Town of Chino Valley small area transportation study

              TOWN OF CHINO VALLEY
SMALL AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY
January 25, 2007
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................1
2 TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES............................... 3
2.1 Guiding Principle (from the General Plan) ......................................................3
2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies ......................................................................3
3 YEAR 2005 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONDITIONS .....................................7
3.1 Previous and Current Studies ........................................................................7
3.2 Existing Roadway Characteristics and Conditions............................................7
3.3 Functional Classification................................................................................8
3.4 Roadway Characteristics ...............................................................................8
3.5 Existing Traffic Conditions...........................................................................11
3.6 Crash Data ................................................................................................17
3.7 Transit and Non-Motorized .........................................................................22
4 LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS............................................. 23
4.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................23
4.2 Socioeconomic Data ...................................................................................26
5 YEAR 2030 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CONDITIONS .................................. 35
5.1 Traffic Demand ..........................................................................................35
5.2 2030 Traffic Forecast..................................................................................36
6 TRANSPORTATION PLAN............................................................................................ 39
6.1 Roadway Plan ............................................................................................39
6.2 Transit Element..........................................................................................41
6.3 Non-Motorized Transportation.....................................................................48
7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN............................................................................................52
7.1 Cost Estimates ...........................................................................................52
7.2 Funding Plan..............................................................................................55
7.3 Action Plan ................................................................................................59
7.4 Access Management Guidelines...................................................................59
7.5 Traffic Impact Procedures/Traffic Signal Location Guidelines.........................63
APPENDIX A - Socioeconomic Data............................................................................ 66
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1 Study Area Map........................................................................................2
FIGURE 2 Roadway Lanes and Intersection Control ...................................................9
FIGURE 3 Speed Limits ..........................................................................................10
FIGURE 4 Existing Traffic Conditions .......................................................................13
FIGURE 5 Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements .............................................14
FIGURE 6 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service ...................................................15
FIGURE 7 Roadway Level of Service .......................................................................16
FIGURE 8 Crash Locations......................................................................................18
FIGURE 9 Crash Frequency ....................................................................................21
FIGURE 10 Town of Chino Valley General Plan Future Land Use Map ........................25
FIGURE 11 Traffic Analysis Zones for the Small Area Transportation Study.................27
FIGURE 12 Town of Chino Valley 2005 Dwelling Unit Density. ..................................29
FIGURE 13 Town of Chino Valley 2030 Dwelling Unit Density. ..................................30
FIGURE 14 Town of Chino Valley 2005 Total Employment Density. ...........................31
FIGURE 15 Town of Chino Valley 2030 Total Employment Density. ...........................32
FIGURE 16 2030 Base Daily Traffic and Level of Service...........................................37
FIGURE 17 2030 Recommended Daily Model Traffic Volumes and Level of Service.....38
FIGURE 18 2030 Roadway Framework ....................................................................40
FIGURE 19 2030 Recommended Truck Route ..........................................................42
FIGURE 20 2030 Transit Network ...........................................................................47
FIGURE 21 2030 Conceptual Trails Plan ..................................................................51
FIGURE 22 2030 Project Identification Number........................................................54
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 Level of Service Definitions .......................................................................12
TABLE 2 Daily Roadway Capacities .........................................................................12
TABLE 3 Roadway Level of Service .........................................................................12
TABLE 4 Crash Classifications by Location ...............................................................17
TABLE 5 Crash Classification by Severity .................................................................17
TABLE 6 Crash Classification by Collision Manner .....................................................19
TABLE 7 Crash Classification by Object First Collided With........................................19
TABLE 8 Primary Collision Manners for Locations with High Crash Frequency ............20
TABLE 9 Base Year Population Information of Chino Valley, the Study Area,
Surrounding Jurisdictions and Yavapai County...........................................28
TABLE 10 Study Area Population and Employment Estimates.....................................28
TABLE 11 Minority Population within the Study Area, Chino Valley and Affected
Jurisdictions ............................................................................................33
Table 12 Environmental Justice Populations within the Study Area, Chino Valley and
Affected Jurisdictions...............................................................................33
Table 13 2030 Transit Network...............................................................................46
Table 14 2030 Transportation Improvement Program Cost Estimates........................52
Table 15 Action Plan ..............................................................................................59
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) established a Small Area
Transportation Planning Process to assist communities outside of the Phoenix and
Tucson metropolitan areas in addressing transportation issues and identifying
transportation improvements needed to accommodate future growth. Identified projects
would then be eligible for future funding. The program has provided an opportunity for
many areas in the State to address transportation issues in their communities that would
not have had the opportunity had the program not been in place.
ADOT has received public comment that SR 89 from 89A to the Town of Chino Valley
needs to have extra capacity, and there has been recent interest to develop a
comprehensive strategy to deal with the interaction of land use and transportation along
SR 89 through the Town, and in the region. With the planned three-mile widening of SR
89, from Center Street south to the town boundary, there is concern that as SR 89 is
improved it will inappropriately bisect the community and lessen access to businesses
along this important local and regional thoroughfare and decrease the quality of life that
originally attracted the Town’s residents.
A concern to residents is how best to plan land use and transportation projects while
accommodating Chino Valley’s established lifestyle. Also, with growth of an active adult
population and greater employment, transit service will become increasingly important,
as will preserving and enhancing pedestrian and bicycling options as viable
transportation modes.
The purpose of this report is to document existing roadway characteristics and
operations, land use and socioeconomic conditions, and other existing transportation
modes, and to craft a long-range transportation plan to meet the transportation needs of
the Town of Chino Valley. A travel demand model was created to forecast 2030 traffic
volumes to assist in identifying the traffic impacts with the anticipated growth in and
around the Town. This model was developed to ensure consistency with the Regional
Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) system.
This study was conducted in cooperation with other agencies including CYMPO and
Yavapai County and was jointly funded by the Town of Chino Valley and ADOT. At the
onset of the study, a technical advisory committee (TAC) was formed to guide the
development of the SATS. Monthly TAC meetings were held in addition to two public
open houses.
The study area extends beyond the Town boundaries to take into consideration impacts
of surrounding development and also to be consistent with the Regional CYMPO
system. FIGURE 1 illustrates the study area.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
2
FIGURE 1 Study Area Map
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
3
2 TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
POLICIES
The primary objective of the SATS program is to develop a transportation plan for the
Chino Valley area that will guide multi-modal planning and programming on local roads
over a 20-year timeframe. The following goals, objectives and policies, adapted from the
Circulation Element of the Town of Chino Valley’s 2003 General Plan, provide a
framework for this planning.
The goals, objectives and policies were derived from the General Plan, review of existing
transportation conditions, and a meeting with City staff. This section is provided to offer
guidance and direction to the Town, its residents, and business for planning future
transportation facilities.
2.1 Guiding Principle (from the General Plan)
The Town of Chino Valley will establish and build a safe and efficient
transportation system of roads and multi-use paths that improves the flow
of traffic, enhances pedestrian safety, promotes commerce, and provides
for alternative modes of transportation.
2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Policies
2.2.1 GOAL: Develop a network of highways and arterial streets within and
around the Town of Chino Valley’s perimeter that will link the Town of
Chino Valley more conveniently and directly to all areas of the growing tri-city
region.
Objective: Plan for and implement improvements to Highway 89.
Policy: Encourage the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to
perform widening and improvements of Highway 89 from Center Street
south to the town limits.
