Doney Park multimodal transportation study

              Doney Park
November 2011 | Prepared For:
Coconino County Community Development
Coconino County Public Works Department
Arizona Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
MultiModal Transportation Study
Final Report
Ta s k Assignment MP D 3 2 - 1 0
Doney Park Multimodal
Transportation Study
ADOT MPD Task Assignment 32-10
Final Report
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COCONINO COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COCONINO COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
November 2011
091374038
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc i Final Report
November 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Doney Park Residents Value a Rural Lifestyle ....................................................... 2
1.5 Doney Park Timberline Fernwood Area Plan ......................................................... 2
1.6 Schultz Fire/Flood Relationship to Multimodal Planning ....................................... 3
2 CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ................................................. 5
2.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Activity Centers ..................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Streets and Roadways ............................................................................................ 6
2.3.1 Traffic Data ............................................................................................... 6
2.3.2 Crashes ..................................................................................................... 7
2.3.3 Roadway Winter Maintenance Practices ........................................................... 10
2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Existing Pedestrian Paths and Sidewalks .......................................................... 11
2.4.2 Existing Trails .......................................................................................... 12
2.4.3 Proposed Trails and Off-Street Facilities ........................................................... 13
3 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INPUT ................................................. 17
3.1 Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................................................ 17
3.2 Public Open Houses ............................................................................................. 17
3.3 Stakeholder and Public Input Findings ................................................................ 17
4 PROPOSED PROJECTS ......................................................................... 18
4.1 Roadway Connectivity ......................................................................................... 18
4.2 Shared-Use Paths ................................................................................................. 18
4.2.1 Cautions for Shared-Use Paths Adjacent to Roadways .......................................... 20
4.2.2 Shared Use Path Courtesy ............................................................................. 20
4.2.3 Paved Surface Shared-Use Path ..................................................................... 21
4.2.4 Soft Surface Path for Equestrians and Pedestrians ............................................... 24
4.3 Sidewalks ............................................................................................................. 26
4.4 Paved Shoulders .................................................................................................. 26
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc ii Final Report
November 2011
4.5 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Signage ............................................................. 27
4.6 Shoulder Maintenance and Sweeping .................................................................... 28
4.7 Detailed Project Descriptions ............................................................................... 28
4.8 Project Phasing .................................................................................................... 29
4.8.1 Phase I Projects ......................................................................................... 29
4.8.2 Phase II Projects ....................................................................................... 29
4.8.3 Phase III Projects ...................................................................................... 29
4.9 Transit Service ..................................................................................................... 36
5 IMPLEMENTATION REVENUE SOURCES ........................................... 38
5.1 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grant Funding .............................................. 38
5.2 Safe Routes to School Program ............................................................................ 38
5.3 Use of Federal Funds for Equestrian Trails .......................................................... 39
5.4 Coconino Parks and Open Space Program ............................................................ 39
5.5 Federal Recreational Trails Program ................................................................... 39
5.6 National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program ....... 40
6 MAINTENANCE .................................................................................... 41
6.1 Maintenance Activities ......................................................................................... 41
6.2 Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX A – PROJECT INFORMATION SHEETS ...................................... 43
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc iii Final Report
November 2011
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 – Road System Map ......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 – Existing and Proposed Trails ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 4 – Proposed Projects ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5 – Shared-Use Path: Paved Path with Equestrian Path .................................................... 22
Figure 6 – Shared-Use path: Paved Path with Equestrian Path and Bicycle Lane ....................... 23
Figure 7 – Paved Shared-Use Path Typical Sections .................................................................... 24
Figure 8 – Soft Surface Equestrian and Pedestrian Path ............................................................... 25
Figure 9 – Transit Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 37
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 – Maximum Daily Volume Thresholds for LOS C, D, and E ........................................... 9
Table 2 – Existing and Future Daily Traffic Volumes on US 89 ................................................... 9
Table 3 – Existing and Future Daily Traffic Volumes on Study Area Roadways .......................... 9
Table 4 – Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................................... 11
Table 5 – Study Area Trails .......................................................................................................... 14
Table 6 – Paved Shared-Use Path Features .................................................................................. 24
Table 7 – Soft Surface Equestrian and Pedestrian Path Features ................................................. 26
Table 8 – Phase 1 Recommended Projects ................................................................................... 30
Table 9 – Phase 2 Recommended Projects ................................................................................... 32
Table 10 – Phase 3 Recommended Projects ................................................................................. 34
Table 11 – Summary of Costs by Phase ....................................................................................... 35
INDEX OF PROJECT INFORMATION SHEETS
Project Information Sheet 1 – Burris Lane 1 ................................................................................ 44
Project Information Sheet 2 – Burris-2 ......................................................................................... 45
Project Information Sheet 3 – Burris-3 ......................................................................................... 46
Project Information Sheet 4 – Campbell-1 ................................................................................... 47
Project Information Sheet 5 – Campbell - 2 ................................................................................. 48
Project Information Sheet 6 – Cosnino-1 ...................................................................................... 49
Project Information Sheet 7 – Cosnino-2 ...................................................................................... 50
Project Information Sheet 8 – Cosnino-3 ...................................................................................... 51
Project Information Sheet 9 – Koch Field-1 ................................................................................. 52
Project Information Sheet 10 – Koch Field-2 ............................................................................... 53
Project Information Sheet 11 – Leupp-1 ....................................................................................... 54
Project Information Sheet 12 – Neptune-1 ................................................................................... 55
Project Information Sheet 13 – Neptune-2 ................................................................................... 56
Project Information Sheet 14 – Neptune-3 ................................................................................... 57
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc iv Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 15 – Picture Canyon Trail ................................................................... 58
Project Information Sheet 16 – Rio Rancho-1 .............................................................................. 59
Project Information Sheet 17 – Silver Saddle-1 ........................................................................... 60
Project Information Sheet 18 – Silver Saddle-2 ........................................................................... 61
Project Information Sheet 19 – Skeet-1 ........................................................................................ 62
Project Information Sheet 20 – Slayton Ranch-1 ......................................................................... 63
Project Information Sheet 21 – Slayton Ranch-2 ......................................................................... 64
Project Information Sheet 22 – Slayton Ranch-3 ......................................................................... 65
Project Information Sheet 23 – Stardust-1 .................................................................................... 66
Project Information Sheet 24 – Stardust-2 .................................................................................... 67
Project Information Sheet 25 – Townsend-Winona-1 .................................................................. 68
Project Information Sheet 26 – Townsend-Winona-2 .................................................................. 69
Project Information Sheet 27 – Townsend-Winona-3 .................................................................. 70
Project Information Sheet 28 – Townsend-Winona-4 .................................................................. 71
Project Information Sheet 29 – Townsend-Winona-5 .................................................................. 72
Project Information Sheet 30 – US 89-1 ....................................................................................... 73
Project Information Sheet 31 – US 89-2 ....................................................................................... 74
Project Information Sheet 32 – US 89-3 ....................................................................................... 75
Project Information Sheet 33 – US89-4 ........................................................................................ 76
Project Information Sheet 34 – US 89-5 ....................................................................................... 77
Project Information Sheet 35 – US 89-6 ....................................................................................... 78
Project Information Sheet 36 – Yancey-1 ..................................................................................... 79
Project Information Sheet 37 – Transit-1 ...................................................................................... 80
Project Information Sheet 38 – Transit-2 ...................................................................................... 80
Project Information Sheet 39 – Transit-3 ...................................................................................... 81
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 1 Final Report
November 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), through the Planning Assistance for Rural
Areas (PARA) program, awarded funding to Coconino County for the Doney Park Multimodal
Transportation Study. The Study will identify needs and deficiencies for multimodal travel
within Doney Park and will recommend a program of projects to address multimodal
transportation needs. The Study will serve as a guide for community development, project
funding applications, and project implementation.
It is important to emphasize that the projects recommended in this study may be constructed
incrementally over a considerable period of time as opportunities arise and funding becomes
available. Projects may be initiated at any time after completion of the study, and full
implementation of all the projects may not occur for 10 to 20 years or longer. There is no
guarantee that all projects will be completed and some may be eliminated from consideration due
to lack of funding or other unforeseen circumstances.
1.1 Study Purpose
The Study will identify a program of projects that upon implementation will improve multimodal
travel in Doney Park. This will be accomplished through completion of the following:
 Document current and future conditions relating to multimodal transportation (pedestrian,
bicycle, equestrian, and transit) throughout Doney Park. Identify key activity centers.
 Identify and summarize multimodal needs and deficiencies; review and confirm needs and
deficiencies as identified in the Doney Park Timberline Fernwood Area Plan (2001).
 Recommend a program of projects that upon implementation will improve multimodal travel
in Doney Park. The program of improvements will provide Coconino County with a planning
document that can be used to help secure funding for implementation of the multimodal
improvements.
1.2 Study Objectives
Objectives of the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study are:
1. Identify and document multimodal safety needs for bicyclists, pedestrians, equestrians, and
transit users.
2. Evaluate existing and needed on-street multimodal accommodations.
3. Identify off-street pathway opportunities.
4. Identify activity centers and connectivity to the activity centers.
5. Improve connectivity to transit facilities.
6. Identify other roadway and safety improvements required to improve overall multimodal
travel in Doney Park.
7. Review winter roadway maintenance practices.
8. Develop a guidance document for implementation.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 2 Final Report
November 2011
1.3 Study Area
Doney Park, located northeast of Flagstaff, Arizona, is an unincorporated community of
approximately 8,000 residents. The study area for the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation
Study (Figure 1) is the same as that of the Doney Park Timberline
Fernwood Area Plan (2001) and encompasses an area of approximately 62 square miles. The
area extends from Camp Townsend just north of the Flagstaff city limits at the southwest corner
to Lenox Park at the northwest corner. The area extends east to Winona.
Major roadways in the study area include:
 US 89, Flagstaff city limits (MP 420.38) to north of Lenox Road, at approximately MP 429.3
 Townsend-Winona Road, from US 89 to I-40
 Leupp Road, from Townsend-Winona Road to approximately three miles north of
Townsend-Winona Road
 I-40, from Flagstaff city limits to east of Townsend-Winona Road (MP 205.5 to 211.5)
The study area for the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study is depicted in Figure 1.
1.4 Doney Park Residents Value a Rural Lifestyle
Many who live in the Doney Park area value a rural lifestyle and environment. They enjoy
convenient access to open space, and recreational opportunities. During plan development,
many expressed concern that pathways and bicycle lanes would detract from a rural
environment. Many others expressed strong support for the improvements. As concisely and
clearly explained by a study stakeholder,
“Proper planning for multimodal transportation is not counter to rural values. The ability
to travel on foot, bicycle or horse is part of a long standing rural tradition in our country.
Providing pathways to allow the safe and desirable use of foot, bicycle or horse is just
good responsible community planning.”
1.5 Doney Park Timberline Fernwood Area Plan
Recommendations of the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study build upon concepts
originally proposed in the Doney Park Timberline Fernwood Area Plan. A goal of the Doney
Park Timberline Fernwood Area Plan (Plan) is to provide a non-motorized trail system to
provide access between neighborhoods and schools, public lands, and other trail systems. The
plan also has 12 policies with respect to trails and alternative transportation.
The Plan has the following policy to establish the following non-motorized trails:
 Trails along existing and proposed collector streets;
 A trail along the Rio de Flag and links to the city FUTS trails as depicted in the Open Spaces
& Greenways Plan;
 Non-motorized Pedestrian/Bicycle/Equestrian trails along arterial roads (Highway 89 and
Townsend Winona Road);
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 3 Final Report
November 2011
 Non-motorized loop trails in the Old Caves Crater area and the cinder hill between Slayton
Ranch Road and Stardust Trail. Identify and implement additional loop trails in appropriate
areas;
 Trail linkages between Timberline-Fernwood and the Koch Field area from the east side of
Highway 89 (providing access to the Peaks View Park);
 Trail linkages between the north and east sides of Doney Park to proposed Townsend-
Winona Road corridor in the Open Spaces and Greenways Plan;
 Continuation of the proposed trail corridor in the Open Spaces & Greenways Plan that dead
ends in Winona to loop back to an existing or proposed trail;
 A trail over Crisp Hill from east to west; and
 A connection from Eagle and Atkinson to the north end of Copeland/Tanager.
The Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study serves to advance many of these concepts. In
particular, as outlined in Chapter 4, the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study proposes a
network of pathways along collectors and arterials, including along US 89. Bicycle lanes and
paved shoulders are proposed along major arterials. Equestrian and pedestrian paths are
proposed along several collector streets in the Doney Park area. Equestrian paths provide
connections to adjacent U.S. Forest Service lands.
1.6 Schultz Fire/Flood Relationship to Multimodal Planning
Shortly after the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study was initiated in June, 2010, a
devastating wildfire broke out in the Schultz Pass area that ultimately burned more than 15,000
acres of Coconino National Forest land on the east side of the San Francisco Peaks. The burn
area is on steep slopes above the Timberline and Wupatki Trails portions of the study area west
of Highway 89. With most of the vegetation on the mountainside burned, the community below
the burn has become susceptible to severe flooding.
Planning for flood mitigation projects commenced immediately following the fire and will
continue to evolve over a considerable time period. During the study, questions have been raised
about how flood mitigation planning relates to multimodal transportation planning and vice
versa. The short answer is that protection of life and property obviously takes precedence over
amenities such as shared-use pathways and other multimodal improvements. However, there
may be opportunities to develop dual-purpose facilities that accomplish flood mitigation and
multimodal improvements concurrently by incorporating such improvements into flood control
channels, berms, or basins.
At the time this study is being written, flood mitigation planning has not advanced sufficiently to
incorporate specific recommendations for dual-purpose facilities; as such, project-specific
recommendations are not included in this study. As flood mitigation projects become more
specific, planning and management teams will look for opportunities to incorporate multimodal
improvements where feasible and cost effective.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 4 Final Report
November 2011
Figure 1 – Study Area
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 5 Final Report
November 2011
2 CURRENT AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
This chapter summarizes data obtained on current and planned conditions to help identify needs
and deficiencies for the transportation network.
2.1 Land Use
The predominant land use in the privately owned sections of the study area is residential. The
residential areas are generally low density, and range from one unit per ten acres south of I-40 at
Winona to nine units per acre in the Elden Shadows Mobile Home Community (formerly the
Wheel Inn Mobile Home Park). The majority of the area is zoned Agricultural Residential with a
2 ½ acre minimum parcel size. The Forest Survey Tracts and an area north of Copeland and
mostly west of Highway 89 are zoned Agricultural Residential and are developed with five-acre
lots (AR-5). A large portion of the remainder of the study area is also zoned AR-5, but is mostly
Forest Service land.
Commercial land use is zoned primarily at major intersections. Commercial land uses are located
at Camp Townsend on both sides of US 89, on Highway 89 near Burris Lane, Silver Saddle
Road, Campbell Avenue, and Copeland Lane. Commercial land uses are also located at the
intersection of Townsend-Winona and Lumberjack, and at I-40/Winona.
The Doney Park Timberline Fernwood Area Plan estimated there were (as of January 2000)
3,380 lots or parcels in the area of which an estimated 90% were developed. Given existing
zoning, it was estimated that the remaining vacant land could be divided into an additional 1,456
parcels. In 2000, it was estimated that should trends continue, buildout would occur between
2015 and 2020, although with economic recession that began in 2008, buildout may not occur as
soon as estimated.
2.2 Activity Centers
A primary objective of the multimodal program of improvements is to connect activity centers.
Doney Park activity centers, and how the program of projects serves to connect them, are shown
in Figure 4. Doney Park area activity centers include:
1. Parks: Peaks View County Park is located at 8805 North Koch Field Road. This park
features sports fields, hiking and equestrian trails, a playground, and a picnic area. The park
is adjacent to Cromer Elementary School and is just south of the Summit Fire Station.
2. Schools: Cromer Elementary School is located at 7150 E. Silver Saddle Road. This school is
attended by approximately 600 students.
3. Fire Stations: Summit Fire Stations are located at 8905 Koch Field Road, 6050 E. Firehouse
Lane, and 6425 N. Cosnino Road. Meetings and community events are held at the fire
stations.
4. Trailheads: Coconino National Forest trailheads within the study area are activity centers,
as they attract recreational trips.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 6 Final Report
November 2011
 Sandy Seep Trail trailhead, accessed from US 89, one-half mile north of the Townsend /
Winona Road intersection, via Forest Road (FR 9139)
 Elden Lookout trailhead, located north of the Peaks Ranger District Office (5075 North
Highway 89); also provides access to the Fatman’s Loop Trail and Sandy Seep Trail
 Old Caves Crater Trailhead, located approximately 0.5 miles east of US 89 on the north
side of Silver Saddle Road
 Cinder Lake Landfill Road Trailhead, located west of US 89 on Cinder Lake Landfill
Road, providing access to the Old Caves Crater Trail
 Forest Service access point at the northern end of Stardust Trail
5. Commercial Nodes: Intersections with neighborhood commercial:
 US 89 / Snowflake Drive
 US 89 / Burris Lane
 US 89 / Silver Saddle Road
 US 89 / Campbell Avenue
 US 89 / Copeland Lane
 Townsend-Winona Road and Lumberjack/Slayton Road
 Townsend-Winona Road and I-40
2.3 Streets and Roadways
The existing road network in the study area is composed of an interstate highway (I-40), US 89,
and a system of arterial, collector, and local streets. In addition to the municipal road system,
there is also a system of U.S. Forest Service roads on the Coconino National Forest. Roads
within the study area are shown in Figure 2.
2.3.1 Traffic Data
Daily traffic volumes on study area roadways were compared to maximum daily volume
thresholds for Level of Service (LOS) C and LOS D to identify roadways that are approaching
their maximum capacity. The daily volume thresholds for LOS C and LOS D shown in Table 1
are derived from Highway Capacity Software. For reference purposes, similar threshold tables
are found in Table 4-1 in the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) 2002
Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
Roadway segments below the maximum volume threshold for LOS C likely do not currently
need additional through capacity while roadway segments above the maximum volume threshold
for LOS D likely will need additional capacity. For roadway segments between the maximum
volume thresholds for LOS C and LOS D, more detailed analysis should be conducted to
evaluate intersection geometry, signal timing, and number and spacing of driveways to determine
if additional through capacity is needed.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 7 Final Report
November 2011
Existing Level of Service
Based on the maximum volume thresholds in Table 1 and the existing (2008) daily volumes
from Table 2 and Table 3, no study area roadway segments, for which existing traffic count
volumes were available, currently exceed the maximum volume for LOS C or D.
Future Level of Service
The ADOT Multimodal Planning Division provides 20-year traffic projections on state highway
segments. These segment-by-segment traffic volume forecasts and annual growth rates were
developed through a regression analysis of historical vehicle travel activity at various levels of
aggregation. Forecast 20-year daily traffic on US 89 is shown in Table 2.
Table 3 shows 2030 traffic forecast volumes for other roads in the study area. These traffic
forecast volumes were obtained from the Engineering Study for Townsend – Winona Road and
Leupp Road.
Based on the maximum volume thresholds in Table 1 and the forecast daily volumes from Table
2 and Table 3, road segments that are projected to drop below LOS C in 2030 are Townsend-
Winona Road, from US 89 to Rain Valley Road, and US 89 south of the Townsend-Winona
Road. As traffic volumes on these roadways increase, detailed analysis of intersection geometry,
traffic control, and access management should be conducted to determine if additional capacity is
required.
2.3.2 Crashes
Five years of crash data were obtained and analyzed from ADOT. These data spanned a period
from 1/1/2004 to 12/31/2008. During this time period 737 crashes occurred. The crashes
predominately occurred on US 89, I-40, and Townsend-Winona Road. There were nine fatal
crashes and 36 incapacitating-injury/severe injury crashes during this analysis period.
Approximately 68% of the crashes involved no injury, 17% of the crashes involved a non–
incapacitating injury, and 9% of the crashes involved a possible injury. Single-vehicle crashes
accounted for the largest proportion of crashes (62%). This was followed by rear end collisions
(16%). During this time period there were four pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes and one
bicycle-motor vehicle crash.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 8 Final Report
November 2011
Figure 2 – Road System Map
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 9 Final Report
November 2011
Table 1 – Maximum Daily Volume Thresholds for LOS C, D, and E
Roadway
Category
Number of
Through
Lanes
Maximum
Volume for
LOS B
Maximum
Volume for
LOS C
Maximum
Volume for
LOS D
Maximum
Volume for
LOS E
Collector/Arterial with
no left-turn lanes
2 2900 8,600 10,800 11,500
Collector/Arterial with
center left-turn lanes
2 3800 11,000 13,400 14,100
Collector/Arterial with
raised medians and
left-turn lanes
4 8300 23,700 27,000 28,400
Uninterrupted flow
highway
2 5500 11,300 16,600 21,500
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, Highway Capacity Software
Table 2 – Existing and Future Daily Traffic Volumes on US 89
Road Road Segment 2008 AADT 2028 Traffic
Forecast
Annual
Growth
Rate (%)
Long Term
20-year
Growth
Rate (%)
2028 LOS
US 89 Country Club/SB-
40 to Townsend–
Winona Road
26,000 36,000 1.57% 38.5% F
Townsend –
Winona Road to
Silver Saddle
Road
16,500 23,500 1.80% 42.4% C
Silver Saddle
Road to Sunset
Crater National
Forest Service
Road 545
6,600 8,700 1.35% 31.8% C
Source: Arizona State Highway System 20-year daily traffic forecasts,
http://www.azdot.gov/mpd/data/Reports/PDF/SHS2028AADTForecastsver2.pdf, referenced 8/13/2010.
Table 3 – Existing and Future Daily Traffic Volumes on Study Area Roadways
Road Road
Segment
2007 AADT 2030 Traffic
Forecast
Annual
Growth
Rate (%)
Long Term
20-year
Growth
Rate (%)
2030 LOS
Cosnino
Road
I-40 to
Townsend-
Winona Road
1,700 4,000 3.79% 135.3% C
Leupp
Road
North of
Townsend-
Winona Road
3,700 7,000 2.81% 89% C
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 10 Final Report
November 2011
Table 3 – Existing and Future Daily Traffic Volumes on Study Area Roadways (continued)
Road Road
Segment
2007 AADT 2030 Traffic
Forecast1
Annual
Growth Rate
(%)
Long Term
20-year
Growth Rate
(%)
2030 LOS
Townsend-
Winona
Road
US 89 to Rain
Valley Road
7,600 11,400 1.78% 50% D
Rain Valley
Road to Koch
Field Road
6,100 10,600 2.43% 73.8% C
Koch Field
Road to
Slayton
Ranch Road /
Lumberjack
Boulevard
4,600 10,000 3.43% 117% C
Slayton
Ranch Road /
Lumberjack
Boulevard to
Cosnino Road
4,200 7,000 2.25% 66.7% C
Cosnino Road
to Leupp
Road
3,000 6,000 3.06% 100% C
Leupp Road
to I-40
2,100 4,000 2.84% 90.5% C
US 89 South of
Townsend-
Winona Road
28,380 38,000 1.28% 33.9% F
Source:
1) Final Engineering Study for Townsend –Winona Road, Jct. 89 to Jct. I-40, Leupp Road, Jct. Townsend-Winona Road, East 1
mile, page A-21.
2) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, Highway Capacity Software Analysis
2.3.3 Roadway Winter Maintenance Practices
A stated objective of the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study is to evaluate winter
roadway maintenance practices.
Coconino County Public Works, Maintenance Division, currently applies de-icing chemicals on
the following roadways in Doney Park:
 Townsend-Winona Road (entire length)
 Cosnino Road (only on major incline just north of railroad tracks)
 Koch Field Road (only on major incline just south of Rio de Flag)
 Silver Saddle Road (only on major inclines just west of Koch Field Road)
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 11 Final Report
November 2011
At the onset of the study, Coconino County was interested to understand public perception
related to winter roadway maintenance in the Doney Park area. As such, public input was
obtained on roadway winter maintenance practices at a public meeting held on September 30,
2010. Based on the review of comments submitted, the following issues were identified:
 Snow plowing often leaves large berms across driveways that are difficult for residents to
move.
 Snow is often pushed onto the sidewalk forcing children to walk in the road.
 De-icing chemicals may cause harm to the trees.
 Plowing of US 89 often leaves snow berms across connecting streets.
Input received from the public was provided to Coconino County. Generally speaking, while the
public identified some issues related to winter roadway maintenance, it was determined that no
changes to winter roadway maintenance practices are required at this time. As such, the Doney
Park Multimodal Transportation Study does not recommend changes to current winter roadway
maintenance practices
2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an important part of the multimodal transportation network
in that they provide alternative options for travel. Pedestrian networks are typically comprised of
sidewalks, trails, or shared-use paths. Bicycle networks can include streets that are designated as
bicycle routes and may include striped bicycle lanes, shared lanes, or paved shoulders.
