Town of Dewey-Humboldt transportation study : final report

              Dewey-Humboldt TOW N O F
Prepared By
MAY 2012
Task Assignment MPD 17-11
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final Report and
Executive Summary
Town of Dewey-
Humboldt PARA
Transportation
Study
ADOT MPD Task Assignment 17-11
PGTD 0717
Contract # T08-49-U0001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prepared by:
In association with:
Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
KDA Creative
Prepared for:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOWN OF DEWEY-HUMBOLDT
May 2012
091374044
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-1 Final Report and Executive Summary
1 INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) awarded funding for the Town of Dewey-Humboldt
Transportation Study through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program. The purpose of
the PARA program is to assist rural counties, cities, towns, and tribal communities in conducting
multimodal transportation planning.
The Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study (study) identifies the transportation needs within the
Town of Dewey-Humboldt (Town). The study area is all of the land within the Dewey-Humboldt town
limits, as well as the southern tip of Prescott Valley, as shown in Figure ES-1.
For purposes of this study, needs are defined as unmet demand for transportation facilities or services.
The study recommends planning-level improvements to help meet the identified transportation needs over
the next 20 years. These recommendations serve as a guide for future community development, project
funding applications, capital improvement programming, and project implementation.
The executive summary of the study provides a brief summary of current and future conditions,
transportation needs and issues, recommended improvements, and the implementation plan. More
detailed information can be found in the final report.
2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
2.1 Land Uses, Ownership, Environment, and Socioeconomic Data
The study area is primarily comprised of residential land uses with commercial land uses along State
Route (SR) 69 and SR 169. Low density residential areas are the most predominant land use, comprising
71.2 percent of the study area. Medium density residential areas are located adjacent to commercial areas
along SR 69. Most of the commercial areas within the study limits are primarily within the Town of
Prescott Valley. Commercial activity within the Town of Dewey-Humboldt is located in the community
core along Main Street and Prescott Street east of SR 69. Mortimer Family Farms represents the primary
agricultural land use in the study area. Open space and recreational land uses are dispersed throughout
the study area on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Trust
lands. Zoning within the study area is generally consistent with existing land use.
Most of the land in the study area is privately-owned. Public owners within the study area include the
Town of Dewey-Humboldt, BLM, and ASLD. Many of the existing roadways within the study area are
located on private land.
The study area terrain is primarily comprised of rolling hills with grass and shrub vegetation. The Town
is flanked by the Bradshaw Mountains on the west and Mingus Mountain on the east, both of which are
part of the Prescott National Forest. The Agua Fria River flows through Town on the east side of SR 69
from north to south.
There are two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund remediation sites located within
the study area at the Iron King Mine and Humboldt Smelter. These sites are being studied by EPA to
determine how best to remediate them.
Per the 2010 Census, the current population of Dewey-Humboldt is 3,894 persons, with approximately
2.45 persons per households in the 1,589 occupied housing units in the Town.
Most Town residents commute to work outside of the Town, which is consistent with the small amount of
current commercial and industrial land uses within Dewey-Humboldt.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-2 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure ES-1 – Study Area Map
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-3 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.2 Roadways
The existing roadway network in the study area is comprised of state highways and non-state roadways
owned by the Town or by private owners. The existing state highways are SR 69 and SR 169. The
primary Town-owned paved roadways in the study area are Newtown Avenue/Henderson Road/Kachina
Place, Prescott Street, and Foothill Drive. The street network west of SR 69 is primarily comprised of
unpaved roads. While most of the existing paved local roadways are located within dedicated public
right-of-way, a large percentage of the unpaved roadways in the study area are currently located on
private right-of-way.
There are numerous existing access points along SR 69 and SR 169, particularly in the vicinity of the SR
69/SR 169 intersection, where Old Black Canyon Highway and several driveways join SR 169. ADOT
has indicated there is a need to better manage access along SR 69 and SR 169.
Currently, there is an at-grade low flow crossing of the Agua Fria River on Prescott Street. During high
water events, this roadway is not passable, which limits circulation and emergency vehicle access.
Two signalized intersections exist within the study area at SR 69/SR 169 and SR 69/Kachina Place. The
ADOT Traffic Signal Needs Study completed in June 2011 for the intersection of SR 69/Main Street
determined that a traffic signal is not warranted at SR 69/Main Street at this time.
2.2.1 Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume information serves to indicate how close to capacity roadway segments or intersections
may be. Available traffic volume data was reviewed to ascertain the volume of traffic on study area
roadways.
Available average daily traffic (ADT) volumes from 2010 (the most recently available year) were
obtained from ADOT for SR 69 and SR 169. Daily traffic volume counts were conducted for 18 selected
study area roadways by Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc. on August 2, 2011. The highest ADT
volume in the study area is 24,200 vehicles per day (vpd) on SR 69 north of SR 169. Most study area
roadways have ADT volumes of less than 2,000 vpd.
2.2.2 Levels of Service
Roadway traffic operations are defined and categorized by the average amount of delay experienced by
drivers. The operations are categorized by a grading system called level of service (LOS), which has a
letter designation ranging from A (no delay) to F (severe congestion).
All study area roadway segments for which current traffic volume data was available provide LOS C or
better except for the segment of SR 69 north of SR 169, which provides LOS D. Roadway segments
providing LOS C likely do not currently need additional through capacity. For roadway segments
providing LOS D, additional through capacity may be needed. Once roadway segments reach LOS E,
they likely need additional through capacity.
2.2.3 Crash Analysis
Crash data was obtained from ADOT and from Yavapai County for a five-year analysis period from
December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2010. There were a total of 115 crashes in the study area
during the analysis period with three fatalities.
The location and frequency of crashes is generally correlated to the magnitude of traffic volumes, with the
highest number of crashes occurring along SR 69. The largest cluster of crashes is at the SR 69/SR 169
intersection.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-4 Final Report and Executive Summary
At the SR 69/SR 169 intersection, the ADOT SR 69 Road Safety Assessment (RSA) completed in
October 2009 recommended providing additional signal heads for the SR 69 approaches to improve
visibility, and converting the SR 69 southbound left-turn phasing to protected-only phasing to promote
safety. The ADOT SR 69 RSA also noted that future consideration could be given to roundabouts
replacing the traffic signals.
2.2.4 Pavement Conditions
A roadway pavement condition inventory was conducted in August and September 2011 for the paved
roadway segments owned by the Town. A pavement rating system was developed to evaluate the Town’s
roadways. Factors used in the rating system include pavement distress types and general site conditions.
The primary distress types considered were longitudinal and transverse cracking, alligator cracking, block
cracking, edge cracking, patching, potholes, weathering and raveling, rutting, and lane/shoulder drop off.
Site conditions considered were washboard effect, erosion, poor drainage, and failing surface conditions.
Based on the severity of distresses and site conditions that were observed, an overall pavement rating
between 1 and 5 was given to each paved roadway segment that was inventoried. Descriptions of the
rating system levels are as follows:
 Excellent (1) – Minimal deterioration requiring no maintenance;
 Good (2) – Minor deterioration that could benefit from maintenance activities;
 Fair (3) – Moderate deterioration that would benefit from aggressive maintenance activities;
 Poor (4) – Significant deterioration that would benefit from surface rehabilitation and overall general
site improvements; and
 Failed (5) – Major deterioration that would benefit from surface reconstruction and overall general
site improvements.
Overall, most of the roadways within the Town are in Fair condition. The roadway segments rated as
Poor are distributed throughout the roadway network and include significant portions of Henderson Road,
River Road, and Meadow Road. The roadway segments rated as Failed are generally located in the
vicinity of Prescott Street/Old Black Canyon Highway and Kachina Place/SR 69. According to Town
staff, Kachina Place and the roadway segments in the vicinity of Prescott Street are scheduled for
pavement surface rehabilitation by the end of 2012.
2.3 Other Modes of Travel
2.3.1 Public Transit
Daily public transit services currently do not exist within the study area or anywhere else in the Central
Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) region except in Chino Valley. Lack of available
funding and low estimated public transit demand limit the potential for the development of public transit
in Dewey-Humboldt.
2.3.2 Private Transit
For-profit and non-profit private sector transit providers currently offer transportation services within the
study area, but often at a higher price when compared to typical public transit rates. Many of the private
transit operators utilize Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 (Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities Transportation Program) grants or Section 5317 (New Freedom Program that serves the
disabled) grants to help fund their operations.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-5 Final Report and Executive Summary
Territorial Transit, a non-profit organization, recently secured a Section 5310 grant for mobility
management efforts to better coordinate the various private transit providers in the Prescott area. The
objective of mobility management is to meet individual transportation needs through a wide range of
transportation options and service providers. Mobility management also focuses on coordinating
transportation options and service providers to achieve a more efficient transportation system.
The Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG) manages a transportation voucher program for
residents of the Prescott area. This program offers regional travel to qualifying residents at a low rate
negotiated with a specific group of private transit providers. Dewey-Humboldt had been participating in
the voucher program but in June 2011 opted to no longer participate in the voucher program due to
funding issues, lack of rider participation, and inaccuracies in assigning voucher usage to the respective
participating jurisdictions.
2.3.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Recreational Travel
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an important part of the multimodal transportation network in that
they provide various options for travel (which is especially critical for travelers who cannot drive).
Facilities that make up bicycle networks can include designated bike routes, striped bike lanes, paved
shoulders along roadways, wide curb lanes, shared-use paths, and sidewalks. There are no existing
designated bicycle facilities in the study area. SR 69 and SR 169 do, however, both have paved shoulder
widths of four feet or greater that can be traveled on by bicyclists. The remainder of the roadway network
within the study area is available to bicyclists, but deteriorating pavement surfaces and the prevalence of
steep hills and challenging terrain can make bicycle travel difficult.
Pedestrian networks are typically comprised of sidewalks, trails, and shared-use paths. Existing
sidewalks within the study area are located intermittently along Main Street and at Humboldt Elementary
School. Very few of the existing sidewalks comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Recreational travelers have limited existing travel options in the study area. There are existing regional
recreational trails in the Prescott National Forest and BLM lands adjacent to the Town but no official
recreational trails in the study area. There are several informal trails along the shoulders of many of the
study area roadways, but the shoulders are narrow and terrain is challenging. Off-highway vehicles
frequently use unpaved roads but must be registered and street legal to travel on any portion of the
Town’s right-of-way.
3 CURRENT NEEDS
3.1 Roadways
The following current study area roadway segment and intersection needs were identified:
 Acquiring right-of-way for, realigning, and/or paving existing unpaved roadways;
 Traffic signal modifications at the SR 69/SR 169 and SR 69/Kachina Place intersections;
 Access management of existing access points along SR 69 and SR 169;
 Federal functional reclassification of several roadway segments;
 All-weather access across the Agua Fria River;
 Improved circulation and better emergency vehicle access west of SR 69; and
 Rehabilitation of roadway segments with pavement conditions rated as Failed or Poor.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-6 Final Report and Executive Summary
3.2 Other Modes of Travel
The following current study area needs were identified for other modes of travel:
 Transit availability for disadvantaged populations;
 Mobility management to better coordinate existing private transit services;
 Clearly-defined, continuous bicycle, pedestrian, and recreational trail networks; and
 ADA-compliant facilities in the community core and near Humboldt Elementary School.
4 FUTURE CONDITIONS
4.1 Anticipated Land Uses
The main land use goals discussed in the Dewey-Humboldt General Plan are preservation of the low
density small town character, preservation of the residential living quality, and a focus on meeting the
needs and desires of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. These goals indicate the future land uses of the study area will remain predominantly low density
residential with some growth of commercial uses along SR 69 and SR 169.
Residential land uses are expected to increase in dwelling density throughout the study area. Existing
commercial land uses along SR 69 and SR 169 are anticipated to remain commercial land uses in the
future. Additional commercial land uses are generally expected to occur along SR 69 and SR 169 and
within the community core. The Mortimer Family Farms property will likely be converted from
agricultural to low density residential and community core land uses per the Town’s General Plan. A
significant portion of the study area is anticipated to remain as open space and has been planned for
recreational use according to the Dewey-Humboldt Open Space and Trails (OSAT) Plan completed in
August 2010. Industrial land uses are expected to remain limited in the future.
Two commercial retail developments are planned north of SR 169 and east of SR 69 within the Prescott
Valley portion of the study area. These developments will require zoning changes to allow for the
planned commercial land uses.