Policy: Work with the Del Rio development to ensure the widening and
improving of Highway 89 from Road 3 North, north to the town limits.
Objective: Work with the CYMPO to develop timely connections between Chino
Valley and regional routes.
Policy: Encourage the CYMPO to plan the construction of a major 4-lane
highway connector from the Glassford Hill Road to Highway 89.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
4
2.2.2 GOAL: Provide planned control of Chino Valley traffic with the development
and improvement of a major street network intersecting with county and
state Highways.
Objective: Develop and adopt street standards for all street classifications
throughout the town.
Policy: Categorize proposed streets and improvements with standards set forth
in the Town’s current or future Street Master Plan street standard
guidelines and priorities set forth by the Town Council.
Objective: Designate and ensure the dedication of the necessary streets right-of-way
to coordinate with the Town’s minimum right-of-way dedication
standards.
Policy: Streets located on section lines should be dedicated and improved to
major collector standards throughout the town intersecting Highway 89
at signalized intersections.
Policy: Mid-section street alignments should be developed to collector or minor
collector standards dependant on development pressure and traffic
volumes.
Policy: Budget and improve Road 4 South throughout the town to the same
level of improvement as the minimum county arterial street standards.
2.2.3 GOAL: Update the Town’s General Plan with a revised Circulation Element.
Objective: Develop an updated Circulation Element with the involvement of a
citizen committee, staff, and professional consultants for review by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and adoption by the Town Council.
Policy: Continue to develop a 5-year capital improvements budgeting program
with yearly increments for major street improvements coordinated with
the adopted major street master plan.
2.2.4 GOAL: Encourage non-motorized types of transportation to partially
alleviate motorized vehicular traffic problems.
Objective: Design and locate pedestrian and bicycle routes along major and
collector streets as a viable alternative transportation system.
Policy: Encourage and obtain major and collector street dedications wide
enough to permit a total of 10 feet to accommodate bicycle and
pedestrian traffic.
Objective: Develop a trails master plan that identifies and specifies a system of on
and off-street trails that circumnavigate the Town and connect to local
destinations (such as schools and parks) and regional open space
amenities.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
5
Policy: Identify a network of on and off road trails that can be discussed and
revised through a public process.
Policy: Continue to improve the Peavine Trail for equestrian, bicycle and
pedestrian travel.
Objective: Identify equestrian trails and linkages in the on and off-street trail
system.
Policy: Ensure that there are equestrian trail linkages throughout the planning
area adjacent to compatible developments and neighborhoods.
Policy: Encourage equestrian trails in recreational areas and discourage
equestrian trails from major and collector streets to prevent conflict
between horses and motorized vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians.
2.2.5 GOAL: Chino Valley transportation should be augmented by a public transit
system aiding commuters within the tri-city area.
Objective: Encourage development of a joint committee of tri-city and county
representatives to develop a regional transit master plan study.
Policy: The joint committee should work within the CYMPO to apply for grants
from Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and other agencies
for help to fund the master plan study.
Objective: Work with the joint committee of tri-city and county representatives in
identifying and implementing regional transit solutions.
Policy: Consider the viability of developing a tri-city shuttle.
Policy: Encourage existing and new private bus companies to expand and help
implement the tri-city area shuttle for commuters and for airport
transportation.
Policy: Consider the possibility of reserving sufficient right-of-way along the
Glassford Hill Road extension for future fixed transit routes.
2.2.6 GOAL: Encourage a regional air transportation study that includes the City
of Prescott, Prescott Valley, Chino Valley, and Yavapai County to ensure
adequate air transportation for future growth in the tri-city area.
Objectives: Join with all tri-city agencies to request that the Northern Arizona
Council of Governments (NACOG) sponsor a regional air traffic study
utilizing the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) five-year budget
funding program.
Policy: Given approval and majority funding of the study’s costs by the FAA of
the regional study request identified above, Chino Valley should join the
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
6
City of Prescott, Prescott Valley and Yavapai County in funding the
remaining costs.
2.2.7 Other Policies
The following policies, taken from the Town Of Chino Valley General Plan, are relevant
to the Town’s transportation planning, but are not considered appropriate to the Small
Area Transportation Plan. They are listed here so that they may be addressed through
subsequent planning documents.
Policy: Develop and implement a major street dedication program, including
land surveys of street rights-of-way, aided by strong public education
and promotion.
Policy: Adopt, implement and enforce subdivision regulations and lot-split
regulations that require the dedication and improvement of streets in
accordance with the proposed street standards.
Policy: Adopt and implement an off-site improvement ordinance, which requires
street dedication and improvements for all commercial, industrial,
multifamily and other non-residential developments.
Policy: Require major residential and commercial developments to pay a “fair
share” cost for needed upgrades to existing roads based on
proportionate traffic volumes.
Policy: Adopt and enforce subdivision, lot split, and off-site improvement
ordinances that require the dedication and improvement of bicycle lanes
and pedestrian pathways in addition to motorized vehicular street
improvements.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
7
3 YEAR 2005 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
CONDITIONS
3.1 Previous and Current Studies
3.1.1 2003 Town of Chino Valley General Plan
The Town of Chino Valley General Plan was adopted by the Town Council on June 26,
2003. As part of the Plan, the circulation element addresses general locations of the
existing and proposed transportation system. This includes the Glassford Hill extension;
improvements on the existing street system as development occurs; and inclusion of
equestrian trails, particularly the Peavine Trail. The General Plan also provides a future
land use plan which was utilized in the development of the SATS traffic forecasts. The
Town is currently in the process of updating their General Plan.
3.1.2 CYMPO Transportation Study
The CYMPO, which comprises of a partnership of Chino Valley, ADOT, Prescott,
Prescott Valley, and Yavapai County, is currently completing the Regional
Transportation Plan. This regional study will address the regional 2030 horizon long-range
multi-modal transportation issues and needs.
3.1.3 CYMPO Regional Transit Planning Study
This comprehensive transit study which is currently being conducted by the CYMPO will
evaluate public transportation needs in the Central Yavapai region that includes the
Town of Chino Valley. The study will analyze current and future needs for a public
transit system through approximately 2015.
3.2 Existing Roadway Characteristics and Conditions
The existing roadway system in the Town of Chino Valley comprises of various
categories of roads from State Route 89 (SR 89) to local streets. SR 89 is the primary
artery through the Town that also provides immediate access to the majority of
commercial activity. Other collector facilities follow a grid pattern that provides access to
the surrounding residential uses. The major existing roadways are briefly described
below.
SR 89 is the major north-south roadway that traverses the center of Chino Valley. This
facility provides regional access to I-40 to the north and Prescott, and Prescott Valley to
the south. SR 89 serves a large proportion of Town residences and Yavapai County
population immediately west of the Town by providing access to employment centers in
Prescott and Prescott Valley. The primary commercial activity within the Town is
adjacent to SR 89. Traffic signals are located along SR 89 at Road 3 N, Road 2 N, and
Center Street.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
8
SR 89 varies in number of lanes through the study area. North of Center Street to Road
3 N (the center of town), SR 89 comprises of a 4-lane with center left turn lane. South of
Center Street and north of Road 3 N, SR 89 is a two lane with a center turn lane to the
Town boundary, reducing to a 2-lane undivided road on the northern and southern limits
of the study area. ADOT has programmed in the Five Year Transportation Facilities
Construction Program, Fiscal Years 2006-2010, for widening of SR 89 to a four lane with
center turn lane south of Center Street to the southern Town boundary.