2.4.1 Existing Pedestrian Paths and Sidewalks
Existing pedestrian facilities in the study are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 – Pedestrian Facilities
Road Name Feature Termini
Total Length
(linear feet)
Campbell Avenue Unpaved Trail US 89 to USFS boundary (only on north
side of Campbell Ave.)
6,864
Koch Field Road Paved Trail Silver Saddle Rd. to Kavanaugh Way (only
on east side of Koch Field Rd.)
4,224
Neptune Drive Unpaved Path
(informal)
Stardust Trail to Slayton Ranch Road 5,220 ft
Silver Saddle Road Sidewalk Koch Field Rd. to Skeet Dr. (both sides of
Silver Saddle Rd.)
2,640
Unpaved Trail Skeet Dr. to Stardust Tr. (only on south
side of Silver Saddle Rd.)
3,960
US 89 Sidewalk I-40 to south side of Townsend- Winona
Road (both sides of US 89)
9,050 (approx.)
Source: Coconino County
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 12 Final Report
November 2011
2.4.2 Existing Trails
Trails connect residents and visitors to recreational areas, open space, and other activity centers.
The primary trail systems in the study area are:
1. National Forest System trails/roads, which include the Sandy Seep Trail, Little Elden
Trail, Fatman’s Loop, and the Old Caves Crater Trail in the study area.
2. Flagstaff Loop Trail (FLT) is a 42-mile regional pathway that intersects with most regional
highways and provides connectivity between public lands and many Flagstaff area
neighborhoods via the City of Flagstaff’s Urban Trail System. In the study area it overlaps
with segments of the Arizona Trail and Forest Service trails such as the Sandy Seep Trail.
3. Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS) is a city-wide network of non-motorized, shared-use
pathways. At present there are approximately 50 miles of FUTS trails in Flagstaff.
4. Arizona Trail is an 800-mile trail which, when completed, will extend from Mexico to Utah.
It traverses the southwestern part of the study area.
A brief description of each of these trail systems is provided in the following sections. Existing
trails are summarized in Table 5. Trails in the Doney Park area are shown in Figure 3.
2.4.2.1 National Forest Service Trails
There are numerous trails throughout the Coconino National Forest within the study area. The
main trails which can be accessed from US 89 are the Sandy Seep Trail, Fatman’s Loop, and the
Elden Lookout Trail. The Old Caves Crater Trail has its main access from Silver Saddle Road. It
also has an access from Cinder Lake Landfill Road.
2.4.2.2 Flagstaff Loop Trail
The Flagstaff Loop Trail (FLT) is a 42-mile non-motorized trail which includes existing trails,
portions of the Arizona Trail, social trails, and two-track road converted to trail. Currently, the
trail is disconnected, but approximately 20 miles have been completed. When completed, the 42-
mile trail will circumnavigate Flagstaff, providing access from all areas of the city. The FLT
links to the FUTS, Coconino National Forest System trails, and the Arizona Trail. It is designed
to provide non-motorized recreation and commuter users with access to public lands and public
spaces throughout Flagstaff. FLT is a collaborative project between Coconino National Forest,
Flagstaff Biking Organization (FBO), City of Flagstaff, and Coconino County. Additional data
on the Loop Trail can be found on the website http://flagstaffbiking.org/loop-trail/.
2.4.2.3 Flagstaff Urban Trail System
The Flagstaff Urban Trails System (FUTS) is a city-wide network of non-motorized, shared-use
pathways that are used by bicyclists, walkers, hikers, runners, and other users for both recreation
and transportation. Presently there are approximately 50 miles of FUTS trails in Flagstaff. The
overall master plan shows approximately 80 miles of future trails, to complete a planned system
of 130 miles. About half of the miles of existing trails are paved, either in concrete or asphalt,
and half consist of a hard-packed, aggregate surface. FUTS trails are generally eight or ten feet
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 13 Final Report
November 2011
in width. There is a North 89 trail which extends from Marketplace Drive on US 89 to Snowflake
Drive at the south boundary of the study area. There are planned FUTS trail connections on US
89 and Route 66.
2.4.2.4 Arizona Trail
The Arizona Trail is more than 800 miles extending from Mexico to Utah connecting numerous
sites throughout Arizona. It is designated as a National Scenic Trail. The trail is divided into 43
passages. In the Doney Park area, passage 32-Mt. Elden extends from I-40 west of the Cosnino
Exit to Schultz Pass. The trail passes under the BNSF railroad, and heads west. It follows
Wildcat Canyon then extends west across a large open area. The trail continues northwest up to
the Rio de Flag and a bridged crossing. Climbing out of this drainage, the trail crosses a number
of two-track roads and then passes under Highway 89, and turns to the northeast as it reaches the
junction to the Sandy Seep Trailhead. The route then follows the Sandy Seep Trail, connects
with the Little Elden Trail, climbs up and around Little Elden Mountain, and then reaches
Schultz Pass Road and the Schultz Pass Trailhead.
2.4.3 Proposed Trails and Off-Street Facilities
This section describes trails that have been proposed in previous plans and studies. Proposed
trails are shown in Figure 3.
2.4.3.1 Timberline Trail
The Timberline Trail has previously been proposed within the study area. It is a proposed north-south
route located west of US 89. The trail would provide access to U.S. Forest trails along
Mount Elden, the FUTS, and the Flagstaff Loop Trail. Currently, a final decision regarding the
trail has not been made.
2.4.3.2 Townsend-Winona Road Trail
As part of the Engineering Study for Townsend – Winona Road (Junction 89 to Junction I-40)
and Leupp Road (Junction Townsend –Winona Road, East 1 mile), pathways are recommended
along the Townsend-Winona Road. It was noted that in the areas where the Townsend-Winona
Road corridor lies next to the Coconino National Forest Service Lands, it may be desirable to
place the path on Forest Service Lands. Other suggestions were that the County may want to
consider pathway construction at certain locations to complement the existing adjacent pathway
system. An example was a connection to Koch Field Road. It was also suggested that pathways
should be constructed for both pedestrians and horses, but barriers needed to be placed to prevent
ATVs from using the pathways. It was noted that some equestrian groups may request horse
step-through gates at certain locations in the right-of-way fence.
2.4.3.3 Picture Canyon Trail
The Picture Canyon Trail is proposed as a future trail in the FUTS. The location of the proposed
trail has not yet been determined. Options have been proposed along Rain Valley Road/FR 510E
and the Rio de Flag Floodplain, and connecting to Townsend-Winona Road.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 14 Final Report
November 2011
Table 5 – Study Area Trails
Trail
Name
Jurisdiction Endpoints Length
(miles)
Surface Rating
(based on
Grades)1
Connects
Activity
Centers
Intersecting Trails Comments
Coconino County Trails
Peaks
View
County
Park Trail
Coconino
County
Perimeter trail
around Peaks
View County
Park
1 Graded Easy Peaks View
County Park
None
Flagstaff Loop Trail (partnership with Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff Biking Organization (FBO), City of Flagstaff, and Coconino
County)
Flagstaff
Loop Trail
Crosses
multiple
jurisdictions
N/A 42 A mix of
unpaved
and paved
trails
Varies Townsend-
Winona
Road/US89 to
Activity Centers
in Flagstaff.
Links to the FUTS,
US Forest System
trails, and the Arizona
Trail.
U.S. Forest Service Trails
Elden
Lookout
Trail #4
U.S. Forest
Service –
Coconino
National
Forest
Peaks Ranger
Station
3 Graded Strenuous Peaks Ranger
Station
Mount Elden
Flagstaff Mall
Fatman’s Loop
Oldham Trail
Fatman’s
Loop Trail
#25*
Peaks Ranger
Station
2 Graded Easy Peaks Ranger
Station
Flagstaff Mall
Elden Lookout Trail
Old Caves
Crater
Trail
Base of extinct
cinder cone
volcano, Silver
Saddle Road
1.3 Graded Moderate Old Caves
Crater
Silver Saddle
Road
Crater Loop Trail Coconino National
Forest Trail Entry
via Silver Saddle
Road
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 15 Final Report
November 2011
Table 5 – Study Area Trails (continued)
Trail
Name
Jurisdiction Endpoints Length
(miles)
Surface Rating (based
on Grades)1
Connects
Activity
Centers
Intersecting Trails Comments
Sandy
Seep Trail
#129
Forest Road
9139 to Little
Elden Trail
1.5 Graded Moderate Mount Elden
Equestrian
Bypass of
Arizona Trail
Little Elden Trail
Heart Trail
Coconino National
Forest Trail closed to
entry by cars
Entry via Forest Road ½
mile north of Townsend
Winona Road
Flagstaff Urban Trail System Trail (FUTS)
North 89
Trail*
Marketplace
Drive to
Snowflake
Drive
1.1 Concrete:
100
percent of
the trail
(1.1 mi |
1.7 km)
Easy Christensen
School
USFS Peaks
Ranger Station
Mt. Elden
Trailhead
El Paso Trail
Mt. Elden Lookout
Trail (USFS)
This trail ends south of
the study area
1
Ratings:
Easy: (grades <5%)
Moderate (grades between 5 and 10 %
Steep (grades between 10 and 15%
Very Steep (grades > 15%)
Source: Coconino National Forest Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/recreation/peaks/rec_peaks.shtml, accessed 7/7/10,
*The Fatman’s Loop Trail and North 89 Trail are outside of the study area, but they are in close proximity to the study area and connect to trails that are within the study area.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 16 Final Report
November 2011
Figure 3 – Existing and Proposed Trails
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 17 Final Report
November 2011
3 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INPUT
3.1 Stakeholder Interviews
Stakeholder interviews were conducted to obtain input on needs and opportunities for
multimodal transportation in the Doney Park area. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with
representatives of Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority,
Coconino County Parks and Recreation, Flagstaff Biking Organization, Flagstaff Metropolitan
Planning Organization, Coconino County Board of Supervisors, Coconino County Sheriff’s
Office, Flagstaff Unified School District, U.S. Forest Service, Coconino County Horseman’s
Alliance, and the Black Bill Neighborhood Association.
3.2 Public Open Houses
Two rounds of public meetings were conducted. The first public open house was held on
Thursday, September 30, 2010 at Cromer Elementary School. The purpose of the public open
house was to obtain input and identify areas where multimodal transportation is most desired or
needed.
A second public meeting was held on April 28, 2011. The purpose of the public meeting was to
obtain input on specific projects that are proposed within the Doney Park area.
3.3 Stakeholder and Public Input Findings
Stakeholder and public input generally focused on three key multimodal transportation needs in
the Doney Park area:
 A system of shared-use paths that connects activity centers, U.S. Forest Service trail access
points, and the FUTS. The system should be designed and constructed to accommodate a
variety of users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. Equestrian paths, where
feasible, should be separated from pedestrian and bicycle paths. However, all users including
pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians, must show mutual respect towards one another.
 Bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, or paved shoulders that can be used by bicyclists.
 Select roadway improvements to establish or improve connectivity.
Public input was also received regarding transit needs and deficiencies. This input will be
provided to the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA)
for their consideration.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 18 Final Report
November 2011
4 PROPOSED PROJECTS
Proposed multimodal transportation projects in the Doney Park area are depicted in Figure 4.
The projects address needs as identified through input from the Technical Advisory Committee,
public and stakeholder input, and an assessment of existing and future conditions by the study
team. Proposed multimodal projects consist of the following project elements:
 Roadway connections
 Shared-use paths to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users
 Equestrian paths constructed of soft surface materials suitable for horses
 Sidewalks
 Paved shoulders
 Bike lanes and signing
 Transit service
The following served as references to the development of path and sidewalk concepts:
 Flagstaff/Coconino County/ADOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Guide
 AASHTO Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999
 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004
 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) for Signing and Striping, 2003 (Note
that the MUTCD 2009 edition has not yet been adopted by ADOT)
 Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2007
4.1 Roadway Connectivity
Roadway projects that are needed to improve connectivity, mobility, and emergency response
are:
 Improve the existing Neptune Lane from Lunar Drive to Stardust Trail to County standards;
this road is currently unpaved and requires grading and paving to Coconino County
standards. These improvements would likely require formation of an improvement district.
 Construct a new road that extends Burris Lane from its current terminus at Pine Country
Lane to Koch Field Road.
