0
(
5
0
5
)
150(360)
420(545)
24
0
(
3
2
5
)
25
0
(
5
6
5
)
110(205)
270(415)
74
5
(
7
9
0
)
35
5
(
2
6
0
)
38
0
(
6
8
0
)
49
0
(
6
3
0
)
240(285)
40(120)
40(60)
370(420)
50(130)
90(130)
16
5
(
2
9
0
)
69
5
(
5
4
0
)
15
0
(
3
7
0
)
55
(
1
5
0
)
30
5
(
5
7
0
)
20
(
1
3
0
)
150(170)
25(35)
50
(
1
3
0
)
73
5
(
5
7
5
)
45
(
1
5
5
)
20
(
3
5
)
29
0
(
7
8
5
)
50
(
5
0
)
90(105)
10(10)
65(185)
95(105)
10
5
(
1
5
0
)
70
5
(
5
7
5
)
70
(
6
0
)
28
0
(
7
4
0
)
80
(
1
6
5
)
25(55)
5(15)
25(70)
25(45)
30
(
7
0
)
5(
3
0
)
60(210)
5(15)
90(180)
35(85)
30
(
1
0
5
)
5(
3
0
)
60(150)
5(5)
85(120)
60(160)
25
(
1
3
5
)
5(
1
5
)
100(280)
395(770)
40(45)
65(290)
610(1095)
95(25)
25
5
(
2
3
5
)
35
0
(
1
1
5
)
15
5
(
2
5
5
)
10
(
6
0
)
19
0
(
2
9
0
)
65
(
5
5
)
25(60)
440(1020)
45(60)
35(55)
975(1340)
120(150)
50
(
8
5
)
30
(
3
0
)
30
(
5
0
)
45
(
1
2
0
)
20
(
6
0
)
35
(
6
0
)
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
Creek
Blvd.
Cree
k
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Ben
c
h
Pl.
mark
Villa
g
e
Road
Future Summer Level of Service
Figure 1.8
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 07/14/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
= AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized
Intersection Level of Service
= AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized
Intersection Level of Service
= Stop Sign
= Traffic Signal
X/X
x/x
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. B
e
a
v
e
r
Hur
d
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C re ek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Rive
r
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Lake
S
t
.
b/b
A/A A/A A/A A/A a/
b
b/b
a/
b
A/F C/C
a/a
a/a
a/a
a/
a
a/a
a/
c
a/
a
a/a
a/a
a/b
a/
b
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
Creek
Blvd.
Cree
k
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Ben
c
h
Pl.
mark
Villa
g
e
Road
Future Winter Level of Service
Figure 1.9
Avon Transportation Plan REV 08-159 07/14/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
= AM/PM Peak Hour Signalized
Intersection Level of Service
= AM/PM Peak Hour Unsignalized
Intersection Level of Service
= Stop Sign
= Traffic Signal
X/X
x/x
LEGEND
Av
o
n
R
o
a
d
W
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
.
E. B
e
a
v
e
r
Hur
d
L
a
n
e
W . B e a v e r C re ek Blvd.
Avon Rd./I-70 West RampsAvon Rd./I-70 East RampsAvon Rd./W. Beaver Creek Blvd.Avon Rd./Benchmark Rd.Avon Rd./Hurd Lane
Avon Rd./US 6 W. Beaver Creek Blvd./US 6E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Benchmark Rd./Chapel Pl.E. Beaver Creek Blvd./
Beaver Creek Pl.
Riv
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
L
a
n
e
Lake
S
t
.
b/b
A/B A/C A/C A/A a/
b
b/b
a/
a
C/F C/C
a/a
a/a
a/a
a/
a
a/a
a/
b
a/
a
a/a
a/a
a/a
a/
a
10
3
2
1
8
9
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 54
6 7 8 109
6
70
Creek
Blvd.
Cree
k
P
l
.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
h
a
p
e
l
P
l
.
Ben
c
h
Pl.
mark
Villa
g
e
Road
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-24
during the PM peak hour. The signalized intersection at US 6/West Beaver Creek Boulevard
(Prater Road) is expected to operate at LOS C during both peak hours. All movements at all
stop-controlled intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours.
For the forecasted winter conditions, all roundabouts are expected to operate at LOS C or better
during both peak hours with the exception of the Avon Road/US 6 intersection which is
expected to have PM peak hour operations at LOS F. The winter roundabout analyses included
adjustment factors to account for reduced capacity due to snowy conditions. Winter operations
at the US 6/West Beaver Creek Boulevard (Prater Road) intersection are expected to be at LOS
C during both peak hours. All movements at all stop-controlled intersections are expected to
operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours.
Roadway segment LOS analyses were also conducted along Avon Road and US 6 for both
summer and winter future conditions. The roadway segments were analyzed based on criteria
contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000, Chapter 15). Travel time delays were
calculated using a combination of approach delays extracted from the Synchro output for
signalized and stop-controlled intersections and NCHRP Report 572 for roundabouts. During
the Summer Season, Avon Road is expected to operate at LOS B during the AM Peak hour and
LOS C during the PM peak hour. In the Winter season, it is expected to operate at LOS C
during the AM peak hour. The southbound direction is also expected to operate at LOS C
during the PM peak hour, but northbound is expected to operate at LOS D. US 6 is expected to
operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour in the Summer season and LOS F during the PM
peak hour. In the Winter season, the westbound direction is expected to operate at LOS B
during the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour. The eastbound direction is expected
to operate at LOS F during both peak hours in the Winter season. These results were then
cross-checked with computerized simulations of roadway traffic operations using SIM Traffic;
the simulation output compared very well with the calculated LOS results.
Table 1.5 Intersection Levels of Service
Level of Service1
Summer Winter
Intersection AM PM AM PM
1 Avon Rd & WB I-70 A A A B
2 Avon Rd & EB I-70 A A A B
3 Avon Rd & Beaver Creek Blvd A A A C
4 Avon Rd & Benchmark Rd A A A A
5 Avon Rd & Hurd Ln B b b b
6 Avon Rd & US 6 A F C F
7 US 6 & Beaver Creek Blvd C C C C
8 E. Beaver Creek Blvd & Beaver Creek Pl A a a a
9 Benchmark Rd & Chapel Pl A c a b
10 E. Beaver Creek Blvd & Beaver Creek Pl A b a a
1 Lowercase letters indicate stop-controlled intersections; only worst movement LOS reported
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-25
Table 1.6 Roadway Levels of Service
Level of Service
Summer Winter
Arterial Direction AM PM AM PM
Northbound B C C D Avon Road Southbound B C C C
Eastbound B F F F US 6 Westbound B F B F
1.2.4 Roadway Improvement Requirements
In general, the existing roadway system within Avon has sufficient reserve capacity to
accommodate the projected increases in traffic volumes. Previous planning efforts in Avon have
identified a future roundabout at the intersection of Swift Gulch and Nottingham Roads. A
separate analysis of this intersection relative to build out conditions at Wildridge, Morning Star,
and Buck Creek indicate that this improvement would be required to maintain acceptable
operational conditions. An approximate preliminary cost opinion for this improvement is $1.5
million.
An analysis of the Benchmark Road/Beaver Creek Place intersection was also conducted.
Future conditions at this intersection were found to be acceptable, at LOS C or better during
peak times (both summer and winter seasons). However, due to the configuration of this
intersection, and its close proximity to the Beaver Creek Place/Chapel Place intersection, some
operational issues are currently experienced. As future redevelopment occurs, street system
modifications are expected, including the future extension of Main Street through East Town
Center. As the street system in this area evolves, consideration should be given to potential
roadway realignment to consolidate the two intersections into one, subject to potential
redevelopment.
The LOS analyses also examined the potential to reduce the three-lane approaches on Beaver
Creek Boulevard at the roundabout with Avon Road. It was determined that traffic operations
would remain at LOS A during both peak hours in the summer and during the winter AM peak
hour. During the winter PM peak hour, the LOS would drop to D (still acceptable). Based on this,
there would be an opportunity to reduce the amount of existing pavement on both eastbound
and westbound Beaver Creek Boulevard approaching the roundabout. The additional corridor
width could be used for streetscape improvements, pedestrian enhancements currently under
consideration for the Main Street project in West Town Center, and traffic calming measures
discussed subsequently in this report.
Traffic operations along US 6 are projected to be at congested levels during peak times in the
long range future. As previously discussed, the long range future scenario assumes that this
facility would be widened to four through lanes. This finding is consistent with previous traffic
engineering efforts conducted in the Avon area. In order to provide acceptable operational
results, additional widening, to six through lanes, would be required. Such widening to six lanes
is seen as unlikely, given the existing right-of-way and topographical constraints along US 6
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-26
through Avon. Therefore, some congestion and delays would be anticipated for motorists using
US 6 during peak times. Some peak hour congestion is also projected for the roundabout at US
6 and Avon Road. This congestion is due primarily to regional increases in through volumes
along US 6.
Recent cost estimates prepared as a part of the Eagle County 2025 Capital Improvement Study,
Phase II, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, July 2008, show an average cost for four-lane widening along
US 6 through the Avon area of approximately $14.2 million per mile. Given the approximate
2.43 miles of frontage through the Town, the estimated potential opinion of cost for this
improvement would be $34.5 million.
1.2.5 Traffic Impact Evaluations
For three areas within Avon: East Town Center, West Town Center, and the Village at Avon,
additional analyses were conducted to determine what specific impacts might be expected in
terms of roadway capacity and the potential to provide on-street parking. The following sections
document the results.
1.2.5.1 East Town Center
The redevelopment of East Town Center is planned to include residential, retail and office land
uses which will result in a net increase of 1,080 condo/townhome units, 25,250 square feet of
retail space and 25,250 square feet of office space. East Town Center will have access to Avon
Road via East Beaver Creek Boulevard and Benchmark Road. Potential internal circulation
alternatives have been considered, including an extension of Main Street to serve primarily the
retail uses. East Beaver Creek Boulevard would remain as the primary collector connection
between Avon Road and Post Boulevard, although the location of the roadway would likely shift
with development of the Village at Avon.
Trip Generation
Tables 1.7 and 1.8 summarize the trip generation estimates for the net increase in land use for
the Summer and Winter seasons. As shown, East Town Center will generate approximately
6,560 additional daily trips in the Winter and 5,580 additional daily trips in the Summer.
Table 1.7 East Town Center Summer Trip Generation
Land Use Type Size Increase Units AM Total PM Total Daily
Condo/Townhouse 540 DU 172 203 2,266
Retail 25,000 SF 19 71 822
Office 25,000 SF 31 29 218
ETC Total 221 303 3,306
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-27
Table 1.8 East Town Center Winter Trip Generation
Land Use Type Size Increase Units AM Total PM Total Daily
Condo/Townhouse 540 DU 202 239 2,666
Retail 25,000 SF 22 84 967
Office 25,000 SF 36 34 256
ETC Total 260 357 3,889
Future Traffic Volumes
The above additional trips were added to the existing travel demand in East Town Center to
obtain the total future traffic volumes expected to be generated once the redevelopment is
complete. Table 1.9 summarizes the total AM, PM, and daily travel demand.
Table 1.9 East Town Center Total Future Travel Demand
Season AM Total PM Total Daily
Summer 643 846 11,525
Winter 753 990 13,523
Of the traffic volumes shown in the above table, approximately 70 percent are expected to use
East Beaver Creek Boulevard and 30 percent are expected to use Benchmark Road to access
East Town Center.
Traffic Impacts
As previously documented, the roundabouts at Avon Road / Benchmark Road and Avon Road /
East Beaver Creek Boulevard are expected to operate acceptably under future traffic conditions.
The three stop-controlled intersections within East Town Center are also expected to operate
well with the additional traffic projections.
For the evaluation of the roadways within East Town Center, generalized daily capacities were
used. Urban two-lane local roadways have a general capacity of approximately 7,500 vpd while
two-lane collectors can carry up to 16,000 vpd. Based on the build-out traffic assignment for
Winter (the higher of the two seasons analyzed), East Beaver Creek Boulevard is expected to
carry about 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) just east of Avon Road, with traffic volumes
decreasing to the east; this estimate is well within the general daily capacity for a collector
roadway.
The potential Main Street extension is expected to carry approximately 4,000 vpd just east of
Avon Road. Other internal roadways, such as Beaver Creek Place and Chapel Place would
experience daily volumes in the approximate range of 3,000 to 3,500 VPD each. These
projected volumes would be well within the general daily capacity for urban local streets.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-28
Parking Impacts
Applying data contained in Parking Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004 East
Town Center is expected to generate a peak period parking demand of approximately 3,515
parking spaces in a peak hour during the Winter season. Residential land uses will generate a
demand of about 2,145 spaces, retail uses will require about 1,045 spaces and office uses will
require about 320 spaces. Often, mixed use developments can take advantage of shared
parking concepts to reduce the total parking supply need. However, due to the low amount of
office space relative to residential uses, consideration of shared parking reductions have been
omitted in this evaluation.
The potential to provide on-street parking can help mitigate the need for off-street parking areas
and structures. However, based on studies documented in Parking, Weant and Levinson, ENO
Foundation, 1990, on-street parking can reduce the roadway capacity by 15 to 30 percent,
depending on the number of expected parking maneuvers during any given hour.
To estimate the impacts of on-street parking within East Town Center, the above daily
capacities for local roadways were reduced by 30 percent, yielding 5,250 vpd. By comparing
this reduced capacity to the build-out traffic assignments, it can be seen the internal roadways
would remain under-capacity. Therefore, within East Town Center, the local roadways are
candidates for on-street parking, while parking should be restricted from East Beaver Creek
Boulevard, a collector facility.
1.2.5.2 West Town Center
The redevelopment of West Town Center is planned to include a mix of residential, retail and
office land uses which will result in a net increase 595 condo/townhome units, 35,000 square
feet of retail space and 40,000 square feet of office space. West Town Center will have access
to Avon Road via West Beaver Creek Boulevard and Main Street/Benchmark Road.
Trip Generation
Tables 1.10 and 1.11 summarize the trip generation estimates for the net increase in land use
for the Summer and Winter seasons. As shown, West Town Center will generate approximately
4,700 additional daily trips in the Winter and 4,000 additional daily trips in the Summer.
Table 1.10 West Town Center Summer Trip Generation
Land Use Type Size Increase Units AM Total PM Total Daily
Condo/Townhouse 538 DU 171 202 2,258
Retail 70,000 SF 11 43 493
Office 15,000 SF 86 82 609
WTC Total 268 327 3,361
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-29
Table 1.11 West Town Center Winter Trip Generation
Land Use Type Size Increase Units AM Total PM Total Daily
Condo/Townhouse 538 DU 201 238 2,657
Retail 70,000 SF 13 50 580
Office 15,000 SF 101 97 717
WTC Total 315 385 3,954
Future Traffic Volumes
The estimated total future traffic volumes expected to be generated by the completed West
Town Center are presented in Table 1.12.
Table 1.12 West Town Center Total Future Travel Demand
Season AM Total PM Total Daily
Summer 623 826 12,166
Winter 733 973 14,254
Of the traffic volumes shown in Table 1.12, approximately 80 percent are expected to use West
Beaver Creek Boulevard and 20 percent are expected to use Main Street/Benchmark Road to
access West Town Center.
Traffic Impacts
The above described generalized daily capacities of approximately 7,500 vpd for local streets
and 16,000 vpd for collectors were applied to this evaluation. Based on the build-out traffic
assignment for Winter conditions, West Beaver Creek Boulevard is expected to carry 11,900
vpd just west of Avon Road, with traffic volumes decreasing to the west. Main
Street/Benchmark Road is expected to carry 3,100 vpd just west of Avon Road. Other internal
local connections would carry less than 2,000 vpd. Based on these projections, the adjacent
roadways would have sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the future travel demand
within West Town Center.
Parking Impacts
West Town Center is expected to generate a parking demand of approximately 1,525 parking
spaces during the peak season. Residential land uses would require about 1,100 spaces, retail
uses would require about 300 spaces, and office uses would require about 125 spaces.
On-street parking may also be a consideration to help reduce the off-street parking supply in
West Town Center. Based on the above daily capacities, reduced by 30 percent for on-street
parking, all local streets within West Town Center will have sufficient reserve capacity to serve
the projected traffic volumes.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-30
1.2.5.3 Village at Avon
Current planning for the Village at Avon includes a mix of residential, retail and office
development which will result in a net increase 2,063 condo/townhome units, 93 single family
units, 125,000 square feet of retail space, and 178,000 square feet of office space. Access to
the Village at Avon will be provided via a collector roadway replacement for East Beaver Creek
Boulevard and Post Boulevard.
Trip Generation
Tables 1.13 and 1.14 summarize the Summer and Winter trip generation estimates. As
indicated, the Village at Avon will generate approximately 19,150 additional daily trips in the
Winter and 16,280 additional daily trips in the Summer.
Table 1.13 Village at Avon Summer Trip Generation
Land Use Type Size Increase Units AM Total PM Total Daily
Condo/Townhouse 2,063 DU 734 866 9,679
Single Family 93 DU 56 76 718
Retail 155,000 SF 125 467 5,375
Office 100,000 SF 125 118 870
Village Total 1,040 1,527 16,642
Table 1.14 Village at Avon Winter Trip Generation
Land Use Type Size Increase Units AM Total PM Total Daily
Condo/Townhouse 2,063 DU 863 1,019 11,387
Single Family 93 DU 66 89 845
Retail 155,000 SF 147 549 6,323
Office 100,000 SF 147 139 1,024
Village Total 1,223 1,796 19,579
Future Traffic Volumes
The estimated total future traffic volumes expected to be generated on completion of the Village
at Avon are presented in Table 1.15.