Road 3 N is a predominant east-west collector west of SR 89 that serves the residential
users of the Town and also County. This roadway is two lanes with a traffic signal at its
intersection with SR 89.
Road 4 S is a Rural Major Collector outside of the Town as identified in ADOTs adopted
Roadway Functional Classification. This two-lane roadway provides the primary regional
area access to the west.
3.3 Functional Classification
Roadway functional classifications (arterial, collector and local stratified by urban or
rural) are based on the degree of function in regards to accessibility and mobility. The
primary purpose of functional classification is to ensure that the system adequately
provides mobility, access to adjacent land, and continuity of the street system. The
classification system defines the roadway type by function and right-of-way needs.
These classifications establish the function of different types of roadways and the priority
placed on access. For example, a major arterial provides regional movement with
longer trips and minimal access to abutting land. Conversely, local streets provide a
high degree of direct access and accommodate lower traffic volumes with short trip
distances. The Town is currently developing roadway standards and corresponding
cross-section profiles. Once the roadway standards are established, the Town will
develop a functional classification system of existing and proposed roadways.
3.4 Roadway Characteristics
Existing roadway characteristics were collected on the roadway system within the study
area. These characteristics included number of lanes, intersection control, surface type,
speed limits, and are briefly described below.
3.4.1 Roadway Lanes, Intersection Control, and Speed Limits
Based on field review, the number of travel lanes, type of intersection control, and turn
lanes at the signalized intersections are illustrated in FIGURE 2. All roadways, other
than SR 89, are 2-lane facilities.
FIGURE 3 shows the posted limits that were collected through field review. Speeds
along SR 89 in the urban area of Town are 45 mph and increase up to 65 mph in the
rural area. The collector roadways within the Town vary from 25 to 35 mph with slower
speeds through school areas.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
9
FIGURE 2 Roadway Lanes and Intersection Control
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
10
FIGURE 3 Speed Limits
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
11
3.5 Existing Traffic Conditions
The first step in analyzing existing conditions involves inventorying existing traffic
facilities, their conditions, and other factors affecting them. Available traffic counts were
obtained from Yavapai County and ADOT. These counts were summarized and further
traffic counts were also collected to provide thorough coverage throughout the Chino
Valley area. Both 24-hour and intersection peak hour traffic counts were collected.
Daily Traffic
Weekday daily traffic counts were collected at 16 locations in Chino Valley on November
29 and 30, 2005. Additionally, recent historical counts were also obtained from ADOT
and Yavapai County and were adjusted to reflect 2005 conditions. FIGURE 4
summarizes and displays 2005 weekday daily traffic counts. The highest traffic volumes
occur along SR 89 and range from approximately 8,000 to over 24,000 vehicles per day.
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements
In addition to these daily volume counts, hourly turning volumes were collected at five
intersections along SR 89 that include Road 5 N, Road 3 N, Perkinsville Road, Road 2
N, and Center Street. These counts were conducted on November 29, 2005 from 7-9 am
and 4-6 pm.
Previous intersection turn volumes were also summarized from the report SR 89 Center
Street to Road 4 S Traffic Study dated November 2004. From this study, intersection
traffic counts had been collected along SR 89 at Road 1 S, Road 2 S, Road 3 S and
Road 4 S.
FIGURE 5 illustrates the peak hour intersection turn movements. The morning peak
hour was determined to be from 7:30-8:30 am and evening peak from 4:30-5:30 pm.
Level of Service (LOS) analyses were performed at these intersections as described in
the next section.
3.5.1 Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within
a traffic stream, generally in terms of service measures such as speed and travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six letter
designation levels are defined from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating
conditions and LOS F the worst. Traditionally, a facility is considered to have reached
maximum flow rate or capacity at LOS E. Each level of service represents a range of
operating conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions.
TABLE 1 provides a description of each of the LOS designation levels.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
12
TABLE 1 Level of Service Definitions
Level of Service Description
A Free flow, minimal delays
B Stable flow, occasional delays
C Stable flow, periodic delays
D Restricted flow, regular delays
E Maximum capacity, extended delays
F Forced flow, excessive delays
Most planning, design, and operational efforts use LOS C or D to ensure an acceptable
quality of service for facility users. Typically, LOS D is acceptable in urban areas, and
LOS C is targeted for rural conditions.
Morning and afternoon peak hour intersection capacity analyses were performed at the
locations of the existing turn movements. FIGURE 6 illustrates the intersection LOS.
The STOP sign controlled intersections along SR 89 south of Center Street operate at
an unacceptable LOS. The LOS being reported is for the critical turning movement;
typically the left turn onto SR 89.
Roadway LOS was also performed on segments based on the daily traffic flows and
roadway capacity. Daily traffic flows were obtained from the 2005 base year travel
demand model. Roadway capacities were based on values used in the current CYMPO
Transportation Plan and refined as shown in TABLE 2.
TABLE 2 Daily Roadway Capacities
Roadway Classification Area
Type Daily Lane Capacity
Principal Arterial 9,000
Minor Arterial 8,000
Collector 6,250
Local
Urban
5,000
Principal Arterial 9,500
Minor Arterial 8,500
Collector 6,500
Local
Rural
5,000
Unpaved 500
The roadway LOS is derived using the modeled daily traffic volume over capacity ratio
(v/c). The stratification of roadway LOS using v/c ratios was derived from the CYMPO
Transportation Plan. TABLE 3 illustrates the LOS and corresponding v/c ratio
thresholds. FIGURE 7 shows the LOS roadway segments.
TABLE 3 Roadway Level of Service
Roadway LOS Volume over Capacity (v/c) Ratio
A-C (Under Capacity) < 0.75
D (Near Capacity) 0.76 – 0.90
E (At Capacity 0.91 – 1.00
F (Over Capacity) >1.00
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
13
FIGURE 4 Existing Traffic Conditions
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
14
FIGURE 5 Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
15
FIGURE 6 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
16
FIGURE 7 Roadway Level of Service
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
17
3.6 Crash Data
A crash analysis was conducted in order to identify crash patterns or trends. The
purpose of identifying patterns or trends is to determine if there are sections within the
study area that should be addressed to improve safety.
3.6.1 Crash Locations
A total of 341 crashes were documented between August 2002 and July 2005. Of the
total 341 crashes, 162 crashes (48 percent) occurred on roadway sections, with the
remaining 179 crashes (52 percent) occurring at intersections. It is important to note that
a crash is considered as an intersection crash if it occurred within the length of a turning
movement storage lane, which ranges from 50 feet to 250 feet. TABLE 4 summarizes the
number of crashes that occurred along roadway sections and at intersections.
TABLE 4 Crash Classifications by Location
Location Number of
Crashes Percentage
Section 162 48%
Intersection 179 52%
Total 341 100%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Section
Of the 341 total crashes, 321 crashes, or 94 percent, occurred on sections of SR 89 or in
the vicinity of SR 89 intersections. The remaining 20 crashes (6 percent) were scattered
throughout local streets within the Study Area. Refer to FIGURE 8 for an illustration of
the reported crash locations for August 2002 through July 2005.
3.6.2 Crash Classifications
Of the 341 total crashes, there were 4 fatal crashes (1 percent) and 121 resulted in
injuries (36 percent). The remaining 216 crashes (63 percent) were classified as
property damage crashes. TABLE 5 provides a summary on the crash severity within
the Study Area.