4.2 Shared-Use Paths
A network of shared-use paths is proposed in Doney Park and surrounding areas, including along
US 89, Townsend-Winona Drive, Cosnino Drive, and Silver Saddle Road. The proposed
pathway network will be comprised of paved paths as well as soft surface/natural surface paths
for both pedestrians and equestrians. Figure 4 reflects the proposed locations of each type of
path. Please note that ADOT does not allow equestrian use within ADOT right-of-way.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 19 Final Report
November 2011
Figure 4 – Proposed Projects
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 20 Final Report
November 2011
4.2.1 Cautions for Shared-Use Paths Adjacent to Roadways
Planners and engineers should be aware of issues associated with shared-use paths. The
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) identifies nine specific issues
associated with paths located immediately adjacent to the roadway. Pathway design should
address these issues to the extent feasible. These include:
 Paths located on just one side of the road require one direction of bicycle traffic to ride
against motor vehicle traffic.
 When the path ends, bicyclists going against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the
wrong side of the road.
 At intersections, motorists entering or crossing the roadway will not notice the bicyclist
approaching from their right.
 Signs posted for roadway users are backwards or contra-flow for bicycle traffic.
 Many bicyclists will use the roadway instead of the shared-use path because they have found
the roadway to be more convenient, better maintained, or safer. Bicyclists using the roadway
may be harassed by motorists who feel that in all cases cyclists should use the adjacent path.
 Motorists falsely expect bicyclist to stop or yield at all cross-streets and driveways.
 Stopped cross-street motor traffic or vehicles exiting side streets may block the path crossing.
 Barriers are often necessary to keep vehicle traffic out of shared-use paths. These barriers
can represent obstructions to bicyclists and motorists and can complicate the maintenance of
the facility.
The Guide concludes that “shared-use paths should not be considered a substitute for street
improvements (e.g., bicycle lanes, paved shoulders) even when a path is located adjacent to the
highway.”
Within the Doney Park study area, wide shoulders and bike lanes are proposed on major
roadways, in addition to the shared-use paths. On state routes (US 89) pathway design will
adhere to ADOT Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Number 1031-
Signing and Marking of Shared-use paths.
4.2.2 Shared Use Path Courtesy
Shared use paths will attract a variety of user groups including bicyclists, walkers, strollers, and
equestrians. Each user group often has conflicting needs. For example, pedestrians are impacted
by other trail users including bicyclists who travel at high speeds; horses are sensitive to sudden
movements or unexpected noises, and users with disabilities are unable to react quickly to
hazards.
While the Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study recommendations include separate
facilities for each user group where feasible, in some cases user groups will utilize a common
space and must learn to respect one another.
The Arizona State Parks provides simple steps when using shared-use paths and trails
http://azstateparks.com/trails/share.html):
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 21 Final Report
November 2011
 Respect other users; expect other users. Show courtesy.
 Be friendly and courteous. Greet other folks with a simple “hello!” or “nice day today!”
Avoid greetings which may be misconstrued such as “on
your left.”
 Pedestrians yield to equestrians. Bicyclists should yield to
everyone. When in doubt, give other users the right of
way.
 Announce yourself when approaching others, especially
from behind.
 Use your voice to warn equestrians, not bells or horns,
which may frighten horses. When a horse approaches
move to the safest or most open side of the trail or ask the rider for instructions.
 Use caution and stay extra alert if using headphones or ear-buds — you may not be able to
hear others.
 Be considerate, keep dogs leashed and under control at all times.
As the trail system is developed, conflicts between user groups can be reduced by (Federal
Highway Administration, Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, 2001):
 Providing information, including signage, in multiple formats that clearly indicates permitted
users and rules of conduct;
 Ensuring that the shared-use path provides sufficient width and an appropriate surface for
everyone, or providing alternate paths for different types of users;
 Providing sufficient separation for users traveling at different speeds. For example, if volume
and space permits, bicyclists and pedestrians should have different lanes or pathways;
4.2.3 Paved Surface Shared-Use Path
Paved shared-use paths are designed to accommodate pedestrians, slow-speed bicyclists (e.g.,
children riding to and from school), and wheeled devices such as strollers. Bicyclists travelling
at higher speeds (e.g., in excess of 10 to 15 mph) should not utilize the paved shared-use path,
but should utilize the adjacent roadway and paved shoulder/bike lane. Signage or pavement
markings on the shared-use paths may be considered, such as speed limit signs or pavement
markings that encourage bicycles to maintain low speeds. However, signage and pavement
markings on pathways within ADOT right-of-way should be consistent with ADOT Traffic
Engineering Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures Number 1031- Signing and Marking of
Shared-use paths.
Paved shared-use paths are not conducive for equestrian use, as they can be slippery to horses.
Where paved shared-use paths are proposed, an equestrian path is proposed on the opposite side
of the roadway, with exception to US 89 where stakeholder input indicated that traffic volumes
and speeds are not conducive to equestrians. A typical section of a paved shared-use path with
an accompanying equestrian path, on the opposite side of the road, is shown in Figure 5.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 22 Final Report
November 2011
Figure 5 – Shared-Use Path: Paved Path with Equestrian Path
AASHTO Bicycle Guide (AASHTO Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities) states
that the ideal minimum width of a two-directional paved shared-use path, under most conditions,
is 10 feet. However, the Guide states that under certain conditions, a reduced width of eight feet
can be adequate. These conditions are:
1. Bicycle traffic is expected to be low,
2. Pedestrian use of the facility is not expected to be more than occasional, and
3. Good horizontal and vertical alignment provides safe passing opportunities.
Most of the proposed pathways in Doney Park meet the above conditions to satisfy a reduced
(eight-foot) pathway width. As such, paved paths along minor roadways where bicycle and
pedestrian use is expected to be lower are proposed to be eight feet wide.
Paved paths along major roadways such as Townsend-Winona Road, where bicycle and
pedestrian use are expected to be higher, and wider right-of-way is available, are proposed to be
10 feet wide as illustrated in Figure 6. Note that paved shoulders and bicycle lanes are also
proposed on higher volume and higher speed roadways such as Townsend-Winona Road.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 23 Final Report
November 2011
Figure 6 – Shared-Use path: Paved Path with Equestrian Path and Bicycle Lane
Paved paths may be constructed of multiple types of materials. Asphaltic concrete (AC)
(commonly referred to as “asphalt”) represents an economical treatment. This type of path is
comprised of three-inch AC on six-inch aggregate base on six-inch scarified and compacted
subgrade (Figure 7).
Portland cement concrete (commonly referred to as “concrete”) is recommended in areas with
significant cross drainage and swales. This type of path is comprised of a four-inch concrete on
four-inch aggregate base on six-inch scarified and compacted subgrade (Figure 7). All paths
should include a two-foot graded shoulder on each side of the path. Lateral clearances of three
feet and vertical clearances of eight feet should be maintained. Features of a paved shared-use
path are summarized in Table 6.
Shared-use paths should be designed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements. The FHWA Office of Civil Rights includes the following ADA guidance:
 Shared-use paths and pedestrian trails that function as sidewalks shall meet the same
requirements as sidewalks. Where shared-use paths and pedestrian trails cross highways or
streets, the crossing also shall meet the same requirements as street crossings, including the
provision of detectable warnings.
 Shared-use paths and pedestrian trails that function as trails should meet the accessibility
guidelines proposed in the Access Board's Regulatory Negotiation Committee on
Accessibility for Outdoor Developed Areas Final Report found at www.access-board.
gov/outdoor/outdoor-rec-rpt.htm. This report also has guidelines for Outdoor
Recreation Access Routes (routes connecting accessible elements within a picnic area,
camping area, or a designated trailhead).
 Recreational trails primarily designed and constructed for use by equestrians, mountain
bicyclists, snowmobile users, or off-highway vehicle users are exempt from accessibility
requirements even though they have occasional pedestrian use.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 24 Final Report
November 2011
Table 6 – Paved Shared-Use Path Features
Design Element Considerations
Width Ideally, 10 feet. 8 feet is acceptable when bicycle traffic is expected to be low,
pedestrian use is expected to be occasional, and horizontal and vertical
alignment provides safe and frequent passing opportunities.
Surface Type Asphalt pavement; concrete pathways may be required in areas of cross
drainage.
Special Considerations Primary users are pedestrians and bicyclists traveling at a lower speed.
5A: Asphalt Pavement Typical Section 5B: Concrete Pavement Typical Section
Figure 7 – Paved Shared-Use Path Typical Sections
4.2.4 Soft Surface Path for Equestrians and Pedestrians
The Doney Park area is home to an active equestrian community. Equestrians have expressed a
desire to utilize pathways to access U.S. Forest Service lands and other recreational facilities
such as Peaks View Park. However, paved asphalt pathways are not suitable for equestrian use,
as they can be slippery for horses as they provide little traction for horseshoes.
To address the needs of the equestrian community, a network of soft surface paths are proposed
throughout Doney Park. The soft surface paths are proposed to consist of surface materials
suitable for horses.
The study team recognizes that the mixing of equestrians and other users on pathways, and in
particular the mixing bicyclists and equestrians, is undesirable. The AASHTO Bicycle Guide
states that bicyclists are often not aware of the need for slower speeds and additional operating
space near horses. In addition, horses track mud and debris across the path, and may leave
deposits that are unpleasant for bicyclists and pedestrians.
In as much, where sufficient right of way exists, a soft path and a paved path are proposed. Soft
paths and paved paths are proposed on Koch Field Road, Townsend-Winona Road, Silver Saddle
Road, Skeet Drive, and Neptune Drive. The soft path is proposed to be located on the opposite
side of the street as the paved path. The soft paths along these roads will be as natural as
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 25 Final Report
November 2011
possible; they may be described as an ‘equestrian realm’ with minimal improvements such as
minor clearing or covering of culverts.
Right of way and other limitations in some areas may preclude the development of a paved path
and a soft path along the same roadway. Soft paths only are proposed on Stardust Trail, Slayton
Ranch Road, Cosnino Road, and Campbell Ave.
Soft paths along these roads should be constructed so that they are suitable for equestrians and
pedestrians. Surface treatments on these shared-use soft pathways should consider the needs of
both user groups. Crushed and compacted rock, such as decomposed granite, may provide a
suitable surface for both user groups.
As the number of pedestrians and equestrians along these roads is anticipated to be relatively
low, equestrians and pedestrians should be able to co-exist on the same pathway where
necessary, through demonstration of mutual respect and shared-use path courtesy.
The soft surface path design requires attention to the physical and behavioral characteristics of
horses; a cross section is illustrated in Figure 8. The width (six feet minimum) may be increased
where right-of-way, topography, drainage, and/or other constraints allow. Horizontal and
vertical clearances should be provided to accommodate equestrians. Features of a soft surface
path are summarized in Table 7.
Where feasible, a rail-height barrier may be constructed separating the pathway from the
roadway. The physical barrier, if solid, should be no higher than 54” (Equestrian Design
Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, USDA, 2007).
Figure 8 – Soft Surface Equestrian and Pedestrian Path
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 26 Final Report
November 2011
Table 7 – Soft Surface Equestrian and Pedestrian Path Features
Design Element Considerations
Width Soft surface equestrian and pedestrian paths will be at least 6 feet wide, and
should provide vertical clearance of 10 to 12 feet.
Surface Type The path may be constructed of a number of materials including natural
materials (native soil) and aggregates (crushed rock, cinders), or native‐soil
binders.
Soft surface pathways that accompany a paved surface path may consist of
compacted native soil with less stringent design and construction standards.
Segments with only a natural surface pathway, without a paved pathway, will
require engineered surface treatments. Fine aggregates provide good
traction. Materials should be slip‐resistant and able to withstand the impact
of horseshoes. The ideal surface will produce minimal dust. Cinders are not
preferred because of their poor durability and reduced horse comfort. The
Equestrian Design Guidebook for Trails, Trailheads, and Campgrounds
indicates that crushed rock with fines provides excellent traction for horses,
has excellent durability, provides good horse comfort, requires low
maintenance, and is moderate in cost.
4.3 Sidewalks
Sidewalks are proposed in areas with existing curb and gutter, or in areas with physical features,
constrained right-of-way, or access considerations that prohibit construction of a shared-use path
separated from the roadway.
Within the Doney Park area, proposed sidewalks are limited to Burris Lane (due to limited right-of-
way and drainage constraints) and along US 89 south of Townsend-Winona Road to connect
to existing sidewalks. No other sidewalk segments are proposed in the study area.