Table 1.15 Village at Avon Total Future Travel Demand
Season AM Total PM Total Daily
Summer 1,376 2,250 25,160
Winter 1,613 2,649 29,524
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-31
Traffic Impacts
Of the traffic volumes shown in Table 1.15, the majority is expected to use Post Boulevard with
about 20 percent using East Beaver Creek Boulevard (or the collector facility that will replace it
on completion of the development). This projected volume is well within the general daily
capacity identified for collectors. Other internal roadways could carry between 1,000 and 2,000
vpd, consistent with a local street classification.
Parking Impacts
The Village at Avon is expected to generate a peak parking demand of approximately 4,155
parking spaces during the Winter season. Residential land uses would generate a demand of
3,180 spaces, retail uses would require 470 spaces and office uses would require 505 spaces.
On-street parking may also be a consideration to help reduce the off-street parking supply in the
Village at Avon. Based on the above daily capacities, reduced by 30 percent for on-street
parking, all local streets within the Village would have sufficient reserve capacity to serve the
projected traffic volumes. As previously mentioned, an existing overflow lot for day-skiers exists
along East Beaver Creek Boulevard. This parking capacity for overflow experienced on peak ski
days is temporary pending development of the Village at Avon. It is the Town’s policy not to
provide parking for the ski area; rather, day-skier parking is the responsibility of Beaver Creek
Resort.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-32
1.3 TRAFFIC CALMING AND SAFETY
Traffic calming is a range of physical measures intended to reduce traffic volumes, lower vehicle
speeds, improve safety for all roadway users, and enhance the pedestrian experience. Traffic
calming measures fall into two general categories:
• Volume Control. This category addresses cut-through traffic by diverting traffic from
neighborhood streets onto higher classification roadways which have greater traffic
carrying capacity. Typical methods include roadway closures, median barriers, and
roadway alignment shifts.
• Speed Reduction. Physical measures to force lower speeds include horizontal
deflection or narrowing devices (traffic circles, neckdowns, center islands, or chicanes),
and vertical deflection devices (speed humps or tables, raised crosswalks, or textured
pavements).
Speed and volume reductions can also be achieved through roadway signing and other traffic
control devices, such as flashing beacons and radar speed feedback signs.
1.3.1 Alternatives
In mountain communities such as Avon, the range of appropriate traffic calming devices is
limited by winter maintenance requirements. Speed humps, raised crosswalks, chicanes (lateral
jogs in the roadway) can interfere with snow plow operations. Therefore, it is suggested that
traffic calming in Avon be restricted to textured or patterned pavement, raised center median
islands, and roadway signing.
It is recommended that traffic calming in Avon be applied on local or collector status roadways
only. The decision to install any traffic calming device should be based on a demonstrated need
and a consensus among adjacent land owners. Maintenance and snow removal issues should
be considered. Because traffic calming can have a negative impact on emergency response
times, input from emergency response providers should also be considered.
1.3.2 Application
The intersection of Sun Road and West Beaver Creek Boulevard experiences a concentration of
pedestrian activity. Planning efforts for West Town Center contemplate a pedestrian connection
or extension of Sun Road to the future Main Street, which would attract additional pedestrian
movements. In addition to sidewalk improvements discussed in subsequent sections, traffic
calming along West Beaver Creek Boulevard approaching Sun Road would help improve
pedestrian safety. Suggested measures include:
• Pedestrian crosswalk on West Beaver Creek Boulevard just northwest of the Sun Road
intersection. This crosswalk could consist of textured/patterned pavement to give
motorists a visual as well as tactile signal to slow down.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-33
• Pedestrian refuge islands within the crosswalk. By reducing the number of lanes and
narrowing the existing lanes on West Beaver Creek Boulevard, a raised center island
could be installed to split the crossing into two stages.
• Pedestrian warning signs and flashing beacons approaching the crosswalk. These signs
would alert motorists in advance of the crosswalk. The flashing beacons could be solar
powered and set to flash during peak times.
• Streetscape improvements along West Beaver Creek Boulevard. Landscaping and
street furniture would enhance the pedestrian interest and experiences in this area.
Similar road narrowing along East Beaver Creek Boulevard would improve the
pedestrian environment and allow for streetscape enhancements and potential traffic
calming measures.
Prior to the installation of the above devices, consideration should be given to snow removal
impacts, adjacent land owner’s needs, and emergency response concerns.
1.3.3 Sight Distance
Sight distance is the length of roadway ahead that is visible to motorists, pedestrians, and
bicyclists. Sufficient sight distance must be provided in order for roadway users to make safe
decisions and avoid collisions with other users or objects. Sight distance is influenced by vehicle
speeds, horizontal and vertical curvature, roadside vegetation or other obstructions. There are
two types of sight distance which affect the safety of a roadway:
• Stopping Sight Distance. This is the distance required for a driver to see, react to, and
stop prior to reaching a stationary object in its path.
• Entering Sight Distance. Someone entering a roadway from an access or side street
needs to see in either direction for a sufficient distance to judge safe gaps in traffic
through which to maneuver.
Procedures for determining appropriate sight distances for design are specified in A POLICY
ON GEOMETRICDESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 5th Edition, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2004. With ongoing development and
redevelopment, modifications to the roadway system should incorporate AASHTO sight
distance policy in their design.
At existing locations where sight distance has been found to contribute to hazardous conditions,
efforts should be made to remove roadside obstructions, trim vegetation, or modify landscaping
to improve sight distance. Where roadway curvature or topographical constraints make sight
distance improvements infeasible, roadway signing or other traffic control measures should be
considered.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-34
1.4 TOWN STANDARDS
1.4.1 Roadways
A functional classification hierarchy of streets is commonly used to define the traffic carrying
function of various roadways. The two primary roadway functions are mobility and accessibility.
These two functions compete; thus, roads intended to serve mobility needs (such as arterials)
have necessarily fewer accesses than local streets, where mobility is of less concern than
access to adjacent properties.
Avon has adopted three classification categories representing varying degrees of service with
respect to these two functions. The three classifications, from highest to lowest, include Arterial
Streets, Collector Streets, and Local Streets. Further, the Local and Collector Streets are
defined by their setting as either Urban or Rural.
Arterial Roads provide the motorist with the highest level of mobility, and access to adjacent
land uses are a minor consideration. Traffic volumes tend to greater along arterial roads, and
vehicle speeds are higher. Arterial roads also have a significant amount of continuity and
connectivity within a given region and often serve long distance trips. Figure 1.10 shows the
typical arterial cross-section for Avon. Shown are multiple travel lanes for through traffic as well
as an area for a center left turn lane or raised median. Provision for on-street parking is in
conflict with the mobility function of arterials and is, therefore not recommended. Pedestrian and
bicyclist are accommodated via a 10-foot walk/trail detached from the roadway. The
detachment provides for a more comfortable environment for the pedestrian/bicyclist to travel,
and it provides an area for snow storage during the winter.
Collector Roads provide more of a balance between mobility and access. Traffic volumes,
vehicular speeds, and continuity are all moderate in comparison to arterial roads. Served trips
are typically made within a community or are traveling between local streets and arterial streets.
Figures 1.11 and 1.12 show the collector cross sections for Urban and Rural areas,
respectively. The collector street section includes two travel lanes for through traffic. The urban
version also includes bike lanes, curb and gutter, a center left turn lane (or raised median), and
detached sidewalk. Again, the detached walk allows for snow storage and a comfortable
environment for the pedestrian. The rural section includes a center turn lane only were needed,
and no curb and gutter would be included as all surface drainage would be discharged into a
roadside ditch. To ensure mobility on collectors, on-street parking is not recommended.
Local Roads are intended to primarily provide access to adjacent properties. Traffic volumes,
speeds and continuity are usually quite low for local road facilities. Travelers along local roads
almost always originate or are destined to an adjacent land use. Figures 1.13 and 1.14 show
the local cross sections for Urban and Rural areas, respectively. Both have two travel lanes for
through traffic, but the urban section also includes curb, a tree lawn, and detached sidewalls.
Where needed, additional width could be added accommodate on-street parking (either parallel
or angle parking). The rural section includes two-foot shoulders and all surface drainage would
discharge to the side of the road. A bike lane may be added to the rural road cross-section
where deemed necessary.
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
.
1
0
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 07/28/09
NO
R
T
H
FELSBURGHOLT&ULLEVIG
FHU
FH
U
12
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
16
'
Tu
r
n
L
a
n
e
or
M
e
d
i
a
n
64
'
P
a
v
e
d
W
i
d
t
h
12
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
12
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
10'Sidewalk/Trail
10
'
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
/
Tr
a
i
l
Varies
Va
r
i
e
s
12
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
2.5' Curb & Gutter
2.
5
'
C
u
r
b
&
G
u
t
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
-
U
r
b
a
n
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
.
1
1
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 07/28/09
NO
R
T
H
FELSBURGHOLT&ULLEVIG
11
'
Tu
r
n
L
a
n
e
or
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Me
d
i
a
n
45
'
P
a
v
e
d
W
i
d
t
h
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
6'
Bi
k
e
La
n
e
6'
Tr
e
e
-
la
w
n
6'
Si
d
e
-
wa
l
k
6'
Tr
e
e
-
la
w
n
6'Side-walk
6'
Bi
k
e
La
n
e
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
-
U
r
b
a
n
2.5' Curb & Gu
t
t
e
r
2.
5
'
C
u
r
b
&
G
u
t
t
e
r
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
-
R
u
r
a
l
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
.
1
2
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 07/14/09
NO
R
T
H
FELSBURGHOLT&ULLEVIG
34
'
P
a
v
e
d
W
i
d
t
h
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
6'
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
/
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
6'
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
/
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
4:
1
4:
1
NO
T
E
:
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
i
d
t
h
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
-
R
u
r
a
l
Lo
c
a
l
-
U
r
b
a
n
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
.
1
3
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 07/28/09
NO
R
T
H
FELSBURGHOLT&ULLEVIG
FH
U
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
6'
Tr
e
e
-
la
w
n
6'
Tr
e
e
-
la
w
n
5'
Sid
e
w
a
l
k
5'
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
22
'
P
a
v
e
d
W
i
d
t
h
NO
T
E
:
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
i
d
t
h
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
at
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
6'
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
t
r
e
e
-
l
a
w
n
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
s
n
o
w
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
Lo
c
a
l
-
U
r
b
a
n
2.
5
'
C
u
r
b
&
G
u
t
t
e
r
2.
5
'
C
u
r
b
&
G
u
t
t
e
r
Lo
c
a
l
-
R
u
r
a
l
C
r
o
s
s
-
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
.
1
4
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 07/28/09
NO
R
T
H
FELSBURGHOLT&ULLEVIG
24
'
-
3
0
'
P
a
v
e
d
W
i
d
t
h
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
2'
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
11
'
Tr
a
v
e
l
L
a
n
e
6'
Bi
k
e
/
Pe
d
La
n
e
3:
1
3:
1
*NO
T
E
:
W
h
e
r
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
Lo
c
a
l
-
R
u
r
a
l
*
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-40
1.4.2 Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
1.4.2.1 Purpose
Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) are needed to appropriately address the traffic impacts of new
development, redevelopment, plan amendments, or zoning modifications within the Town of
Avon. The TIS identifies whether the existing transportation system can operate at acceptable
levels with the proposed development, or if improvement measures are needed to mitigate the
impacts. The owner/developer is responsible for contracting a transportation consultant to
conduct the TIS, and is also responsible for providing any required impact mitigation measures
identified in the TIS. The Town shall review each TIS for approval or rejection relative to criteria
specified herein.
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance to developers and their consultants for TIS
preparation. The required content and format will ease the review process by ensuring a
consistent approach in the identification of multi-modal travel projections, impacts, and
mitigation measures.
1.4.2.2 Requirement for Traffic Impact Studies
A TIS shall be required for any proposed development that will generate 200 or more daily
vehicle trips during an average weekday. The trip generation potential of the proposed project
shall be estimated using the data and methodology contained in the latest edition of TRIP
GENERATION, Institute of Transportation Engineers (currently the 8th Edition). As a general
reference, developments of the following sizes, or larger, would typically require a TIS:
• Residential, Single Family Detached – 20 units
• Residential, Multi-Family, Condominium– 35 units
• Residential, Multi-Family, Apartment – 30 units
• Hotel/Lodging – 25 rooms
• Office – 18,000 square feet
• Retail – 4,600 square feet
• Industrial – 28,000 square feet
For developments that are not projected to exceed the 200 daily vehicle trip generation
threshold, the submittal of a letter, describing the project and documenting its trip generation
potential, will be required. The letter shall be prepared and sealed by a licensed professional
engineer. In any case, a TIS may be still required due to site-specific conditions, as determined
by the Town.
For developments where access to a Colorado State Highway is requested, the requirements of
Section 2.3(5) of the STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CODE may also apply. Applicants are
advised to contact the Region 3 Access Manager, Colorado Department of Transportation, for
additional details regarding access to State Highways.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-41
A new TIS may be required for developments when a previously prepared TIS is more than two
years old, or when proposed land uses or densities have changed. In these cases, the Town will
make the determination whether a complete new TIS is required or if an addendum letter will
suffice.
1.4.2.3 Traffic Impact Study Format and Required Elements
Applicants, or their transportation consultants, are encouraged to discuss their projects with the
Town prior to starting the TIS to establish study area boundaries, directional distribution, nearby
potential developments that might affect background conditions, or critical issues to be
addressed. In some cases, the particular type of development may have a greater seasonal
impact, such as development related to winter recreation; thus, appropriate seasonal
considerations maybe required. While specific TIS requirements may vary site to site, all studies
should incorporate the following elements:
1. Description of Proposed Development and Study Area Boundaries
A description of the development site, including size, current zoning or land uses, and
general terrain features shall be provided. The general location of the site within the
Town shall be identified relative to the adjacent roadway system. A conceptual site plan,
showing the location, type, and quantity of proposed land uses, as well as access to
adjacent roadways shall be provided. The study area shall be defined.
2. Existing Conditions
A discussion of the existing roadways within the study area shall be provided,
addressing functional classification, number of lanes, speed limits, and intersection
geometrics and traffic control. The locations of transit routes and nearby bus stops shall
be identified. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, such as sidewalks, designated bike lanes,
and regional trails, shall be described.
Existing traffic data shall be compiled or collected on roadways and at key intersections
within the study area. These data may include recent 24-hour traffic counts conducted
by the Town, CDOT data, or traffic counts provided by the applicant. Sufficient data shall
be provided to conduct an analysis of existing traffic operational conditions within the
study area for both AM and PM peak hour conditions.
Level of Service (LOS) analyses shall be conducted based on the latest edition of the
HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (currently HCM2000) to establish existing operational
conditions and to identify any existing geometric or traffic control deficiencies.
Acceptable operations within the Town of Avon are LOS C for peak hour roadway
operations and LOS D for peak hour intersection operations. These LOS threshold
standards account for the increased delay that is anticipated at intersections due to
traffic control devices.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-42
3. Site Trip Generation
A trip generation analysis of the proposed site uses shall be conducted per Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) methodology. The trip generation analysis shall consider
the daily, AM and PM peak hours for a typical weekday. Pass-by traffic and internal trip
reductions may be applied where applicable using ITE data; however, any reductions for
pass-by or internal trips must be appropriately documented.
When the proposed development involves a rezoning of the site, the TIS shall include a
trip generation comparison to demonstrate the difference between the existing and
proposed zoning. The trip generation comparison shall be based on the maximum
allowable uses under each zoning criteria.
4. Mode Split
An evaluation of potential transit ridership associated with the proposed development
shall be included in the TIS. Analyses documented in the Town of Avon Comprehensive
Transportation Plan, indicate that transit ridership varies by type of land use and
proximity to the Town core area. The following table provides factors to be applied to the
trip generation estimates to quantify transit trips for each general land use type. The
area type can be determined from the map depicted on Figure 1-15.
Table 1.16 Transit Ridership as a Percentage of Vehicle Trips
Percent Transit Trips for Area Type
Land Use Town Core Outer Core Remote
Residential 11.0 5.4 1.0
Hotel/Lodging 6.0 3.2 1.0
Office 10.0 5.0 1.0
Retail 11.0 5.4 1.0
Industrial 7.0 3.4 1.0
The above factors provide the transit mode split as a percentage of the overall vehicle
trip generation. Thus, the vehicle trip generation estimates, and the resultant traffic
assignment, is reduced.
To estimate the number of transit trips, the resultant transit split is converted into person
trips by multiplying by 2.4. This calculation will quantify the expected impact to transit
facilities.
5. Trip Distribution
The resultant site generated vehicular traffic volumes shall be assigned to the adjacent
roadway network based on the proximity of the site to nearby activity centers, regional
transportation facilities, or on directional distribution assumptions previously established
with the Town. The resultant site generated traffic assignment shall include the daily, AM
and PM peak hour traffic volumes.
Town of Avon
Transit Supportive Subareas
Figure 1.15
Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 08-159, 7/29/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
= Core Area
= Outer Core Area
= Mountain Rural
LEGEND
Aspens Mobile
Home Park
Westgate Plaza
Comfort
Inn
Christie Lodge
Avon
Station
Sheraton
Mtn. Vista
River Edge
Christie
Sports Chapel
square
Avon
Crossing
Elk Lot
Eaglebend
West
Eaglebend
North
Stonebridge
City
Market
W. Beaver Creek
Lake St./LibraryBear Lot
River Oaks
River View
Shop & Hop
Walmart
Riverside Dr.
Stone Creek Dr.
Swift Gulch
Transit Operations
W
illia m J . Post Blvd.