TABLE 5 Crash Classification by Severity
Severity Number of
Crashes Percentage
Fatal 4 1%
Injury 121 36%
Property Damage 216 63%
Total 341 100%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Section
The majority of crashes within the Study Area consisted of rear-end (121 crashes or 36
percent), angle (72 crashes or 21 percent), single vehicle (46 crashes or 13 percent) and
left turn (35 crashes or 10 percent), as shown in TABLE 6.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
18
FIGURE 8 Crash Locations
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
19
TABLE 6 Crash Classification by Collision Manner
Collision Manner Number of
Crashes Percentage
Rear-End 121 35%
Angle 72 21%
Single Vehicle 46 13%
Left-Turn 35 10%
Sideswipe (same) 27 8%
Other 16 5%
Sideswipe (opposite) 9 3%
Head-On 6 2%
Backing 5 1%
U-Turn 3 1%
Non-Contact (mc) 1 0%
Total 341 100%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Section
Collisions with other motor vehicles represent the majority of crashes (292 crashes or 85
percent), followed by collisions with fixed objects (26 crashes or 8 percent), with the
remaining 14 crashes (4 percent) not involving another object. TABLE 7 identifies the
number of crashes by the objects that were first collided with.
TABLE 7 Crash Classification by Object First Collided With
Object First Collided
With
Number of
Crashes Percentage
Motor Vehicle 292 86%
Fixed Object 26 8%
Other 14 4%
Pedestrian/Bicyclist 6 2%
Animal 3 1%
Total 341 100%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Section
3.6.3 Crash Frequency
Crash frequency was calculated per year for roadway section and intersection crashes.
FIGURE 9 shows roadway sections with a crash frequency of more than one crash per
year. SR 89, between Road 3 N and Center Street had the highest section crash
frequency with more than 10 crashes per year and the intersection of SR 89 and Road 2
N had the highest intersection crash frequency with more than 10 crashes per year.
TABLE 8 identifies the primary collision manners of the crashes at these crash
frequency locations.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
20
TABLE 8 Primary Collision Manners for Locations with High Crash Frequency
Location Rear
End Angle
Sideswipe
(Same
Direction)
Single
Vehicle
Left-
Turn Other Total
Roadway Section
SR 89 between Road 3 N and Center Street 37% 22% 11% 11% 8% 11% 100%
Roadway Intersection
SR 89 and Road 2 N 45% 28% 4% 4% 11% 8% 100%
Source: ADOT Traffic Safety Section
The crashes that most frequently occurred at these locations included rear end, angle,
sideswipe (same direction), single vehicle and left turn. These five types of crashes
consisted of approximately 90 percent of the total crashes that occurred at each of the
two locations.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
21
FIGURE 9 Crash Frequency
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
22
3.7 Transit and Non-Motorized
3.7.1 Transit
At present there is no transit service offered in Chino Valley or the greater study area.
There are ongoing discussions regarding developing a regional transit system serving
the Chino Valley, Prescott, and Prescott Valley areas.
A goal of the Town of Chino Valley General Plan is that Chino Valley transportation
should be augmented by a public transit system aiding commuters within the tri-city
area. The SATS includes additional recommendations regarding transit.
There are several private companies that offer fee for service transportation in the Chino
Valley area. Long distance bus service, airport ground transportation, taxicab companies
and other private transportation modes are located in Prescott and Prescott Valley. Long
distance bus service and taxi service is available in the Town of Chino Valley.
An initiative of MoveAZ, the ADOT long-range transportation plan is the development of
public transportation and transit services. The study reports that the entire (Yavapai
County) region has an interest in mobility; however, the critical mass (population base)
has not been established in the region to justify full-scale public transportation. That is
changing as the population growth and congestion becomes an important issue that
must be addressed.
This initiative is particularly applicable to two subregions, the Sedona/Oak Creek and the
tri-city area of Chino Valley, Prescott, and Prescott Valley. The City of Sedona is
currently working with Coconino County to implement its transit system. Chino Valley is
a member of the recently formed Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CYMPO), which is looking into public transportation for the region.
3.7.2 Non-Motorized Transportation
The Town of Chino Valley’s scenic setting and mild climate are extremely conducive to
pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycling activities.
The Town currently has no designated bicycle lanes. Pedestrian sidewalks are limited to
the commercial corridor along SR 89 in central Chino Valley. The Town has one
designated equestrian trail, the Peavine Trail, located on the former Atchinson Topeka &
Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, which runs roughly parallel and east of SR 89. This
abandoned railroad right-of-way spans from the City of Prescott north to the Prescott
National Forest in Paulden. The portion of the Peavine Trail located within the Town of
Chino Valley is approximately 10 miles long.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
23
4 LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
4.1 Land Use
The Town of Chino Valley is situated in the Chino
Valley, a broad flat valley extending from Prescott
Valley to the South to Seligman to the north. The Town
is largely bordered to the east and west by National
Forest lands. The incorporated area of the Town of
Chino Valley is approximately 62 square miles.
4.1.1 Existing Land Use
The majority of the Town of Chino Valley is currently
open range land and agricultural land. Much of this land (approximately two-thirds) is
zoned for residential use. A majority of the agriculturally zoned land contains rural single-family
residential property. The densest development in the community is centered on
SR 89, with a number of master planned communities with small residential lots located
east of the commercial corridor.
4.1.2 State Trust Land
There exist approximately 4,800 acres of State Trust lands within the Town of Chino
Valley limits. The beneficiary categories for these lands include common schools, normal
schools, and county bond. Potential future classifications for these lands include low-density
residential, medium density residential, commercial/employment and open
space.
4.1.3 Future Land Use
The Town of Chino Valley 2003 General Plan includes a land use map that identifies
future land use for the town (refer to FIGURE 10).
The General Plan for the community identifies SR 89 as the primary commercial corridor
through the town, extending from Road 6 North to the Town boundary to the south. All of
the land west of this is planned for medium density residential (two acres or less); with
much of it subdivided into two to five acre lots (excluding State Land parcels). Smaller
lot developments are found east of the commercial corridor and west of the Peavine
Trail. East of the Peavine Trail is planned for largely low density residential (greater than
two acres) with large areas of State Land, flood plains, and “Special Development
Areas” which identify areas for future development opportunities (the type and timing of
which is largely dependant on future road alignments and infrastructure improvements).
The region is characterized by numerous
mountain ranges separated by several
basins including Chino Valley, shown
here. (Photo credit: Chris Murray)
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
24
Development Plans
In addition to the Town’s General Plan land use map, there are several development
plans that were considered in the development of the SATS for the purposes of
projecting population and employment. Two of these developments are large residential
subdivisions and are specifically noted here:
1. The Bright Star Subdivision consists of 391 acres with a proposed 1,200
residential dwelling units.
2. The Del Rio Springs Subdivision consists of 2,958 acres with a maximum
allowance of 3,863 residential units.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
25
FIGURE 10 Town of Chino Valley General Plan Future Land Use Map
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
26
4.2 Socioeconomic Data
Population and employment for the area derived for the SATS represent a snapshot of
the study area’s demographics for July 1, 2005. This information is used to establish a
baseline for future projections, and to calibrate the transportation model (further
discussed in Chapter 6, Transportation Plan). Data from the Central Yavapai
Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Plan – 2025 (CYMPO Plan)
concurrently under development by Yavapai County was used in developing this
baseline estimate. The CYMPO Plan information (which used 2004 as its baseline) was
further refined to account for growth and verified by the TAC. Demographic information
for the 2005 Base-year is summarized in TABLE 9.