Sidewalks along Burris Lane may be five feet wide. Sidewalks along high volume streets (US
89) should be six feet wide. While ADOT standard (C-05.20) “typical” sidewalk is five feet
wide, the ADOT Roadway Design Guidelines allow for greater sidewalk width when required by
local engineering standards. City of Flagstaff Engineering Standards identifies a minimum width
of six feet adjacent to major arterials.
4.4 Paved Shoulders
The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Pedestrian Facilities states that in rural areas, paved
shoulders along low traffic volume streets can provide a suitable pedestrian facility. The Guide
states that minimum roadway shoulder widths as recommended in the AASHTO Green Book
(Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) can accommodate occasional pedestrian
travel. The AASHTO Green Book recommends a minimum usable shoulder width of four feet
where bicyclists and pedestrians are to be accommodated on the shoulders. A white edge line
delineates and defines the space for both motor vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists.
Providing paved shoulders does not always require roadway widening. In many cases, paved
shoulders can be achieved through reallocating pavement width by narrowing the travel lanes
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 27 Final Report
November 2011
and striping or restriping the existing roadway. Reducing lane widths may allow for a paved
shoulder to be added to a roadway without adding additional pavement.
Existing roadways within Doney Park typically consist of a 28-foot-wide pavement width,
consisting of two 14-foot travel lanes. To provide wide paved shoulders suitable for pedestrian
and bicycle use, lane widths can be reduced and the roadway can be striped to consist of two 10-
foot travel lanes and two four-foot shoulders. Reducing the width of travel lanes to 10 feet not
only allows enough room for a paved, striped shoulder to be added to the street cross-section, but
narrower travel lanes also have a tendency to slow vehicle speeds.
Safety is a common concern regarding lane width reduction. However, research conducted by
the Midwest Research Institute, Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban
Arterials, concludes that travel lanes on arterial and collector roadways with 10- and 11-foot
travel lanes do not increase the frequency of crashes
(http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/resources/lanewidth-safety.pdf).
The Midwest Research Institute report recommends that jurisdictions provide flexible cross-sections
to allow for narrower travel lanes when appropriate. Their recommendation is
supported by AASHTO, which recommends that “under interrupted-flow operating conditions at
low speeds (45 mph or less), narrower lane widths are normally adequate.” (AASHTO Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004, page 473).
Another common concern about reducing lane widths is the potential impact on roadway
capacity. However, the Pedestrian Bicycle Information Center describes recent research that
finds roadway capacity is similar for lane widths between 10 feet and 12 feet, and that a
measurable difference is not evident until lane widths are reduced to less than 10 feet
(http://www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=4348).
4.5 Bicycle Lanes and Bicycle Route Signage
As described in the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, bicycle lanes are
incorporated into a street network when it is desirable to delineate road space for preferential use
by bicyclists and motorists and to provide more predictable movements by each. Bicycle lane
markings can increase a bicyclist’s confidence in motorists not straying into their path of travel;
likewise, passing motorists are less likely to swerve to the left out of their travel lane to avoid
bicyclists on their right (AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999, page
22).
Generally, bicycle lanes are preferable on streets with posted speed limits of 30 mph or greater
on roads with traffic volumes greater than 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles per day. Within the Doney
Park area, bicycle lanes are proposed on Townsend-Winona and Leupp Road. Paved shoulders
are also proposed on Silver Saddle and Koch Field Road, which may also be designated as
bicycle lanes. Designation of bicycle lanes on US 89 would require an agreement with ADOT;
current ADOT Bicycle Policy requires funding participation from local jurisdictions for the
designation and maintenance of bicycle lanes.
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities recommends a minimum bike lane
width of four feet on uncurbed sections with no vertical obstructions immediately adjacent to the
roadway. A shoulder width of five feet is recommended from the face of a curb, guardrail, or
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 28 Final Report
November 2011
other vertical obstruction to the bike lane stripe to provide additional operating width as
bicyclists will shy from the vertical face. The Guide states that additional widths are desirable
where substantial truck traffic is present, or where motor vehicle speeds exceed 50 mph.
Generally, existing shoulder widths on Townsend-Winona and on Leupp Road are sufficient to
accommodate a bicycle lane.
Rumble strips have been proposed on some Doney Park roadways to possibly prevent run-off-the-
road crashes. While rumble strips can have safety benefits for motorists, rumble strips can
have a negative impact on bicyclists. Rumble strips improperly installed in the center of a paved
shoulder can render the paved shoulder useless to bicyclists. ADOT Rumble Strip Policy
provides sound guidance that should be considered for any rumble strip installation within the
Doney Park area. The rumble strip should be installed as far to the left as possible, ensuring that
a sufficient rideable surface for bicyclists is maintained. ADOT design guidelines include gaps
in the rumble strip to enable a bicyclist to enter and exit the paved shoulder and bicycle lane
within the gaps.
4.6 Shoulder Maintenance and Sweeping
Debris on paved shoulders and on bicycle lanes is a concern voiced by stakeholders. Treating
bicycle lanes as a functional travel lane by regularly and routinely removing debris from the
paved shoulder and bicycle lanes will improve the safety and comfort of bicyclists.
Understanding that maintenance funds are limited, it is recommended that Coconino County, at a
minimum, sweep cinder and debris from shoulders and bicycle lanes after winter maintenance
practices have ceased for the season. As funding becomes available, it is recommended that a
regular sweeping program consist of the following:
 Major arterials and streets with bicycle lanes: once per month
 Collector and residential streets (shared roadways and bicycle lanes): twice per year.
It should be noted that ADOT is responsible for the maintenance of state highways, including US
89. Maintenance concerns may be reported to the ADOT Flagstaff District.
4.7 Detailed Project Descriptions
Detailed descriptions of each project depicted in Figure 4 are provided in Project Information
Sheets in Appendix A.
The Project Information Sheets provide estimates of probable construction cost. Project limits
“logical termini” for each project were defined based on what might reasonably be funded within
a single project. Project scoping and construction costs assumed that the major source of funding
for projects would be Transportation Enhancements and that federal environmental clearance
would be required. Costs for development of the Project Assessment (PA), survey,
environmental clearances, design, and construction are included.
Estimates of probable construction costs do not include costs for right-of-way acquisition.
Determination of right-of-way costs requires detailed engineering and planning activities that are
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 29 Final Report
November 2011
beyond the scope of this study. Right-of-way costs will be determined as each individual project
is designed.
It is important to note that at the time of the completion of the Doney Park Multimodal
Transportation Study, no dedicated funding is specifically budgeted for implementation of the
proposed projects. Potential funding sources are identified in Chapter 6, Implementation
Revenue Sources, and additional funding opportunities may be identified in the future. There is
no guarantee that funding will be obtained for full implementation of all the projects described
herein or that all the projects will ultimately be completed.
4.8 Project Phasing
Each multimodal project is categorized into one of three phases: Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III.
Project phases were developed considering the project need, anticipated benefit of the project,
relative cost and complexity of the project, and relationship to other projects.
Specific timeframes are not assigned to the three project phases. It is expected that the projects
will be constructed incrementally over a considerable period of time as opportunities arise and
funding becomes available. Individual projects are also not locked into the phase in which they
are listed, but may be constructed out of order as conditions warrant or priorities change over
time. Projects may be initiated at any time after completion of the study, and full
implementation of all the projects may not occur for 10 to 20 years or longer.
4.8.1 Phase I Projects
In general, Phase I includes projects that could potentially be included within currently
programmed projects, projects that are needed to complete existing gaps, and projects that serve
to establish a “trunk” for the ultimate Doney Park path system. Phase I projects are summarized
in Table 8. The estimated cost is $5.3 million.
4.8.2 Phase II Projects
These projects will fill in gaps in the path system in more developed areas. Phase II projects are
summarized in Table 9. The estimated cost of Phase II projects is $5.3 million.
4.8.3 Phase III Projects
These projects are typically in less developed areas but will provide needed links for a complete
path system. These projects also include higher cost projects that may need significant lead time
to obtain funding.
Phase III projects are summarized in Table 10. The estimated cost of Phase III projects is $3.4
million. Note that cost estimates for some very large projects (e.g., crossings of US 89) are not
included as additional planning and engineering effort is required to determine approximate
costs. Crossings of US 89 are likely to cost several million dollars.
A summary of costs by phase is provided in Table 11. The total estimated cost of improvements
for all phases is $14 million.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 30 Final Report
November 2011
Table 8 – Phase 1 Recommended Projects
Phase
Project Name Street Street Segment Distance (miles) Project Description Cost
PHASE 1 PROJECTS
Cosnino‐1 Cosnino Road Townsend‐Winona Road to Roan Road 0.94
Paved shoulder
Equestrian and
pedestrian path
Pedestrian crossing
$230,000
Cosnino‐2 Cosnino Road Roan Road to connection with Arizona Trail 0.88 Equestrian and
pedestrian path $255,000
Cosnino‐3 Cosnino Cosnino Drive 0.40 Traffic calming $25,000
Koch Field‐1 Koch Field Road Townsend‐Winona Road to Kavanaugh Way
/Anaya Road 0.42
Paved shoulder
Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path
Pedestrian crossing
$265,000
Koch Field ‐2 Koch Field Road Kavanaugh Way /Anaya Road to Silver Saddle
Road 0.8 Paved shoulder
Equestrian path $235,000
Leupp‐1 Leupp Road Townsend‐Winona Road to U.S. Forest Service
Road 244 4.92 Bike route and signing $40,000
Silver Saddle‐1 Silver Saddle
Road US 89 to Koch Field Road 1.13
Paved shoulder
Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path
$580,000
Townsend‐
Winona‐1
Townsend‐
Winona Road US 89 to I‐40 10.00 Bike route and signing $75,000
Townsend‐
Winona‐2
Townsend‐
Winona Road US 89 to Koch Field Road 2.46 Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path $1,060,000
US 89‐1 US 89 900 feet south of Townsend‐Winona Road to
Townsend‐Winona Road 0.33 Sidewalk $85,000
US 89‐2 US 89
Snowflake Dr/Trails End (existing terminus of
Flagstaff Urban Trail System, North 89 trail) to
Townsend‐Winona Road
0.75 Paved shared‐use path $265,000
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 31 Final Report
November 2011
Table 8 – Phase 1 Recommended Projects (continued)
Phase
Project Name Street Street Segment Distance (miles) Project Description Cost
PHASE 1 PROJECTS (Continued)
US 89‐3 US 89 Townsend‐Winona Road to Silver Saddle Road 3.74 Paved shared‐use path $1,255,000
US 89‐4 US 89 Silver Saddle Road to Copeland Lane 2.88 Paved shared‐use path $950,000
US 89‐6 US 89 City of Flagstaff City Limit to Townsend‐Winona
Road 0.5
Restripe travel lanes to
provide a striped
shoulder for use by
bicyclists
$25,000
TOTAL PHASE I PROJECTS 29.75 ‐ $5,345,000
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 32 Final Report
November 2011
Table 9 – Phase 2 Recommended Projects
Phase
Project Name Street Street Segment Distance (miles) Project Description Cost
PHASE 2 PROJECTS
Burris‐1 Burris Lane US 89 to Green Prairie Lane 0.77 Sidewalk $360,000
Burris‐2 Burris Lane Green Prairie Lane to Pine Country Lane 0.42 Sidewalk $250,000
Burris‐3 Burris Lane Pine Country Lane to Koch Field Road 0.49 Roadway connection $1,230,000
Campbell‐1 Campbell
Avenue US 89 to USFS trailhead 1.09 Equestrian and
pedestrian path $135,000
Campbell‐2 Campbell
Avenue Campbell Avenue West Trailhead N/A Trailhead
improvements $110,000
Neptune‐1 Neptune Drive Skeet Drive to Stardust Trail 0.71
Roadway
improvements
Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path
$905,000
Neptune ‐3 Neptune/Skeet Neptune Drive/ Skeet Drive Intersection to U.S.