Deer Blvd.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
eek Dr.
Swift Gulch
R
d.
Bach
e
l
o
r
Gulc
h
Trai
l
W. Beaver Creek
B
l
v
d
.
M
e
t
c
a
lf Rd.
W
i
l
d
r
i
g
e
R
d
.Wild
w
o
o
d
Rd
.
P
a
i
n
t
b
r
u
s
h
Pa
i
n
t
b
r
u
s
h
Buc
k
Cree
k
Rd.
Stone Cree
k
R
d
.
E. Beaver Creek Blvd.
AVON
Lower Beaver Creek
Express Lift
Riverfront
Express
Gondola
70
70
6
6
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-44
6. Future Conditions
The TIS shall evaluate both short term future and long range future conditions. The short
term future shall be based on the anticipated completion date of the proposed project,
while the long range future corresponds to an approximate 20 year planning horizon.
Interim future scenarios may be appropriate for larger, phased developments, as
determined by the Town.
Background traffic volumes, representing traffic unrelated to site development, shall be
developed based on traffic forecasts contained in the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, CDOT growth factors, or as established through discussions with the Town. Total
traffic volumes consist of background traffic plus the site generated traffic volumes.
Level of Service analyses shall be conducted for the following future conditions:
• Short Term Background
• Short Term Background plus Site
• Long Term Background
• Long Term Background plus Site
Any interim scenarios shall also be similarly analyzed.
7. Recommendations
The TIS shall recommend traffic engineering measures to mitigate any operational
impacts identified in the analyses and maintain acceptable LOS on the adjacent
roadways and intersections. Potential improvements may include:
• Roadway widening for additional lanes, such as right- or left-turn lanes
• Traffic control, such as a STOP sign, roundabout, or traffic signal
• Access modifications, such as relocation or restricted turns
• Other engineering improvements
Where impacts to transit operations or pedestrian facilities are anticipated, the TIS shall
also provide recommendations for multi-modal improvements. These may include:
• Transit improvements, such as bus stops, bus shelters, bus pull-out lanes, or route
modifications
• Pedestrian improvements, such as sidewalks or access to trails
• Bicycle improvements, such as paths, trails, or designated bike lanes
For larger commercial developments, the TIS may also include recommendations for
Transportation Demand Management (TDM), including:
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 1-45
• Flexible work hours
• Telecommuting
• Employee programs to encourage car pooling or transit use
In cases where TDM strategies are included as a part of a development proposal, the
Town may offer incentives such as reduced roadway improvement contributions, tax
incentives, or other considerations. As a part of approval, on-going monitoring and
documentation of TDM program continuity by the developer would be a requirement for
the continuation of such incentives.
The TIS shall be prepared by or under the supervision of a registered Professional
Engineer. The completed report shall be signed and sealed.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 2-6
2.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS
2.2.1 Regional and Recreational Trails Planning
Ongoing development of the regional paved trail system through Avon follows the Eagle Valley
Regional Trails Plan, administered by the ECO Trails Program. As new links are added,
connectivity for non-motorized users is enhanced along the Eagle River corridor. The Town of
Avon supports the goals of the Regional Trails Plan through elements contained in this
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, as follows:
• The proposed Town Standards for roadway cross sections identify requirements for
sidewalks and bicycle/pedestrian lanes to improve both safety and connectivity for non-
motorized users.
• The proposed Traffic Impact Study Guidelines will require new development to quantify
travel modes, specify pedestrian improvement plans, and demonstrate connectivity to
the adjacent non-motorized system and regional trails facilities.
The recently adopted TOWN OF AVON RECREATIONAL TRAILS MASTER PLAN, Anasazi
Trails, Inc., February 2009 provides a formal basis for developing a local system of sustainable,
unpaved recreational trails from the mix of informal social trails, purpose-built trails, and
abandoned access roads. The Trails Plan considers access issues, parking, neighborhood
interface, and environmental impacts. Standards for design, construction, and ongoing
maintenance of different types of trails are established. The report identifies six recreational trail
projects and provides preliminary opinions of probable cost, as summarized in Table 2.1
Table 2.1 Recreational Trails Capital Improvement Projects
Trails Project Description Cost Opinion
Avon/Singletree Trail New trailhead at Nottingham Road. Trail
reconstruction and reclamation activity. $148,500
Beaver Creek Lookout Trail New trailhead and overlook. Trail
reconstruction and reclamation activity. $250,300
Metcalf Creek Trail New trail construction. New trailhead,
parking area, and toilet facilities. $243,300
Saddle Ridge Trail Trail construction/reconstruction and
reclamation activity. New access point. $37,200
Buck Creek Trail Bridge construction and trail
reconstruction. $54,700
Interior Connecting Trails Trail reclamation activity. New trail and
access point construction. $32,600
Total $766,600
Source: Town of Avon Recreational Trails Master Plan, Anasazi Trails, Inc., February 2009.
As indicated, the recreational trails projects are anticipated to cost approximately $766,600.00.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 2-7
2.2.2 Local Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections
The sidewalk deficiencies previously identified on Figure 2.3 total approximately 2,000 lineal
feet. Based on current cost data for concrete sidewalks in Avon, a total cost of $180,000 is
anticipated to construction of the missing sidewalk sections.
Other non-motorized improvements that should be incorporated include:
• A trail connection at the southwest corner of Nottingham Park to West Beaver Creek
Boulevard. Currently, unauthorized pedestrian access is through a damaged section of
fence. There is a narrow sidewalk along the tennis courts that is also used.
• Connectivity improvements to the existing trail along Nottingham Road for area
residents. Enhancements should include sidewalks, crosswalks, streetscape and lighting
improvements, and transit stops. Approximately 2,000 lineal feet of guardrail along the
south side of Nottingham Road creates a barrier for residents trying to access the trail.
Only one opening is currently provided, with a paved connection from Nottingham Road
to the trail. At least two more such openings should be provided for better trail access.
• Bike lanes on Metcalf Road. Metcalf Road is becoming increasingly popular as a bike
route for residents of Wildridge and Wildwood. Currently, bike riders must use the travel
lanes, and safety concerns have been expressed. Bike lanes should be provided along
both sides of Metcalf Road from the intersection at Nottingham Road to the intersection
at Old Trail Road in the Wildridge neighborhood.
• Pedestrian bridge over I-70 from the Buffalo Ridge apartments to the Village at Avon.
This improvement is shown in the Village at Avon PUD.
• Trail connection from Nottingham Road to the Buck Creek Trailhead.
• Pedestrian underpass of US 6 at Beaver Creek and pedestrian bridge over the Eagle
River at the Kayak Park. This connection will provide grade-separated pedestrian access
from the south side of US 6 to the regional trail system and the Town core area.
• Sidewalk along the north side of Chapel Place at the east side of Chapel Square.
• Grade separated crossing under US 6 on the east side of the Avon Road roundabout.
• Sidewalks or separate paved trails along US 6.
Because of the number of barriers (I-70, Avon Road, the Eagle River, and the UPRR), and due
to the unconventional street layout that has evolved in Avon, visitors, particularly pedestrians,
can have difficulty finding their way about town. Although the Town currently has visitor maps
and other way-finding resources on-line, additional measures that would help visitors as they
navigate through Avon include roadway directional signing and informational displays at major
transit stops and activity centers. With the redevelopment of the East and West Town Centers,
and development within the Village at Avon, there will be opportunities to simplify the street
network and provide logical pedestrian connections to further enhance way-finding.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 2-8
2.2.3 Potential Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossings
An evaluation was conducted for potential grade separated pedestrian crossings at selected
locations within Avon. The evaluations were based on design criteria published by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Alternative crossings for
I-70, Avon Road, and the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) were considered.
2.2.3.1 I-70 Pedestrian Crossing between Metcalf Road and West Beaver Creek Road
A pedestrian crossing of I-70 in the vicinity of Metcalf Road has been proposed to provide a
more convenient connection from residential and commercial land uses north of I-70 to the
Town core area. Currently, the closest pedestrian connection occurs at Avon Road. A new
crossing could shorten pedestrian trips by as much as a mile (per one-way trip). Because of the
grades along I-70 in this area, an underpass is considered to be more feasible than a bridge
over the highway. Figure 2.4 illustrates this potential concept.
Pedestrian Crossings Design Criteria
• Per AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities,
2004, Section 3.5.3 – Overpasses vs. Underpasses, the vertical clearance for long
distance underpasses should be a minimum of 10 feet. Minimum trail width for
underpasses with a length over 60 feet should be wider than 16 feet.
• I-70 width from outside edge of pavement to outside edge of pavement equals 170
feet (as measured in ACAD from aerial mapping).
• The elevation difference between the low point on the north side of I-70 and the
surface of I-70 is 7468.0 feet minus 7450.0 feet, or 18 feet.
• Assuming the trail starts at the low point, the total height needed is 10 feet (vertical
clearance) plus 1 foot of structure depth plus 2 feet of sub-base plus 1.5 feet of
pavement equals 14.5 feet. Because this is less than the available 18 feet, we
believe the tunnel will fit.
• The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (2006), Table 3.1, provides clear-zone
requirements in feet from edge of through traveled way. The minimum clearance,
with a 1:4 foreslope, 65 to 70 mph design speed, and design ADT over 6000, is 46 ft
(from edge of traveled way to box culvert headwall).
• The resultant minimum pedestrian underpass length is 262 feet (170 plus 46 plus 46
equals 262 feet).
I-70 Underpass Near Metcalf Road
Figure 2.4
Avon Transportation Plan REV 08-159 05/26/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 2-10
Cost Analysis - Pedestrian Crossing of I-70
• The recently completed pedestrian underpass at the 144th Avenue/I-25 Interchange
is a pre-cast box culvert with many aesthetic architectural features. The total cost,
without retaining walls, was $996,503. At a length of 176’, the cost per linear foot is
$5,662. If this system were used for the Avon pedestrian underpass of I-70, the box
culvert alone would cost approximately $1,483,000.
• The pedestrian underpass for the 136thAvenue/I-25 Interchange project was a simple
cast-in-place box culvert with basic architectural features. The total cost was
$217,088. At a length of 240’, the cost per linear foot was $905. If this system were
used for the Avon pedestrian underpass of I-70, the box culvert alone would cost
approximately $237,000.
• A shoe-fly detour on I-70 to phase the construction of the box culvert would cost
$750,000, based upon a similar detour cost analysis prepared for the Preble Creek
Drainage project at I-25/SH 7.
• Based on the above, the total cost of the I-70 pedestrian underpass would range
between approximately $987,000 and $2,233,000, depending on the level of
aesthetic treatment.
2.2.3.2 Pedestrian Bridge over Avon Road
The existing at-grade pedestrian crossings along Avon Road occur at the roundabout
intersections. These crossings have been perceived as hazardous for pedestrians, particularly
by visitors. East-west pedestrian connection will become increasingly important with
redevelopment of the East and West Town Centers and the Main Street concept. Figure 2.5
depicts the preferred pedestrian crossing location along the future Main Street just south of the
roundabout.
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Avon Road Cost Analysis
A pedestrian bridge across Avon Road just south of the Benchmark Road roundabout would be
approximately 130 feet in length (as measured in Acad using aerial mapping). Due to
topographical constraints, the bridge could need elevators on each side, in addition to ramps.
Using unit costs of $150 per square foot for the bridge and $15 per square foot for the
sidewalks, the resultant preliminary cost opinion would be approximately $500,000 to $1.0
million.
Avon Road Overpass - Main Street Extension
Figure 2.5
Avon Transportation Plan REV 08-159 07/28/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
Main
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 2-12
2.2.3.3 Pedestrian Bridge over the UPRR from Eagle Bend Drive
A grade separated crossing of the UPRR near Stonebridge Drive been considered to provide
pedestrian access from residential uses and transit stops south of the tracks to existing and planned
commercial uses in the Village at Avon. The potential for this line to become active would drive the
need for this improvement. Three alternatives have been evaluated: an overpass with ramps, an
overpass with elevators, and an underpass. Figure 2.6 illustrates the potential overpass location. The
underpass would likely be located farther west near an existing culvert along Hurd Lane.
Pedestrian Crossing Design Criteria
• Per CDOT Design Guide 2005, Table 3-3, the minimum vertical clearance for pedestrian
overpasses over railroad tracks is 17.5 feet.
• Per AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities,
Sec. 3.2.7, the maximum grade allowed is 5 percent.
• The UPRR right-of-way width from fence line to fence line is 100 feet (as measured
using aerial mapping).
• Assuming the pedestrian bridge over the railroad has a structure depth of 6 feet and a
vertical clearance of 17.5 feet over the railroad tracks, the total height from existing
ground to the top of bridge would be 23.5 feet. The total length of ramp necessary to
access the bridge on either side of the railroad tracks would then be 940 feet (23.5
feet/0.05 = 470 feet x 2 sides = 940 feet total).
• The minimum pedestrian overpass length would be approximately 100 feet plus an
additional 15 feet either side of the UPRR right-of-way for a total of 130 feet.
• The total length of structure (assuming the ramps would be switchback style structures)
would, therefore, be 1,070 feet (130 feet + 940 feet).
Pedestrian Bridge Crossing the UPRR Cost Analysis
• A pedestrian bridge across the UPRR, plus ramp structures on either side would be
approximately $2.25 million (1,070 feet x 14 feet x $150 per square foot).
• A pedestrian bridge with elevators on each side and simple aesthetic features would
cost between $1.4 million and $1.8 million, based on costs from recent similar projects.
Pedestrian Underpass Crossing the UPRR Cost Analysis
• A pedestrian box culvert underpass would require a RR shoofly detour in order to
construct the underpass in two phases. A recent, similar double track shoofly for BNSF
cost over $1.5 million to construct.
• Based on costs previously identified, a simple box culvert underpass at this location
would cost approximately $120,000 ($905 per lineal foot x 130 feet).
• A more complex underpass with enhanced aesthetics would cost approximately
$736,000 ($5,662 per lineal foot x 130 lineal feet).
• Therefore, the total cost for the pedestrian underpass alternative would range from $1.62
million to $2.236 million, including the RR shoofly.
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
a
t
S
t
o
n
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
.
6
Avon Transportation Plan 08-159 05/26/09
NO
R
T
H
FELSBURGHOLT&ULLEVIG
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-1
CHAPTER 3. TRANSIT SYSTEM
3.1 EXISTING SERVICES
The Town of Avon provides transit services locally while ECO Transit provides regional services
throughout Eagle County. This section describes existing conditions for Avon transit services as
well as regional coordination and facilities used by both systems. These systems work together
to provide Avon residents with access to jobs locally and throughout the region and to provide
residents and guests access recreation, shopping and medical services.
3.1.1 Town of Avon Shuttle
The Town of Avon operates free shuttle services to connect residents and visitors to activity
centers and employment. They also operate complementary paratransit service. In the past
they operated the parking lot shuttles that connect Beaver Creek Resort to the skier parking
provided on the south side of US 6. During the 2008/2009 season Beaver Creek is operating
this service. Service routes and frequencies vary by season.
Winter and summer are the primary seasons and the service description will focus on these
seasons. Two dates were chosen for evaluation of peak activity; February 18, 2008 was chosen
to represent the peak winter season and July 26, 2008 was chosen to represent the peak
summer season. Data was gathered by route and stop for both Avon Transit and ECO Transit
for these two dates.
Avon Station is the Town’s primary transit hub where riders can transfer regional services
operated by ECO or to the Gondola service operated by the Westin to reach Beaver Creek.
Beaver Creek Resort Company (BCRC) is temporarily using a stop at Avon Station for skiers
shuttle to their covered bridge stop. The stall they are temporarily using will ultimately be used
by Avon Transit to accommodate future growth. The Elk Lot, operated by BCRC is another
connection point between Avon Transit, Eco transit and BCRC transit. The Elk Lot has poor
circulation and is undersized for existing demand. Analysis and recommendations of BCRC’s
system is beyond the scope of this study.
The Town and ECO routes are based out of the Swift Gulch operations facility located on the
north side of I-70. This facility and the fleet stored and maintained at this site are described
under Section E of this report.
3.1.1.1 Winter Services
Figure 3.1 illustrates the current routes operated in winter. The winter schedule and routing
underwent service changes in 2008. A comparison of Tables 3.1 and 3.2 illustrates the
changes.
To
w
n
o
f
A
v
o
n
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Page 3-2
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
1
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
o
c
a
l
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
B
u
s
R
o
u
t
e
s
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-3
The main service difference between the 2007/2008 season and the 2008/2009 season was in
the operation of the Beaver Creek Village Shuttle. In the 2007/2008 season Avon Transit
operated this service between the Elk and Bear Parking lots and Beaver Creek Village, River
Edge and the Landing. In the 2008/2009 season Beaver Creek Ski Resort began operating the
service, limiting the service to peak hours only. Other minimal routing adjustments were made;
most notably the Gondola Express serves Chapel Square in the 2008 winter service rather than
the Red and Blue Lines serving this stop as in 2007. The Chapel Square change was made
due to difficulties with a turning movement on the previous route and lack of ridership.