4.2 Socioeconomic Data Projections
Based on historical average annual growth rates, the depth and breadth of the current economic downturn,
and the Town’s low growth policies, goals, and land use designations, it is anticipated that the Town’s
population will grow over the next 20 years at an average annual growth rate of somewhere between one
percent and three percent.
Table ES-1 shows the current 2010 population and the projected 2016, 2021, and 2031 populations for
average annual growth rate scenarios of one, two, and three percent. For purposes of this study, the two
percent growth rate is assumed, resulting in a future 2031 population projection for Dewey-Humboldt of
5,902 persons.
Table ES-1 – Future Dewey-Humboldt Population Projections
Growth Scenario
2010
Population
2016
Population
2021
Population
2031
Population
1% growth rate 3,894 4,134 4,334 4,799
2% growth rate 3,894 4,385 4,842 5,902
3% growth rate 3,894 4,649 5,390 7,244
Sources: 2010 Census and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-7 Final Report and Executive Summary
In the future build-out condition, when all developable land is developed per the Town’s land use plan,
the population for Dewey-Humboldt is projected to be approximately 15,000 persons. This build-out
population projection was calculated based on the acreage and the maximum allowable densities for low
density and medium density residential land uses in the Town, assuming the Town’s household size
remains 2.45 persons per household. There is no specific year assigned to build-out as it is highly
dependent on how quickly land develops.
The Town’s focus on preservation of open space and a rural residential lifestyle will likely deter major
future commercial and industrial development and limit the creation of new employment opportunities.
Employment growth within the study area will likely be limited to the land near SR 69 and SR 169 over
the next 20 years.
4.3 Roadways
4.3.1 Anticipated Improvement Projects
The Dewey-Humboldt Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes several study area transportation
projects, improvements to community facilities, and general government initiatives, all of which could
have an effect on travel patterns. Due to the uncertainty of funding sources and amounts, the projects
shown in the CIP are subject to change.
The Prescott Valley General Plan identifies the Prescott Country Club Bypass as a future roadway just
north of the study area. This conceptual roadway alignment intersects SR 69 near the Bradshaw
Mountain Middle School and runs westward around the Prescott Country Club, curving north to intersect
Old Black Canyon Highway. A new north-south roadway is planned through the commercial
developments on the northeast corner of SR 69/SR 169 to provide local access and circulation.
ADOT and CYMPO are in the planning stages of developing a limited access roadway that will
ultimately go between Interstate 17 and Fain Road, effectively replacing SR 69 as the primary route
between the Phoenix area and the Prescott area. The existing SR 69 roadway would then likely become a
secondary route between Phoenix and Prescott and could experience a reduction in traffic volumes.
4.3.2 Traffic Control
Based on the assumed growth rates for SR 69 and Main Street, the SR 69/Main Street intersection may
warrant a traffic control change within the next 5-10 years.
As traffic volumes increase over time, the existing signalized intersections of SR 69/SR 169 and SR
69/Kachina Place will likely need to be monitored regularly to determine if adjustments are needed to the
traffic signal timing, phasing, or coordination with adjacent signalized intersections.
The planned commercial developments on the northeast corner of SR 69/SR 169 include a proposed new
traffic signal at the intersection of the planned new north-south roadway with SR 169 just west of the
Agua Fria River. This new intersection would also serve as a signalized access point to the Mortimer
Family Farms property and any future developments on the southeast corner of SR 69/SR 169.
4.3.3 Traffic Volume Projections
ADOT provided traffic projections for the study area segments of SR 69 and SR 169. Average annual
growth rates range from 0.5 percent to 1.9 percent. The 2010 and projected 2031 ADT volumes for SR
69 and SR 169 are shown in Table ES-2.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-8 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-2 – Future State Highway ADT Volumes
Count Location 2010 2031
Annual
Growth Rate
SR 69, south of Main Street 12,700 18,900 1.9%
SR 69, Main Street to SR 169 15,700 22,900 1.8%
SR 69, north of SR 169 24,200 27,100 0.5%
SR 169, east of SR 69 9,500 12,100 1.2%
Sources: Dewey-Humboldt General Plan, ADOT, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
For other roadways in the study area, it is assumed that traffic volumes will grow at an average annual
growth rate of two percent. This two percent growth rate is generally consistent with the anticipated
study area population growth rate and growth rates for SR 69 and SR 169. It should be noted, however,
that a significant change in land use – such as the planned commercial development on the northeast
corner of SR 69/SR 169 or the redevelopment of the Mortimer Family Farm property into high density
residential or commercial land uses – would likely result in higher growth rates on certain roadways.
4.3.4 Levels of Service
All study area roadway segments are anticipated to provide LOS C or better through 2031 except for SR
169, which provides LOS E, and the segment of SR 69 north of SR 169, which provides LOS D. It
should be noted that the 2031 projected volume for the segment of SR 69 north of SR 169 is very close to
the LOS E threshold, so this segment of SR 69 could need additional capacity by 2031 to maintain an
acceptable LOS.
If implemented, the planned new roadway between Interstate 17 and Fain Road would likely reduce or
possibly eliminate the need for additional capacity on SR 169 and on SR 69 north of SR 169 because it
would likely divert some traffic that would otherwise travel on SR 169 and on SR 69 between SR 169 and
Fain Road.
4.4 Other Modes of Travel
4.4.1 Public Transit
There are currently no funded or committed projects for future public transit facilities or services in the
study area. Public transit demand in the study area is anticipated to grow at a rate similar to the projected
Town population growth rate. It is anticipated that lack of available funding and low estimated public
transit demand will continue to limit the potential for the development of public transit in Dewey-
Humboldt.
4.4.2 Private Transit
Private transit operators are anticipated to continue to operate in the study area in the future, and could
potentially expand their service areas and frequency of service as the overall population and population
segments likely to use transit increase. Continued mobility management could further improve the
efficiency of the private transit system.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-9 Final Report and Executive Summary
4.4.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Recreational Travel
At the national level, there is an emphasis on providing more bicycle and pedestrian facilities along
roadways to create “complete streets” that are also ADA-compliant. Complete streets are designed to
function safely and effectively for all users.
Elements of a complete street in an urban area include sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide shoulders),
comfortable and accessible transit stops, frequent crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible
pedestrian signals, curb extensions, and more. A complete street in a rural area may have different
elements, but should achieve the same goal.
5 FUTURE NEEDS
5.1 Roadways
The following future study area roadway segment and intersection needs were identified:
 Acquiring right-of-way for, realigning, and/or paving existing unpaved roadways;
 Further study to alleviate congestion on SR 169 and on SR 69 north of SR 169;
 Access management of new access points along SR 69 and SR 169;
 Federal functional reclassification of several roadway segments;
 Further study to determine if intersection traffic control modifications are needed; and
 Rehabilitation of roadway segments with pavement condition rated as Failed or Poor.
5.2 Other Modes of Travel
The following future study area needs were identified for other modes of travel:
 Transit availability for disadvantaged populations;
 Identification of stable long-term funding sources for public transit;
 Continued mobility management to better coordinate private transit services;
 Evaluation of expanding CYMPO’s planned regional transit system into Dewey-Humboldt; and
 Additional bicycle, pedestrian, and recreational trail facilities.
6 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following evaluation criteria were considered in the analysis of proposed improvement projects to
identify potential benefits, impacts, and priorities:
 Meets identified need;
 Safety;
 Total estimated cost;
 Impacts to right-of-way;
 Impacts to existing businesses/residences;
 Engineering issues;
 Level of service/delay;
 Accessibility/mobility;
 Network continuity;
 Environmental impacts; and
 Multimodal compatibility.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-10 Final Report and Executive Summary
7 IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Functional Classification Considerations
Functional classification defines the hierarchy of streets in a roadway system according to the character of
service they provide as it relates to mobility, access, and trip length. Functional classification groups
include principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local roads. In general, principal and minor
arterials provide a high level of mobility for the traveling public with minimal allowance for access, while
the collectors and local roads provide for residential and non-residential access.
To utilize federal funding on roadway improvements, a roadway must have a functional classification.
Most federal funding can only be used on roadways classified as rural major collectors or higher.
7.2 Complete Street Cross-Sections
The Town’s OSAT Plan provides several roadway cross-sections that include elements of complete
streets. One of these cross-sections in particular, the Regional Connector Trail Cross-Section (see Figure
ES-2), shows adequately-sized elements of a complete street within 50 feet of right-of-way. This cross-section
includes one travel lane for motorized vehicles in each direction that is ten feet to twelve feet wide
and shared-use paths for other modes of travel that are four feet to six feet wide.
Figure ES-2 – Regional Connector Trail Cross-Section
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Open Space and Trails Plan
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-11 Final Report and Executive Summary
7.3 Roadway Network Alternatives
Roadway network needs include better network continuity, safety, emergency vehicle access, and dust
control by means of an interconnected and continuous all-weather roadway network. Three potential
improvement alternatives were developed to address roadway network needs in nine Areas within the
study area, as shown in Figure ES-3. A comparative analysis of the network alternatives, along with a no-build
alternative, was conducted using the aforementioned evaluation criteria.
7.4 Pavement Maintenance
Pavement generally deteriorates over time regardless of the level of traffic and maintenance activities.
Pavement typically performs well over the first 75 percent of the pavement’s life, but deterioration rapidly
accelerates during the final 25 percent of the pavement’s life. Taking a proactive approach in managing
the overall condition of the pavement network and applying maintenance and rehabilitation activities at
the appropriate time will allow the Town to make cost-effective decisions and protect their investment in
the roadway network.
8 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the evaluation criteria and considerations described previously, recommended improvements
have been developed to address the study area’s identified current and future needs. General
improvement recommendations are described below, with individual improvement project
recommendations provided in the next section of the executive summary.
It should be noted that all recommended improvements are preliminary and subject to change or
refinement. No funding has been identified for further study, the purchase of right-of-way, or the
implementation, of any improvements.
8.1 Roadways
Roadway improvements should incorporate complete streets concepts and be constructed in conjunction
with multimodal improvements wherever feasible. The recommended roadway improvements are
grouped into categories by type of roadway improvement and discussed in more detail below.
8.1.1 Roadway Network Improvements
For purposes of this study, no recommendation for roadway network improvements will be made. The
roadway network alternatives developed as part of this study provide a series of network improvement
options for more detailed consideration in the future by the Town.
8.1.2 Safety
To promote safety and driver comfort, it is recommended that spot improvements, including signing,
striping, and minor reconstruction, be implemented along curved roadways as funding becomes available.
8.1.3 Improving Existing Unpaved Roadways
Existing unpaved roadways should be improved to all-weather roadways as funding becomes available.
All-weather roadway surfaces can be developed by upgrading the existing unpaved surface, installing
chip seal, or installing asphalt pavement. Graded shoulders and minor drainage improvements should
also be included in the unpaved roadway improvements.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-12 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure ES-3 – Roadway Network Issue Areas and Alternatives
Note: All improvement alternatives are preliminary and subject to change or refinement. No funding has been identified for further study, the
purchase of right-of-way, or the implementation, of any improvement alternatives.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-13 Final Report and Executive Summary
8.1.4 Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan
Two types of recommended activities, preventive maintenance and rehabilitation, will provide the Town
with the framework and general guidelines to follow when making decisions regarding the maintenance
of pavement infrastructure. It is recommended that the Town initially consider preventive maintenance
when a roadway reaches a pavement condition rating of Good. Major rehabilitation activities should be
considered necessary for a roadway with a rating of Poor or Failed.
8.1.5 Intersection Traffic Control Improvements
The following improvements are recommended for consideration by ADOT:
 Provide additional signal heads for the SR 69 approaches at the SR 69/SR 169 intersection;
 Convert the SR 69 southbound left-turn phasing to protected-only phasing at the SR 69/SR 169
intersection;
 Regularly monitor the SR 69/SR 169 and SR 69/Kachina Place intersections and make adjustments as
needed to maintain acceptable operations;
 Regularly monitor the SR 69/Main Street and SR 69/Foothill Drive intersections to identify when
conditions warrant a traffic control change; and
 Require large-scale developments proposed near the SR 69/SR 169 intersection to prepare a traffic
signal warrant study.