Forest Service Boundary 0.5
Equestrian/pedestrian
path on potentially
existing easement
$75,000
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 33 Final Report
November 2011
Table 9 – Phase 2 Recommended Projects (continued)
Phase
Project Name Street Street Segment Distance (miles) Project Description Cost
PHASE 2 PROJECTS (Continued)
Rio Rancho‐1
Rio Rancho
Road /April
Drive
Townsend‐Winona to Musket Trail /Autumn
Drive 1.24
Paved shoulder
Equestrian and
pedestrian path
Pedestrian crossing
$280,000
Stardust Trail Musket Trail to Yancey Lane
Silver Saddle‐2 Silver Saddle
Road Koch Field Road to Stardust Trail 0.72
Paved shoulder
Equestrian path
Paved shared‐use path
$375,000
Skeet‐1 Skeet Drive Silver Saddle Road to Neptune Drive 0.45 Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path $220,000
Stardust‐2 Stardust Trail Yancey Lane to Deville Lane/ McGee Road 1.48
Paved shoulder
Equestrian and
pedestrian path
$345,000
Townsend‐
Winona‐3
Townsend‐
Winona Road Koch Field Road to Slayton Ranch Road 2.72
Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path
Pedestrian crossing
$1,060,000
TOTAL PHASE 2 PROJECTS 10.59 ‐ $5,345,000
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 34 Final Report
November 2011
Table 10 – Phase 3 Recommended Projects
Phase
Project Name Street Street Segment Distance (miles) Project Description Cost
PHASE 3 PROJECTS
Neptune‐2 Neptune Drive Stardust Trail to Slayton Ranch Road 0.97
Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path
$370,000
Slayton Ranch‐1 Slayton Ranch
Road Townsend ‐Winona Road to Carl Road 0.80
Paved shoulder
Equestrian and
pedestrian path
Pedestrian crossing.
$220,000
Slayton Ranch‐2 Slayton Ranch
Road Carl Road to Grider Road 1.17
Paved shoulder
Equestrian and
pedestrian path
$320,000
Slayton Ranch‐3 Slayton Ranch
Road Grider Road to Neptune Drive 0.86
Paved shoulder
Equestrian and
pedestrian path
$245,000
Stardust‐1 Stardust Trail Deville Lane/ McGee Road to cul‐de‐sac at
northern terminus 0.52
Paved shoulder
Equestrian and
pedestrian path
$225,000
Townsend‐
Winona‐4
Townsend‐
Winona Road Slayton Ranch Road to Leupp Road 2.85
Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path
$1,090,000
Townsend‐
Winona‐5
Townsend‐
Winona Road
Leupp Road to Jobe Road; consider extending
the pathways east to Winona/I‐40. The existing
bridge on Townsend‐Winona Road that connects
to I‐40 presents a design constraint. Alternative
alignments will be required. A logical terminus
for the pathway needs to be identified.
1.99
Paved shared‐use path
Equestrian path
$675,000
US 89‐5 US 89 Campbell Ave and/or Copeland Ave ‐
Pedestrian and
equestrian crossings
See Note
No. 1.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 35 Final Report
November 2011
Table 10 – Phase 3 Recommended Projects (continued)
Phase
Project
Name Street Street Segment Distance (miles) Project Description Cost
PHASE 3 PROJECTS
(Continued)
Yancey‐1 Yancey Lane Koch Field Road to Stardust Trail 1.07 Shoulder
striping/widening $255,000
Picture
Canyon
Trail
Off‐Street
Pathway;
City of Flagstaff limits to Townsend‐Winona
Road, approximately along Rain Valley Road / FR
510E or Rio de Flag floodplain
0.3 (County
portion)
Paved or soft shared‐use
path See Note 2.
TOTAL PHASE 3 PROJECTS MILES OF PATHWAYS AND COST 10.53 ‐ $3,400,000
Notes:
1. Project US 89‐5 has not been developed sufficiently to develop planning‐level costs. Alternatives range from crossings under US 89 to crossings over US 89
that are designed to accommodate pedestrians and unmounted equestrians. Each of these alternatives is likely to cost several million dollars.
2. Picture Canyon trail has not been developed sufficiently to develop planning‐level costs. The majority of the trail lies within the City of Flagstaff.
Collaboration with City of Flagstaff and the Arizona State Land Department is required.
Table 11 – Summary of Costs by Phase
Phase Distance (miles) Cost
Phase I 29.75 $5,345,000
Phase II 10.59 $5,345,000
Phase III 10.53 $3,400,000
TOTAL ALL PHASES 50.87 $14,090,000
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 36 Final Report
November 2011
4.9 Transit Service
An unmet need in the Doney Park area is the provision of fixed route and express bus service.
The Transportation Plan for Coconino County Commuter Services (September, 2009) presented
three potential transit service scenarios for the Doney Park area that are shown in Figure 9.
These are described as follows:
 Scenario A – Express bus service on US 89 and Silver Saddle Road (to Koch Field Road).
 Scenario B – Express bus service on US 89 to Campbell Avenue and on Silver Saddle Road
(to Koch Field Road).
 Scenario C – Fixed route bus service on US 89, Silver Saddle Road, Koch Field Road, and
Townsend-Winona Road.
Park-and-ride stops (these varied depending on the specific transit alternative) were suggested at:
 US 89 / Burris Lane
 US 89 / Silver Saddle Road (at the Country Store)
 US 89 / Campbell Avenue
 Silver Saddle Road / Koch Field Road. Suggestions by the public were east of Cromer
Elementary School (a park-and-ride lot could also serve as overflow parking for the school)
and at Mary’s Drive
 Townsend/Winona Road/ Koch Field Road (possibly at the Calvary Bible Church lot)
It is possible that potential park-and-ride lot sites could be designated as vanpool sites, prior to
the start of transit service. Many of the public open house participants were supportive of
extending public transit to the study area, and support was received on all the alternatives noted
above.
Transit needs, as identified by the stakeholders and the public, will be forwarded to NAIPTA for
their consideration for implementation as funding becomes available.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 37 Final Report
November 2011
Figure 9 – Transit Alternatives
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 38 Final Report
November 2011
5 IMPLEMENTATION REVENUE SOURCES
This chapter describes potential funding and assistance programs for shared-use paths, bike
lanes, and sidewalks.
5.1 Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grant Funding
Transportation Enhancement (TE) Grant Funding, provided by the FHWA, offers funding
opportunities for 12 eligible activities related to surface transportation. Although anyone can
apply, interested applicants must be sponsored by a federal, state, tribal, or local government. All
local projects require a minimum 5.7% hard cash match. Projects are selected through a
competitive process. Proposed projects must qualify on at least one of the following activities
eligible for TE funding:
 Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
 Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
 Development of scenic or historic highway programs.
 Development of landscaping and other scenic beautification.
 Work on historic preservation that has a strong surface transportation link and results in a
project that retains its National Register of Historic Places eligibility.
 Rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities.
 Preservation of abandoned railway corridors, including the conversion to pedestrian or
bicycle trails.
 Control and removal of outdoor advertising.
 Planning and archeological research related to surface transportation routes.
 Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce
vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
 Establishment of transportation museums.
Further information about the TE grant program is available at:
http://www.azdot.gov/highways/SWProjMgmt/enhancement_scenic/enhancement/Index.asp
(accessed on March 9, 2011).
5.2 Safe Routes to School Program
The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program was created by the U.S. Congress to address the
growing epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes. The program provides reimbursable funds
for elementary/middle schools to implement projects to encourage children to walk and bicycle
to school.
Interested applicants for SRTS funding are required to submit a project application. Separate
applications are required for each of the SRTS funding sources:
 Infrastructure Projects
 Non-Infrastructure Projects
 Materials and Regional Support Program
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 39 Final Report
November 2011
 Planning Assistance Program
No matching funds are allowed or permitted by the SRTS programs. Further information about
the program is provided at:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/swprojmgmt/Enhancement_Scenic/saferoutes/AboutIndex.asp
(accessed on March 9, 2011).
5.3 Use of Federal Funds for Equestrian Trails
FHWA states the following as it relates to the utilization of federal funding sources for
equestrian trails (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/allow_uses_eqnm.htm):
Equestrian and other nonmotorized recreational use may be allowed on shared-use paths
and trails that use Federal-aid transportation funds. Federal transportation laws and
regulations do not prohibit equestrians, in-line skaters, skateboarders, cross country skiers,
snowshoe users, or other nonmotorized users on shared-use paths or trails. States or local
managers may choose to prohibit these uses, but it is a State or local determination, and not
a Federal requirement. Various design options may allow equestrian use, such as providing
both a paved path and an unpaved path within the same right-of-way.
5.4 Coconino Parks and Open Space Program
In 2002, Coconino County voters approved a County sales tax of one-eighth of one-cent for the
Coconino Parks and Open Space Program (CPOS). The tax raises $33 million over an estimated
12-year period. The sales tax initiative identified a list of specific parks, open space, and trails
projects throughout the County for which these funds would be allocated. CPOS projects
identified within the Doney Park planning area include improvements to Peaks View County
Park and the proposed Timberline Trail. The Board of Supervisors may redirect CPOS funds
only for projects on the voter-approved project list identified in the initiative or for projects that
are directly related to implementation of those projects. After the $33 million is expended, the
tax automatically expires unless reauthorized by County voters. Should reauthorization occur by
a future vote, it is possible that trails projects proposed in this study could be included in a future
CPOS project list. At the time of the completion of this study, the Board of Supervisors has
made no decision about referring a possible reauthorization of the tax to the voters and there is
no guarantee of a future reauthorization or that CPOS funds would be allocated for projects in
this study.
5.5 Federal Recreational Trails Program
The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to states to develop and maintain
recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational
trail uses. Within Arizona, this program is administered by the Arizona State Parks Board. State
Parks receives its yearly allocation through an agreement with ADOT, who draws the money
down through their account with the FHWA – Arizona Division. FHWA provides guidance for
the RTP and oversees all procedures, including review of National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requirements. Arizona currently receives approximately $1.6 million per year. Part of
the RTP funds is available for motorized trails projects through competitive grants, and part of
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 40 Final Report
November 2011
the funds is available for non-motorized trail purposes. The non-motorized trail funding is
through the Arizona State Parks RTP Trail Maintenance Program, which funding recipients must
apply for each fiscal year. The State Parks RTP Trail Maintenance Program requires recipients to
match 10% of total project costs, either with in-kind contributions or dollars.
Eligible work is the efforts of trail crew(s) and project sponsor staff or volunteers to perform the
following tasks:
 Tread maintenance (grading tread, slough and slide removal, slump repair, surface
replacement with similar material).
��� Clearing of the pathway (brush removal, hazard tree removal, litter, backslope grooming).
 Drainage (cleaning and repairing structures, culverts, underdrains, water bars, grade dips and
drainage ditches).
 Replacing or repairing existing fencing, guardrails, berms, and retaining walls with similar
materials.
 Structure maintenance (bridge and dam rehabilitation).
 Repairing or replacing existing signage, kiosks, and markers with similar material.
 Trail reroutes or realignment beyond five feet of each side of an existing trail surface,
construction of connector trails, and any work that does not take place on the existing trail,
which is performed with appropriate NEPA review and approval; however, “new trail”
construction is limited to short segments.
Requests are limited to a minimum of $10,000 and maximum of $40,000. More information
about the program is available at http://www.pr.state.az.us/trails/index.html
5.6 National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance
Program
The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program is the community assistance
branch of the National Park Service. RTCA staff work collaboratively, by invitation, to assist
interested partners in developing trails and greenways as well as preserving natural areas and
conserving rivers. RTCA does not award monetary grants or loans. Instead, RTCA supplies a
staff person with experience in community-based outdoor recreation and conservation to work
with partners. If funding is necessary to achieve project goals, RTCA can often assist partners in
identifying and securing sources of financial assistance.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 41 Final Report
November 2011
6 MAINTENANCE
Pathway maintenance costs and operations and maintenance standards are important
considerations after the trails are constructed. Maintenance costs should be considered prior to
any pathway construction. Funding for routine maintenance should be committed, as well as
purchase of equipment that may be needed in order to maintain the pathway system.
6.1 Maintenance Activities
The American Trails Association provides a list of typical trail maintenance activities (accessed
on April 19, 2011, at:
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/MaintCheck.html
Maintenance to be performed on a continuous, scheduled basis:
 Trails safety inspections – e.g., condition of railings, bridges, and trail surfaces, and proper
and adequate signage
 Trail sweeping
 Trash removal
 Tree and shrub pruning
 Mowing of vegetation
 Scheduling maintenance tasks – dictated by trail use, location, and design
Maintenance to be performed on an irregular or as-needed basis:
 Trail repair – Repair of asphalt or concrete trails will be closely tied to the inspection
schedule. Prioritization of repairs is part of the process.
 Trail replacement – These factors include the age of the trail and the money available for
replacement.
 Snow and ice removal.