Table 3.1 2007/2008 Avon Winter Route Hours and Frequency of Service
Route AM or All Day PM Service Frequency
Red Line 5:58 AM – 7:03 PM 20 minutes
Blue Line 6:03 AM – 7:03 PM 20 minutes
7:40 AM – 10:05 AM 2:05 PM – 6:00 PM 5 minutes
Gondola Express
10:05 AM – 2:05 PM 15 Minutes
Black Line 7:03 PM – 11:03 PM 30 Minutes
6:30 AM – 12:00 PM 2:00 PM – 6:00 PM 5 Minutes
5:30 AM – 6:30 AM 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM;
6:00 PM – 9:00 PM 10 Minutes Beaver Creek Village
– Green Line
9:00 PM – 2:30 AM 20 Minutes
Table 3.2 2008/2009 Avon Winter Route Hours and Frequency of Service
Route AM or All Day PM Service Frequency
Red Line 6:00 AM – 7:00 PM 15 minutes
Blue Line 6:06 AM – 7:00 PM 15 minutes
Gondola Express 8:00 AM – 6:05 PM 10 minutes
Black Line 7:00 PM – 11:00 PM 30 Minutes
The Red Line Shuttle makes two loops, one serving Avon Crossing, Eaglebend North,
Stonebridge, Eaglebend West and Elk Lot. The other loop serves the lodges and retail located
on Beaver Creek Blvd, Benchmark Rd, Beaver Creek Place, and Lake Street. During the
2008/2009 season, the Red line frequency increased from 20 minutes to 15 minutes.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-4
The Blue Line Shuttle also is a looped route, with one large loop and one small loop. The large
loop operates clockwise from Westgate Plaza, traveling north on West Beaver Creek Boulevard,
Avon Road, and Benchmark Boulevard to Avon Station continuing to the Elk Lot. A small
counter-clockwise loop then continues along Benchmark Boulevard to serve City Market,
returning to Avon Station and continuing along US 6 to Westgate Plaza.
The Black Line Shuttle is a combination of the other routes providing service between Avon
Station and the Elk Lot to the mobile home park on the west and lodges and retail in downtown
Avon. It consists of one large clockwise figure eight loop providing 30-minute headways
between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM daily.
Together, the Red, Blue and Black lines are referred to as the “town routes”.
The Gondola Express Shuttle connects the Gondola at Avon Station to lodges and retail
businesses in Avon. It operates counter-clockwise along Benchmark Rd, Beavercreek Blvd,
and Lake St on ten-minute headways. During the 2008/2009 season the Gondola Express
operates every 10 minutes all day. This is less frequent in the peak periods but more in the
midday than the previous winter season.
Beaver Creek operates the Beaver Creek Village Shuttle from Avon Station to Beaver Creek
Village between 8:00 AM and 11:30 AM and from 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM. These peak times were
selected to serve mountain access demand patterns for upload and download.
The River Front Gondola operates whenever the lower Beaver Creek chairlift is in service (i.e.
snow level dependant) during the hours of 8:30 AM and 3:30 PM. For the past two ski seasons,
the gondola commenced operation on December 20th and shut down on March 30th for a total of
about 95 days of operation. The gondola has carrying capacity of 1,200 passengers per hour
and is expandable to 1,600 passengers per hour through the addition of more cars. The Westin
River Front operates the gondola at no charge to passengers.
3.1.1.2 Ridership by Stop and by Hour
As illustrated in Table 3.3, Avon Transit had a total of 2,321 boardings on the Red, Blue, Black
and Gondola routes on February 18, 2008. 2008 data for ECO Transit was not available by
stop. It was estimated by increasing 2006 data for the same weekend day by 23% the overall
increase in ECO ridership between 2006 and 20081 for the selected stops on that day. Based on
this calculation ECO served another 1,465 riders in the Avon area on that day. These numbers
represent one-way unlinked transit trips and therefore do not account for transfers between
routes and systems.
1 According to ECO Transit, the peak period ridership increase between 2006 and 2008 was 23% for
Avon stops on selected days. The systemwide increase between 2006 and 2008 was 38%.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-5
Table 3.3 Ridership by Stop February 18, 2008
Town Routes
Stop Red Blue Black
Lodging
Route
Gondola
Regional
Route
ECO* Total
Aspens Mobile
Home Park 168 31 199
Avon Station 35 121 11 474 710 1,351
Avon Crossing 4 28 32
Bear Lot 247 247
Chapel Square 18 13 31
Christie Lodge 108 92 18 112 331
Christy Sports 11 5 16
City Market 55 115 45 23 238
Comfort Inn 22 82 104
Eaglebend North 41 41
Eaglebend West 58 3 28 89
Elk Lot 134 38 16 109 297
Lake Street 66 21 6 159 252
Library 1 1
Rivers Edge 66 66
River Oaks 52 52
River View 54 54
Sheraton Mtn.
Vista 20 20
Shop and Hop 38 38
Stone Creek 39 39
Stonebridge Drive 75 2 77
Walmart 140 140
Westgate Plaza 74 6 80
West Beaver
Creek Blvd 10 10
Total By Route 627 672 166 856 1,465 3,786
% of Total 38.7% 22.6% 38.7% 100.0%
Sources: Town of Avon, ECO Transit stop level ridership data.
* ECO Transit is included because they also stop at Avon’s core hub, the Avon Station and provide
regional access to Avon’s residents and visitors.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-6
Figure 3.2 illustrates boardings by hour by route. As shown, boarding activity peaks in the
morning between 8 and 11 AM accounting for about 28% of the total daily boardings. The
Gondola route experiences a spike in activity, nearly 20% of average daily ridership, during the
4 PM hour as skiers depart the mountain.
Figure 3.2 Winter Boardings by Hour by Route
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-7
3.1.1.3 Summer Services
Figure 3.3 illustrates the routes operated in summer. The frequency and hours of operation are
illustrated in Table 3.4. The Gondola Express Shuttle does not operate in the summer.
Table 3.4 Summer Route Hours and Frequency of Service
Route Hours Frequency
Combined Route
6:00 AM – 7:13 AM
7:13 AM – 10:13 AM
10:13 AM – 12:28 PM
12:28 PM – 6:13 PM
6:13 PM – 8:28 PM
8:28 PM – 10:28 PM
10:28 PM – 11:18 PM
30 minutes
15 minutes
30 minutes
15 minutes
30 minutes
15 minutes
30 minutes
Figure 3.3 Summer Town Route
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-8
3.1.1.4 Ridership by Stop and by Hour
Table 3.5 summarizes ridership by stop on July 26, 2008. As shown, Avon Transit had a total
of 785 boardings on the Town Routes (combined Red, Blue, and Black). ECO served another
480 riders in the Avon area on that day. Similar to the winter calculations, these numbers
represent one-way unlinked transit trips and therefore do not account for transfers between
routes and systems. A comparison of summer and winter stop activity is illustrated graphically
in Figure 3.4.
Table 3.5 Ridership by Stop July 26, 2008
Stop Town Routes ECO Total
Aspens Mobile Home Park 140 140
Avon Station 156 230 386
Avon Crossing 5 5
Bear Lot 100 100
Chapel Square 4 4
Christie Lodge 37 37
Christy Sports 1 1
City Market 162 162
Eaglebend North 21 21
Eaglebend West 32 0 32
Elk Lot 74 20 94
Rivers Edge 16 10 26
River Oaks 10 10
River View 20 20
Sheraton Mtn. Vista 9 9
Shop and Hop 10 10
Stone Creek 0 0
Stonebridge Drive 41 41
Walmart 80 80
Westgate Plaza 82 82
West Beaver Creek Blvd 5 5
Total By Route 785 480 1,265
% of Total 62.1% 37.9% 100%
Sources: Town of Avon, ECO Transit stop level ridership data.
To
w
n
o
f
A
v
o
n
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Page 3-9
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
4
.
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
b
y
S
t
o
p
–
W
i
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-10
Figure 3.5 illustrates lists boardings by hour by route during a peak summer day. Boarding
activity is spread more evenly over the day than during the winter with peak activity occurring in
the late morning from 10 AM to 1 PM and early afternoon from 2 to 5 PM.
Figure 3.5 Summer Boardings by Hour and Route
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-11
3.1.1.5 Service Characteristics
The 2008 ridership level, by month and by route, is illustrated in Figure 3.6. Total ridership
averages nearly 60,000 per month in the beginning of 2008 (January through March); about
23,500 April through November and 54,500 in December).
Figure 3.6 Avon Transit Ridership by Route by Month
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-12
Figure 3.7 illustrates ridership on the Beaver Creek shuttle early in 2008 when Avon operated
this service for Beaver Creek. This service averaged about 200,000 boardings per month
during the first three months of 2008.
Figure 3.7 2008 Beaver Creek Shuttle Boardings by Month
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-13
The service hours operated each month are illustrated in Figure 3.8. The current level of
service provided by the system matches well with the seasonal ridership patterns shown in
Figure 3.6. As shown, during the first three months of the year service hours exceed 1,500 per
month. During the summer months the combined town routes averaged about 1,000 hours per
month and returned to about 1,500 hours with the start of the ski season in December.
Figure 3.8 Avon Transit Service Hours by Route
Figure 3.9 illustrates the service hours for the Beaver Creek shuttle early in 2008 when Avon
operated this service for Beaver Creek. As shown, this service averaged about 2,500 service
hours per month during the first three months of 2008.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-14
Figure 3.9 2008 Beaver Creek Shuttle Service Hours
Table 3.6 shows the riders per hour over the course of the year, one measure of effectiveness
of the system. As shown, Avon’s routes range 18 boardings per hour in May to 38 boardings
per hour in March, with an annual average of 29 boardings per hour. Winter boardings per hour
are approximately 48% higher than during summer. Avon Transit accommodates this by
providing about 50% more service (measured in service hours per month as shown on
Figure 3.8) during the winter ski season. The flatter hourly pattern during the summer means
that buses are less full at any given time but the frequency of service is still appropriate.
Table 3.6 2008 Boardings per Hour by Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Annual
Average
Avon Routes 35 37 38 25 18 24 26 26 23 23 23 37 29
Beaver Creek
Shuttle 87 79 80 65 - - - - - - - - 80
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-15
3.1.2 Wal-Mart and Buffalo Ridge Demonstration Service
The Village at Avon is home to a number of big box destinations in Avon such as Wal-mart and
Home Depot. Buffalo Ridge is a large residential development on the north side of I-70 that
currently has approximately 250 multi-family dwelling units. Between June 2006 and April 2007
the Town of Avon modified the Blue and Red routes to include stops at the Village at Avon and
Buffalo Ridge. This demonstration service was used to assess the demand for service to the
area. The demonstration project showed that there was substantial demand for service to Wal-
mart and Buffalo Ridge.
Table 3.7 compares data collected during the demonstration period to the winter peak analysis
day described above. As shown, adding the Wal-mart and Buffalo Ridge boarding activity to the
2008 peak winter day boarding activity would increase overall activity by 20%. The Wal-mart
stop would have been the fourth busiest stop in the system.
Table 3.7 Potential Increase in 2008 Peak Winter Day Ridership
Red Blue Black Gondola Total
Boardings By Route (2008) 627 672 166 856 2,321
Boardings at Wal-mart and Buffalo
Ridge (2007) 197 172 - - 466
% Increase 31% 26% - - 20%
The other consideration when evaluating this demonstration service is the increase in service
hours required to serve this stop. The town of Avon estimated that providing service to Wal-
mart and Buffalo Ridge added 18.5
service hours per day. This would
result in approximately 25 boardings
per hour. This is somewhat lower than
the average annual boardings per
month shown in Table 3.6 reflecting
the long additional distance required to
serve Wal-mart and Buffalo Ridge.
While these measures demonstrate the
high demand for service to Buffalo
Ridge and Wal-mart, Avon’s service
was discontinued because the
developer has refused to pay for transit
service. ECO Transit does provide
fare-based service to the Village at
Avon.
Avon residents walking from Wal-Mart back to Avon’s
core area along East Beaver Creek Boulevard.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-16
Avon Transit continues to receive requests each month from the community to provide fare-free
transit connectivity between Avon’s core area and the Village at Avon.
3.1.3 ECO Transit Routes
The regional service operated by ECO Transit is also illustrated in Figure 3.1. Table 3.8 lists
ECO’s transit routes and frequencies. These routes serve local trips along US 6 and between
Avon Station and the Wal-Mart / Home Depot commercial center, but more importantly they
provide regional connections for employees and visitors wishing to travel to other areas in Eagle
and Lake Counties. Approximately 71% of Avon’s workforce lives outside of Avon and many
use ECO Transit or carpool to work. 2
The Minturn and Leadville routes are primarily commuter routes with services operating only in
the AM and PM peak hours. Both routes serve Wal-Mart, Avon Station and the Elk Lot. The
Leadville route also serves Beaver Creek and City Market. The US 6 route runs between Vail
and Edwards serving Avon at Avon Station, the Elk Lot, and the Bear Lot.
The Dotsero route operates throughout the day, serving the Wal-Mart, Avon Station, the Elk Lot,
and the Bear Lot. Service to Wal-Mart and the Bear Lot is limited to three trips per day while
service to Avon Station and the Elk Lot is approximately every 30 minutes throughout the day.
Service between Vail, Avon, and Beaver Creek is provided along I-70, stopping in Avon at Avon
Station.
2 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment, RRC Associates, Inc. 2006.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-17
Table 3.8 ECO Transit Routes, Frequencies and Fares
Route Description Service Times Frequency* Fare
5:45 AM - 6:45 AM 15 Minutes
6:45 AM - 8:15 AM 20 Minutes
8:15 AM - 4:50 PM 70 Minutes
Dotsero East Dotsero to Gypsum, Eagle
Airport, Eagle, Avon, and Vail
4:50 PM - 11:22 PM 75 Minutes
$3
6:50 AM - 11:30 AM 60 Minutes
11:30 AM - 1:30 PM 120 Minutes
1:30 PM - 4:30 PM 70 Minutes
4:30 PM - 6:30 PM 30 Minutes
Dotsero West Vail and Avon to Eagle, Eagle
Airport, Gypsum and Dotsero
6:30 PM - 2:15 PM Varies
$3
5:00 AM - 6:00 AM 60 Minutes
6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 15 Minutes
8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 30 Minutes
4:30 PM - 5:00 PM 15 Minutes
5:00 PM - 8:00 PM 30 Minutes
US 6 East Edwards to Avon, Eagle-Vail,
and Vail
8:00 PM - 1:00 AM 60 Minutes
$3
5:37 AM - 3:37 PM 30 Minutes
3:37 PM - 7:37 PM Alternates 5
minutes and 20
minutes
7:37 PM - 8:37 PM 30 Minutes
US 6 West Vail to Eagle-Vail, Avon and
Edwards
8:37 PM - 1:37 AM 60 Minutes
$3
6:05 AM - 2:33 PM 100 Minutes Minturn Minturn to Avon
5:00 PM - 11:50 PM 100 Minutes
$3
5:35 AM - 6:15 AM 20 Minutes Leadville Leadville to Vail, Avon and
Beaver Creek 3:50 PM - 4:50 PM 60 Minutes
$5
7:40 AM -10:00 AM 20 Minutes
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM 30 Minutes
11:00 AM - 2:00 pm 60 Minutes
2:00 PM - 3:00 PM 30 Minutes
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM 20 Minutes
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 30 Minutes
Vail/Beaver
Creek on I-70
Express Service between Vail,
Avon, and Beaver Creek
6:00 PM - 12:00 AM 60 Minutes
$5
* Approximate
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-18
3.1.4 Stops and Stop Amenities
Avon’s current bus stops range from the Avon Transfer Station with various rider amenities (a
“hub”) to small shelters with schedules and trash cans (a “stop”) to a simple sign with a posted
schedule. Pictures of each of the stops are included below.
Aspens Mobile Home Park
Avon Station
Avon Crossing
Chapel Square
Christie Lodge
Christy Sports
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-19
City Market
Comfort Inn
Eaglebend North
Eaglebend West
Library
Rivers Edge
River Front Gondola Sheraton Mtn. Vista
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-20
Stone Creek
Stonebridge Drive
Westgate Plaza
West Beaver Creek Blvd
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-21
Table 3.9 summarizes the amenities present at each stop. Bus stop standards are included in
the Supplemental Materials.
Table 3.9 Transit Stop Amenities
Shelter Bench Trash Can
Schedule
Post
Schedule
Holder
The Aspens √ √ √ √
Avon Crossing/Canyon Run √ √ √
Chapel Square √
Christie Lodge √
Christy Sports √ √ √
City Market SB √ √ √
City Market NB √ √ √
Comfort Inn √ √
Eaglebend North √ √ √
Eaglebend West √ √ √
Recreation Center
River Front Gondola √ √
River Edge √
Sheraton Mtn. Vista √ √
Stonebridge Drive √ √ √
Westgate √ √ √
West Beaver Creek Blvd √ √ √ √
3.1.5 Fleet and Facilities
The Town of Avon fleet consists of ten accessible passenger vehicles. There are two small (19-
21 passenger) gasoline-powered vehicles with a four-year useful life and eight full size coaches
with a 12-year useful life. This allows the system to assign smaller capacity coaches at times or
on routes where ridership is lower. The town annually sets aside funds for asset maintenance
and replacement. Table 3.10 lists the fleet characteristics.
Four vehicles have reached the end of their useful life. Two cut-aways were removed from
service in 2008 due to failed structural and moisture proofing systems which resulted in mold;
these were older vehicles (814 and 815) due for replacement in 2005. One new Gillig coach
(#855) has a diesel-electric hybrid engine. The remainder of the fleet has diesel engines.
The Town of Avon’s Transit Division operates out of the Swift Gulch operations facility. The
facility currently is home to 19 transit personnel and 25 transit vehicles. ECO transit and Beaver
Creek Metro District lease space at this site. The site provides parking for transit vehicles,
service vehicles and employees. All vehicles are stored outdoors in harsh mountain conditions.