4.2.1 Traffic Analysis Zones
Traffic analysis zones (TAZ) are areas that are generally bounded by roadway network,
political boundaries, or geographical constraints such as rail lines or major washes.
Socioeconomic data is collected by these TAZ boundaries and with the model; traffic is
generated by each land use within the TAZ, distributed, and then assigned to the
roadway network. Subsequently, using assumed 2030 projected land use data, traffic
forecasts can then be derived.
Traffic analysis zones were refined based on the regional CYMPO Transportation Study
modeling effort to ensure consistency between the transportation systems. The regional
TAZ’s were subdivided in order to provide a finer level of detail in the Chino Valley area.
The land use categories were also retained from the regional model for consistency.
The socioeconomic data was then reviewed and refined by TAZ for each of the land use
categories for 2005 and 2030 conditions.
The land use categories and socioeconomic variables are shown below. FIGURE 11
presents the TAZ structure in which the socioeconomic data was collected. A listing of
the 2005 and 2030 socioeconomic data by TAZ is provided in Appendix A.
• Population (Persons)
• Residential (Dwelling Units)
• Commercial Retail (Employees)
• Service (Employees)
• Office (Employees)
• Public Office (Employees)
• Industrial (Employees)
• Manufacturing (Employees)
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
27
FIGURE 11 Traffic Analysis Zones for the Small Area Transportation Study
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
28
4.2.2 Base Year (2005) Population and Employment Data
Population estimates for Chino Valley and the SATS area and Yavapai County are
shown in TABLE 9 Base Year Population Information of Chino Valley, the Study Area,
Surrounding Jurisdictions and Yavapai County. The project study area extends beyond
the incorporated area of the Town; population numbers for the study area differ
somewhat from the estimates for the Town.
TABLE 9 Base Year Population Information of Chino Valley, the Study Area,
Surrounding Jurisdictions and Yavapai County.
Jurisdiction 2000 2004
Estimate
2005
Estimate
Annual Compounded
Growth Rate (’00-‘05)
Chino Valley 7,835 9,5303 12,325 7.8%
Prescott 33,938 40,225 40,770 3.1%
Prescott Valley 23,535 30,590 33,575 6.1%
Study Area1 12,988 16,3312 17,041 4.6%
Yavapai County 167,517 196,720 205,105 3.4%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security (2004); U.S. Census Bureau (2000).
1The study area is the TAZ approximated with Census blocks
2This is the population derived from the CYMPO Transportation Plan - 2025
3Economy.com, Inc.
Chino Valley’s compounded annual growth rate between 2000 and 2005 was 7.8
percent, higher than the overall study area rate of 4.6 percent.
Using information obtained from the Town staff, aerial imagery, and the 2000 US
Census, information from the CYMPO Plan was used to estimate the distribution of
population and employment for the study area. The results are shown in TABLE 10. This
information is also show in FIGURES 12 through 15.
TABLE 10 Study Area Population and Employment Estimates
Population 17,041
Dwelling Units 6,501
Employment
Retail 958
Service 531
Office 243
Public Office 389
Industrial 353
Manufacturing 327
Employment Total 2,801
Source: CYMPO Transportation Plan – 2025,
amended by HDR to current conditions (July 2005)
Projections for the 2030 planning horizon anticipate a study area population of 79, 621
and an employment projection of 8,824; which translate to compounded annual growth
rates of 6.4 percent for population and 4.7 percent for employment. FIGURES 13 and 15
graphically represent the 2030 population (dwelling units) and employment, respectively.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
29
FIGURE 12 Town of Chino Valley 2005 Dwelling Unit Density.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
30
FIGURE 13 Town of Chino Valley 2030 Dwelling Unit Density.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
31
FIGURE 14 Town of Chino Valley 2005 Total Employment Density.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
32
FIGURE 15 Town of Chino Valley 2030 Total Employment Density.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
33
4.2.3 Demographics
Chino Valley and the study area do not differ substantially from the ethnic composition of
Yavapai County as a whole. It is worth noting that Yavapai County has a significantly
lower minority population than the state of Arizona, as shown in Table 11.
TABLE 11 Minority Population within the Study Area, Chino Valley and Affected
Jurisdictions
Chino
Valley
Study
Area
Yavapai
County Arizona
Total Population1 7,835 13,716 167,517 5,130,632
Minority Populations 12.4% 13.9% 13.4% 36.2%
Hispanic or Latino 9.8% 8.1% 9.8% 25.3%
Black or African American 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 2.9%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 4.5%
Asian 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 1.7%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Some Other Race 0.1% 2.5% 0.1% 0.1%
More than One Race 1.3% 1.8% 1.3% 1.5%
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security (2000); U.S. Census Bureau (2000).
1Based on US Census Table P4: Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race
In addition to minority populations the following populations were identified to consider
the affect of transportation projects on them. TABLE 12 shows that the percentage of
each of these populations in the study area is consistent with that of Yavapai County
overall.
Table 12 Environmental Justice Populations within the Study Area, Chino Valley and
Affected Jurisdictions
Chino
Valley
Study
Area
Yavapai
County
Arizona
2000 Census Population1 7,835 13,716 167,517 5,130,632
Poverty 15.5% 13.6% 11.9% 13.9%
Age 65 and Older 16.2% 15.5% 22.0% 13.0%
Female Head of Household 6.5% 5.3% 4.8% 6.8%
Disability 20.8% 15.2% 19.6% 16.6%
Vehicle Availability 4.7% 3.0% 4.8% 7.4%
Source: State, county, and city figures are from the Arizona Department of Economic Security (2000);
U.S. Census Bureau (2000).
TThe 2000 Census remains the most current and comprehensive source of demographic data available.
When appropriate and available, other more recent socioeconomic information is cited. Table 9 shows
2005 population estimates for Chino Valley and surrounding areas
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
34
The age of residents plays an important role in the transportation needs of a community.
School children rely on others to meet their transportation needs beyond the range of
walking and bicycling. When they are bicycling and walking, they are invariably doing so
along rural roads without sidewalks and bicycle lanes. While elderly adults often have
access to automobiles, high traffic routes present a separate set of challenges. In
addition, retirees might opt for transit if such options were available.
There are several areas of Chino Valley where the percentage of school age children
(Age 17 and under) is high. The discussion concerning student safety on Road 2 North
was raised in 2004 by the Chino Valley School District Board. Concerns discussed
included the number of students and peak times for students traveling by foot and
bicycle on Road 2 North. One suggestion was to re-route students to Perkinsville Road
and down Road 1 West where there is a pedestrian/bike trail already. Busing was
another option that was discussed. A recommendation of the SATS is to consider
developing a Safe Routes to School program to address the need for identifying safe,
non-vehicular routes to the Town’s schools and other youth destinations (parks and
recreation facilities).
EPA defines Environmental Justice (EJ) as the "fair treatment for people of all races,
cultures, and incomes, regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations,
and policies." There are three fundamental environmental justice principles: avoid,
minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations
and low-income populations; ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially
affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; and, prevent the
denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low-income
populations.