8.1.6 Federal Functional Classification Changes
It is recommended that the following changes be made to the federal functional classification of roadways
in the existing roadway network:
 Reclassify as Rural Major Collectors the existing Rural Minor Collectors east of SR 69 and south of
SR 169;
 Reclassify as Rural Major Collectors the existing Rural Minor Collectors west of SR 69 and east of
Martha Way; and
 Classify as a Rural Minor Collector the segment of Henderson Road/Newtown Avenue between
Wicklow Place and Martha Way.
As roadway network improvements are implemented and traffic patterns change, the federal functional
classification of roadway segments should be reviewed and updated as appropriate. When the Town
reaches a population of 5,000, it is recommended that the roadways with federal functional classifications
be reclassified as “urban” instead of “rural” roadways to be consistent with federal guidelines.
8.1.7 Agua Fria River All-weather Crossing
Construction of an all-weather crossing of the Agua Fria River is recommended at the location of the
existing low-flow at-grade crossing along Prescott Street to improve circulation and emergency vehicle
access. In January 2008, the Town completed the Report on Agua Fria River Crossing at Prescott Street.
This report presented the following six potential improvement alternatives for crossing the Agua Fria
River at Prescott Street and provided construction cost estimates that do not include design costs:
 Alternative A – Bridge: 48,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) (capable of handling a 100-year flood
event) and an approximate construction cost estimate of $3,500,000;
 Alternative B – Reinforced concrete box culvert: 39,000 cfs (capable of handling a 50-year flood
event) and an approximate construction cost estimate of $2,300,000;
 Alternative C – Reinforced concrete box culvert: 20,160 cfs (capable of handling a 10-year flood
event) and an approximate construction cost estimate of $900,000;
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-14 Final Report and Executive Summary
 Alternative D – Box culvert: 4,020 cfs (capable of handling a 2-year flood event) and an approximate
construction cost estimate of $575,000;
 Alternative E – Corrugated metal pipe culvert: 4,000 cfs (capable of handling a 2-year flood event)
and an approximate construction cost estimate of $400,000; and
 Alternative F – Corrugated metal pipe culvert: 2,240 cfs (capable of handling a 1-year flood event)
and an approximate construction cost estimate of $350,000.
For purposes of this study, Alternative C (the reinforced concrete box culvert that handles a 10-year flood
event) is recommended for inclusion in the study’s improvement plan as the preliminary recommended
alternative because it is the least expensive alternative that still addresses the need for reliable circulation
and emergency vehicle access. It is recommended that the Town consider conducting a more detailed
alternatives analysis as part of the project design that includes input from the Yavapai County Flood
Control District and the public regarding the advantages and disadvantages of providing for the 50-year
flood or the 100-year flood instead of the 10-year flood before determining the final recommended
alternative.
8.1.8 Traffic Impact Study Guidelines
It is recommended that traffic impact study guidelines be developed by the Town. The purpose of a
traffic impact study is to assist the Town in understanding the demands and impacts placed on the Town’s
transportation network by proposed development. Development, such as new subdivisions and
businesses, generate traffic. The traffic impact study should determine if additional investments in the
transportation network are required as a result of the development, including new roads, traffic signals, or
turn lanes.
8.1.9 Access Management
Access management refers to managing where and how often driveways and cross-streets can access a
particular roadway as well as where and in what direction drivers can turn into or out of access points.
Access management recommendations are summarized as follows:
 The policies and procedures outlined in the ADOT SR 69 and SR 169 Access Management Plans
(completed in 1997) should be implemented; and
 The Town should develop access management guidelines for Town-owned local roads and collector
streets.
8.1.10 Roadway Improvement Easements or Dedications
Roadway improvement easements or dedications are recommended as an interim right-of-way ownership
solution in areas where roadways are privately owned and in need of maintenance but private landowners
do not have the ability to maintain or improve the roads. A voluntary roadway easement or dedication
would allow the Town to implement roadway network improvements without having to purchase the
privately-owned right-of-way where many of the existing unpaved roadways are located.
8.2 Other Modes of Travel
The recommendations for other modes of travel focus on providing a safe and efficient environment for
transit and non-vehicular (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian) travel. The implementation of complete streets
concepts will help provide the necessary facilities for these other modes of travel.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-15 Final Report and Executive Summary
8.2.1 Transit
Private transit providers should be encouraged to continue serving the area, particularly disadvantaged
populations. Mobility management coordination with CYMPO and other regional transit representatives
is recommended to ensure that available transit options are known to the Town and its residents.
It is recommended that the Town coordinate with NACOG to determine if the voucher program’s
administrative issues can be resolved such that the voucher program can be reinstated in the Town.
If a regional transit system operated by CYMPO is created in the future, it is recommended that the Town
actively support the system.
8.2.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are recommended along existing and new roadways in the study area,
where feasible. Any new facilities that are constructed should comply with the latest ADA requirements.
8.2.3 Trail Facilities
Unpaved shared-use trails or paths are recommended along existing and new roadways in the study area,
particularly in rural areas. These facilities should accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and recreational
travelers (e.g., hikers and equestrians) and should be completed in conjunction with roadway
improvement projects where feasible.
8.2.4 Safe Routes to School
The federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program makes federal funding available with no local
funding match required for a wide variety of programs and projects – from building safer street crossings
to establishing programs that encourage children and their parents to walk and bicycle safely to school. It
is recommended that the Town coordinate with the Humboldt School District to examine conditions in the
vicinity of school facilities and submit applications for SRTS funding as appropriate.
9 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS
An implementation plan has been developed to prioritize the recommended improvements into near-term
(0-5 years), mid-term (6-10 years), and long-term (11-20 years) timeframes. The actual phasing of
implementation of the recommended improvements will be determined by a variety of factors, including
funding availability, development activity, traffic patterns, and private participation. The need for
improvements should be re-evaluated each year as part of the Town’s budget processes or as needed if
conditions and travel patterns change significantly.
Table ES-3, Table ES-4, and Table ES-5 present the implementation plan, split into near-term, mid-term,
and long-term timeframes. The cost estimates in 2012 dollars are:
 Near-term: $3.3-$3.8 million;
 Mid-term: $16.5-$23.3 million;
 Long-term: $9.2-$15.2 million; and
 Total implementation plan cost: $29.0-$42.3 million.
These costs include design, construction, and right-of-way costs. Ranges are provided for the
construction costs to reflect the likely low-end and high-end cost options, which will depend on what
alignment and/or level of improvement is implemented (e.g., for roadway surface improvements,
providing an unpaved roadway surface with improved grading and minor drainage improvements would
be at the low end of the cost range while providing a paved asphalt roadway surface would be at the high
end of the cost range). Ranges are also provided for right-of-way costs where it appears right-of-way
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-16 Final Report and Executive Summary
could either be purchased or obtained at no cost via voluntary easement or dedication. Partnering
between agencies to share costs and responsibilities may be appropriate for certain improvements.
The overall transportation improvement plan, combining the near-term, mid-term, and long-term
elements, is shown in Figure ES-4.
9.1 Revenue
The Town has traditionally used the Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF), developer impact
fees, and grants to fund transportation improvements in the study area. HURF can be used for capital
improvements or for operations and maintenance while impact fees and grants can typically only be used
for capital improvements. The Town also has a local general fund that can be utilized for transportation
improvements and operations.
Based on revenue projections and identified transportation needs, it is apparent that the Town likely will
not have sufficient revenue to complete all of the recommended improvements in this study. Additional
revenue sources will need to be secured if the recommended improvements are to be constructed within
the recommended timeframes.
9.2 Title VI Impacts
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations related to disadvantaged, or Title VI, populations (i.e.,
minority, low-income, and elderly) state that in determining the site or location of transportation facilities,
selection cannot be made with the purpose or effect of excluding persons from, denying them the benefits
of, or subjecting them to discrimination under, any program to which this regulation applies. According to
the regulations, a project using federal funds cannot be implemented that will cause disproportionately
high and adverse impacts to disadvantaged populations.
The Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study is a long-range multimodal planning study. The
recommended improvements are expected to improve the overall transportation system of the study area
and benefit the study area as a whole. Recommended improvement projects were not selected based on
the population that would be impacted, but rather were selected to address an identified transportation
need. More detailed analysis will be needed for individual design projects that are federally-funded to
ensure that there are no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to disadvantaged populations.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study
May 2012 ES-17 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-3 – Recommended Near-term Improvement Projects
Project Location Improvement Description
Right-of-
Way Cost
($)
Construction
Cost
($)
Total
Cost
($)
Roadway Projects
Area 1 Henderson Road/Martha Way Curve Install curve warning signs with 10 mph plaque - 1,000 1,000
Antelope Dr.: Kachina Pl.-Deerpath Rd. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 106,000 106,000
Deerpath Rd.: Dewey Rd.-Manzanita Blvd. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 82,000 82,000
Hill St.: Kloss Ave.-end of Hill St. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 44,000 44,000
Humboldt St.: Huron St.-Hill St. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 20,000 20,000
Huron St.: Main St.-end of Huron St. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 67,000 67,000
Jones St.: Prescott St.-Wells St. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 21,000 21,000
Kachina Pl.: SR 69-Nancy Ln. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 328,000 328,000
McAllister Dr.: Dewey Rd.-Manzanita Blvd. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 51,000 51,000
Sunhill Trail: Cherry Siding Ln.-end of Sunhill Trail Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 14,000 14,000
Tanya Blvd.: Clearview Dr.-end of Tanya Blvd. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 51,000 51,000
Valley High Dr.: Antelope Dr.-Pony Pl. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 54,000 54,000
Wells St.: Old Black Canyon Hwy.-end of Wells St. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 39,000 39,000
Yavapai Dr.: Antelope Dr.-Manzanita Blvd. Rehabilitate roadway pavement - 107,000 107,000
Various locations as needed Maintain roadway pavement ($200,000/year) - 1,000,000 1,000,000
SR 69/SR 169 intersection Add signal heads & protected left-turn phasing - 5,000 5,000
SR 169/Kachina Pl. intersection Modify traffic signal as needed - 5,000 5000
Segments of Main St., Prescott St., Green Valley Way, Bradshaw
Rd., Foothill Dr., Newtown Ave., Henderson Rd., Pony Pl.,
Horseshoe Ln., Kachina Pl., Prescott Dells Ranch Rd., Rocky Hill
Rd., Tonto Dr., Cranberry Rd., Wicklow Pl., and Dewey Rd.
Update federal functional classification - - -
Town-wide
Coordinate with private roadway owners, as
appropriate, on potential roadway easements
or right-of-way dedications where roadway
improvements are needed
- - -
Town-wide Develop and adopt traffic impact guidelines
and development policies - - -
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study
May 2012 ES-18 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-3 – Recommended Near-term Improvement Projects (continued)
1: Low end of construction cost is for sidewalk without curb and gutter; high end of construction cost is for sidewalk with curb and gutter.
Project Location Improvement Description
Right-of-
Way Cost
($)
Construction
Cost
($)
Total Cost
($)
Other Modes of Travel Projects
Town-wide Develop and adopt access management
guidelines - - -
Town-wide Coordinate with regional transit
representatives on transit opportunities - - -
Corral St.: Prescott St.-Humboldt Elementary School Construct sidewalk along roadway1 - 110,000 -
180,000
110,000 -
180,000
Hecla St.: Prescott St.-Humboldt Elementary School Construct sidewalk along roadway1 - 110,000 -
170,000
110,000 -
170,000
Huron St.: Main St.-end of Huron St. Construct sidewalk along roadway1 - 200,000 -
310,000
200,000 -
310,000
Main St.: SR 69-Third St. Construct sidewalk along roadway1 - 260,000 -
410,000
260,000 -
410,000
Prescott St.: Main St.-Old Black Canyon Highway Construct sidewalk along roadway1 - 250,000 -
380,000
250,000 -
380,000
Vicinity of Humboldt Elementary School Apply for Safe Routes to School grant - 400,000 400,000
Subtotal Near-term Projects Cost Estimate = $3,325,000 – $3,845,000 - 3,325,000 -
3,845,000
3,325,000 -
3,845,000
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study
May 2012 ES-19 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-4 – Recommended Mid-term Improvement Projects
1: Low end of right-of-way cost is for easement/dedication; high end of right-of-way cost is for purchase.
2: Construction cost range reflects the differing costs of alignment alternatives that were considered.