It houses administrative offices, employee lockers, showers, a break room, training facilities,
fleet maintenance bays, fueling, a bush wash and commercial driver’s license course. This
facility requires replacement and expansion to meet current and future demands.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-22
The Town has identified a project to expand the facility and provide covered storage for
vehicles. This facility would be shared with Eagle County and is referred to as the “ECO/Avon
Joint Regional Facility”. This project would include one building for bus storage and a second
building to house operations. It would double the throughput of bus re-fueling and bus washing,
add a commercial driver’s license training and testing course, include training facilities with
internet access and video conferencing, and provide storage for bus stop shelter materials and
associated infrastructure. Construction is anticipated in 2010-2011.
This $25 million project has been submitted for State and Federal transit grant funding. As of
April 1, 2009, full funding for construction of this planned facility has not yet been obtained. The
project was reviewed by CDOT and ranked very highly in the State’s overall goals for
connectivity and mobility. It is also “ready to go” and will act as a stimulant to the current
economic condition. At present it is the top ranked unfunded transit facilities project on CDOT’s
Senate Bill 1 list. The project also ranks highly on several pending FTA grant request lists.
Table 3.10 Fleet Roster
Capacity
Make/Model Year
Unit
#
Useful
Life
Replac
e in
Year Mileage Seat Stand W/C Fuel Condition
Gillig Phantom 1994 830 12-yr 2006 496,008 37 20 2 D Fair
Gillig Phantom 1996 838 12-yr 2008 132,791 43 20 2 D Good
Gillig Phantom 1998 849 12-yr 2010 320,992 43 20 2 D Excellent
Gillig Phantom 2003 850 12-yr 2013 21,393 35 20 2 D Excellent
Ford E-450 2004 816 4-yr 2008 104,325 19 - 2 G Fair
Ford E-450 2004 817 4-yr 2008 97,394 19 - 2 G Fair
Optima Opus 2005 853 12-yr 2015 48,668 28 - 2 D -
Gillig Phantom 2007 854 12-yr 2019 - 28 10 - - Excellent
Gillig Phantom 2008 855 12-yr 2020 - 28 10 - Hybrid Excellent
Gillig Phantom 2008 856 12-yr 2020 - 28 10 - - Excellent
3.1.6 Budget and Funding
Avon Transit operates as an enterprise fund within the Town of Avon’s overall financial program.
The Town funds transit services primarily through General Fund dollars and contributions from
third parties. Federal and State funds are pursued for capital expenditures. In the 2007/2008
winter season, the Town was under contract to operate the Beaver Creek Resort parking lot
shuttles (but not for the 2008/2009 Winter season). The agreement for the provision of
municipal services in the Village at Avon includes transit services but to date, Traer Creek Metro
District, LLC has not paid for or requested transit service to connect Wal-Mart and Home Depot
to Avon’s other areas.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-23
Federal Transit Administration grant funds are routinely applied to vehicles, equipment and
facilities purchases. These grant funds are able to pay for up to 80% of the cost of capital
purchases. In recent years, however, Avon (and other transit agencies) has only been allocated
10-20% of their requested amount due to a shortage of federal funding dollars.
The Town of Avon spent $2,519,287 on transit services in 2008, with $380,092 of this for buses
and other transportation related capital expenses. The pie charts below illustrate expenses and
revenues by category.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-24
On the revenue side, the general fund subsidy has increased since 2006. With Avon no longer
operating contract service for Beaver Creek, this trend is expected to continue. While this
change reduces the total service hours operated, the other impact is that the system is no
longer able to spread fixed overhead expenses over a larger base of service hours and riders.
On the expense side, the combination of administrative, operating, and marketing costs are
used as a basis for understanding the ongoing system costs. The remaining capital expenses
can vary substantially from year-to-year. Figure 3.10 illustrates the historical shared cost per
service hour. In 2008 the cost of operation per service hour was calculated at $62.33. For 2009
the Town estimates that transit costs will be approximately $90.00 per service hour.3
It is also useful to understand costs per rider based on service type. Table 3.11 illustrates the
estimated costs allocated by route based on 2008 service levels. With the system not operating
the Beaver Creek parking lot shuttle in 2009, the costs per passenger for other route services
are expected to increase somewhat. Figure 3.11 illustrates the historical change in subsidy
from the Town’s general fund to Avon Transit’s Enterprise Fund per passenger.
Table 3.11 Productivity by Service Type
Service Hours 2008 Cost
Passenger
Trips
Cost per
Passenger
Trip
Town Routes 13,095$1,062,755448,000 $ 2.37
Gondola Express Route 2,228$ 189,125 72,000 $ 2.63
Gondola 800$ 256,000 93,000 $ 2.75
BC Parking Lot Shuttle 9,903$ 549,714425,657 $ 1.29
TOTAL 26,026$2,057,5941,038,657 Avg. $ 1.98
Source: Town of Avon
3 Service hours include the running time of the routes plus about 20% additional hours for pre-and
post-trip safety inspections, training, and the washing and refueling time
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-25
Figure 3.10 Historic Cost per Service Hour for Town Routes
$-
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
$80.00
$90.00
$100.00
1998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010
Gross Town Route Operations Cost
Shared Cost Per Service Hour
Note: Excludes capital expenditures, gondola.
Source: Town of Avon
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-26
Figure 3.11 Cost of Transit Service per Passenger
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
200220032004200520062007200820092010
General Fund Subsidy Per Passenger Served
Gross Cost Per passenger Served
Source: Town of Avon
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-27
3.2 FUTURE CONDITIONS
Substantial planned residential and commercial development in the Town of Avon and Avon’s
desire to encourage multi-modal travel within the Town will increase demand and change travel
patterns on Avon’s transit system. This section describes the planned development,
considerations for future transit service and three service scenarios to accommodate the future
demand.
3.2.1 Planned Development
This section describes the methodology for estimating transit ridership demand as a result of
Avon’s planned development. At buildout Avon is expected to have approximately 4,800 new
residential units, 250,000 square feet of new retail development and 187,000 square feet of new
office development. More information about this new development is included in Chapter 1.
3.2.1.1 Future Road Network
Figure 3.12 illustrates the planned road network. A new roadway is shown through the Village
at Avon Planned Unit Development based on both the Village filing and the recognition that the
existing roadway will likely not provide adequate access and capacity for the 2,000 units
planned in this area. The final design of the roadways in the Village will influence transit routing
patterns. A new road in the West Town Center area will connect Lake Street to Benchmark
Road; it is referred to as Main Street.
3.2.2 Transit Demand
Transit demand is made up of residents of Avon that live and work in Avon and Beaver Creek,
employees of Avon and Beaver Creek that live outside the area and Avon and Beaver Creek
visitors. Demand is dependent on many different aspects of travel such as parking availability,
cost of parking, development density and type, congestion, and travel time to name a few.
These factors make it difficult to pinpoint an exact mode share that will be achieved in the
future. Because of this, transit demand is presented in a range. The low end is based roughly
on today’s rate of transit activity. However by implementing more stringent parking policies, pay
parking and maintaining frequent, reliable transit service the mode share could increase to the
higher end estimate. The following section describes the future transit demand estimates
associated with the different user populations.
3.2.2.1 Avon Transit Demand
A production-based trip generation model was developed to estimate transit demand in the
Town of Avon. This means that demand is based on trips produced from the development of
residential and lodging units and distributed to attractions such as retail, office and commercial
development. Total trips (vehicular, transit, other) were estimated using ITE’s trip generation
rates for each new residential and lodging land use and new area served by transit. Mode splits
were then applied to these trip generation estimates and an average auto occupancy number
was applied to the resulting number to convert vehicle trips to person trips. The auto occupancy
conversion used is 2.0.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-28
Figure 3.12 Planned Roadway and High Speed Rail
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-29
Figure 3.13 illustrates the three general subareas used for this analysis. The three subareas
are referred to as the Town Core, the Outer Core and Mountain Rural. Development in the
Town’s core area where there is dense mixed-use land uses will achieve the highest transit
mode splits while low density residential only areas on the town periphery will achieve only
minimal transit ridership. Table 3.12 illustrates the range of mode splits based on the location
of new development within Avon. Both the low and high mode share splits assume that the
Town will continue to promote a transit friendly, less auto-oriented community and that new
developments will be transit-oriented. The high-end mode share reflects the addition of the
proposed high-speed rail connecting Avon to Vail, Denver, DIA, and Glenwood Springs. An
intermodal, high-speed regional rail station in Avon would serve Minturn, Eagle Vail, and
Edwards and would significantly increase transit demand in the Town of Avon.
Table 3.12 Mode Share Estimates
Transit Mode Share
Town Area Low High
Core Area 11% 20%
Outer Core 5% 10%
Mountain Rural 1% 3%
Table 3.13 lists the resulting transit trip demand estimated for new developments and existing
developments that are not currently served today but are expected to be served in the future.
These daily numbers reflect average winter day ridership increases as a result of the new
development. In 2008, summer ridership on the Town routes was 42% of the winter totals.
Table 3.13 New Avon Transit Demand at Buildout (Average Winter Day)
New Daily Avon Transit Demand
Planned Development Low Mode Share High Mode Share
East Town Center Condo/Townhouse 690 1254
West Town Center Condo/Townhouse 690 1250
Village at Avon Condo/Townhouse 240 720
Village at Avon Single Family 18 54
Confluence Condo/Townhouse 350 640
Swift Gulch Condo/Townhouse (existing) 300 600
Swift Gulch Condo/Townhouse (new) 4 12
Folson Condo/Townhouse 40 76
Buck Creek Condo/Townhouse 4 14
Benchmark Condo/Townhouse 106 318
Wildridge Condo/Townhouse (new) 0 2
Wildridge Single Family (new) 25 75
Wildridge (existing) 30 90
Daily Total 2,497 5,105
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-30
Figure 3.13 Town of Avon Transit Subareas
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-31
Figure 3.14 illustrates the anticipated daily growth in ridership for winter and summer seasons
to the future demand identified in Table 3.13 based on an annual growth rate of 200 units
annually. While it is recognized that growth will vary from year-to-year, this chart illustrates the
anticipated range of ridership increases as the Town moves towards buildout. These ridership
increases would be in addition to the existing average ridership of 1,900 daily riders in the winter
and 800 daily riders in the summer.
Figure 3.14 Increase in Ridership as Town Builds Out
At buildout ridership projections indicate that the Town’s transit services will carry between 1.02
million and 1.65 million riders annually depending on the level of service provided and the
availability of high-speed regional rail. Table 3.14 illustrates the range of low and high ridership
projected at buildout.
Table 3.14 Town of Avon Annual Ridership Projections at Buildout
Annual Ridership
Range Low High
Existing 420,000 420,000
New 597,000 1,233,000
Total 1,017,000 1,653,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
200
600
1,00
0
1,400
1,800
2,2
0
0
2,600
3,000
3,4
0
0
3,80
0
4,200
Housing Units Built
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
T
r
i
p
s
Winter Low
Winter High
Summer Low
Summer High
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-32
3.2.2.2 Beaver Creek Demand
In the past Avon has also operated transit service for Beaver Creek (serving Avon Station, Elk
Lot, Bear Lot and Beaver Creek Village). This route carried 200,000 riders a month or an
average of 6,700 per day. On a busy winter day this route is estimated to have carried
approximately 9,000 passengers. Estimates made by Town staff suggest that there is limited
ability to increase Beaver Creek’s capacity of “skiers at one time”, so growth is anticipated to
increase the number of peak days in the season.
3.2.2.3 Employment Demand
In addition to transit demand generated by residential development within the Town of Avon,
employees arriving to Avon from outside the area by ECO transit will also generate transit
demand. A recent Eagle County employment study indicates that by 2030 there will be an
increase of 11,000 people who live outside of Town and commute to new jobs in Avon4. If 15%
of these employees ride regional transit and 20% of those riders transfer to Avon transit to reach
their final destination this would increase transit demand by approximately 330 employees riding
transit daily and 660 transit trips. The importance of employment transportation for employees
arriving via ECO will continue to grow as the community reaches build-out. Serving these
employees effectively is anticipated to require service to transferring passengers whose place of
employment is not on the ECO routes.
3.2.3 Alternatives
Future bus routing options were identified to accommodate planned development at buildout of
Avon. A map of the near-term option developed with town staff is provided followed by a
description of options to accommodate the long-term demand anticipated. These options
should be considered a guide to development of future transit because specific routing patterns
may emerge in response to development and the new road network as it occurs.
The Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan includes many goals and objectives to create an
integrated transit system that minimizes dependence on automobile travel within the Town.
Transit service that facilitates access to businesses, community services and nightlife is also
vital to other place-making goals described in the Comprehensive Plan. Development of future
transit alternatives considered the existing and future travel patterns, land use types, and the
Town’s general transportation policies and goals. Specific considerations for future transit
alternatives are discussed below.
One-Way versus Bi Directional Service
The Comprehensive Plan calls for consideration of future bi-directional service. Bi-directional
service patterns enable passengers to travel the shortest distance to their destination rather
than riding a long loop around in one direction. It is, however, recognized that bi-directional
service requires twice as many resources to provide the same frequency of service as a looped
route (e.g. a 15-minute one-way loop would require the same number of bus hours as a
30-minute bidirectional loop. To maintain a 15-minute headway and provide bidirectional
service would require twice as many bus hours). In areas where there is not a significant travel
4 Local and Regional Travel Patterns Study, 2004, RCC Associates, Charlier Associates, and Healthy
Mountain Communities
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-33
time improvement the Town may choose to continue with single direction loops, with
incremental increases in frequency. Reducing headways by 5 minutes could be a precursor to
providing bidirectional service to accommodate additional demand. It is recommended that the
Transportation Department conduct regular assessments of ridership to determine the best
timing for changing a route from a single direction loop to bi-directional.
Direct Connections
A single seat ride between origins and destinations (a direct connection) improves the
desirability of transit service and therefore provides the ability to capture a higher share of
people riding transit.
Existing and emerging land use patterns indicate that there will be a substantial demand for
traveling across town between residences on the west end of town and the big box retailers on
Post Boulevard. There are a number of ways to improve east/west travel across town:
• Extend the Blue Route to Post Boulevard
• Interline the Blue Route or Red Routes and a new route serving the east end enabling
passengers to stay onboard and avoid having to transfer to another vehicle.
• Expand the gondola loop to serve the west end (preferably bi-directional)
Direct connections to Beaver Creek Village are also desirable to enable visitors to travel
between events and amenities in Beaver Creek Village and Avon town center. This will be
especially true as the Town builds out and the East and West town center areas are re-
developed and enhanced. One option for providing a direct connection between Beaver Creek
Village and the Avon Town Center might be interlining the Gondola Express Route with the
Beaver Creek Shuttle (e.g. returning to a pre-2008 “skier shuttle” route).
Land Use Patterns
Transit supportive areas are those developments with high enough residential density and/or
employment density to merit being served by transit. For this exercise, Avon has been broken
into three different sub area types where service could be provided.
The first area is the Town Core. This area is roughly bounded by West Beaver Creek Boulevard
on the west, Beaver Creek Place on the east, I-70 on the north and US 6 on the south. The
entire Town Core is considered transit supportive and has the highest density of residential
units, employment, and activity centers. Areas contiguous with the currently defined Town Core
area could be added to the Town Core definition if they match the residential density and
employment density of the existing core area. The second area is called the Outer Core. The
transit supportive areas in the Outer Core still have a solid density of residents or jobs, but
perhaps not both. Generally the activity centers are much more limited in the Outer Core. The
third area is referred Mountain Rural – The transit supportive areas within the Mountain Rural
classification are those areas that have the lowest residential density and may have minimal or
no employment. Typically a residential density of ten or more people per acre within walking
distance of the route is needed for viable fixed route service.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-34
As the Village at Avon is developed, the outer core area will have more transit supportive
development. This development provides an example of the range of densities that might be
used for Town Core and Outer Core. The PUD for the Village at Avon calls for the densest
development on the west end with 25 dwelling units per acre and somewhat lower densities in
the central and east end with residential densities of 15 dwelling units per acre. Using the
Town’s average of 3 people per dwelling unit, the west side would have 75 people per acre and
likely be included in the Town Core category. The central and east sides would have 45 people
per acre and would likely be part of the Outer Core.
The west end of the Village at Avon is anticipated to have densities equivalent to the Town Core
and the east end may vary between Town Core and Outer Core designations, depending on
how development occurs.
Transit services should only be provided in the outer core and mountain rural classifications
when a logical route can be structured to serve contiguous or connecting areas can be
operated. The Town will need to balance the need to provide transit service to new
developments (or outlying areas) with transit service productivity as measured in passengers
per hour. It is recommended that transit service not be expanded to areas until there is
adequate development to meet the Town’s productivity standards.
• The 2008 figures show the Town carried an average of 43 passengers per hour in the
winter on Town routes and 28 passengers per hour on its summer routes.
• Routes serving residential and lower density areas may have ridership levels closer to
the summer averages but these levels will occur on a year-round basis.
• New service will initially have lower levels of ridership, but the expectation would be that
within two seasons any additions will meet system standards.
Parking Policies
Parking policies will influence transit demand. Pay parking within the Town of Avon and/or at
the existing Beaver Creek day skier parking lots would increase transit travel by visitors and
employees. The Town anticipates that the free day-skier lots will likely change to pay lots in the
near future.
Seasonal Variation
The Comprehensive Plan promotes an integrated and less-seasonal transit operation of the
main Town Routes. The winter season is assumed to be 130-135 days long and the summer
level of service would be in place the remainder of the year; a separate operating plan for the
shoulder season is not expected to be necessary. Year-round service to the residential areas
that can support transit service will be necessary to build transit use among employees.
Summer service levels will be maintained to provide good connections while trying to retain a
balance with productivity.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-35
Planned Regional Rail Service
The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority has initiated a study that is evaluating the feasibility of high-
speed rail service connecting the Denver Metropolitan Area and DIA to the mountains and
resort communities in the I-70 corridor. Avon anticipates the inclusion of a multimodal transit
facility on the east end of Town near Post Boulevard’s intersection with the railroad tracks.