 Weed control.
 Trail edging – Trail edging maintains trail width and improves drainage.
 Trail drainage control – In places where low spots on the trail catch water, trail surfaces
should be raised or drains built to carry away water.
 Trail signage – Trail signs fall into two categories: safety and information.
 Revegetation – Areas adjacent to trails that have been disturbed for any reason should be
revegetated to minimize erosion.
 Habitat enhancement and control – Habitat enhancement is achieved by planting vegetation
along trails, mainly trees and shrubs.
 Public awareness.
 Volunteer coordination – Sources of volunteers include Boy Scouts, school groups, church
groups, trail users, or court workers. Implementation of an "Adopt-a-Trail" program should
be considered.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 42 Final Report
November 2011
 Records – Accurate logs can be kept on items such as daily activities, hazards found and
action taken, maintenance needed and performed, surveys of trail usage, etc.
 Graffiti control.
 Mapping.
 Coordination with other agencies.
 Education and interpretation.
 Law enforcement.
 Proper training of employees.
Snow removal of pathways will also need to be addressed. A failure to remove snow within a
reasonable period following a storm will prevent users from enjoying the safety benefits that the
pathway provides. This will require Coconino County to purchase equipment capable of
traversing the eight-foot paved pathway surface. It is anticipated that snow would not be
removed from the soft surface pathways, as equipment may have the potential to damage the
pathway under snowy and icy conditions.
6.2 Maintenance Costs
Ongoing trail and pathway maintenance costs must be considered as planning and design
continue. According to an article entitled Operations, Maintenance and Stewardship 101 (Trail
Tracks, Fall, 2005 (accessed on April 19, 2011, at
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/searnsmaint101.html, operations and
maintenance costs vary substantially depending on the facility, climate, and complexity of the
system. Potential maintenance costs for urban trail systems on an annual per-mile cost may range
from $2,500 to $10,000. Different sources of revenue may be identified including:
 General fund allocations;
 Revenue from right-of-way leases such as cable use, cell phone towers;
 Participation and partnering with stakeholders such as a flood control agency, streets
department, or homeowners associations;
 Recruiting volunteers, youth, and adopt-a-trail participants and sponsors;
 Creation of an endowment from philanthropic or other sources to generate ongoing revenue.
 Improvement districts: The State of Arizona authorizes the creation of improvement districts
in unincorporated areas (areas located outside city limits) for the purposes of making local
improvements such as paving, re-paving, grading, re-grading, or to improve all, or any
portion of, one or more streets in a proposed district. Improvement districts could be
established to fund construction and maintenance of the pathway network.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 43 Final Report
November 2011
APPENDIX A – PROJECT INFORMATION SHEETS
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 44 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 1 – Burris Lane 1
Project No. Burris-1
Project Name Burris Lane, US 89 to Green Prairie Lane, Sidewalk
Construction
Project Length 0.77 miles
Project Objective Construct curb, gutter, and 5 foot-wide attached
sidewalks on the north side of the street
Project Need / Community Benefit This project will improve pedestrian safety.
Currently, walkers from residences and mobile home
parks must walk in the street. Drainage channel and
physical constraints make a separated shared-use
path prohibitive.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $360,000
A. Scoping $50,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $55,000
C. Construction $255,000
Comments A sidewalk is proposed on the north side of the
street because there are drainage ditches on the
south side. The design will need to consider the
driveways located on the north side of the street.
Travel lane width reduction should be considered to
minimize impacts to property owners.
Burris Lane looking west towards US 89
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 45 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 2 – Burris-2
Project No. Burris-2
Project Name Burris Lane, Green Prairie Lane to Pine Country
Lane, Sidewalk Construction
Project Length 0.42 miles
Project Objective Construct curb, gutter, and 5’-wide attached
sidewalks on the north side of the street.
Project Need / Community Benefit This project will improve pedestrian safety.
Currently, walkers from residences and mobile home
parks must walk in the street.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $250,000
A. Scoping $40,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $50,000
C. Construction $160,000
Comments A sidewalk is proposed on the north side of the
street because there are drainage ditches on the
south side.
A potential design issue concerns culverts crossing
each driveway on the north side of the street.
Burris Lane, east of Green Prairie Lane, looking west
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 46 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 3 – Burris-3
Project No. Burris-3
Project Name Burris Lane, Pine Country Lane to Koch Field Road,
New Roadway Connection to Koch Field Road
Project Length 0.49 miles
Project Objective Extend Burris Lane to Koch Field Road; roadway
improvements should include pedestrian and
equestrian facilities; will require crossing of major
drainage; will require easement from U.S. Forest
Service.
Project Need / Community Benefit A roadway connection will provide a link between
Burris Lane and Koch Field Road.
2011 Total Cost Estimate*
*Approximate planning estimate only.
Additional analysis required to develop cost
estimate
$1,230,000
A. Scoping $110,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $265,000
C. Construction $855,000
Comments A ravine in this area will need a bridge or earthen
embankment. Ownership of access in this area
needs to be determined. Coordination with U.S.
Forest Service will be required.
Burris Lane, east of Pine Country Lane at ravine
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 47 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 4 – Campbell-1
Project No. Campbell-1
Project Name Campbell Avenue, US 89 to USFS trailhead, Shared-use path
Reconstruction
Project Length 1.09 miles
Project Objective Reconstruct existing pathway to 8’-wide path on the north side of the
street. Construct low railing fence between pathway and vehicular
lanes to provide physical barrier from vehicular travel lanes. Path will
be constructed of natural materials suitable to both equestrians and
pedestrians. There is insufficient right-of-way along Campbell Avenue
to construct separate pathways for pedestrians and equestrians.
Stakeholders suggested that Campbell Avenue drainage way design
could incorporate pedestrian and equestrian pathways.
Project Need / Community
Benefit
The condition of the existing dirt path is poor. This project will provide
a link between US 89 and the Coconino National Forest.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $135,000
A. Scoping $35,000
B. Design (30%,
60%, 95-100%)
$25,000
C. Construction $75,000
Comments There is an existing 10’ paved path between US 89 and Zady Lane.
Improvements to parking area and trailhead will require coordination
with the U.S. Forest Service.
Campbell Avenue at Lupine Lane, looking east
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 48 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 5 – Campbell - 2
Project No. Campbell-2
Project Name Campbell Avenue West Trailhead / Parking
Improvement Project
Project Length N/A
Project Objective Relocate the existing trailhead to the west to U.S.
Forest Service land; reconstruct and expand the
trailhead area to provide parking, and trailhead
amenities.
Project Need / Community Benefit The parking area at the trailhead is small and could
be moved closer to the trail. There is limited
signage.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $110,000
A. Scoping $30,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $20,000
C. Construction $60,000
Comments Preserve large trees at the existing trailhead.
Parking area will require coordination with U.S.
Forest Service
Trailhead gate at west end of Campbell Avenue
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 49 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 6 – Cosnino-1
Project No. Cosnino-1
Project Name Cosnino Road, Townsend-Winona Road to Roan Road, Shoulder
Improvements and Pathway
Project Length 0.94 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’ paved
shoulder; add pavement as necessary to construct 4’ paved
shoulder.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian and pedestrian path on the west
side of street. Path will consist of natural materials suitable
to equestrians, but should also provide sufficient stability for
pedestrians.
 Evaluate need for marked pedestrian crossing/pedestrian
crossing beacon at Townsend-Winona Road/Cosnino Road
intersection. Roundabout proposed at this intersection in the
Townsend-Winona Corridor Study.
Project Need / Community
Benefit
This path will form part of a continuous path along Cosnino Road
between Townsend-Winona Road and the Arizona Trail.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $230,000
A. Scoping $40,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95
-100%)
$45,000
C. Construction $145,000
Comments A soft path fits the rural nature and high equestrian use of the
area.
Cosnino Road, looking south
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 50 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 7 – Cosnino-2
Project No. Cosnino-2
Project Name Cosnino Road, Roan Road to Arizona Trail,
Shoulder Improvements and Pathway
Project Length 0.9 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’
paved shoulder along Cosnino Road; add
pavement if necessary to construct 4’ paved
shoulder.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian path on the west side
of street. Path will consist of natural materials
suitable to equestrians, but should also provide
sufficient stability for pedestrians. Connect path
through U.S. National Forest lands to the
Arizona Trail, which crosses under the BNSF
Railroad tracks southwest of Cosnino.
Project Need / Community Benefit A shared-use path on this road will provide better
access for equestrians and pedestrians on this
route. Currently the shoulders are graded. Paved
shoulders will improve conditions for bicyclists.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $255,000
A. Scoping $45,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $50,000
C. Construction $160,000
Comments A soft path fits the rural nature of the area.
Arizona Trail, located ½ miles west of Cosnino Road
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 51 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 8 – Cosnino-3
Project No. Cosnino-3
Project Name Traffic calming on Cosnino Road, within the
community of Cosnino
Project Length N/A
Project Objective Evaluate potential traffic calming alternatives to slow
vehicles on Cosnino Road. Traffic circles may be
considered.
Traffic calming may be considered between
Palomino Drive and Buckskin Court, a distance of
approximately 2,000 feet.
Project Need / Community Benefit Stakeholders stated that vehicle speeds are high on
this residential street that connects to I-40. Traffic
calming will slow vehicles improving the safety and
comfort of bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.
2011 Total Cost Estimate Alternatives for traffic calming include traffic circles
or median islands. Traffic circles would consist of a
raised center island in the center of the intersection
that is approximately 20’ to 40’ in diameter.
Traffic circles can be constructed for as little as
$2,000 to $5,000 depending upon the size and
degree of landscaping.
An estimate of $25,000 is assumed for planning
purposes.
A. Scoping
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%)
C. Construction
Comments Residents of Cosnino identified speeding as a
significant concern. Cosnino provides direct access
to I-40.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 52 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 9 – Koch Field-1
Project No. Koch Field-1
Project Name Koch Field Road, Townsend-Winona Road to Kavanaugh Way /Anaya
Road, Pathway and Paved Shoulder
Project Length 0.42 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’ paved shoulder; add
pavement if necessary to construct 4’ paved shoulder. Narrower
travel lanes also serve to slow vehicular traffic. Paved shoulders may
be designated as bicycle lanes.
 Construct an 8’ paved path on the east side of the street; new path
would connect to the existing path on Koch Field Road. Primary user
of pathway is pedestrians and bicyclists traveling at low speeds.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian path on the west side of street (opposite
paved path). Equestrian crossing of drainage would be at-grade.
 Evaluate need for marked pedestrian crossing/ pedestrian crossing
beacon at Koch Field Road/ Townsend-Winona Road intersection. A
roundabout is proposed at this intersection in the Townsend-Winona
Corridor Study.
Project Need /
Community Benefit
Extending shared-use path will provide connectivity between the
Townsend-Winona Area and Peaks View Park. It will complete a missing
link in this popular shared-use path.
2011 Total Cost
Estimate
$265,000
A. Scoping $45,000
B. Design (30%,
60%, 95-100%)
$50,000
C. Construction $170,000
Comments The narrow bridge crossing the Rio de Flag south of Kavanaugh/Anaya
Road is a constraint to pathway construction. Bridge culvert will require
extension. This project may meet requirements for Safe Routes to
School funding.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 53 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 10 – Koch Field-2
Project No. Koch Field-2
Project Name Kavanaugh Way /Anaya Road to Silver Saddle Road, Pathway and
Paved Shoulder
Project Length 0.8 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’ paved shoulder; add
pavement if necessary to construct 4’ paved shoulder.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian path on the west side of street (opposite of
the existing paved path). Path will consist of natural materials
suitable to equestrians.
Project Need /
Community Benefit
There is an existing paved pathway on the east side of Koch Field Road.
A paved shoulder and equestrian path will complete a missing link
between the Townsend-Winona area and Peaks View Park.
2011 Total Cost
Estimate
$235,000
A. Scoping $40,000
B. Design (30%,
60%, 95-100%)
$45,000
C. Construction $150,000
Comments The narrow bridge crossing the Rio de Flag south of Kavanaugh/Anaya
Road is a constraint to pathway construction. Bridge culvert will require
extension. This project may be eligible for Safe Routes to School
funding.
West side of the Koch Field Road bridge south of Kavanaugh / Anaya Road
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 54 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 11 – Leupp-1
Project No. Leupp-1
Project Name Leupp Road, Townsend-Winona Road to U.S.