3: Low end of construction cost is for unpaved roadway with improved grading and drainage; high end of construction cost is for paved asphalt roadway.
4: Low end of construction cost is for sidewalk without curb and gutter; high end of construction cost is for sidewalk with curb and gutter.
Project Location Improvement Description
Right-of-
Way Cost
($)1
Construction
Cost
($)
Total Cost
($)
Roadway Projects
Area 1 Alternatives: Henderson Rd./Martha Way Curve Realign roadway with larger radius curve2 0 - 9,000 50,000 -
150,000
50,000 -
150,000
Area 2 Alternatives: Henderson Rd./Pony Pl./Horseshoe Ln. Connect Henderson Rd. to Horseshoe Ln.2 0 - 190,000 520,000 -
820,000
520,000 -
1,010,000
Area 4 Alternatives: Powerline Rd./Rocky Hill Rd./Martha Way Realign and upgrade to all-weather roadway2,3 0 - 520,000 2,300,000 -
3,900,000
2,300,000 -
4,380,000
Area 5 Alternatives: Dewey Rd. Realign and upgrade to all-weather roadway2,3 0 - 340,000 790,000 -
2,500,000
790,000 -
2,840,000
Cranberry Rd.: Smoki Trail-Tonto Dr. Upgrade to all-weather roadway3 0 - 5,000 80,000 -
120,000
80,000 -
125,000
Dewey Rd.: 500’ east of Stump Rd.-Prescott Dells Ranch Rd. Upgrade to all-weather roadway3 0 - 170,000 460,000 -
650,000
460,000 -
820,000
Martha Way: 350' north of Rocky Hill Rd.-Rocky Hill Rd. Upgrade to all-weather roadway3 0 - 20,000 30,000 -
50,000
30,000 -
70,000
Prescott Dells Ranch Rd.: Rocky Hill Rd.-SR 69 Upgrade to all-weather roadway3 0 - 220,000 170,000 -
420,000
170,000 -
640,000
Rocky Hill Rd.: 0.5 miles east of Martha Way-Prescott Dells Ranch
Rd. Upgrade to all-weather roadway3 0 - 210,000 590,000 -
830,000
590,000 -
1,040,000
Various locations as needed Maintain roadway pavement ($200,000/year) - 1,000,000 1,000,000
SR 69/Main St. intersection
Conduct traffic signal warrant study and
construct signal (low end of cost range) or
roundabout (high end of cost range) if
warranted
- 500,000 -
1,000,000
500,000 -
1,000,000
Prescott St. at the Agua Fria River Construct an all-weather river crossing 0 - 15,000 1,080,000 1,080,000 -
1,095,000
Segments of Green Valley Way, Bradshaw Rd., Foothill Dr.,
Prescott Dells Ranch Rd., Rocky Hill Rd., Tonto Dr., Cranberry
Rd., Wicklow Pl., and Dewey Rd.
Update federal functional classification after
recommended roadway improvements have
been constructed
- - -
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study
May 2012 ES-20 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-4 – Recommended Mid-term Improvement Projects (continued)
1: Low end of right-of-way cost is for easement/dedication; high end of right-of-way cost is for purchase.
2: Construction cost range reflects the differing costs of alignment alternatives that were considered.
3: Low end of construction cost is for unpaved roadway with improved grading and drainage; high end of construction cost is for paved asphalt roadway.
4: Low end of construction cost is for sidewalk without curb and gutter; high end of construction cost is for sidewalk with curb and gutter.
Project Location Improvement Description
Right-of-
Way Cost
($)1
Construction
Cost
($)
Total Cost
($)
Other Modes of Travel Projects
Prescott St.: Old Black Canyon Hwy-Green Valley Way/Sierra Dr. Construct sidewalk along roadway4 - 320,000 -
500,000
320,000 -
500,000
Lazy River Dr.: Sierra Dr.-east Town boundary Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 1,040,000 1,040,000
Newtown Ave./Henderson Rd./Horseshoe Ln./Kachina Pl.: west
Town boundary-SR 69 Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 3,110,000 3,110,000
Rocky Hill Rd./Tonto Dr.: Newtown Ave.-SR 69 Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 3,950,000 3,950,000
Martha Way: Rocky Hill Rd.-Henderson Rd. Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 540,000 540,000
Town-wide Coordinate with regional transit
representatives on transit opportunities - - -
Subtotal Mid-term Projects Cost Estimate = $16,530,000 - $23,310,000 0 -
1,699,000
16,530,000 -
21,660,000
16,530,000 -
23,310,000
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study
May 2012 ES-21 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-5 – Recommended Long-term Improvement Projects
1: Low end of right-of-way cost is for easement/dedication; high end of right-of-way cost is for purchase.
2: Construction cost range reflects the differing costs of alignment alternatives that were considered.
3: Low end of construction cost is for unpaved roadway with improved grading and drainage; high end of construction cost is for paved asphalt roadway.
Project Location Improvement Description
Right-of-
Way Cost
($)1
Construction
Cost
($)
Total Cost
($)
Roadway Projects
Area 3 Alternatives: Prescott Valley New Development Connection Construct new all-weather roadway2,3 0 - 820,000 800,000 -
1,240,000
800,000 -
2,060,000
Area 6 Alternatives: New Road West of Agua Fria River Construct new all-weather roadway2,3 0 - 720,000 460,000 -
2,000,000
460,000 -
2,720,000
Area 7 Alternatives: Sierra Dr. North Extension Construct new all-weather roadway2,3 0 - 180,000 240,000 -
580,000
240,000 -
760,000
Area 8 Alternatives: Additional Agua Fria River Crossing Construct new low-flow river crossing2,3 0 - 140,000 800,000 -
1,100,000
800,000 -
1,220,000
Area 9 Alternatives: Sierra Dr./Foothill Dr. Connections Construct new all-weather roadway2,3 0 - 150,000 80,000 -
180,000
80,000 -
300,000
Meadow Rd.: Meadow Ranch Pl.-Tanya Blvd. Upgrade to all-weather roadway3 0 - 120,000 230,000 -
360,000
230,000 -
480,000
Various locations as needed Maintain roadway pavement ($200,000/year) - 2,000,000 2,000,000
SR 169/future development intersection
Conduct traffic signal warrant study and
construct signal (low end of cost range) or
roundabout (high end of cost range) if
warranted
- 500,000 -
1,000,000
500,000 -
1,000,000
SR 169/Foothill Dr.
Conduct traffic signal warrant study and
construct signal (low end of cost range) or
roundabout (high end of cost range) if
warranted
- 500,000 -
1,000,000
500,000 -
1,000,000
All functionally classified roadways
Update federal functional classification from
rural to urban when the Town reaches a
population of 5,000
- - -
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study
May 2012 ES-22 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table ES-5 – Recommended Long-term Improvement Projects (continued)
1: Low end of right-of-way cost is for easement/dedication; high end of right-of-way cost is for purchase.
2: Construction cost range reflects the differing costs of alignment alternatives that were considered.
3: Low end of construction cost is for unpaved roadway with improved grading and drainage; high end of construction cost is for paved asphalt roadway.
Project Location Improvement Description
Right-of-
Way Cost
($)1
Construction
Cost
($)
Total Cost
($)
Other Modes of Travel Projects
Town-wide Coordinate with regional transit
representatives on transit opportunities - - -
Blue Ridge Rd.: Sierra Dr.-east Town boundary Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 430,000 430,000
Deer Pass Rd.: SR 69-Sierra Dr. Construct shared-use trail along roadway 0 - 20,000 340,000 340,000 -
360,000
Old Black Canyon Hwy./New Roadway: Prescott St.-SR 169 Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 620,000 620,000
Quarterhorse Ln.: River Dr.-Meadow Rd. Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 470,000 470,000
River Dr.: SR 169-Quarterhorse Ln. Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 300,000 300,000
SR 169: New Roadway East of Old Black Canyon Hwy.-River Dr. Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 40,000 40,000
Agua Fria River: SR 169-Kachina Pl. Construct shared-use trail along river 0 - 38,000 230,000 230,000 -
268,000
Kachina Pl.: SR 69-Agua Fria River Construct shared-use trail along roadway 0 - 20,000 120,000 120,000 -
140,000
Sierra Dr.: Lazy River Dr.-Quarterhorse Ln. Construct shared-use trail along roadway - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Subtotal Long-term Projects Cost Estimate = $9,160,000 - $15,168,000 0 -
2,208,000
9,160,000 -
13,010,000
9,160,000 -
15,168,000
Total of Near-term, Mid-term, and Long-term Project Cost Estimates = $29,015,000 - $42,323,000
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ES-23 Final Report and Executive Summary
Projects not shown in
Improvement Plan (Figure ES-4)
Near-term Timeframe
 Install curve warning signs with
10 mph plaque at Henderson
Rd/Martha Way Curve
 Update federal functional
classifications
 Develop and adopt traffic impact
guidelines and development
policies
 Develop and adopt access
management guidelines
 Coordinate with regional transit
representatives on transit
opportunities
 Apply for Safe Routes to School
grant
 Coordinate with private roadway
owners, as appropriate, on
potential roadway easements or
right-of-way dedications where
roadway improvements are needed
Mid-term Timeframe
 Maintain existing paved roads
 Update federal functional
classifications after recommended
roadway improvements have been
constructed
 Coordinate with regional transit
representatives on transit
opportunities
Long-term Timeframe
 Maintain existing paved roads
 Update federal functional
classifications from rural to urban
when the Town reaches a
population of 5,000 persons
 Coordinate with regional transit
representatives on transit
opportunities
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure ES-4 – Improvement Plan
Note: All recommended improvements are preliminary and subject to change or refinement. No funding has been identified for further study,
the purchase of right-of-way, or the implementation, of any improvements.