3.2.3.1 Near-Term
Figure 3.15 illustrates a transit service plan to address near term transit demand in Avon. This
plan builds on the current routing plan but adds additional services to areas where growth has
occurred. The service hours can be increased over time to keep pace with development. A
near-term plan would provide approximately 20,000 hours of service annually on the Town
routes, about 6,000 hours more than what was provided in 2008. This plan will need to be
implemented by the time there are an additional 1,000 to 1,200 housing units built over 2008
levels to accommodate anticipated growth. This assumes the low mode share levels and
productivity levels similar to today.
Red Route
The Red Route would be extended east to serve Buffalo Ridge and the big box stores on Post
Boulevard. A previous demonstration of transit service to the Village at Avon showed a high
demand for service along this route. It would continue to serve lodges along East Beaver Creek
Boulevard and Benchmark Road as well as those along Hurd Lane with service to the Elk Lot.
The planned route would initially operate in a counter clockwise direction with 30-minute
headways.
Blue Route
The Blue Route would also be extended east to serve the big box stores on Post Boulevard. It
would continue to serve West Beaver Creek Boulevard, US 6, the Elk Lot and Avon Station.
Service would be bidirectional and would be provided every 30 minutes.
Gondola Express Route
Service would continue to be provided at 2009 levels. This includes one bus operating at loop
intervals of approximately seven minutes for 10 hours a day during the winter season. Beaver
Creek Shuttle
Beaver Creek Resort Company operated this service in the 2008/2009 season and it expected
to continue to operate the service in the near term. This plan does not include analysis of
BCRC's transit system. Thus the level of service and total operating cost to the Town for
operating of the green line in future years is unclear at this time. Note however that the Town of
Avon has been requested to contribute to BCRC's cost of operating this route during ski season
via a cost sharing agreement (e.g., between all service partners such as Beaver Creek Ski
Company, Vail Resorts, and Avon). For purposes of this plan, it is assumed that Avon Transit
incurs no service hours but could incur an annual cost of up to $135,000/yr for contribution to
green line service.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-36
Figure 3.15 Near -Term Transit Plan
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-37
Riverfront Gondola
The Gondola’s current capacity is 1,200 passengers per hour. Adding cars increases this
capacity to a maximum of 1,600 passengers per hour. The Near-Term plan does not include
capital costs associated with adding cars to increase the capacity of this service.
Wildridge Route
This plan anticipates new transit service being provided to the Wildridge residential area
connecting residents to Avon Station at some point in the next 10 to 12 years. The service plan
includes approximately 60 hours of service per week. A four wheel drive vehicle will be
necessary to operate this service reliably through Wildridge’s mountainous terrain during
inclement weather.
Fleet
While the exact fleet size can’t be identified without developing a specific operating plan, the
preliminary evaluation of near-term services indicates that two to three additional vehicles will
be needed to provide the service identified.
Budget
The operating cost for the near-term alternative is approximately $2.0 million annually in 2008
dollars (22,000 bus hours at $90/hour). The cost per rider for most of the routes is expected to
be less than $3.00 (in 2009 dollars) once the routes have been established for a year or so.
The cost per rider for the Wildridge route will be higher due to the low density of development,
distance from the town center, and the relatively low mode split anticipated; operation of this
route as described should be expected to have an associated cost of about $20 to $30 per
boarding. It may be more appropriate to initiate services on a truncated route (e.g., to the east
end of Nottingham or to the Metcalf truck turn around) and then evaluate ridership patterns
before extending the route up Wildridge Road. Costs include maintenance of buses and
facilities. These can dramatically change depending on fuel, inflation and changes in operating
costs. In addition, the Town contributes funding to the Gondola operation and may contribute
funding to operation of the Beaver Creek Shuttle.
3.2.3.2 Long-Term Routes
In the long-term it is anticipated that growth in residences, visitors and employment in Avon will
require somewhere between 38,000 and 60,000 service hours annually to accommodate Town
transit demand. This compares to the 14,000 hours provided in 2008. This range reflects the
low and high levels of mode share identified in the demand section. The location and timing of
future developments will play a big role in how routes are modified and expanded over time to
achieve these additional service hours. A few suggested options to enhance service in the area
are discussed below. Figure 3.16 illustrates the areas in the Town of Avon expected to warrant
transit service at buildout.
Buffalo Ridge and Village Service
While the near term plan extends existing services east to cover this area, future demand for
travel between the Village at Avon and the rest of Avon will warrant providing additional hours to
this area. This could come in the form of a new route or by adding buses to the existing red and
blue routes to improve frequency and/or provide bi directional service.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-38
Gondola Express/Beaver Creek Shuttle
The Gondola Express Route and the Beaver Creek Shuttle could be operated as one route to
provide a single seat ride from many of Avon’s lodging units to Beaver Creek Village. During
the summer season the Gondola Express Route would be dropped and only the Beaver Creek
Shuttle would be operated.
Figure 3.16 Areas Served by Avon Transit at Buildout
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-39
Riverfront Gondola
As demand grows, adding capacity to the Gondola will be an effective way to increase the
person carrying capacity to the base of Beaver Creek and limit the need to add buses along
Village Road to serve Beaver Creek
Wildridge Route
A preliminary evaluation of this route indicated that it would have sufficient resources to be
combined (or interlined) with a new route serving Swift Gulch, Post Boulevard and East Beaver
Creek Boulevard. Interlining these two routes would be a more efficient use of the Town’s
resources than providing a separate bus and driver for each route. However, the four wheel
drive vehicle expected to be required to operate the Wildridge service may not be a practical
vehicle to operate on another route.
Demand for service to the Wildridge area is not expected to require additional service beyond
what is planned in the near term. However, should demand for this service grow, additional
service could be provided by increasing frequency of service to 30 minutes or providing
additional peak period service as necessary to meet demand. As with all services, providing
more service to an area should be evaluated to ensure that it can be implemented cost
effectively.
Fleet
While the exact fleet size can’t be identified without developing a long-term operating plan, the
preliminary evaluation of services indicates that a fleet of between 14 and 17 vehicles would be
needed to accommodate future demand for Town services. An additional 14% in spare vehicles
are also needed resulting in a total of 15 to 19 vehicles at build-out. In addition, the fleet will
require at least two vehicles suitable for paratransit or other specialized services – one in-
service and one spare (e.g. cut-aways, commercial vans, etc.) Finally, non-revenue vehicles
such as a maintenance truck and a supervisory vehicle should be included on the fleet roster.
Budget
In the long-term it is anticipated that an annual operating budget of between $3.2 and $5.1
million will be needed to provide service that accommodates planned development. These
costs include maintenance of buses and facilities. These can dramatically change depending
on fuel, inflation and changes in operating costs. Town contributions to the Gondola operation
and operation of the Beaver Creek Shuttle are not included in these estimates.
3.2.4 Bus Stop Improvements
Based on bi-directional service on most roadways, Figure 3.17 illustrates the location of bus
stops that will be needed. For areas where service does not exist today these locations are
approximate and final decisions will need to be made based on a traffic engineering review. As
appropriate, Avon should work with ECO Transit, the school district, and Beaver Creek Resort
to coordinate the location of bus stops. Details about when bus stops should be added and
guidelines for their placement and design are included in Chapter 3, Bus Stop Guidelines.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-40
Figure 3.17 Suggested Stops
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-41
3.2.5 Maintenance/Operations
As discussed in the existing conditions section, the Town of Avon and Eagle County are
planning to construct an expanded shared bus maintenance and operations facility to replace
the current Swift Gulch facility. Based on the service planning options discussed here, the
maintenance and operations facility should plan to accommodate indoor parking for to 21 full-
size buses, two paratransit vehicles and about six auxiliary vehicles at buildout for Avon service.
3.2.6 Capital and Operating Costs
Table 3.15 summarizes the growth in annual operating costs between 2009 and 2035. The
operating cost for the near-term alternative is approximately $2.0 million annually in 2008
dollars. In the long-term it is anticipated that an annual budget of about $3.5 million will be
needed to operate service that accommodates planned development. The addition of a regional
rail hub in the Town of Avon could increase transit demand substantially and require additional
local service be provided to support the rail line. Under that scenario the annual budget to
operate services in the Town could reach somewhere around $5 million. These costs are based
on $90 per hour and include maintenance of buses and facilities.
Table 3.15 Operating Costs and Service Hour Estimate
Year 2009 2010 2020 2035
(Buildout)Comments
Town Routes 13,100 11,600 12,130 14,500
Assumes about half of
projected service hour
growth occurs in near-term
Gondola Express 1,150 1,150 1,150 2,300 Assumes second bus added
in future
Village at Avon - 6,800 8,920 14,500 Assumes additional buses
added in future
Wildridge - - - 3,744 Assumes 60 hrs/wk in route
Beaver Creek
Village - - - 4,528 Assumes Avon resumes
operation of this route
Total Service
Hours 14,250 19,550 22,200 39,572
Estimated Bus
Route Operations
Cost (@$90/
service hour)
$1.3 m $1.8 m $2.0 m $3.6 m Does not include gondola
operations, capital costs
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-42
In addition to the operating costs described above, the budget for Avon Transit will need to
account for the growing fleet needs and replacement of the existing fleet. It is recommended
that financing be provided for the fleet on an annualized basis. Table 3.16 identifies life-cycle
costs for vehicles. The fleet costs will increases as transit services build. This table illustrates
hybrid buses rather than clean diesel. While the initial cost of hybrid vehicles are higher, fuels
costs are lower and the public has voiced support for hybrids and other environmental
stewardship initiatives (e.g. 2008 Community Survey).
Table 3.16 Fleet Costs
Life-cycle Vehicle Costs Cost Each Life in Years Cost per Year
Full-size Hybrid Bus $520,000 12 $74,000
Full-size Non Hybrid Bus $380,000 12 $54,100
Body-on-chassis/Vanterra Hybrid $200,000 7 $48,800
Four-wheel Drive Commercial Van $50,000 7 $12,200
Non-Revenue Vehicles $50,000 7 $12,200
1) Assumes 7% interest, 10 year lease purchase
2) Assumed 7% interest, 5 year lease purchase
In addition, two other major capital costs are for bus stop and signage and routine facility
upgrades. The Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards identify stops as Simple, Enhanced Level 1
and Enhanced Level 2. While it is assumed that developers will build the initial stops, paying for
pull-outs, shelters, and signage, there will be ongoing costs to upgrade and maintain the stops.
It is recommended that funding be identified for stops on an annual basis (approximately
$20,000 would be a reasonable level).
3.2.7 Funding Options
The primary sources of funding for transit services in Colorado are ones the Town presently
uses. General fund dollars are used for local services and a sales tax is in place to fund ECO
regional transit services. The Town accesses Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds for the
discretionary capital fund program, known as FTA section 5309. In addition, the Town has
requested FTA 5311, ARRA and Senate Bill 1 funding for transit capital funds.
Currently the Town funds $1.5 million out of the general fund. Additional ongoing funding will be
needed for all future alternatives. Assuming local funds are needed to support operations plus
20% of capital costs, the long-term local funding responsibility would be between $3.4 and $5.3
million per year.
Considerations in determining how to fund long-term transit operations are listed below.
Different mechanisms are considered and may vary by route.
Beaver Creek Resort Company/Vail Resorts
Beaver Creek Resort Company (BCRC) has historically been responsible for funding
transportation for its customers to Beaver Creek Village for skiing and night-time dining and
entertainment. Ideally, BCRC would continue to fund this service and would do so year-round.
If the town pays for this service, a sales tax increase may be an effective mechanism to assure
that the amount of service benefitting BCRC visitors is paid for by those visitors.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-43
Development Impact Fees
Much of the increase in transit service is for new development. Colorado allows development
impact fees for the capital cost of transit services, but at present does not provide for
development impact fees for operating costs. The Town may wish to support changes to
Colorado’s laws regulating development impact fees to expand them to cover operating costs as
well as capital costs. California and other states have used this funding mechanism with good
results for over twenty years.
Sales Tax Increase
A sales tax increase could be used to raise funding for future transit. Sales taxes are widely
used statewide for funding transit services and are viewed as one of the best ways to provide
transit funding for Avon. In resort areas such as Avon, a high proportion (about 2/3rds) is
derived from guest spending. This places the responsibility for funding on visitors who use
much of the transit services. A downside is that sales tax collections reflect the economy and in
downturns can significantly impact the ability of a local agency to provide transit services. To
mitigate this, an adequate reserve is needed to provide for stable service delivery. The Town
has calculated that a sales tax of 0.75% (e.g. $0.75 on a $100 purchase) would be adequate to
fund both transit and trails expansion.
Forming a Regional Transit District that includes the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District may be
an option for establishing long-term transit funding.
Lodging Tax
The Town estimates that a small lodging tax applicable to lodges in both Avon and the BCMD
could generate revenue to fund the Beaver Creek shuttle. However, the Town estimates that a
lodging tax increase within only the Avon town limits would not be adequate to generate
sufficient revenue unless it was considerably higher than other lodging taxes in Colorado.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 3-44
3.3 Bus Stop Guidelines
BUS STOP GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Prepared for:
Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
Prepared by:
TransitPlus, Inc.
July 29, 2009
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
II. GENERAL----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
III. TYPES OF BUS STOPS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
3.1 Street-side and Curbside Factors-------------------------------------------------------------6
3.2 Curb-side: Amenities and Access------------------------------------------------------------11
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Map of Transit Zones-----------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Figure 2. Bus Stop Sign Types-----------------------------------------------------------------------------8
Figure 3. Freestanding Route Map------------------------------------------------------------------------9
Figure 4. Accessible Bus Stop Pad and Shelter – Minimum Dimensions----------------------12
Figure 5. Example of Influential Factors on Waiting Pad Size-------------------------------------13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Matrix of Bus Stop Requirements-------------------------------------------------------------6
Table 2. Current Bus Stops by Type, As of June, 2009--------------------------------------------19
Table 3. Proposed Bus Stops by Type-----------------------------------------------------------------20
ATTACHMENT - Lake Street Shelter Example
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
These Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards identify expectations for bus stops and standardize
bus stop design features. Standardization results in less confusion for bus operators,
passengers, and motorists and create a uniform look and feel to the transit system.
Consistency in design, however, can be difficult to achieve as many factors influence the
choices.
These standards will be applied by the Public Works Department, the Engineering Department
the Transportation Department, and the Community Development Department in response to
property development, re-development, and general streetscape planning. They provide basic
guidelines for establishing bus stops on streets and reflect an integration of current Town of
Avon practices and facilities as well as industry best practices1. The West Town Center design
guidelines have been used herein for illustrative purposes 2. Signage design should be
discussed during the plan review period on a site-specific basis.
The development of bus stops begins with building orientation so that pedestrians can readily
access convenient bus stops. Developers are encouraged to review this document and discuss
the requirements at the plan development phase with the Public Works and Transportation
Department. Prior to approval of plan documents, site plans require a review by the Director of
Public Works and Transportation to assure the development and siting of bus stops provide
convenient access, pedestrian connectivity, pedestrian safety, and smooth vehicle operations.
These guidelines and standards address the types of bus stops, location, and the amenities
required at different types of stops.
They include: general information on bus stops, a description of the types of bus stops in the
Town of Avon, a section discussing factors related to traffic movements and the interface with
the roadway (street-side factors), and a section on factors related to passenger access, site
design, and accessibility (curb-side factors).
1 Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus
Stops. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1996, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC
2 Town Center District Investment Plan, Design Workshop, August 2007
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 2
II. GENERAL
The Department of Transportation is responsible for establishing bus stops along Town routes,
and working with ECO Transit in establishing stops for regional services. The Town will work
with CDOT as needed for stops located within the Town boundaries on US Highway 6. These
guidelines make references to transit zones so Figure 1 illustrates the adopted transit zones.
• Bus stop requirements may be upgraded from time-to-time to reflect passenger, vehicle,
or transit operating needs, or in response to new development, intersection
improvements, or sidewalk installations.
• Bus stops with amenities may be required for developments in areas receiving
“Mountain Core” transit levels of service. Stops are designated as “simple” “enhanced
level 1” or enhanced level 2”, each requiring a different set of amenities. Simple stops
have limited requirements and “enhanced level 2 the most requirements.
• Stops presently located along some transit corridors may need to be upgraded in
response to development or redevelopment or even relocated.
• In general bus stops will be required about every 1,500 feet on arterials, unless
ridership warrants a less frequent spacing.
• Space for bus stops will be required on both sides of streets to allow for bi-directional
service, even if bi-directional service is not provided presently.
• Bus stops to support a particular development may or may not abut the property. At
times, a stop at the nearest intersection or on the opposite side of the intersection may
provide for better vehicle flow, site distance, and pedestrian safety. The Town reserves
the right to require right-of-way dedication and to charge developers for the cost of bus
stop improvements when properties undergo development or redevelopment when such
improvements are planned by the Town as shown herein and/or if the Town determines
that the project necessitates the creation of a new bus stop.
• The Town will decide on whether to serve a given location with a near-side, far-side, or
mid-block stop.