The Chino Valley SATS project would benefit all socioeconomic groups within the study
area equally. The recommendations for improved local and regional mobility described in
the SATS improve roadway level fostering economic development and increasing
opportunities for local employment. In addition, the recommendations for transit and
conceptual trails plan provide for alternative modes of travel which would directly benefit
low-income residents. Implementation of transit and a trails system has the advantage of
benefiting all residents by reducing roadway congestion and offering options for both
non-driving residents (e.g., children and the elderly) and those who would prefer to use
alternative modes.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
35
5 YEAR 2030 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
CONDITIONS
5.1 Traffic Demand
A travel demand model for the Chino Valley area was developed to evaluate the long-range
traffic impacts based on anticipated land use and development. The
transportation planning model is a representation of the study area roadway facilities and
the travel patterns associated with these facilities. The Chino Valley model was
developed with the most recent release of TransCAD 4.8 travel demand software
program.
The Chino Valley model accounts for not only land use development within the Town but
also the traffic impacts from the surrounding area. Coordination with the CYMPO
Transportation Study was critical to ensure consistency between the regional system
and Chino Valley. Incorporated into the Chino Valley model is the CYMPO regional
planning model, used to determine the number of trips that travel to/from and also
through Chino Valley.
The model base year is reflective of 2005 daily traffic conditions. Traffic forecasts were
then derived based on a year 2030 planning horizon. The following describes the model
process and 2030 traffic forecasts.
5.1.1 Travel Demand Modeling Process
The transportation planning model utilizes socioeconomic data to estimate the roadway
system travel demand and represent the transportation network. Together with the
socioeconomic data, simulated roadway network, and other mathematical travel
parameters, the model is calibrated and validated to replicate the base year travel
patterns, making it possible to project future traffic flow.
Before traffic forecasts can be derived, the 2005 base year model was calibrated and
validated to simulate existing travel patterns and traffic flow on the roadway network.
Model data collected for this time period includes socioeconomic data, traffic counts, and
other roadway network data such as number of lanes, roadway capacity, and speeds.
The transportation model was calibrated and validated to existing conditions against
traffic counts. This was accomplished by comparing the estimated model traffic volumes
against the ground counts to ensure the model’s ability to replicate reasonable traffic
conditions. The model was considered validated based on a number of performance
measures including root mean square error, coefficient of determination, and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines for allowable errors.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
36
5.2 2030 Traffic Forecast
Traffic forecasts were developed for the 2030 horizon year, incorporating projected
socioeconomic growth and roadway network improvements projected for that planning
horizon. This horizon year was chosen to provide 1) a 25-year long-range forecast and
2) to be consistent with the 2030 CYMPO long-range plan.
The CYMPO Regional model was utilized in developing the Town’s 2030 forecasts. In
addition to the land use and socioeconomic forecast assumptions as described in
Chapter 4, the regional model was used to develop the amount of external traffic that
would influence travel within and through the Town’s study area. For example, the
amount of vehicle trips that would be using the new Glassford Hill extension to the south
and Center Street to the west was incorporated from the regional model into the Town’s
transportation model.
A 2030 Base horizon year condition was created including projected land use,
socioeconomic data, funded local roadway improvements, and recommended CYMPO
regional roadway network improvements. This 2030 Base is reflective of a no-build
condition without additional local street facilities. The 2030 Base included the following
regional improvements:
• SR 89 widened (6-Lanes) south of Center Street to the southern study limits.
• SR 89 widened (4-Lanes) north of Road 3 N to the Chino Valley extension.
• Chino Valley extension (4-Lanes) to SR 89.
• Glassford Hill extension (6-Lane) on the Road 4 S alignment east of SR 89.
• Outer Loop Road widened (4-Lanes) west of SR 89 to the western study limits.
• Center Street extension (4-Lanes) west of Reed Road to the western study limits
(Williamson Valley)
FIGURE 16 illustrates the 2030 Base daily traffic forecasts and corresponding roadway
level of service.
A 2030 Recommended model forecast was then developed which was based on the
2030 Base condition. This included the regional roadway improvements in addition to
localized roadway facilities. These include providing street continuity with the east-west
and north-south facilities and a continuous outer loop road. The 2030 Recommended
daily traffic forecasts and level of service are shown on FIGURE 17.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
37
FIGURE 16 2030 Base Daily Traffic and Level of Service
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
38
FIGURE 17 2030 Recommended Daily Model Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
39
6 YEAR 2030 TRANSPORTATION PLAN
6.1 Roadway Plan
6.1.1 Roadway Framework Plan
Successful long-range transportation plans and economic development are predicated
on the considered interaction between roadway infrastructure and land use, as well as
the role of alternative modes including transit and multi-use trail systems.
A Roadway Framework for future roadway facilities is based on planned regional roadways,
mobility, forecasted roadway deficiencies, access to planned land uses, integration with the
other travel modes and provides for continuity of the existing street network.
This Chino Valley Roadway Framework is based on the currently adopted land use plan,
approved development plans, and regional land use allocation assumptions. This
includes a number of known factors: approved development plans including the Del Rio
and Bright Star developments; and, planned regional roadway projects. Major regional
roadway improvement assumptions include the Glassford Hill extension (the Town has
discussed both Road 4 South and one mile further south as possible alignments),
widening of SR 89, extension of Center Street west to provide additional connectivity
with the Williamson Valley area, the Chino Valley extension, and widening of Outer Loop
Road. Figure 18 shows the recommended year 2030 Roadway Framework.
The need to update the General Plan land use was recognized during the development
of the forecast land use allocations. This update will likely consider changes to
employment land use (now focused primarily along SR 89) and high-density residential
land use to locations that help to achieve the Town’s long range plan. Additional
changes include revising western area projections to reflect existing platting and
development patterns; and addressing the higher then currently planned residential
density likely for the eastern area. Such changes would directly impact the forecasted
traffic flow volumes and travel patterns.
When the General Plan is updated, the local and regional roadway improvements that
are identified in the SATS will have a significant influence on the updated land uses. It is
recommended that the SATS be updated subsequent to the General Plan update.
6.1.2 Roadway Functional Classification
Roadway functional classification is based on a grouping of classes, or systems,
according to the character of the service they are intended to provide. The primary
purpose of functional classification is to ensure that the system adequately provides
mobility, access to adjacent land, and continuity of the street system. The classification
system defines the roadway type by function and right-of-way needs.
At such time as functional standards and a roadway functional classification system is
adopted for the Town of Chino Valley, the existing roadway network should be assessed
to determine what improvements may be needed to bring the roads up to these
standards.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
40
FIGURE 18 2030 Roadway Framework
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
41
6.1.3 Truck Route System
The movement of goods and delivery of services is critical to the economic well being for
Chino Valley. This movement of goods, or freight, through the Town can create negative
impacts including road damage, noise, pollution, and traffic operations. Designating
truck routes helps assure that trucks travel on roadway facilities designed for heavy
loads and to minimize noise impacts to residents. It is also important that the truck
system is compatible with adjacent land uses. FIGURE 19 illustrates the designated
truck route system.
Truck traffic on local streets shall be discouraged by posting sidestreets with truck
access restrictions such as roadway weight limits or truck length restrictions.
6.2 Transit Element
The transit element is one component of the Chino Valley Small Area Transportation
Study (SATS). Much like the other communities in central Yavapai County, the Town of
Chino Valley is experiencing rapid population growth that is transforming this rural
community. With this growth comes a number of challenges, including the ability to
provide transit service that is part of a multi-modal transportation system. This section
will address how Chino Valley can provide a transit network that balances local and
regional needs while fitting into an overall long range (2030) transportation system.