Town of Dewey-
Humboldt PARA
Transportation
Study
ADOT MPD Task Assignment 17-11
PGTD 0717
Contract # T08-49-U0001
FINAL REPORT
Prepared by:
In association with:
Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
KDA Creative
Prepared for:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TOWN OF DEWEY-HUMBOLDT
May 2012
091374044
IDENTIFICATION
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 i Final Report and Executive Summary
Management Team
Arizona Department of Transportation
Mail Drop: 310B
206 S. 17th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dianne Kresich, Project Manager
Email: dkresich@azdot.gov
Telephone: 602-712-3134
Fax: 602-712-3046
Town of Dewey-Humboldt
P.O. Box 69
2735 South Highway 69, Suite 12
Humboldt, Arizona 86329
Yvonne Kimball, Town Manager
Email: yvonnekimball@dhaz.gov
Telephone: 928-632-7362
Fax: 928-632-7365
Study Consultant Team
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
2266 South Dobson Road
Suite 200
Mesa, AZ 85202-6412
Michael Grandy, P.E., Project Manager
Email: michael.grandy@kimley-horn.com
Telephone: 480-756-6137
Fax: 602-944-7423
Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
21636 North Dietz Drive
Maricopa, Arizona 85138
Jerry Morris, President
Email: jmorris@fdsaz.com
Telephone: 520-316-6745
Fax: 520-316-6743
KDA Creative
4545 E Shea Blvd, Ste 210
Phoenix, AZ 85028
Amy Rosar
Email: amy@kdacreative.com
Telephone: 602-368-9644
Fax: 602-368-9645
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 ii Final Report and Executive Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Summary of Relevant Plans, Documents, and Studies ........................................... 1
1.5 Technical Advisory Committee and Stakeholders ................................................... 3
1.6 Public Involvement ............................................................................................... 4
1.7 Town Council Involvement .................................................................................... 4
2 CURRENT CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 5
2.1 Land Uses .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Land Ownership ..................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Zoning .................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Environment.......................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Socioeconomic Data ............................................................................................. 12
2.5.1 Current Population and Employment ............................................................... 12
2.5.2 Title VI Populations ................................................................................... 13
2.6 Roadways ............................................................................................................ 14
2.6.1 Access ..................................................................................................... 16
2.6.2 Traffic Control ........................................................................................... 16
2.6.3 Federal Functional Classifications .................................................................. 16
2.6.4 Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 16
2.6.5 Levels of Service ......................................................................................... 20
2.6.6 Crash Analysis .......................................................................................... 21
2.6.7 Pavement Conditions ................................................................................... 24
2.7 Other Modes of Travel .......................................................................................... 27
2.7.1 Public Transit ........................................................................................... 27
2.7.2 Private Transit .......................................................................................... 28
2.7.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Recreational Travel ...................................................... 28
3 CURRENT NEEDS ................................................................................. 29
3.1 Roadways ............................................................................................................ 29
3.2 Other Modes of Travel .......................................................................................... 29
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 iii Final Report and Executive Summary
4 FUTURE CONDITIONS .......................................................................... 31
4.1 Anticipated Land Uses ......................................................................................... 31
4.2 Socioeconomic Data ............................................................................................. 31
4.2.1 Future Population and Employment Projections.................................................. 31
4.2.2 Title VI Populations ................................................................................... 32
4.3 Roadways ............................................................................................................ 32
4.3.1 Anticipated Improvement Projects ................................................................... 32
4.3.2 Access ..................................................................................................... 34
4.3.3 Traffic Control ........................................................................................... 34
4.3.4 Federal Functional Classifications .................................................................. 34
4.3.5 Traffic Volume Projections ........................................................................... 34
4.3.6 Levels of Service ......................................................................................... 36
4.4 Other Modes of Travel .......................................................................................... 36
4.4.1 Public Transit ........................................................................................... 36
4.4.2 Private Transit .......................................................................................... 39
4.4.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Recreational Travel ...................................................... 39
5 FUTURE NEEDS ................................................................................... 42
5.1 Roadways ............................................................................................................ 42
5.2 Other Modes of Travel .......................................................................................... 43
6 EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................... 44
6.1 Meets Identified Need .......................................................................................... 44
6.2 Safety .................................................................................................................. 44
6.3 Total Estimated Cost ........................................................................................... 44
6.4 Impacts to Right-of-Way ..................................................................................... 45
6.5 Impacts to Existing Residences/Businesses .......................................................... 45
6.6 Engineering Issues ............................................................................................... 45
6.7 Level of Service/Delay .......................................................................................... 45
6.8 Accessibility/Mobility .......................................................................................... 45
6.9 Network Continuity ............................................................................................. 45
6.10 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 45
6.11 Multimodal Compatibility .................................................................................... 45
7 IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS .................................................... 46
7.1 Functional Classification Considerations .............................................................. 46
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 iv Final Report and Executive Summary
7.2 Complete Street Cross-Sections............................................................................. 47
7.3 Roadway Network Alternatives ........................................................................... 48
7.3.1 Area 1: Henderson Road/Martha Way Curve ...................................................... 50
7.3.2 Area 2: Henderson Road/Pony Place/Horseshoe Lane ........................................... 52
7.3.3 Area 3: Prescott Valley New Development Connection ........................................... 54
7.3.4 Area 4: Powerline Road/Rocky Hill Road/Martha Way ......................................... 56
7.3.5 Area 5: Dewey Road .................................................................................... 59
7.3.6 Area 6: New Road West of Agua Fria River ....................................................... 61
7.3.7 Area 7: Sierra Drive Extension North .............................................................. 63
7.3.8 Area 8: Additional Agua Fria River Crossing .................................................... 65
7.3.9 Area 9: Sierra Drive and Foothill Drive Connections ............................................ 67
7.4 Pavement Maintenance ........................................................................................ 69
8 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................... 70
8.1 Roadways ............................................................................................................ 70
8.1.1 Roadway Network Improvements .................................................................... 70
8.1.2 Safety ...................................................................................................... 70
8.1.3 Improving Existing Unpaved Roadways ........................................................... 70
8.1.4 Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan ................................................. 71
8.1.5 Intersection Traffic Control Improvements ......................................................... 75
8.1.6 Federal Functional Classification Changes ........................................................ 75
8.1.7 Agua Fria River All-weather Crossing .............................................................. 76
8.1.8 Traffic Impact Study Guidelines ..................................................................... 78
8.1.9 Access Management .................................................................................... 78
8.1.10 Roadway Improvement Easements or Dedications ................................................ 80
8.2 Other Modes of Travel .......................................................................................... 80
8.2.1 Transit .................................................................................................... 80
8.2.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................... 80
8.2.3 Trail Facilities .......................................................................................... 82
8.2.4 Safe Routes to School ................................................................................... 82
9 PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................... 83
9.1 Traditional Revenue Sources ................................................................................ 91
9.1.1 Highway User Revenue Fund ......................................................................... 91
9.1.2 Developer Impact Fees ................................................................................. 91
9.1.3 Grants ..................................................................................................... 91
9.1.4 Local General Funds ................................................................................... 91
9.2 Revenue Opportunities ........................................................................................ 91
9.3 Town Development Policies ................................................................................. 96
9.4 Agency Coordination and Partnering ................................................................... 96
9.5 Title VI Impacts .................................................................................................. 96
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 v Final Report and Executive Summary
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Study Area Map ............................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2 – Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 3 – Public Community Activity Centers ............................................................................. 7
Figure 4 – Land Ownership ............................................................................................................ 9
Figure 5 – Existing Zoning ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 6 – Environmental Features ............................................................................................... 11
Figure 7 – Existing Roadway Network ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 8 – Federal Functional Classifications .............................................................................. 17
Figure 9 – Traffic Volume Counts ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 10 – Crash Locations and Severity .................................................................................... 23
Figure 11 – Pavement Condition Ratings ..................................................................................... 26
Figure 12 – CYMPO RTNS Alternative 4 .................................................................................... 38
Figure 13 – Planned Open Space and Trails ................................................................................. 40
Figure 14 – Regional Connector Trail Cross-Section ................................................................... 47
Figure 15 – Network Continuity Issue Areas and Alternatives .................................................... 49
Figure 16 – Area 1: Henderson Road/Martha Way Curve Alternatives ....................................... 51
Figure 17 – Area 2: Henderson Road/Pony Place/Horseshoe Lane Alternatives ......................... 53
Figure 18 – Area 3: Prescott Valley New Development Connection Alternatives ....................... 55
Figure 19 – Area 4: Powerline Road/Rocky Hill Road/Martha Way Alternatives ....................... 58
Figure 20 – Area 5: Dewey Road Alternatives ............................................................................. 60
Figure 21 – Area 6: New Road West of Agua Fria River Alternatives ........................................ 62
Figure 22 – Area 7: Sierra Drive Extension North Alternatives ................................................... 64
Figure 23 – Area 8: Additional Agua Fria River Crossing Alternatives ...................................... 66
Figure 24 – Area 9: Sierra Drive and Foothill Drive Connections Alternatives .......................... 68
Figure 25 – Pavement Life Cycle ................................................................................................. 69
Figure 26 – Pavement Rehabilitation Recommendations ............................................................. 74
Figure 27 – Recommended Federal Functional Classifications ................................................... 77
Figure 28 – Other Modes of Travel Recommendations ................................................................ 81
Figure 29 – Improvement Plan ..................................................................................................... 90
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 vi Final Report and Executive Summary
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1 – Dewey-Humboldt Land Uses .......................................................................................... 5
Table 2 – Population Estimates within Dewey-Humboldt ........................................................... 13
Table 3 – Racial Demographic Percentages in the Town of Dewey-Humboldt ........................... 14
Table 4 – Title VI Population Percentages ................................................................................... 14
Table 5 – Historical State Highway ADT Volumes ..................................................................... 19
Table 6 – Historical Dewey-Humboldt ADT Volumes ................................................................ 19
Table 7 – LOS Definitions ............................................................................................................ 20
Table 8 – Level of Service Daily Volume Thresholds ................................................................ 20
Table 9 – Crashes by Collision Manner ........................................................................................ 21
Table 10 – Crash Data for Primary Study Area Intersections ...................................................... 21
Table 11 – Crash Data for Functionally Classified Study Area Roadway Segments ................... 22
Table 12 – Current Daily Public Transit Demand, Low Ridership Estimates .............................. 27
Table 13 – Current Daily Public Transit Demand, High Ridership Estimates ............................. 27
Table 14 – Future Dewey-Humboldt Population Projections ....................................................... 32
Table 15 – Future State Highway ADT Volumes ......................................................................... 35
Table 16 – Future Dewey-Humboldt ADT Volumes ................................................................... 35
Table 17 – 2031 Daily Transit Demand Projections, Low Ridership Estimates .......................... 36
Table 18 – 2031 Daily Transit Demand Projections, High Ridership Estimates .......................... 36
Table 19 – Construction Unit Costs .............................................................................................. 44
Table 20 – Evaluation of Area 1 Alternatives .............................................................................. 50
Table 21 – Evaluation of Area 2 Alternatives .............................................................................. 52
Table 22 – Evaluation of Area 3 Alternatives .............................................................................. 54
Table 23 – Evaluation of Area 4 Alternatives .............................................................................. 57
Table 24 – Evaluation of Area 5 Alternatives .............................................................................. 59
Table 25 – Evaluation of Area 6 Alternatives .............................................................................. 61
Table 26 – Evaluation of Area 7 Alternatives .............................................................................. 63
Table 27 – Evaluation of Area 8 Alternatives .............................................................................. 65
Table 28 – Evaluation of Area 9 Alternatives .............................................................................. 67
Table 29 – Dewey-Humboldt Preventive Maintenance Strategies ............................................... 72
Table 30 – Near-term Pavement Rehabilitation Recommendations ............................................. 73
Table 31 – Recommended Near-term Improvement Projects ....................................................... 84
Table 32 – Recommended Mid-term Improvement Projects ........................................................ 86
Table 33 – Recommended Long-term Improvement Projects ...................................................... 88
Table 34 – Local, State, and Federal Revenue Opportunities ....................................................... 92
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 vii Final Report and Executive Summary
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Stakeholder Interview Summaries
Appendix B – Public Involvement Summaries
Appendix C – Daily Traffic Volume Counts
Appendix D – Crash Data
Appendix E – Pavement Condition Data
Appendix F – Mobility Management Table of Private Transit Operators
Appendix G – Planned Future Developments
Appendix H – Construction Cost Estimates
Appendix I – Traffic Impact Guidelines
Appendix J – Excerpts from the ADOT State Route 69 Access Management Plan
Appendix K – Excerpts from the ADOT State Route 169 Access Management Plan
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 1 Final Report and Executive Summary
1 INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) awarded funding for the Town of Dewey-Humboldt
Transportation Study through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program. The purpose of
the PARA program is to assist rural counties, cities, towns, and tribal communities in conducting
multimodal transportation planning.
1.1 Study Purpose
The Dewey-Humboldt PARA Transportation Study (study) identifies the roadway, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian needs within the Town of Dewey-Humboldt (Town). For purposes of this study, needs are
defined as unmet demand for transportation facilities or services. The study recommends improvements
to help meet the identified transportation needs over the next 20 years. These recommendations serve as a
guide for future community development, project funding applications, capital improvement
programming, and project implementation.
1.2 Study Objectives
Objectives of the Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study are:
 Develop a multimodal transportation plan containing near-term (0-5 years), mid-term (6-10 years),
and long-term (11-20 years) improvements that address identified transportation needs for roadways
and other modes of travel;
 Develop conceptual alignments for new/improved roadway corridors that improve local circulation
and provide viable alternate routes to State Route (SR) 69 and SR 169;
 Create a framework for developing a pavement management program with annual recommendations
that can be incorporated into the Town’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP);
 Determine the potential demand for, and feasibility of, providing local transit service; and
 Preserve the rural character of the Town.
1.3 Study Area
The study area is all of the land within the Dewey-Humboldt town limits, as well as the southern tip of
Prescott Valley, as shown in Figure 1. The study area measures approximately 12,322 acres, or 19.25
square miles.
1.4 Summary of Relevant Plans, Documents, and Studies
A number of plans and studies were reviewed in the preparation of this study, including the following:
 Dewey-Humboldt Open Space and Trails Plan (August 2010);
 Dewey-Humboldt Capital Improvement Program (January 2010);
 Dewey-Humboldt 2009 General Plan (May 2009);
 CYMPO Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (January 2011);
 CYMPO SR 169 to Fain Road Planning Study (February 2009);
 CYMPO Transit Implementation Plan (February 2009);
 CYMPO Regional Transit Needs Study (April 2007);
 CYMPO Regional Transportation Plan (October 2006);
 ADOT Traffic Signal Needs Study (June 2011);
 ADOT Speed Study (June 2011);
 ADOT Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program (June 2011);
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 2 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure 1 – Study Area Map
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 3 Final Report and Executive Summary
 ADOT Interstate 17 to Fain Road Connector Corridor Location Study & Environmental Overview
(December 2010);
 ADOT Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Study (March 2010);
 ADOT Road Safety Assessment SR 69, MP 278.5 to 282 (October 2009);
 ADOT State Route 69 Access Management Plan (June 1997);
 ADOT State Route 169 Access Management Plan (June 1997);
 Town of Prescott Valley Draft General Plan 2025 (November 2025);
 Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized & Non-Motorized Trails Plan (July 2010); and
 BLM Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plan (April 2010).