In establishing stops it is important to understand the operating constraints and issues for the
automobile, transit, and pedestrian perspectives. The following safety and operating elements
will be considered in bus stop placement3:
Safety:
• Passenger protection from passing traffic
• Passenger protection from weather
• Access for people with disabilities
• All-weather surface to step from/to the bus
• Street lighting
• Proximity to passenger crosswalks and curb ramps
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 3
Figure 1. Map of Transit Zones
3 Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus
Stops, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1996, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, adapted from page 19.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 4
• Proximity of stop for transfers to routes in the opposite direction
Operating:
• Impact of the bus stop on adjacent properties
• On-street automobile parking and designated delivery zones
• Snow plowing considerations
• Bus routing patterns (i.e. individual bus movements at intersections)
• Width of roadway and intersecting streets
• Types of traffic controls (signal, stop, yield, or round-about)
• Volumes and turning movements of other traffic
• Width of sidewalks
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 5
III. TYPES OF BUS STOPS
The basic types of bus stops are standard on-street stops and transfer centers.
• Standard on-street bus stops are located on municipal streets and roads. These stops
may be:
- Simple stops, marked by a bus stop sign (e.g. Avon Library). A bear-proof garbage
can is also required. Bicycle racks and newspaper racks are optional. These stops
are anticipated to have less than 25 passenger boardings on a peak travel day.
- Enhanced stops with amenities based on passenger use. The stop on the west side
of Lake Street is a prototype example of one with a shelter. In addition to signage
and garbage can, amenities may include benches, shelters, bike racks, or other
items, as described below. Stops with 25 to 50 passenger peak season boardings
will have benches and signs only; stops with 50 or more passenger boardings will
have shelters and amenities. These are denoted as Enhanced Level I and
Enhanced Level II, respectively.
• Transfer centers or hubs are locations where multi-mode connections are made. For
example: two or more buses meet, a bus meets a train, or bus-gondola or bus-parking
connections are possible and passengers transfer between routes or services. These
may be in the public right-of-way or on private property. Presently Avon Station is the
only transfer center used by Avon Transit and ECO transit. ECO transit also uses the
stop near Walmart which is adjacent to public parking garage located within the Traer
Creek Metro District. A future transit hub linking car, bus, train, bike, and pedestrians, is
expected for the East Avon area near Post Road.
Table 1 summarizes the requirements for each type of stop by transit service zone. At the end
of these Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards is a list of current stops and essential future stops
by type.
Generally all bus stops are required to have a pullout, an area of asphalt large enough for the
bus to pull out of the lane of traffic.
Transit hubs shall be custom designed to match the passenger demand characteristics and
existing multi-modal connections provided at the site. Transit hubs shall be designed with the
same basic principles set forth for upgraded stops but will necessarily be larger in size because
of the number of vehicles and passengers they must accommodate.
Transfer centers or hubs need to have room for passenger vehicles and for passenger loading,
including those who use wheelchairs. A minimum of fifteen minute parking for passenger
vehicles is also recommended in a loading zone. Adequate pedestrian room is also needed for
passengers to wait and circulate. All amenities are required at transfer centers.
Facilities for passengers include benches and shelters; signage to inform people how to use the
system (including all routes stopping there, schedules, and system maps); a restroom access,
and possibly ticket machines for regional bus or rail services. Adequate room is needed for the
buses to lay-over and for drivers to take a break. The layover space may be at the primary bus
stop or nearby.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 6
Table 1. Matrix of Bus Stop Requirements
Area “Simple”
< 25 Pass/Day
“Enhanced Level I”
25-50 Pass/Day
“Enhanced Level II”
50 + Pass/Day
Sign only – Type C or
D
Sign Type B plus
schedule
Sign – Type A,
schedule, map
Town Core Lighted but no
amenities
Lighted, amenities as
desired (trash can,
bench, bike rack)
Shelter, trash can,
lighted, bike rack
Sign only Sign plus schedule Sign, schedule, map
Outer Core Lighted but no
amenities
Lighted, amenities as
desired (trash can,
bench, bike rack)
Lighted, amenities as
desired (trash can,
bench, bike rack)
Sign only Sign plus schedule Sign plus schedule
Mountain Rural Place near light when
possible
Lighted but no
amenities
Amenities as
appropriate
Note:
(1) All stops are required to have solar lighting and a pull-out suitable for a 40-foot bus.
(2) Passenger boardings reflect average winter boardings
3.1 Street-side and Curbside Factors
Bus stops are considered from the perspective of “street-side” and “curb-side”. The following
sections discuss factors and design standards for each. The street-side factors focus on traffic
movements and the interface with the roadway. The curb-side considerations focus on
passenger movements and amenities for each type of stop. The curb-side section also
addresses site development issues.
Street-side: The Roadway Interface
Location of Stops: Near-side, far-side, or mid-block
Decisions on bus stop placement will be made on a case-by-case basis. Each location has
advantages and disadvantages. The Department of Public Works and Transportation will
balance the safety and operating concerns for vehicles and pedestrians when making decisions
on stop locations. Site distance for pedestrians and vehicles, vehicle turning movements, traffic
congestion, pedestrian walking distances, and other issues will be considered.
Length of Bus Stops
Bus stop zones will be sized for 40-foot length buses plus an additional five feet to
accommodate ski boxes and/or bicycle racks. Minimum no-parking zone distances for each
type are:
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 7
• Near-side: 100’ measured from the extreme outside end of curb radius
• Far-side: 90’ measured from cross-walk. For stops made after a right turn, measure
the 90’ distance from the end of the radius.
• Mid-block: 150’
Roadway Design – Clearance Requirements
• Overhead obstructions should be a minimum of 12-feet above the street
• Obstructions including tree branches and signs should not be located within 2-feet of the
edge of the street to avoid being struck by a mirror
• Traffic lanes should be no narrower than 12-feet and a desirable curb-lane width
(including gutter) is 14-feet.
• Snow plowing considerations should be addressed.
Bus Stop Signage Design4
The purpose of this section is to provide guidelines for exterior wayfinding signs and to establish
a consistent and controlled transit sign program. Use of consistent design, color, materials,
logo, topography and size relationships will help build a cohesive identity in the transit system.
Many illustrations in this section are from the West Town Center Design Guidelines.
Sign requirements vary from location to location specifically relating to the bus stop usage
guidelines listed above (i.e. simple vs. enhanced and whether the area received Mountain Core
or Mountain Rural levels of transit service).
Generally the sign and route information will be the responsibility of the Town of Avon, but the
Town’s sign application process must be followed if the developer wishes to install signage.
• Simple bus stops require a freestanding bus stop sign and any signage required to
denote a no parking zone.
• Enhanced bus stops require signage denoting the stop name and schedules. Shelters
will have a map case that allows for posting current route maps and schedules.
• For all transit sign messages, the town utilizes both Copperplate Gothic 33BC and
Engravers MT; all caps and/or big and small caps are preferred.
• If possible all bus stops should be equipped with Avon Sign Types A and B: Banner and
Bus Identification (Light Standard). The specifications for the sign and identification
details are illustrated in Figure 2. Contact the Engineering Department for detailed
specifications of compliant bus stops signs by type.
4 Town Center District Investment Plan, Design Workshop, August 2007
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 8
Figure 2. Bus Stop Sign Types
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 9
• All text, symbols and directional arrows must match the spacing and placement shown.
Messages are double sided. The post base should be fabricated aluminum on all four
sides and exposed services are to be powder coated. The number of signs needed at
specific stops shall be determined by the department of transportation. Contact the
Engineering Department for detailed specification of compliant bus stop signage by type.
• The freestanding route map case should be installed at bus stops as indicated in Table
1. The map should have a Engravers MT typeface and be constructed of 6” square
fabricated aluminum “I-Beam” posts. Paint or powder coat on all exposed surfaces.
Contact the engineering department for detailed specification of compliant bus stop
signage by type. Figure 3 illustrates a freestanding route map.
Figure 3. Freestanding Route Map
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 10
Placement of Bus Stop Signage
Signs should be placed at the location where people board at the front door of the bus. The
bottom of the sign should be at least 6.5-feet above ground level and should not be located
closer than 2-feet from the curb face. Snow plowing considerations shall be addressed.
In some cases a shared sign post or placing the sign on a shelter can be used to reduce the
number of poles and obstructions. Break-away sign posts are recommended to minimize
injuries and vehicular damage and to facilitate replacement of the post.
Signs should not be obstructed by trees, buildings, or other signs.
Safety
• Lighting is important for safety, making it easier for transit passengers to observe waiting
passengers, for motorists to see pedestrians, and for passengers to judge distances and
the location of steps. Photovoltaic lighting shall be provided at bus stops whenever
possible. Contact Engineering for more information on PV lighting specifications and for
lighting at bus shelters. The towns standard components for shelters are:
- Kyocera KC857 high efficiency muti-cry 62 W pv panel.
- Sunlight solar lighting controller 12v-10 amp
- 12v-20hr low-loss sealer gei battery for cold weather 8 hours
- NEMA 4 enclosure
- 12VDC LED lighting with 70w min bulb
- Performance for 36 hours of operations between charging
- Smaller systems may be approved for simple-type stops without shelters
• Adjacent street light with bus stop sign (with or without banner) shall be per Type A
(Figure 2) (with stone clad base if space allows)
• The stopped bus will affect site distance for pedestrians and vehicles and must be
considered in locating the stop.
• Turning lanes and round-a-bouts require special accommodations to incorporate bus
stops in a manner that provides for smooth vehicle operations and safe pedestrian
crossings. These will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
• When bicycle lanes and a bus stop are both present, the operators need to be able to
see cyclists in both directions while approaching the stop. Sufficient site distance for
cyclists to stop safely upon encountering a stopped bus is also needed.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 11
3.2 Curb-side: Amenities and Access
Curb-side factors include those factors and issues that can affect the comfort, safety, and
convenience of bus patrons. The Avon Transportation Department and developers should
utilize this section as guidelines for providing safe, clean facilities and improving access and
convenience to create a pedestrian-friendly community. This section includes discussion about
shelter design and placement, amenities, and comfort at the bus stop.
Pedestrian Access
The needs of riders extend beyond the bus stop to and from the surrounding neighborhood.
Building sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, and other safe and convenient crossings are essential,
especially for midblock bus stops on busy roads.
• Riders should not have to walk through grass or exposed soil to reach the bus. During
inclement areas such walkways can become worn and muddy and snow accumulation
can create additional problems.
• Adequate space free suitable for snow storage shall be provided so the bus stop and
passenger waiting area can be kept clear of snow.
• Coordinate sidewalks and other pedestrian enhancements to make access to the bus
stop as direct as possible. Sidewalk placement that is coordinated with land use and
bus stop locations is critical to encouraging the use of transit. Sidewalk design and
placement can be used to reduce walking times from the development to the bus stop.
• Coordinate bus stops with pedestrian crosswalks to encourage safe access across
streets and minimize jaywalking.
• Walkways and accessible ramps may be constructed of paving materials (asphalt or
small aggregate paving gravel) if there is a slight slope over a relatively short distance,
but decisions on materials will be the responsibility of the Town Engineer.
• It is desirable that ramps throughout town share consistent design elements in the form
of handrail design and materials and ramp base materials wherever possible.
• ADA accessibility guidelines must be followed when constructing a ramp.
ADA Accessibility
• All new stops must conform to ADA requirements.
• Examine all paths planned from the bus stop to the land use destinations. Determine
whether there are any obstacles that may restrict wheelchair movements or the
movements of persons with vision impairments. Protrusions higher than 27 inches or
lower than 80 inches may not be detectable to a person with a cane.
• Surfaces must be stable, firm, and slip resistant. Avoid abrupt changes in grade and
bevel those that cannot be eliminated. A ramp must be installed on any surface with a
drop greater than ½ inch or surface grade steeper than 1:20.
• Signs must be designed for use by transit riders with vision impairments. Specific
guidelines are given in Section 4.30 of Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities, Transportation Facilities and Transportation Vehicles. In some cases, two
signs may be needed to ensure visibility for most users and to assist users with sight
limitations.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 12
Figure 4. Accessible Bus Stop Pad and Shelter – Minimum Dimensions
Source: TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for Location and Design of Bus Stops
3.3 Waiting Areas
• Five feet of clearance should be preserved on sidewalks to reduce potential pedestrian
conflicts and limit congestion during boarding times.
• Depending on the availability of right-of-way space, utility poles, or buildings, the pad
can be located on either side of the sidewalk. A paved surface should be provided from
the waiting pad to the back-face of the curb to enhance access and comfort. Waiting
pads separated from the sidewalk preserve general pedestrian flow.
• The pad should accommodate a 5-foot (measured parallel to the street) by 8-foot
(measured from the back face of the curb) wheelchair landing pad that is free of all street
furniture and overhangs.
• Provide additional square footage and equipment racks for bikes, skis and snowboards.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 13
Figure 5. Example of Influential Factors on Waiting Pad Size
Source: TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for Location and Design of Bus Stops
3.4 Shelters
From the rider's point of view, an ideal shelter is one that allows visibility and easy access to the
bus, is comfortable and convenient, provides clear information, and is safe. From the
perspective of the system, a good shelter is one that has low maintenance requirements and is
vandal-resistant. These design recommendations are intended to fulfill both perspectives.
Bus stops with 50 or more passenger boardings per day will have a bus shelter.
Location
The bus stop shelter should be located to enhance the circulation patterns of riders, reduce the
amount of pedestrian congestion at a bus stop, and reduce conflict with nearby pedestrian
activities. Specific guidelines for locating bus shelters are:
• Bus shelters near intersections should be set back from the crosswalk approximately 10
feet to avoid conflicts with pedestrian traffic. If a bus stop is on the far side of an
intersection, the shelter should be located a minimum of 40 feet from the crosswalk to
allow adequate room for the bus to stop.
• A minimum of 4 feet should be allowed between the bus shelter and the curb for free
movement in boarding and exiting from the bus.
• Bus shelters should have their long side parallel to the sidewalk to minimize interference
with pedestrian traffic.
• Exit and entry openings should be oriented so that people are protected from the wind
and weather. However, it is important to keep the side of the shelter facing the street
open to allow passengers to board or exit the bus easily.
• Provide proper orientation for roof drainage and snow removal (watch potential for icicle
formation).
• When shelters are directly adjacent to a building, a 12-inch clear space should be
preserved to permit trash removal or cleaning of the shelter.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 14
• Elements such as signs, information kiosks or vendors (where permitted) that can
obstruct the view of oncoming buses should be located "down-stream" from the shelter.
Design
A bus shelter should be designed to reflect the place in which it is located. This is accomplished
through the use of local materials and by the design details. Our recommended standards for
shelter design can be adapted to reflect the unique characteristics of each particular
neighborhood, but should in general have a consistent theme. All well-designed bus shelters
have the following five general qualities: visibility, accessibility, comfort and convenience, public
information, and ease of maintenance.
One example shelter is that installed on Lake Street. Engineering information for this shelter is
attached to these guidelines and available through the Town Engineer.
General Characteristics and Size
• The general aesthetic of the site – uncomplicated shapes, uncluttered façade surfaces
shall be respected wherever possible.
• A weathered, scrubbed look is desirable for buildings and improvements on the site
reflecting the overall nature of the site and Colorado ranching and mining architectural
themes. The look of the aspens, logs, cedar shakes weathered shingles are all icons of
this area.
• Renewable resource systems and materials are strongly encouraged to showcase
sustainable approaches provided that they match these other requirements.
• The size of a bus shelter depends on the climate as well as the number of people who
are expected to use it and the expected use determined by the Department of
Transportation.
Building Massing and Roof Height
• All bus shelters shall be 3-sided. Open canopy designs are not permitted as they do not
protect users from the harsh mountain weather conditions.
• Clerestories and skylights are permitted on a case-by-case basis provided that they are
weather-tight. These features help to bring natural light into the bus stop but tend to
result in higher maintenance and increase the risk of leakage.
Exterior Materials
• Exterior cladding shall be composed of natural or recycled materials.
• No vinyl or aluminum cladding shall be used for siding or trim except in the case of
recycled materials that meet the guidelines set forth in this section.
• Cladding should not change or alternate from front to side to rear elevations if this would
be inconsistent with other surrounding buildings.
• Preferred exterior cladding materials include cedar siding and clapboards, cedar
plywood sheathing, and composite/cement cladding with appropriate shingle or
clapboard-type finish (preferably with recycled materials used). The use of cedar
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 15
eliminates ongoing maintenance and painting requirements and may be left to weather
naturally.
• Recycled, “green” materials, and materials obtained locally are encouraged. These
materials should be compatible with natural wood materials and stone. Exterior
Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) may be used where masonry materials are needed
to repair or rehabilitate existing masonry structures.
• Bus shelters should be composed of structural bolt-together members and inset panels,
not snap-together "curtain walls" or decorative sections that are easily vandalized. Steel
(with protective coating) or wood structures are allowed. Concrete is not allowed as it is
monolithic in appearance and tends to discolor and soil easily.
• Photovoltaic systems on façades or roofs and solar water systems are encouraged.
Seating
• The amount of seating should be based on both the number of people who will use the
shelter and the amount of time people will spend waiting. Where people wait for a long
time, or where the shelter is used by the elderly or infirm, more seating is generally
needed than in areas where the bus comes more frequently.
• The Towns standard material for interior bench seats is a textured light grey TREX or
HPDE lumber with a maximum support spacing of 12 inches due to elastic property of
these materials.
• A bench rail should be provided and located about 3 feet 6 inches above the ground.
Materials of construction should be cedar, Trex, or dimensional lumber made of recycled
materials.
Windows, Doors and Side Panels
• Side panels should generally not be used on the curbside of the shelter, except on very
narrow streets with heavy traffic. If side panels are used on the curbside, an opening at
least 3 feet wide needs to be provided to allow people access to the buses.
• Side panels should be mounted 3 inches off the ground so that debris will not collect
inside the shelter. If more than 3 inches off the ground, they will not keep out drafts.