Forest Service Road 244 (northern project limits),
Bike Route Signing
Project Length 4.92 miles
Project Objective Install bike route signing.
Project Need / Community Benefit Providing signed bike lanes will raise motorist
awareness of bicycles on this popular recreational
bike route that links the Townsend-Winona area with
Coconino National Forest lands.
2011 Cost Estimate $40,000
A. Scoping $15,000 (may not be necessary if local funds are
utilized, or streamlined environmental process is
followed)
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $5,000
C. Construction $20,000
Comments Some shoulder improvements may be required on a
spot location basis. This should be considered
during any future pavement preservation projects.
AASHTO recommends a minimum 5’ bicycle lane.
Leupp Road, at MP 433
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 55 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 12 – Neptune-1
Project No. Neptune-1
Project Name Neptune Drive, Skeet Drive to Stardust Trail Path
Project Length 0.7 miles
Project Objective  Roadway between Lunar Drive and Stardust
Trail is currently not maintained by the County.
Improve roadway to minimum standards.
Consider process to adopt unmaintained
roadway into county maintenance system.
 Construct an 8’ paved path on the north side of
the street; primary users of the pathway are
pedestrians, strollers, and low-speed bicyclists.
 Construct a 6’-wide equestrian path on the south
side of street (opposite paved path). Path will
consist of natural materials suitable to
equestrians.
Project Need / Community Benefit A shared-use path on Neptune Drive, between
Stardust Trail and Skeet Drive, would provide safer
access for students walking to and from Cromer
Elementary School
2011 Total Cost Estimate*
*Approximate planning estimate only.
Additional analysis required to develop cost
estimate
$905,000
A. Scoping / Survey / Enviro. $85,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $195,000
C. Construction $625,000
Comments Neptune Drive is unpaved between Lunar Drive and
Stardust Trail. Neptune Drive from Stardust Trail to
Lunar Drive is constructed on a public easement but
is not maintained by the county.
There are opportunities for rest nodes at the
intersections of Neptune / Lunar and Neptune /
Skeet.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 56 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 13 – Neptune-2
Project No. Neptune-2
Project Name Neptune Drive, Stardust Trail to Slayton Ranch
Road Pathway
Project Length 0.97 miles
Project Objective  Improve existing informal unpaved pathway on
the north side of the street to 8’ paved path;
primary users of pathway are pedestrians,
strollers, and low-speed bicyclists.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian path on the south side
of street (opposite paved path). Path will consist
of natural materials suitable to equestrians.
Project Need / Community Benefit A pathway will provide a comfortable location for
pedestrians and equestrians; is within vicinity of
Cromer Elementary School
2011 Total Cost Estimate $370,000
A. Scoping $50,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $75,000
C. Construction $245,000
Comments N/A
Neptune Drive at Slayton Ranch Road
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 57 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 14 – Neptune-3
Project No. Neptune-3
Project Name Neptune Drive/Skeet Drive Off-street Pathway to
U.S. Forest Service on Easement
Project Length 0.5 miles
Project Objective Construct an unpaved equestrian path/pedestrian
path from the intersection of Neptune Drive/Skeet
Drive to U.S. Forest Service access point.
Project Need / Community Benefit An opportunity may exist to improve existing social
trail on a potential existing easement that originates
at the northwest corner of the intersection of
Neptune Drive at Skeet Drive, and extends west
(parallel to Neptune) between two properties to the
U.S. Forest Service fence line, then heads north
parallel to the U.S. Forest Service property boundary
to an un-gated opening. The pathway would be
constructed of natural materials suitable to
equestrians. There is insufficient space for divided
equestrian/ pedestrian treads.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $95,000
A. Scoping $25,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $15,000
C. Construction $55,000
Comments N/A
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 58 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 15 – Picture Canyon Trail
Project No. Picture Canyon Trail-1
Project Name Picture Canyon Trail
Project Length 0.3 miles (Coconino County portion)
Project Objective Construct Picture Canyon Trail to connect to
Townsend-Winona Road. Precise location of the
Picture Canyon trail is not yet determined. Options
have been proposed along Rain Valley Road/FR
510E and the Rio de Flag Floodplain. Surface
material is to be determined; surface material should
be suitable to equestrians.
Project Need / Community Benefit Construction of the Picture Canyon Trail, Koch Field-
1, and a portion of Townsend-Winona-2 would
complete a continuous trail from Cromer Elementary
School to downtown Flagstaff; the last one-third mile
of the trail is outside of City limits.
2011 Total Cost Estimate To be determined. Only the last 1/3 of a mile lies
outside of City limits, in Coconino County. This last
segment would be constructed in conjunction with
the remainder of the trail within City limits.
Collaboration between City and County is required.
A. Scoping
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%)
C. Construction
Comments N/A
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 59 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 16 – Rio Rancho-1
Project No. Rio Rancho-1
Project Name Rio Rancho Road / April Road / Stardust Trail Paved
Shoulder and Pathway
Project Length 1.24 miles
Project Objective  Stripe existing street segments to 10’ travel
lanes and 4’ paved shoulder. New roadway
(programmed by Coconino County) should
include paved shoulder.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian and pedestrian path
on the east side of street; path will consist of
natural materials suitable to equestrians, but
also should provide sufficient stability for
pedestrians. New roadway (programmed by
Coconino County) should include equestrian and
pedestrian path.
 Evaluate need for marked pedestrian crossing/
pedestrian crossing beacon at Rio Rancho
Road/ Townsend-Winona Road intersection.
Roundabout proposed at this intersection in the
Townsend-Winona Corridor Study.
Project Need / Community Benefit This project will improve north-south connectivity.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $280,000
A. Scoping $45,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $55,000
C. Construction $180,000
Comments This project consists of two segments:
 Rio Rancho Road, Townsend-Winona to east
Thunder Creek Road (in curbed sections, path
attached to the curb on the east side of the
street). Pathway may need to be narrowed to 6’
in this section; soft path may not be feasible
within existing R/W.
 Musket Trail/Autumn Drive to Stardust Trail:
Coordinate path with roadway improvement
project.
May require culvert extension to accommodate
pedestrians.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 60 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 17 – Silver Saddle-1
Project No. Silver Saddle-1
Project Name Silver Saddle Road, US 89 to Doney Park Lane /
Koch Field Road, Shared-use Path
Project Length 1.13 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’
paved shoulder; add pavement if necessary to
construct 4’ paved shoulder. Narrower travel
lanes serve to slow vehicular traffic. Paved
shoulders may be designated as bicycle lanes.
 Construct an 8’ paved path on the north of the
street; path would meander through U.S. Forest
Service lands where available. Primary user of
pathway is pedestrians and bicyclists traveling at
slower speeds.
 Construct an equestrian path (Koch Field Road
to Silver Spur Road; provides access to Old
Caves Crater Trailhead): Construct a 6’
equestrian path on the north side of the street,
(offset as much as feasible from paved pathway;
30 feet or more is desirable). Majority of path
traverses U.S. Forest Service lands;
coordination with U.S. Forest Service required.
Where separation is not feasible, construct a
low-railing fence (if solid, 54” maximum height)
between equestrian tread and pedestrian path.
Equestrian path will be constructed of natural
materials suitable to equestrians.
Project Need / Community Benefit These paths will link activity centers and the
trailhead leading to Old Caves Crater Trail. Silver
Saddle Road is one of the busiest streets in Doney
Park. Existing shoulders are narrow.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $580,000
A. Scoping $65,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $120,000
C. Construction $395,000
Comments Right-of-way and easements require further
investigation. The proposed soft path could widen to
6’ or more through U.S. Forest Service land.
Coordination required.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 61 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 18 – Silver Saddle-2
Project No. Silver Saddle-2
Project Name Silver Saddle Road, Skeet Drive to Stardust Trail
Shared-use Path
Project Length 0.72 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’
paved shoulder.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian path on the north side of
street; path will consist of natural materials suitable
to equestrians. Note existing sidewalk on north side
of the street between Koch Field Road and Skeet
Drive; investigation of feasibility of equestrian path
through this segment (Koch Field Road to Skeet
Drive) is required.
 Improve existing unpaved pathway on south side of
the street (Skeet Drive to Stardust Trail) to 8’ paved
path; primary user of pathway is pedestrians,
strollers, and low-speed bicyclists.
Project Need / Community Benefit Improving existing path will improve access for
schoolchildren (existing unpaved path is located
between Koch Field Road and Skeet Drive). Silver
Saddle Road is one of the busiest streets in Doney
Park.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $375,000
A. Scoping $50,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $75,000
C. Construction $250,000
Comments N/A
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 62 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 19 – Skeet-1
Project No. Skeet-1
Project Name Skeet Drive, Silver Saddle Road to Neptune Drive,
Shared-use Path
Project Length 0.45 miles
Project Objective  Construct an 8’ paved path on the west side of
the street; primary user of pathway is
pedestrians, strollers, and slow-speed bicyclists.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian path on the east side
of street; path will consist of natural materials
suitable to equestrians.
Project Need / Community Benefit The provision of a multimodal path on this road
would provide improved access for students walking
or biking to school. Currently Skeet Drive is a north-south
minor collector with limited shoulders.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $220,000
A. Scoping $40,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $45,000
C. Construction $140,000
Comments This path will connect to a proposed path on
Neptune Drive. There is a potential for a rest node at
the intersection of Skeet Drive / Neptune Drive.
This project could be eligible for Safe Routes to
School funding.
Skeet Drive, near Silver Saddle Road, looking north
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 63 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 20 – Slayton Ranch-1
Project No. Slayton Ranch-1
Project Name Slayton Ranch Road, Townsend-Winona Road to
Carl Road, Shared-use Path
Project Length 0.80 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’
paved shoulder. Existing pavement width may
only allow for striping of 4’ shoulder on one side
of the roadway, and less than 4’ on opposite
side of the roadway. Striped shoulder will
provide stabilized walking surface for
pedestrians. White roadway stripe will define
the space from motor vehicles.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian and pedestrian path
on the west side of street; path will consist of
natural materials suitable to equestrians, but
should also provide stability for pedestrians.
 Evaluate need for marked pedestrian crossing/
pedestrian crossing beacon at Townsend-
Winona Road/ Slayton Ranch Road intersection.
A roundabout is proposed at this intersection in
the Townsend-Winona Corridor Study (not
included in cost estimate).
Project Need / Community Benefit When fully developed with the other Slayton Ranch
Road projects, this project supports the Doney Park
Timberline Fernwood Area Plan policy that trail
linkages are to be provided between the north and
east sides of Doney Park to the Townsend-Winona
Road corridor.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $220,000
A. Scoping $40,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $40,000
C. Construction $140,000
Comments A rest node could be considered near the
intersection of Townsend-Winona Road and Slayton
Ranch Road.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 64 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 21 – Slayton Ranch-2
Project No. Slayton Ranch-2
Project Name Slayton Ranch Road, Carl Road to Grider Road,
Shared-use Path
Project Length 1.17 miles
Project Objective  Restripe existing street to 10’ travel lanes and 4’
paved shoulder. Existing pavement width may
only allow for striping of 4’ shoulder on one side
of the roadway, and less than 4’ on opposite
side of the roadway. Further investigation
required. Striped shoulder will provide stable
walking surface for pedestrians. White roadway
stripe will define the space from motor vehicles.
 Construct a 6’ equestrian and pedestrian path
on the west side of street; path will consist of
natural materials suitable to equestrians, but
should also provide stability for pedestrians.
Path will meander through U.S. Forest Service
lands as available; coordination required.
Coordination required with the U.S. Forest
Service Logan’s Crossing Wildlife Interpretive
Trails. Equestrian path would connect to the
proposed Logan’s Crossing U.S. Forest Service
trails.
Project Need / Community Benefit This project supports the Doney Park Timberline
Fernwood Area Plan policy that trail linkages are to
be provided between the north and east sides of
Doney Park to the Townsend-Winona Road corridor.
2011 Total Cost Estimate $320,000
A. Scoping $45,000
B. Design (30%, 60%, 95-100%) $65,000
C. Construction $210,000
Comments This proposed soft path may widen to 6’ or more
through U.S. Forest Service land. There are
several sections of this path where physical,
drainage, or right-of-way constraints will require
right-of-way acquisition, or alternative configurations
to be explored. Additional right-of-way may be
required.
091374038 Doney Park Multimodal Transportation Study
2011 11 30 Doney Park Final Report.doc 65 Final Report
November 2011
Project Information Sheet 22 – Slayton Ranch-3
Proje