1.5 Technical Advisory Committee and Stakeholders
Key stakeholders for this study include members of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), who
represent the following agencies:
 ADOT Multimodal Planning Division (MPD);
 ADOT Communication and Community Partnerships;
 ADOT Environmental Group;
 ADOT Prescott District;
 ADOT Traffic Group;
 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD);
 Arizona State Land Department (ASLD);
 Central Yavapai Fire District;
 Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO);
 Town of Dewey-Humboldt;
 Town of Prescott Valley;
 U.S. Forest Service – Prescott National Forest;
 Yavapai County Public Works; and
 Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office.
Other stakeholders for the study include representatives from the following entities:
 Arizona Public Service (APS);
 Black Canyon Trails Coalition;
 Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
 Cable One;
 CenturyLink (formerly Qwest);
 Elected Officials;
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
 Humboldt Elementary School;
 Humboldt Unified School District;
 Mortimer Family Farms (formerly Young’s Farm);
 Northern Arizona Council of Governments;
 Prescott Transit Authority;
 Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter;
 Sky Island Alliance;
 Town of Dewey-Humboldt Open Space and Trails Committee;
 Unisource;
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 4 Final Report and Executive Summary
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
 Yavapai Trails Association.
Three TAC meetings were held throughout the course of the study. Material from the draft deliverables
Working Paper 1 – Current and Future Conditions and Working Paper 2 – Evaluation Criteria and Plan
for Improvements was presented at the TAC meetings for review and comment by the TAC.
Interviews were conducted with several of the TAC members and stakeholders to obtain their input on
current and future transportation needs and potential improvements. Summaries of the material presented
and input obtained at the interviews are provided in Appendix A.
1.6 Public Involvement
Two public meetings were held during the study to obtain input from the general public, business leaders,
and elected officials. The first public meeting was held on October 25, 2011 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
at Humboldt Elementary School. Information on current and future conditions and needs was presented.
The second public meeting was held on February 28, 2012 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at the Dewey-
Humboldt Town Library. Information on potential improvement projects was presented. Each meeting
included a brief presentation followed by a question-and-answer session.
The meetings were staffed by Town, ADOT, and consultant personnel who were available to provide
information, answer questions, and obtain input. Study exhibits were displayed on large boards.
Comments forms were made available for the attendees to use in submitting written comments.
Summaries of the material presented and input obtained at the public meetings are provided in Appendix
B.
1.7 Town Council Involvement
The Town Council was briefed on the study at work sessions held on October 11, 2011 and February 14,
2012. Each work session included a brief presentation followed by a question-and-answer period. These
work sessions were held in advance of the public meetings to provide the Town Council with the
opportunity to provide input on what material would be presented at the public meetings.
A final presentation of the study’s findings and recommendations will be made to the Town Council at a
Town Council meeting scheduled for May 15, 2012.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 5 Final Report and Executive Summary
2 CURRENT CONDITIONS
This section summarizes data obtained on current conditions to help identify current transportation needs
within the study area.
2.1 Land Uses
An understanding of land uses is important because land uses influence travel patterns. The study area is
primarily comprised of residential land uses with commercial land uses along SR 69 and SR 169. The
existing land uses within the study area, per the Town’s General Plan, are shown in Figure 2. The area
and percentage of each land use type are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Dewey-Humboldt Land Uses
Land Use Acres Percent
Commercial 255 2.1%
Community Core 300 2.4%
Prescott Valley Planned Area Development 361 2.9%
Medium Density Residential 510 4.1%
Special Study Area 522 4.2%
Open Space/Recreation 1,596 13.0%
Low Density Residential 8,778 71.2%
Total 12,322 100%
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt, calculations by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Low density residential areas are the most abundant land use designation, comprising 71.2 percent of the
study area. Medium density residential areas are located adjacent to commercial areas along SR 69.
Most of the commercial areas within the study limits are primarily within the Town of Prescott Valley.
The commercial activity within the Town of Dewey-Humboldt is located in the area considered the
community core along Main Street and Prescott Street east of SR 69.
Mortimer Family Farms represents the primary agricultural land use in the study area, although the
General Plan designates this area as low density residential land use. There have been plans to develop
this area but currently it remains agricultural.
There are two EPA Superfund remediation sites located within the study area at the Iron King Mine and
Humboldt Smelter.
Several public community activity centers exist in the study area. As shown in Figure 3, these include
the Kate Garber Activity Center, a library, two post offices, two cemeteries, Humboldt Elementary School
(K-5), and the Town Hall complex.
Two major utility corridors cross the study area. Overhead APS power lines cross the western portion of
the study area diagonally, generally following the alignment of Lovin Lane. An underground
Transwestern/El Paso Natural Gas pipeline crosses the western portion of the study area in a north-south
direction, roughly following the alignment of Rudy’s Trail.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 6 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure 2 – Land Use
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 7 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure 3 – Public Community Activity Centers
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 8 Final Report and Executive Summary
Open space and recreational land uses are dispersed throughout the study area. These land uses occur on
BLM and Arizona State Trust lands. There are no existing public parks within the study area. The
preservation of open space has been noted as an important factor in the quality of life of residents of
Dewey-Humboldt per the Town’s General Plan.
The General Plan also indicates that the Town intends to petition ASLD to designate most of the State
Trust land in the study area as “suitable for conservation” and to petition BLM to designate the BLM land
in the study area for “recreation and public purposes”.
2.2 Land Ownership
The existing land ownership within the study area is shown in Figure 4. Most of the land in the study area
is privately-owned. Public owners within the study area include the Town of Dewey-Humboldt, BLM,
and ASLD. Many of the existing roadways within the study area are located on private land.
2.3 Zoning
The existing zoning within the study area is shown in Figure 5. The majority of the land within the study
area is zoned as residential. Single family residential is the most abundant zoning type although rural
residential, multi-sectional manufactured homes, and residential and service zones exist. There are also
some commercial, industrial, and planned development areas within the study area. Zoning within the
study area is generally consistent with existing land use.
The zoning designations within the Town of Dewey-Humboldt portion of the study area include:
 Commercial – neighborhood sales and services (C-1);
 Commercial – general sales and services (C-2);
 Commercial and minor industrial (C-3);
 Industrial – general limited (M1);
 Industrial – heavy (M2);
 Planned area development (PAD);
 Residential – single family (R1);
 Residential – single family limited (R1L);
 Residential – rural (RCU);
 Residential – multi-sectional manufactured homes (RMM); and
 Residential and services (RS).
The zoning designations within the Town of Prescott Valley portion of the study area include:
 Commercial – minor industrial (C3);
 Industrial – heavy (M2);
 Parking (P1);
 Residential – single family limited (R1L);
 Residential – multiple dwelling units (R2); and
 Residential and services (RS).
2.4 Environment
The features of the study area environment are shown in Figure 6. The study area is primarily comprised
of rolling hills with grass and shrub vegetation. The Town is flanked by the Bradshaw Mountains on the
west and Mingus Mountain on the east, both of which are part of the Prescott National Forest.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 9 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure 4 – Land Ownership
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 10 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure 5 – Existing Zoning
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 11 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure 6 – Environmental Features
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 12 Final Report and Executive Summary
The Agua Fria River flows through Town on the east side of SR 69 from north to south. There are
washes that drain from the surrounding hills into the Agua Fria River, including Chaparral Gulch, Green
Gulch, and Texas Gulch. These washes are often dry but can experience higher water levels during heavy
rain and snow melt. The riparian habitat along the riverbed includes cottonwood and willow trees.
The Town has recognized environmental quality and open space as important features for residents in the
Dewey-Humboldt General Plan. Environmental quality issues for the town include air and water quality,
cultural resources, dark sky protection, prevention of noise pollution, and preservation of wildlife
corridors.
Per the Dewey-Humboldt Open Space and Trails (OSAT) Plan, five threatened and endangered species
have suitable habitat within the study area and the Granite Mountain-Black Hills Wildlife Linkage Zone
was identified as existing in the southeast part of the study area. The OSAT Plan also indicates that thirty-eight
known cultural sites exist within the study area, some of which are archeological and mining sites.
The Town goals for water resource management include: maintaining a supply of good quality water,
development of water conservation policies, monitoring of the regional water resources, and the
preservation of the viability of the Agua Fria River. Floodplains exist in the study area along the Agua
Fria River and some of the washes. Drinking water is provided by two local companies to a limited area
near the intersection of SR 69/Kachina Place but a majority of the residential drinking water is supplied
through privately-owned wells. Residents also use septic systems as the Town does not have a sanitary
sewer system.
The Humboldt Smelter and Iron King Mine EPA Superfund sites are being studied by EPA to determine
how best to remediate them. The Humboldt Smelter site covers approximately 182 acres. The smelter
was active from the late 1800s to the early 1960s. The EPA has noted that the site is covered with
tailings, ash, and slag. The Iron King Mine area is a Superfund site that covers 153 acres. The mine was
active from 1904 until 1969. The site contains mine tailings, rock piles, five retention ponds, at least five
mine shafts, a collapsed mine shaft, and areas of stained soil. These two Superfund sites contain
contaminated groundwater, surface water, air, as well as soil and sludge. The contaminants of concern
are arsenic, lead, and sulfate.
2.5 Socioeconomic Data
The existing socioeconomic data (i.e., population and employment) for the study area is summarized in
this section. Some 2010 Census data has recently become available, but because it does not include all of
the socioeconomic data needed for this document, socioeconomic data from the 2000 Census has been
used where 2010 Census data is not available.
2.5.1 Current Population and Employment
The population for the study area is comprised of the population within the Town of Dewey-Humboldt
portion of the study area. No population information for the Town of Prescott Valley portion of the study
area was available, although there are few residents in this portion of the study area.
Population estimates for the Town of Dewey-Humboldt were obtained from the CYMPO Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 2010 Census. Historical population data for Dewey-Humboldt is
limited due to its recent incorporation in 2004. Census data from 2000 was collected for the Dewey-
Humboldt Census Designated Place (CDP). The Dewey-Humboldt town limits, as established in 2004,
were smaller than the CDP boundary that was used prior to 2004, so the CYMPO RTP estimated how
much population within the CDP corresponded to being within the Dewey-Humboldt town limits.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 13 Final Report and Executive Summary
Population data gathered from the CYMPO RTP and the 2010 Census are summarized in Table 2. The
population of Dewey-Humboldt is 3,894 persons per the 2010 Census. The average annual growth rate
from 2000 to 2010 was calculated to be 1.7 percent. Per the 2010 Census, there are 1,888 housing units
in the Town, with 1,589 of those considered occupied. This results in a household size of approximately
2.45 persons per household.
Table 2 – Population Estimates within Dewey-Humboldt
2000 2004 2010
3,302 3,629 3,894
Sources: CYMPO RTP and 2010 Census Data
The location of employment in the study area generally corresponds to the commercial community core
and Prescott Valley Planned Area Development land uses.
The CYMPO Regional Transit Needs Study (RTNS) conducted in 2007 estimated that 31 percent of
Dewey-Humboldt’s estimated 2,251 working residents work in Prescott, 24 percent work in Prescott
Valley, 17 percent work in Dewey-Humboldt, and 28 percent work in other locations. This rate of
residents commuting to work outside of the Town is consistent with the small amount of current
commercial and industrial land uses within Dewey-Humboldt.
2.5.2 Title VI Populations
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes assure that individuals are not subjected to
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability. In February 1994,
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The purpose of the order was to focus attention on
the “environmental and human health conditions in minority communities and low income communities
with the goal of achieving environmental justice.” The Executive Order does not supersede existing laws
or regulations; rather, it requires consideration and inclusion of these targeted populations as mandated in
previous legislation including:
 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA);
 Section 309 of the Clean Air Act; and
 Freedom of Information Act.