Forecasted growth and development, decreased land availability to construct new
transportation corridors, and anticipated increases in transit-dependent populations
make it evident that alternative transportation strategies are needed to provide a
transportation system that effectively serves the residents of Chino Valley. The goal of
the transit element is to develop information in sufficient detail so that citizens, elected
officials, agency staff, and other study participants can make informed decisions on the
appropriate level of future transit investments in Chino Valley.
6.2.1 Transit Technologies
Currently, there is no existing transit service in Chino Valley. A variety of transit
technologies, which range from demand response bus service to fixed-route bus service,
could be incorporated into the 2030 transit network. The following provides a brief
definition each transit technology.
Paratransit
Paratransit is a form of demand response bus service does not follow a specific route
but rather picks up and drops off at specific destinations by request. It is often used in
rural communities that do not have the population density to support fixed route bus
service. It is also used in urban areas to provide transportation for passengers unable to
access traditional fixed route bus service, such as seniors and passengers with
disabilities. The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that complementary
paratransit service be provided in all areas within three-fourths of a mile of fixed route
bus service.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
42
FIGURE 19 2030 Recommended Truck Route
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
43
Local Bus
Local bus is the most common form of bus service. It uses standard size transit vehicles
(usually 40-foot buses) and is generally characterized by buses operating along major
streets. The buses make frequent stops and typically serve areas with the highest
population density. Local bus stops often include passenger amenities such as shelters
and seating.
Regional Bus
Regional bus is a form of express bus service that provides direct connections between
cities within a geographic area. It can also operate as commuter service during the peak
hour and connect outlying areas with central business districts. Regional bus routes
usually operate as point-to-point service with fewer stops. When appropriate,
consideration of a transfer station in the central part of Town should be made.
Neighborhood Circulators
Neighborhood circulators are a form of fixed route bus service that focus on serving a
common geographic area with frequent, all-day service. The buses are small and
enable passengers to connect to a wider transit network from residential neighborhoods
and activity centers. Neighborhood circulators vary in how they pick up and drop off
passengers; some serve specific bus stops only while others can be waved down by
passengers anywhere along the route.
6.2.2 Transit Improvement Options
Transit improvement options for the Chino Valley SATS are described below and
correlate to the 2030 transportation system. These improvements will need to be
phased over time based on need and available funding. The future transit improvements
in Chino Valley are characterized by the following types of transit service:
• Paratransit service that provides demand response bus service within Chino
Valley
• Local bus service that primarily operates on major streets within Chino Valley
• Regional bus service that connects to Prescott, Prescott Valley, and central
Yavapai County
• Neighborhood circulators that serve specific geographic areas within Chino
Valley
The Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization (CYMPO) is currently
conducting a Regional Transit Planning Study that is addressing existing and future
needs through 2015. The CYMPO Regional Transit Planning Study will be the primary
document for addressing regional transit improvements. The transit element of the
Chino Valley SATS will address regional connections in terms of how they specifically
relate to Chino Valley.
Paratransit
The 2030 transit network assumes there will be fixed route bus service in place so the
primary purpose of paratransit will be to provide transportation for passengers unable to
access traditional fixed route bus service, such as seniors and passengers with
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
44
disabilities. Paratransit in Chino Valley will need to be expanded in conjunction with
fixed route transit improvements. ADA requires that complementary paratransit service
be provided in all areas with three-fourths of a mile of fixed route transit service. For the
purpose of the Chino Valley SATS, it is assumed there will be paratransit coverage
throughout the town limits. Paratransit may serve more of a role in the short term prior
to the implementation of fixed route bus service.
Local Bus
Future local bus service focuses on establishing a grid of transit service within Chino
Valley. The goal is to meet the regional standard of service which will be identified in the
CYMPO Regional Transit Planning Study. For the purposes of the Chino Valley SATS, it
is recommended that local bus service operate every 15 minutes in the peak and 30
minutes in the off-peak from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Future local bus improvements are
constrained by the by the future roadway network. The future local bus network for
Chino Valley is described below:
• SR 89 Route: This is the primary local bus route through Chino Valley that will
travel the length of the corridor through town from the Del Rio community to
Road 4 S. The SR 89 route will serve designated bus stops located
approximately 1/8 to 1/4 mile apart. Every other trip along this route will continue
as regional service to Prescott, Prescott Valley, and central Yavapai County.
This regional route is discussed in the next section.
• Loop Route: This is a loop route that serves the perimeter of town and operates
on Road 3 N, Perkinsville Road, Center Street, Road 1 E, Road 4 S, Road 2 S,
and Reed Road. This route will connect with all other bus service at SR 89 and
Road 3 N and again with the SR 89 routes (local and regional) at Road 3 S and
Road 4 S.
Regional Bus
Future regional bus service will include a connection to Prescott, Prescott Valley, and
central Yavapai County. Similar to the local bus improvements, the goal is to meet the
regional standard of service which will be identified in the CYMPO Regional Transit
Planning Study. For the purposes of the Chino Valley SATS, it is recommended that
regional bus service operate every 30 minutes in the peak and 60 minutes in the off-peak
from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The future regional bus network for Chino Valley includes
the regional bus route described below:
• SR 89 Route: This route will connect with Prescott, Prescott Valley, and central
Yavapai County via SR 89. It will be an extension of the local SR 89 local bus
route that operates through Chino Valley. Every other SR 89 local bus trip will
continue south as regional service. The routing south of Road 4 S will be
determined in subsequent regional transit planning efforts.
Neighborhood Circulator
The 2030 transit network includes a neighborhood circulator that the serves areas to the
east and west of SR 89. The neighborhood circulator emphasizes coverage as opposed
to travel time, and will be refined based on future growth patterns. Frequency is the key
to neighborhood circulators so it is recommended the route operate with 15 minute
frequency from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The implementation of the neighborhood circulator will
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
45
be dependent on a number of factors, including connections to local and regional bus
service and the future roadway network. The neighborhood circulator is described
below:
• Neighborhood Circulator: This route will connect the central business district
along SR 89 with important destinations to the east and west, including the Chino
Valley civic facilities, Chino Valley High School, and the Chino Valley recreation
center. This route will serve addition commercial and residential areas along
Road 3 N, Road 1 W, Road 1 E, Center Street, and Road 2 N.
Transit Facilities
Transit facilities for the 2030 transit network focus on bus stops. These facilities include
bus shelters and corresponding passenger amenities (seating, trash receptacles, bicycle
racks, and other amenities) that enhance the safety and comfort of transit patrons.
Special consideration should be given to improving passenger amenities high transfer
locations where multiple bus routes converge. As service and ridership increase, new
amenities such as electronic display boards and real-time passenger information should
be introduced. Bus bays should also be considered at some bus stop locations,
specifically along SR 89.
The 2030 transit network should include a transit center to provide a central transfer
point between bus services in Chino Valley. It can be assumed that this facility should
be located along SR 89 near Road 3 N. This location is the intersection point for the SR
89 Route (local and regional), the Loop Route, and the Neighborhood Circulator. The
transit center should be developed to include the following amenities:
• Bus bays
• Bus loading platform
• Shelters and seating
• Bicycle and pedestrian access
• Bicycle storage
• Ticket sales and information
• Restrooms
• Landscaping and lighting
• Opportunities for joint
development
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
46
6.2.3 Summary
The transit element of the 2030 transportation system for the Chino Valley SATS is
summarized in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 19.