• Side panels, windows and doors shall be clear, e.g., colorless safety glass, Herculite,
Lexan or other vandalism resistant material, and sized in relatively small sections for
ease of replacement (e.g., due to vandalism). Plastic or Plexiglas, mirrored or colored
glass is not allowed.
• New windows shall be natural/protected wood finish, except in cases of limited
replacement where windows shall match color of existing fenestration. Vinyl (red or
green) clad windows are allowed.
• Only fixed, non-opening windows are allowed.
• Protruding bay windows are not allowed.
• New windows may be constructed of wood, vinyl or aluminum clad, or “plastic” wood
composite materials.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 16
Roof
• A pitched roof must be used to prevent the collection of snow, rain, and debris.
• Roofing shall standing seam metal for longevity, ease of maintenance and snow and ice
removal.
• Roofs shall drain away from heavy pedestrian traffic areas (e.g., note icicle formation
potential).
• Mechanical equipment shall not be located on roof tops, except for photovoltaic panels,
solar hot water panels, special ventilation systems, and related types of equipment.
• Roof color shall be Toyota Green unless otherwise pre-approved by the Town.
Other
• All color decisions shall be made by the Town of Avon.
• Natural materials that weather well, such as cedar, are encouraged wherever possible
and are preferred over materials that must be painted, stained or sealed.
• Lighting shall be as listed in section 3.16. Shelter lights should be housed in a protective
casing to reduce vandalism, and directed to illuminate the waiting and boarding areas.
An intensity of 20 lumens per square foot is recommended for safety.
• Solar-powered lighting is encouraged for shelters.
• Adjacent street light and bus stop sign (with or without banner) shall be per Elevation 4
on sheets GR9 (with stone clad base if space allows) or GR10 (without stone clad base)
of the West Town Center Design Guidelines.
• Schedule, route information, and a map case should be located in or next to bus shelters
but not so that the view of the oncoming bus is blocked. The Transportation Department
will provide information on the standard sign frame design and size to facilitate display of
the same core transit information at all stops. Bus stop sign text shall be determined for
each stop by the Transportation Department.
• Advertising panels – to be considered on a case by case basis
3.5 Amenities
Benches
All bus stops with more than 25 boardings per day are required to install a bench with the
following guidelines:
• Coordinate bench locations with existing street lights to increase visibility and enhance
the security of a stop.
• Do not locate benches in completely exposed locations, if possible. Coordinate bench
locations with existing shade trees or install landscaping to provide protection from the
elements.
• Install benches on a non-slip, properly drained, pad.
• Install benches away from driveways.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 17
• Maintain a minimum separation of 2 feet between the bench and the back-face of the
curb.
• At bench-only stops additional waiting room near the bench should be provided.
• All street furnishings should be compatible with one another in appearance, style, color
and construction quality.
• The Town’s standard component for exterior benches is Landscape Forms, Model
"Chase Park 3-Seat Backed Unit, Surface Mount" 74" in length minimum cast aluminum
back and seat in Toyota Green (olive, stock color) Substitutions may be permitted by the
Department of Transportation with written pre-approval.
Signage and Route Information
Placement and design guidelines for each sign discussed in the street-side section. The Town
will be responsible for the design of the information and providing updated information when
changes are made to the routes and schedules.
Recreational Equipment Storage Facilities
Properly designated and located recreational equipment storage facilities discourage users from
locking bikes or resting skis in nuscience locations such as onto the bus facilities or on an
adjacent property. Proper storage can reduce the amount of visual clutter at a stop by confining
this equipment to one area. Recommendations regarding recreational equipment storage
facilities are as follows:
• Bicycle racks should be installed when demand warrants, specifically at those stops
where commuters and residents are prevalent.
• Bike racks shall be U-lock compatible.
• Locate the bicycle storage area away from other pedestrian activities.
• Coordinate the storage facilities near on-site lighting.
• Provide space to lean both skis and snowboards (2-4 per stop) wherever possible.
Trash Receptacles
Provide one bear-proof garbage can per shelter (Bearsaver Model HA-P (brown) with M__ Kit
Model HA-C/Cedar) The Town has experimented with other types and found no other equal.
Anchor the receptacle securely to the ground. Locate the receptacle away from the wheelchair
landing pad areas and allow for at least a 3-foot separation from other street furniture. Locate
the receptacle at least 2 feet from the back of the curb.
If the receptacle is adjacent to the roadway, ensure it does not obstruct the site distance of
nearby driveways or land uses.
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 18
Security*
* Also see “Lighting” in Street-side section 3.16
Some guidelines regarding security at bus stops are as follows:
• From the security perspective, landscaping, walls, and solid structures can restrict sight
lines and provide places to hide.
• Bus stop shelters include windows that provide an unobstructed of and to patrons
waiting inside.
• The stops themselves should be highly visible to permit bus drivers and vehicles to
clearly see the stop.
• Landscaping elements should include low-growing shrubbery and ground cover reducing
the visual barriers present with higher-growing landscaping and trees.
• Coordinate stops with existing street lighting.
• Stops should be placed near existing land uses to enhance surveillance of the site.
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
P
l
u
s
,
I
n
c
.
Page 19
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
B
u
s
S
t
o
p
s
b
y
T
y
p
e
,
A
s
o
f
J
u
n
e
,
2
0
0
9
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
o
p
s
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
2/
1
8
/
2
0
0
8
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
6/
2
6
/
2
0
0
8
Ty
p
e
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
Be
n
c
h
Tr
a
s
h
Ca
n
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Po
s
t
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Ho
l
d
e
r
Pu
l
l
-
ou
t
Comments / Other
Th
e
A
s
p
e
n
s
19
9
1
4
0
E
2
√
√
√
√
√
Av
o
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
1
,
3
5
1
3
8
6
E
2
√
√
√
√
Shelter needed
Ch
a
p
e
l
S
q
u
a
r
e
31
4
E
1
√
√
Upgrade to E2
Ch
r
i
s
t
i
e
L
o
d
g
e
33
1
37
E
2
√
√
Shelter, signage upgrades
ne
e
d
e
d
.
U
s
e
s
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
.
Ch
r
i
s
t
y
S
p
o
r
t
s
16
1
S
√
√
Ci
t
y
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
B
n/
a
n/
a
E
2
√ (
2
)
√
Ci
t
y
M
a
r
k
e
t
N
B
2
3
8
1
6
2
E
2
√
√
E2 recommended for both w/ 2-way service. Shelter
ne
e
d
e
d
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
.
Co
m
f
o
r
t
I
n
n
10
4
n
/
a
E
2
√
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
Ea
g
l
e
b
e
n
d
N
o
r
t
h
4
1
21
E
1
√
√
Ea
g
l
e
b
e
n
d
W
e
s
t
8
9
32
E
2
√
√
Shared with ECO. Shelter
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
.
La
k
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
25
2
n
/
a
E
2
√
Ri
v
e
r
E
d
g
e
66
26
E
2
√
√
Shared with ECO.
Sh
e
r
a
t
o
n
M
t
n
V
i
s
t
a
2
0
9
E
2
√
√
E2 recommended based on
gr
o
w
t
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
St
o
n
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
D
r
i
v
e
7
7
41
E
2
√
√
√
√
Shelter desirable but limited
la
n
d
a
r
e
a
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
We
s
t
g
a
t
e
8
0
8
2
E
2
√
√
√
√
W.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
10
5
S
√ (
2
)
√
√
√
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
T
y
p
e
s
S
=
S
i
m
p
l
e
E1
–
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
I
E2
=
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
I
I
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
P
l
u
s
,
I
n
c
.
Page 20
Ta
b
l
e
3
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
u
s
S
t
o
p
s
b
y
T
y
p
e
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Si
d
e
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Ty
p
e
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
Op
p
o
s
i
t
e
A
s
p
e
n
s
We
s
t
S
B
E2
P
u
l
l
-
o
u
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
W.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
,
we
s
t
e
n
d
No
r
t
h
W
B
S
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
b
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
g
i
v
e
n
R
O
W
a
n
d
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
W.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
B
l
v
d
ea
s
t
e
n
d
No
r
t
h
W
B
S
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
b
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
g
i
v
e
n
R
O
W
a
n
d
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
La
k
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
-
N
B
Ea
s
t
N
B
E2
P
u
l
l
o
u
t
E
x
i
s
t
s
Po
s
t
O
f
f
i
c
e
(
W
.
B
C
B
l
v
d
)
N
o
r
t
h
W
B
E2
M
a
y
be
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
b
i
-
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
Op
p
o
s
i
t
e
C
h
r
i
s
t
i
e
L
o
d
g
e
S
o
u
t
h
E
B
E2
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
b
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Se
v
e
r
a
l
s
t
o
p
s
o
n
U
S
6
S
o
u
t
h
E
B
E2
Sh
a
r
e
w
i
t
h
E
C
O
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
;
A
l
l
h
a
v
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
b
u
t
s
o
m
e
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
.
Ma
p
s
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
US
6
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
P
o
s
t
R
d
an
d
S
t
o
n
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
(
2
st
o
p
s
)
No
r
t
h
W
B
E
2
Sh
a
r
e
w
i
t
h
E
C
O
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
;
H
a
v
e
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
b
u
t
s
o
m
e
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
.
M
a
p
s
an
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
Hu
r
d
L
a
n
e
,
o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
Av
o
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
No
r
t
h
W
B
E
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
b
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Hu
r
d
L
a
n
e
,
o
p
p
o
s
i
t
e
Ea
g
l
e
b
e
n
d
N
o
r
t
h
s
t
o
p
No
r
t
h
W
B
E
1
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
b
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
St
o
n
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
E
a
s
t
N
B
E
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
be
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
g
i
v
e
n
R
O
W
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
a
m
Ea
s
t
o
f
C
h
a
p
e
l
S
q
u
a
r
e
N
o
r
t
h
W
B
E2
L
o
c
a
t
e
e
a
s
t
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
v
o
i
d
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
a
t
A
v
o
n
No
r
t
h
a
n
d
So
u
t
h
EB
a
n
d
W
B
E
2
12
p
a
i
r
e
d
s
t
o
p
s
a
t
6
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
F
i
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
o
n
ro
a
d
w
a
y
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
.
Sw
i
f
t
G
u
l
c
h
N
a
n
d
S
E
B
a
n
d
W
B
M
o
s
t
E
1
11
s
t
o
p
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
o
n
r
o
a
d
,
m
o
s
t
p
a
i
r
e
d
b
u
t
o
n
l
y
o
n
e
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
n
e
a
r
Bu
f
f
a
l
o
R
i
d
g
e
.
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
s
m
i
g
h
t
b
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
a
t
2
-
4
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
e
s
t
s
t
o
p
s
.
Wi
l
d
r
i
d
g
e
R
o
u
t
e
Al
l
Al
l
Mo
s
t
S
13
t
o
1
4
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
t
o
p
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
on
t
h
i
s
r
o
u
t
e
.
F
i
n
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
n
e
e
d
to
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
e
a
n
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
;
s
t
o
p
s
o
n
gr
a
d
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
s
o
m
e
b
a
s
e
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
p
a
v
i
n
g
i
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
to
b
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
T
y
p
e
s
S
=
S
i
m
p
l
e
E1
–
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
I
E2
=
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
L
e
v
e
l
I
I
Bu
s
S
t
o
p
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
P
l
u
s
,
I
n
c
.
Page 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
-
L
a
k
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 4-1
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Avon has experienced rapid growth in recent years. Avon provides a focal point for
housing, lodging and services that support year-round recreational opportunities throughout the
area. Like many communities along the Interstate 70 mountain corridor, increasing travel
demand in Avon has accompanied the growth in both residential and commercial development.
Planned re-development of the Avon Town Center, along with anticipated new development in
the Village at Avon, will also place increasing pressure on the Town’s existing transportation
system. Along with increasing traffic volumes, a growing demand for alternative transportation
modes is expected.
To help maintain the quality of life in this mountain community, this Comprehensive
Transportation Plan provides an integrated approach to planning for future roadway
improvements, transit service enhancements, and non-motorized facilities. The analyses
documented in this report have been based on land use projections for the year 2035. Future
travel demand forecasts and the associated impacts to the multi-modal system in Avon have
been estimated. Existing and future deficiencies have been identified for roadways,
bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and the transit system.
Improvement alternatives for each mode have been developed to ensure adequate capacity,
enhanced safety, and convenience of service for residents and visitors. The resultant
recommendations are described as follows:
Roadway System
• Widen US 6 to four through-lanes.
• Construct a single-lane roundabout at the Nottingham Road/Swift Gulch Road
intersection.
• Reduce the number of approach lanes on Beaver Creek Boulevard (East and West) at
the roundabout at Avon Road.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
• Continue to support ECO Trails regional trail planning and construction in Avon.
• Construct sidewalk along Beaver Creek Boulevard (East and West) to provide
pedestrian continuity.
• Construct sidewalk along the north side of US 6 between Post Boulevard and West
Beaver Creek Boulevard.
• Provide a trail connection from West Beaver Creek Boulevard to the southwest corner of
Nottingham Park.
• Construct improvements to the existing trail along Nottingham Road, including
sidewalks, crosswalks, streetscape and lighting improvements, transit stops, and
connections through the guardrail section.
• Construct bike lanes on Metcalf Road from Nottingham Road to Old Trail Road in
Wildridge.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 4-2
• Construct a pedestrian bridge over I-70 from the Buffalo Ridge apartments to the Village
at Avon.
• Provide a trail connection from Nottingham Road to the Buck Creek Trailhead.
• Install sidewalk along the north side of Chapel Place at the east side of Chapel Square.
• Construct a grade separated crossing under US 6 on the east side of the Avon Road
roundabout (at Beaver Creek) and construct a pedestrian bridge over the Eagle River in
this vicinity.
• Construct a grade separated pedestrian crossing of I-70 near Metcalf Road.
• Construct a grade separated crossing of Avon Road between the East and West Town
Centers (at the Main Street alignment).
• Construct a pedestrian crossing over or under the UPRR from Eagle Bend Drive to the
Village at Avon.
• Construct new trails and provide trail enhancements as defined in the recently adopted
Town of Avon Recreational Trails Master Plan.
Transit
• Implement the Near Term Transit Plan, including additional services and route
enhancements.
• Develop Long Term plans and implement increased service, routing, and fleet
improvements.
Figure 4.1 graphically depicts the above improvements.
The primary goal for transportation in Avon is to encourage the use of alternative modes and to
de-emphasize the private automobile, with a focus on safety for non-motorized users. Based on
this, the above improvements have been prioritized into Near Term, Intermediate, and Long
Range categories, as listed in Table 4.1. The preliminary opinions of probable cost are also
included in the table.
Recommended Improvements
Figure 4.1
Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 08-159, 7/29/09
NORTH
FELSBURG
HOLT&
ULLEVIG
W
illia m J . Post Blvd.
Deer Blvd.
B
e
a
v
e
r
C
r
eek Dr.
Swift Gulch
R
d.
Bach
e
l
o
r
Gulc
h
Trai
l
W. Beaver Creek
B
l
v
d
.
M
e
t
c
a
lf Rd.
W
i
l
d
r
i
g
e
R
d
.Wild
w
o
o
d
Rd
.
P
a
i
n
t
b
r
u
s
h
Pa
i
n
t
b
r
u
s
h
Buc
k
Cree
k
Rd.
Stone Cree
k
R
d
.
E. Beaver Creek Blvd.
AVON
Trail Connection to
Buck Creek Trailhead
Roundabout
Lane Reductions &
Streetscape/Traffic
Calming Improvements
I-70 Ped Bridge
Buck Creek Trail
Near Term Transit Plan
Long Range Transit Plan
Metcalf Creek Trail
Bike Lanes
Interior
Connecting
Trails
Beaver Creek
Lookout Trail
Saddle Ridge
Trail
Avon/Singletree Trail
I-70 Ped
Underpass
or Bridge
Sidewalks & Trail
Connections/
Enhancements
Trail
Connection
SidewalksPed Bridge Ped Underpass
Sidewalk on
North Side of
US 6
Widen US 6 to
4 Lanes
Sidewalks
Ped BridgeSupport
Regional Trails
Construction
10
5
4
11
11
11
11
11
7
17
11
12
18
2
14
3151916
11989 6
13
X
70
70
6
6
E.Beav
A
Refer to Table 4.1 for improvement description and cost
Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Page 4-4
Table 4.1 Improvement Prioritization and Preliminary Cost Opinions
Priority Project Description Cost (Millions)
Near Term
1. Beaver Creek Boulevard Sidewalks $0.18
2. Beaver Creek Boulevard Lane Reductions/Streetscape $0.75
3. US 6 Sidewalks $1.20
4. Metcalf Road Bike Lanes $0.50
5. Nottingham Road Trail Improvements $0.50
6. Chapel Place Sidewalks $0.05
7. Near Term Transit Plan $2.0*
Intermediate
8. Main Street Pedestrian Bridge over Avon Road $0.51 to $1.80
9. Pedestrian Connection- US 6 and Eagle River $1.50
10. I-70 Pedestrian Grade Separation at Metcalf Road $0.97 to $2.20
11. Implement Recreational Trails Master Plan $0.77
12. Nottingham Road/Buck Creek Trail Connection $0.05
13. W. Beaver Creek Blvd/Nottingham Park Connection $0.05
14. I-70 Pedestrian Bridge, Buffalo Ridge to the Village $2.00
Long Range
15. RR Pedestrian Grade Separation, Eagle Bend $1.40 to $2.20
16. Support ECO Trails Plan NA
17. Long Term Transit Plan $3.4 to $5.3*
18. Nottingham Road/Swift Gulch Road Roundabout $1.00
19. US 6 Four-Lane Widening $34.50
* Annual Operating Cost