The U.S. Department of Transportation issued its final order to implement the provisions of Executive
Order 12898 on April 15, 1997. This final order requires that information be obtained concerning the
race, color or national origin, and income level of populations served or affected by proposed programs,
policies, and activities. It further requires that steps be taken to avoid disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on these populations. One of the first steps in assuring environmental justice is the identification
of those populations specifically targeted by the Executive Order – minority and low-income populations.
According to the 2010 Census, the racial composition of the Town of Dewey-Humboldt is predominantly
white, with about eight percent minorities, as shown in Table 3.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 14 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table 3 – Racial Demographic Percentages in the Town of Dewey-Humboldt
White
African
American
Native
American Asian Other
92% 0.3% 1% 0.2% 6%
Source: 2010 Census
The Executive Order also requires the consideration of persons older than 65 years of age. Approximately
21 percent of the population in Dewey-Humboldt is 65 years or older. In addition, the Executive Order
mandates that impacts on low-income people must also be considered. Approximately 9 percent of all
people in Dewey-Humboldt are estimated to be living below the poverty level. Title VI population
percentages for the Town of Dewey-Humboldt and Yavapai County are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Title VI Population Percentages
Population Category
Town of Dewey-
Humboldt
Yavapai
County
Females 49%* 51%*
Males 51%* 49%*
Minority Races 8%* 11%*
Persons with Disability (per 2000 Census CDP) 26%** 20%**
Persons over age 65 21%* 24%*
Persons living below the poverty level (per 2000 Census CDP) 9%** 12%**
Households without access to automobiles 4%*** 5%***
Persons between the ages of 10 to 19 12%* 11%*
Source: 2010 Census*, 2000 Census**, CYMPO Regional Transportation Plan for 2000***
2.6 Roadways
The existing roadway network in the study area is shown in Figure 7 and is comprised of state highways
and non-state roadways owned by the Town or by private owners. The major existing roadways are:
 SR 69 – SR 69 is a north-south state highway that runs from its junction with Interstate 17 (I-17) at
Cordes Junction to its junction with SR 89 in Prescott. SR 69 has four through lanes and is classified
as a rural principal arterial. The four-lane highway is divided by a two-way left-turn lane north of
milepost (MP) 280.5 and by a wide dirt median south of MP 280.5. The posted speed limit is 55
miles per hour (mph) north of MP 280.7 and 65 mph south of MP 280.7; and
 SR 169 – SR 169 is an east-west state highway that runs from its junction with I-17 to its junction
with SR 69. SR 169 has two through lanes and is classified as a rural minor arterial. The two-lane
highway is divided by a double yellow pavement marking throughout the study area. The posted
speed limit is 45 mph west of MP 0.3 and 55 mph east of MP 0.3.
Per Town staff, the Town of Dewey-Humboldt maintains approximately 38 miles of paved roadways,
most of which are double chip sealed. The primary Town-owned paved roadways are Newtown Avenue/
Henderson Road/Kachina Place, Prescott Street, and Foothill Drive. There are approximately 90 miles of
unpaved roadways within the Town’s limits. These unpaved roadways are typically graveled or dirt-surfaced
roadways. The street network west of SR 69 is primarily comprised of unpaved roads. While
most of the existing paved local roadways are located within dedicated public right-of-way, a large
percentage of the unpaved roadways in the study area are currently located on private right-of-way.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 15 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Town of Dewey-Humboldt Figure 7 – Existing Roadway Network
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 16 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.6.1 Access
There are several existing access points along SR 69 and SR 169, particularly in the vicinity of the SR
69/SR 169 intersection, where Old Black Canyon Highway and several driveways join SR 169. ADOT
staff has indicated there is a need to better manage access along SR 69 and SR 169.
Currently, there is an at-grade low-flow crossing of the Agua Fria River on Prescott Street. During high
water events, this roadway is not passable, which limits circulation and emergency vehicle access.
2.6.2 Traffic Control
Two signalized intersections exist within the study area at SR 69/SR 169 and SR 69/Kachina Place. The
ADOT Traffic Signal Needs Study completed in June 2011 for the intersection of SR 69/Main Street
determined that a traffic signal is not warranted at SR 69/Main Street at this time.
For the SR 69/SR 169 intersection, the ADOT SR 69 Road Safety Assessment (RSA) completed in
October 2009 recommended providing additional signal heads for the SR 69 approaches to improve
visibility, and converting the SR 69 southbound left-turn phasing to protected-only phasing to promote
safety. The ADOT SR 69 RSA also noted that future consideration could be given to roundabouts
replacing the traffic signals.
2.6.3 Federal Functional Classifications
Functional classification defines the hierarchy of streets in a roadway system according to the character of
service they are intended to provide as it relates to mobility, access, and trip length. The roles and
standards for each type of roadway must be established in order to plan an efficient and effective system.
Most travel involves movement through a network of roadways of varying functional classification.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed guidelines for federal functional
classification of roadways. The federal functional classification groups include principal arterials, minor
arterials, collectors, and local roadways. In general, the principal and minor arterials provide a high level
of mobility for the traveling public with minimal allowance for access, while the collectors and local
roads provide for residential and non-residential access. The FHWA guidelines also distinguish between
rural roadways (in areas with a population less than 5,000) and urban roadways (in areas with a
population greater than 5,000). To utilize federal funding on roadway improvements, the roadway must
have a federal functional classification. Most federal funding can only be used on roadways classified as
rural major collectors or higher.
The study area roadways that currently have federally recognized functional classifications are shown
graphically in Figure 8.
2.6.4 Traffic Volumes
Traffic volume information serves to indicate how close to capacity roadway segments or intersections
may be. Available traffic volume data was reviewed to ascertain the volume of traffic on study area
roadways. Available average daily traffic (ADT) volumes from 2000, 2004, and 2010 (the most recently
available year) were obtained from ADOT MPD traffic data collection staff for SR 69 and SR 169 (see
Appendix C for detailed daily traffic volume data). Daily traffic volume counts were conducted for 18
selected study area roadways by Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc. on August 2, 2011 (see Appendix C
for detailed daily traffic volume data). Corresponding ADT volumes from 2000 and 2004 for these same
roadways were obtained from the Town’s General Plan.
The most current daily traffic volumes are shown in Figure 9. The highest ADT volume in the study area
is 24,200 vehicles per day (vpd) on SR 69 north of SR 169. Most study area collector and local roadways
have ADT volumes of less than 2,000 vpd.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 17 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: ADOT Figure 8 – Federal Functional Classifications
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 18 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc. and ADOT Figure 9 – Traffic Volume Counts
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 19 Final Report and Executive Summary
Tables comparing the most recently available ADT volumes with available historical 2000 and 2004 ADT
volumes are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. A comparison of the 2000, 2004, and 2010/2011 volumes
generally shows an increase in volumes between 2000 and 2004 followed by a decrease in volumes
between 2004 and 2010/2011. This traffic volume growth pattern is consistent with the area’s regional
economic growth pattern. There are some locations, however, that do not follow this growth pattern.
These anomalies could be due to changes in circulation patterns as new roadways were built or unpaved
roadways were paved.
Table 5 – Historical State Highway ADT Volumes
Count Location 2000 2004 2010
SR 69, south of Main Street 11,800 11,600 12,700
SR 69, Main Street to SR 169 13,200 16,000 15,700
SR 69, north of SR 169 21,200 27,100 24,200
SR 169, east of SR 69 7,900 9,500 9,500
Source: ADOT
Table 6 – Historical Dewey-Humboldt ADT Volumes
Count Location 2000 2004 2011
Foothill Drive, 0.25 mi. north from Antelope Way 897 1,106 903
Foothill Drive, 0.062 mi. from SR 169 1,135 1,505 1,021
Foothill Drive, 1.790 mi. from SR 169 506 604 358
Henderson Road, 0.042 mi. west from Martha Way 1,039 1,149 1,025
Henderson Road, 0.136 mi. from Pony Place 1,598 1,578 1,441
Horseshoe Lane, 0.088 mi. from Antelope Drive 1,677 1,684 1,537
Kachina Place, 0.24 mi. from SR 69 Not Counted 2,685 2,507
Main Street, 0.059 mi. from SR 69 2,186 1,931 1,782
Old Black Canyon Highway, 0.057 mi. from SR 169 108 149 79
Old Black Canyon Highway, 1.629 mi. from SR 169 331 402 465
Outback Rd, 0.05 mi. from SR 169 192 154 88
Prescott Street, 0.031 mi. from Main Street 1,786 1,617 1,348
Prescott Street, 0.057 mi. east from Jones Street Not Counted 995 907
River Drive 0.081 mi. from SR 169 607 593 554
Third Street, 0.05 mi. from SR 69 117 108 145
Lazy River Drive, 0.10 mi. east from Green Valley Way Not Counted Not Counted 283
Dewey Road, 0.05 mi. from Prescott Dells Ranch Road Not Counted Not Counted 61
Prescott Dells Ranch Road, 0.05 mi. from SR 69 Not Counted Not Counted 307
Sources: Dewey-Humboldt General Plan and Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 20 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.6.5 Levels of Service
Roadway traffic operations are defined and categorized by the average amount of delay experienced by
drivers. The operations are categorized by a grading system called level of service (LOS), which has a
letter designation ranging from A (no delay) to F (severe congestion). The LOS definitions for each letter
designation are given in Table 7 and are based on LOS definitions provided in the Highway Capacity
Manual 2010 (HCM).
Table 7 – LOS Definitions
LOS Definition
A Primarily free-flow operation; virtually no delay.
B Reasonably unimpeded operation; the presence of other users in
the traffic stream begins to be noticeable.
C Stable operation; marks the beginning of the range in which the
operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by
others.
D Somewhat stable operation; represents operating conditions near
capacity. Small increases in flow may cause substantial increases
in delay and decreases in travel speed.
E Unstable operation and significant delay; represents operating at
or almost at capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low but
relatively uniform value.
F Severe congestion; represents operating conditions over capacity
and extremely low travel speed.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (2010)
The CYMPO RTP provides daily volume capacities and indicates how volume-to-capacity ratios
correspond to the LOS letter designations. Daily volume thresholds for the LOS letter designations have
been developed for the functionally classified study area roadways and are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 – Level of Service Daily Volume Thresholds
Functional
Classification
Number of
Through
Lanes
Under
Capacity
(LOS A–C)
Near
Capacity
(LOS D)
At
Capacity
(LOS E)
Over
Capacity
(LOS F)
Rural Major Arterial 4 < 23,400 23,400 – 28,100 28,100 – 31,200 > 31,200
Rural Minor Arterial 2 < 9,800 9,800 – 11,700 11,700 – 13,000 > 13,000
Rural Minor Collector 2 < 5,500 5,500 – 6,700 6,700 – 7,400 > 7,400
Source: CYMPO Regional Transportation Plan
Roadway segments below the maximum daily volume threshold for LOS C likely do not currently need
additional through capacity while roadway segments above the minimum daily volume threshold for LOS
E likely do currently need additional through capacity. For roadway segments between the daily volume
thresholds for LOS D, more detailed analysis should be conducted to evaluate roadway geometry, traffic
control conditions, and number and spacing of driveways to determine if additional through capacity is
needed.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 21 Final Report and Executive Summary
Based on the daily volume thresholds in Table 8 and the daily volumes in Figure 9, all study area
roadway segments for which current traffic volume data was available provide LOS C or better except for
the segment of SR 69 north of SR 169, which provides LOS D.
LOS and daily volume thresholds for local roadways are not provided in the CYMPO RTP. Industry
practice suggests that when local roadways reach daily traffic volumes of 400 vpd – 1,000 vpd, those
roadways are typically functioning more like minor collectors and should be evaluated to determine if
reclassification is needed. Of the study area roadway segments for which current traffic volume data was
available, the only local roadways with daily volumes within the 400 vpd – 1,000 vpd range are Old
Black Canyon Highway, Henderson Road west of Martha Way, and River Drive.
2.6.6 Crash Analysis
Crash data was obtained from ADOT’s Safety Data Mart and from Yavapai County for a five-year
analysis period from December 1, 2005 through November 30, 2010. Average ADT volumes during the
analysis period were derived from 2008 volume data provided by ADOT’s Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS). There were a total of 115 crashes in the study area during the analysis
period. The collision manner of the crashes is shown in Table 9. Crash data for the primary study area
intersections is shown in Table 10 while crash data for the functionally classified roadway segments is
shown in Table 11. The locations and severity of these crashes are shown in Figure 10. Detailed crash
data is provided in Appendix D.
Table 9 – Crashes by Collision Manner
Collision Manner Crashes
Angle 10
Left Turn 4
Right Turn 4
Head On 4
Rear End 22
Sideswipe Same Direction 12
Sideswipe Opposite Direction 6
Single Vehicle 46
Backing 1
Other 3
Unknown 3
TOTAL 115
Sources: ADOT and Yavapai County
Table 10 – Crash Data for Primary Study Area Intersections
Intersection
Average ADT
(Street 1)
Average ADT
(Street 2) Number of Crashes
Crash Rate (per
million entering
vehicles)
SR 69 at Kachina Place 29,361 2,094 5 0.09
SR 69 at SR 169 23,532 3,628 15 0.30
SR 69 at Main Street 15,478 1,224 9 0.30
Sources: ADOT, Yavapai County, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 22 Final Report and Executive Summary
Table 11 – Crash Data for Functionally Classified Study Area Roadway Segments
Segment
Average
ADT
Number of
Crashes
Excluding
Intersection
Crashes
Number of
Crashes
Including
Intersection
Crashes
Segment
Length
(miles)
Crash Rate
Excluding
Intersection
Crashes
(per million
vehicle
miles
traveled)
Crash Rate
Including
Intersection
Crashes
(per million
vehicle
miles
traveled)
SR 69 between southern
study boundary and
milepost 280.4 15,478 28 44 2.93 0.34 0.53
SR 69 between milepost
280.4 and northern study
boundary 25,475 11 31 1.57 0.15 0.42
SR 169 between SR 69
and eastern study
boundary 7,257 4 4 2.61 0.12 0.12
Kachina Place/Henderson
Road between Martha Way
and Antelope Drive 1,226 4 4 1.32 1.35 1.35
Kachina Place between
Antelope Drive and SR 69 4,188 5 5 0.41 1.60 1.60
Foothill Drive between SR
169 and Bradshaw Road 723 1 1 1.87 0.41 0.41
Main Street/Prescott Street
between SR 69 and Foothill
Drive (including curve at
Green Valley Way) 1,308 2 2 1.52 0.55 0.55
Sources: ADOT, Yavapai County, and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
There were three fatal crashes within the analysis period. The first fatal crash occurred at the SR 69/Main
Street intersection and involved two vehicles. The left-turning vehicle failed to yield right-of-way and the
other unit had no improper action. The second fatal crash occurred at MP 279 of SR 69 and involved a
single vehicle. The vehicle was travelling northbound and went off the road to the right and rolled over.
The vehicle involved was speeding and the driver was under the influence of alcohol and failed to use a
safety belt. The third fatal crash occurred at the Prescott Street/Main Street intersection and involved two
vehicles. The crash was determined to be an angle crash.
Two crashes involving a pedestrian occurred within the analysis period. The first occurred near Dewey
Road/Deer Path Road where alcohol was a factor and there was one injury. The second occurred near
Kachina Place/Graham Drive where no injury was reported.
The location and frequency of crashes is generally correlated to the magnitude of traffic volumes, with the
highest number of crashes occurring along SR 69. The largest cluster of crashes is at the SR 69/SR 169
intersection. As was recommended in the ADOT SR 69 RSA for the SR 69/SR 169 intersection,
providing additional signal heads for the SR 69 approaches to improve visibility and converting the SR 69
left-turn phasing to protected-only phasing would better promote safety at the intersection.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 23 Final Report and Executive Summary
Sources: ADOT and Yavapai County Figure 10 – Crash Locations and Severity
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 24 Final Report and Executive Summary
According to crash rate data provided by ADOT, typical crash rates in the U.S. are in the range of 0.8–0.9
crashes per million entering vehicles at rural intersections, 0.67-0.89 crashes per million vehicle miles
traveled (MVMT) on rural arterial roadway segments, and 1.40-1.50 crashes per MVMT on rural
collector roadway segments.
All study area intersections and roadway segments evaluated as part of the crash analysis have crash rates
below the aforementioned typical crash rates except for the segment of Kachina Place between Antelope
Drive and SR 69, which has a crash rate of 1.60 crashes per MVMT (compared to a typical crash rate of
1.40-1.50 crashes per MVMT). No crash patterns were identified for the segment of Kachina Place
between Antelope Drive and SR 69, but the high frequency of driveways along this roadway segment
could be a contributing factor to the higher than typical crash rate.
2.6.7 Pavement Conditions
A roadway pavement condition inventory was conducted via visual windshield surveys in August and
September 2011 for the paved roadway segments owned by the Town.
Existing conditions include rolling terrain, numerous low-water crossings, and inadequate edge drainage,
all which lend themselves to pavement deterioration. Additionally, only a few roadways have curb and
gutter to control water run-off and drainage. Ditch erosion and loss of subgrade support are common
issues throughout the study area.
A modified version of the visual evaluation technique outlined in ASTM D6433-03 “Standard Practice
for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys” was utilized to evaluate the current
condition of the pavement infrastructure. The ASTM procedure provides a systematic method for
identifying the current condition of asphalt paved roadways. However, in the case of Dewey-Humboldt’s
paved roadway infrastructure, most roadways do not have a conventional asphalt pavement section but
rather have been chip sealed. A user specific pavement rating system using many elements of the ASTM
procedure was developed to evaluate the roadways. Primary factors used in the development of the rating
system include type of pavement distress present and general site conditions. The primary distress types
considered were longitudinal and transverse (L&T) cracking, alligator cracking, block cracking, edge
cracking, patching, potholes, weathering and raveling, rutting, and lane/shoulder drop off. Site conditions
considered were washboard effect, erosion, poor drainage, and failing surface conditions.
Based on the severity of distresses and site conditions that were observed, an overall pavement rating
between 1 and 5 was given to each paved roadway segment that was inventoried. Descriptions of the
rating system levels are described below:
 Excellent (1) – The roadway segment is exhibiting minimal visual signs of deterioration and no
maintenance is currently required.
 Good (2) – The roadway segment is exhibiting minor signs of deterioration, including age- or
climate-related distresses, and no structural deterioration is visually evident. The distresses observed
are primarily limited to low-severity levels (L&T cracks less than ¼ inches in width) although
isolated areas of medium-severity may be present. The roadway segment could benefit from minimal
maintenance activities including crack sealing or patching for isolated areas of deterioration.
 Fair (3) – The roadway segment is exhibiting a moderate amount of deterioration including both age-or
climate-related distresses as well as structural deterioration. Generally, the distresses present are
low- to medium-severity levels. The rideability is likely deteriorated and there are often isolated
areas of high-severity pavement deterioration and poor site conditions. The roadway segment would
benefit from aggressive maintenance activities including crack sealing and patching.
 Poor (4) – The roadway segment is exhibiting a significant amount of deterioration including both
age- or climate-related distresses as well as structural deterioration. The evidence of structural
deterioration (e.g., alligator cracking, rutting, and potholes) is more evident. The distresses observed
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 25 Final Report and Executive Summary
are likely present at all severity levels with areas of high-severity distress more frequently present.
General site conditions are more significantly deteriorated and are likely attributing to the level of
deterioration being exhibited. The roadway segment would benefit from surface rehabilitation and
overall general site improvements.
 Failed (5) – The roadway segment is exhibiting a significant amount of deterioration, including both
age- or climate-related distresses as well as structural deterioration. The primary distresses observed
are structural-related distresses. Typical distress levels observed are medium-severity to high-severity.
General site conditions are significantly deteriorated and likely attributing to the level of
deterioration being exhibited. Although useable, the roadway segment is considered failed and
should be considered for surface reconstruction along with improvement to general site conditions.
The pavement condition ratings for the inventoried roadway segments are shown in Figure 11. More
detailed information on pavement conditions is provided in Appendix E. Overall, most of the roadways
within the Town are in Fair condition with the most common distresses observed being age- or climate-related
distress such as L&T cracking, edge cracking, weathering, and raveling.
The roadway segments rated as Poor or Failed generally exhibit a significant amount of structural
deterioration – specifically alligator cracking – and have poor site conditions such as numerous low-flow
water crossings, edge drainage, poor edge support, and overall poor drainage conditions given the Town’s
hilly topography.
The roadway segments rated as Poor are distributed throughout the roadway network and include
significant portions of Henderson Road, River Road, and Meadow Road. The roadway segments rated as
Failed are generally located in the vicinity of Prescott Street/Old Black Canyon Highway and Kachina
Place/SR 69.
According to Town staff, Kachina Place is scheduled for pavement surface rehabilitation by the end of
2012. The community core (in the vicinity of Prescott Street) is also scheduled for pavement surface
rehabilitation in the area bounded by McCabe Street on the north, Hecla Street on the west, Third Street
on the south, and Azurite Street on the east.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 26 Final Report and Executive Summary
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Figure 11 – Pavement Condition Ratings
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 27 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.7 Other Modes of Travel
2.7.1 Public Transit
Public transit data collected for use in this study was extracted from the CYMPO RTNS or obtained
through stakeholder interviews. The CYMPO RTNS analyzed the existing transit conditions, demand for
a public transit system, and potential alternatives for a public transit system within the region.
Daily public transit services currently do not exist within the study area or anywhere else in the CYMPO
region except in Chino Valley. Public transit has existed in the Prescott area in different forms in the
past. The most recent large-scale public transit provider within the Prescott area was Tri-City Transit,
which was operated by the Four County Conference on Developmental Disabilities (4CCDD) in
partnership with Yavapai County from January 1995 until September 1996. While this program was
considered an overall success, lack of participating county and local agencies prevented the continuation
of the public transit system.
Daily public transit demand can be estimated by analyzing user characteristics and demographic patterns.
According to the CYMPO RTNS, the Dewey-Humboldt population by segment is 16 percent ages 65 and
over, 8 percent younger adults, 6 percent income below $15,000, 6 percent with disabilities, 3 percent
with no vehicle access, and 62 percent other residents. Each of these population segments has a different
likeliness to use public transit.
According to the CYMPO RTNS, “mode share assumptions for Dewey-Humboldt range from a low of
0.5 percent among the general public to a high of 5.0 percent among older adults. The resulting
population considered likely to use public transit is estimated in the range of 41 to 82 persons, which
represents between 1.1 percent and 2.1 percent of the estimated 2004 population of 3,948 persons”. The
corresponding low and high transit demand projections are shown in Table 12 and Table 13.
Table 12 – Current Daily Public Transit Demand, Low Ridership Estimates
Youth
13-17 years
Older
Adults
Persons w/
disabilities
Persons w/
no vehicle
Low
Income
General
Public Total
1 16 4 2 5 12 41
Source: CYMPO RTNS
Table 13 – Current Daily Public Transit Demand, High Ridership Estimates
Youth
13-17 years
Older
Adults
Persons w/
disabilities
Persons w/
no vehicle
Low
Income
General
Public Total
3 32 9 4 9 25 82
Source: CYMPO RTNS
Considering the estimated 2004 population of 3,948 assumed by the CYMPO RTNS is roughly equivalent
to the 2010 Census population of 3,894, for purposes of this study, the CYMPO RTNS population range
of 41 to 82 persons considered likely to use public transit if it is implemented is assumed to still be valid.
The study area’s activity centers are located in the vicinity of the Main Street/Prescott Street intersection
and the SR 69/SR 169 intersection. Near these activity centers is likely where the highest density of
public transit demand exists, with the remaining public transit demand distributed fairly evenly
throughout the rest of the study area.
091374044 Dewey-Humboldt PARA Study
May 2012 28 Final Report and Executive Summary
2.7.2 Private Transit
For-profit and non-profit private sector transit providers currently offer transportation services within the
study area, but often at a higher price when compared to typical public transit rates. Many of the private
transit operators utilize Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 (Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities Transportation Program) grants or Section 5317 (New Freedom Program that serves the
disabled beyond Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements) grants to help fund their
operations.
Territorial Transit, a non-profit organization, recently secured a Section 5310 grant for mobility
management efforts to better coordinate the various private transit providers in the Prescott area. The
objective of mobility management is to meet people’s individual transportation needs through a wide
range of transportation options and service providers. Mobility management also focuses on coordinating
transportation options and service providers to achieve a more efficient transportation system.
Territorial Transit has developed a mobility management table (see Appendix F) that lists the