Table 13 2030 Transit Network
Route Improvement
Headway
(Peak/Off-Peak)
Local Bus
SR 89 Local Local bus route on SR 89 between Del Rio community
and Road 4 S. Every other trip will continue as regional
service to Prescott, Prescott Valley, and central Yavapai
County.
15/30
Loop Route Loop route serving the perimeter of town, including
Road 3 N, Perkinsville Road, Center Street, Road 1 E,
Road 4 S, Road 2 S, and Reed Road. Connects with all
other bus service at SR 89 and Road 3 N and again with
the SR 89 route (local and regional) at Road 3 S and
Road 4 S.
15/30
Regional Bus
SR 89 Regional Regional route that will connect with Prescott, Prescott
Valley, and central Yavapai County via SR 89. It will be
an extension of the local SR 89 local bus route (every
other SR 89 local bus trip will continue south as regional
service).
30/60
Neighborhood Circulator
Neighborhood
Circulator
Neighborhood circulator connecting the central business
district along SR 89 with destinations to the east and
west, including the Chino Valley civic facilities, Chino
Valley High School, and the Chino Valley recreation
center. This route will serve addition commercial and
residential areas along Road 3 N, Road 1 W, Road 1 E,
Center Street, and Road 2 N.
15
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
47
FIGURE 20 2030 Transit Network
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
48
6.3 Non-Motorized Transportation
The Town of Chino Valley’s scenic setting and mild
climate are extremely conducive to pedestrian,
equestrian, and bicycling. Non-motorized
transportation is not limited to walking or bicycling.
Other modes include wheelchairs, horses,
skateboards, scooters, and skates. In addition, new
technologies are emerging (such as the Segway) and
the Town should continue to explore how these
emerging trends can be accommodated on existing
facilities or explore the feasibility of developing new
facilities for them.
Several of the roadway functional classifications
currently being considered by the Town of Chino Valley
include sidewalks and or shared-use pathways
(i.e. “trails”). The inclusion of non-motorized routes in
the Town is increasingly important as development occurs to lessen on road conflicts
and to ensure that pedestrians, bicycles and other non-motorized modes are
accommodated.
In addition to sidewalks, development of a non-motorized transportation system in Chino
Valley should include several other types of trails:
• Multi-purpose Paved Trail – to connect pedestrian use areas, designed for high
traffic and good accessibility
• Multi-purpose Unpaved Trail – for medium-traffic, compacted crushed rock
(gravel) surface
• Limited Purpose Unpaved Trail – for low traffic path, surfaced with compacted
crushed rock (gravel) or other material, as appropriate
Bicycles are an important component of the non-motorized transportation system. Some
of the bicycle conflicts currently being reported in the Town occur due to their use on
streets with inadequate right-of-way for bicycles and motor vehicles. To alleviate this
conflict, three types of bicycle facilities should be considered in the Town:
• Shared Use Trail – a facility that is separated from a roadway and intended for
shared use by pedestrians, equestrians, and cyclists. The Chino Valley SATS
identifies two types of shared use pathways, paved trails and multi-purpose
unpaved trails.
The improved section of the Peavine Trail is an example of a shared use
unpaved trail.
The Peavine Trail, a multi-modal trail that
runs north-south through the Town serves
as the central spine of the non-motorized
trail system.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
49
• Bike Lane – a portion of a roadway designated for the exclusive use of cyclists by
signs and pavement markings.
A bike lane is recommended along Perkinsville Road, due to the regional nature
of Old Home Manor and the use of the route by touring cyclists.
• Shared Roadway – lower traffic volume and slower speed residential street
designated for non-motorized transportation use that does not have pavement
markings or signage. Many of the rural roads in Chino Valley serving as local
streets are appropriate for shared roadway designation.
A recommended route for a signed shared roadway is Road 1 East between
Road 3 South and Road 4 North, alleviating bicycle traffic from SR 89.
A recommendation of the SATS is to “develop a trails master plan that identifies and
specifies a system of on and off-street trails that circumnavigate the Town and connect
to local destinations (such as schools and parks) and regional open space amenities.”
The SATS 2030 Conceptual Trails Plan, creates a framework to begin a non-motorized
system of trails (refer to FIGURE 20).
6.3.1 Peavine Trail
The Peavine Trail is the Town’s one designated multi-purpose trail. Located on the
former Atchinson Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, which runs roughly parallel
to SR 89, this abandoned railroad right-of-way spans from the City of Prescott north to
the Prescott National Forest in Paulden. The portion of the Peavine Trail located within
the Town of Chino Valley is approximately 10 miles long.
The Peavine Trail provides a central spine to a future non-motorized transportation
system that links all areas of the community to local and regional destinations. The
Conceptual Trails Plan shows the
6.3.2 Recommended Standards for Trails
Until such time as a trails master plan is developed for the Town, it is recommended that
in the interim trails built or dedicated to the Town meet minimum standards. Suggested
guidelines are provided below.
Multi-purpose Trail (Paved or Unpaved)
A Shared Use Path is a trail physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic for the
principal use of bicycles and pedestrians. The minimum width is 12 feet. The shoulders
should be a minimum of two feet and graded as close to two percent as possible.
Separation between Shared Use Paths and adjacent roads should be a minimum of five
feet. If this separation cannot be achieved, the path must include a physical divider such
as a concrete barrier, fence, or a hedge. Specific dimensions for such barriers are
described in the AASHTO guide. Steeper grades of 5 - 10 percent can be tolerated for
short segments up to approximately 500 feet. A cross slope of two percent is
recommended for proper drainage.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
50
Bike Lanes
A Bike lane is a portion of a roadway that is designated with signs and/or pavement
markings for the preferential use of cyclist. Bike lanes are one-way facilities only and are
designed with or without adjacent parking along the road. The more desirable
configuration is to have the bike lane without parking, eliminating potential conflicts (e.g.,
opening car doors). In either case, the bike lane width should be 5 feet at a minimum.
Four-inch wide solid white foglines should be used along the traffic and parking sides of
the lane and bike lane symbols should be stenciled on the pavement every 200 to 300
feet.
Signed Shared Roadways
A signed shared roadway (sometimes referred to as bicycle route) is a roadway shared
by bicycles and motor vehicles with a wide shared curb lane or paved shoulder and
signage designating the roadway as an appropriate route for comfortable bicycling.
Signed shared roadways serve either to provide continuity to other bicycle facilities or to
designate preferred routes through high bicycle-demand corridors. As with bike lanes,
designation of these routes is an indication to cyclists that there are particular
advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes.
Shared Roadways
A shared roadway is an unmarked, unsigned street that is fully adequate for safe and
efficient bicycle travel. Signing and striping on these bikeways are considered
unnecessary due to low traffic volumes and speeds, good sight distance, and adequate
roadway width.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
51
FIGURE 21 2030 Conceptual Trails Plan
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
52
7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Based on the recommended improvements identified in Chapter 6 - Transportation Plan,
cost estimates, funding plan, and an action plan were developed for the 2030 long-range
transportation plan. In addition, information is provided on access management
guidelines and traffic impact procedures.
7.1 Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were developed for the various projects. These costs should be used
only for planning and programming purposes and do not include costs related to
acquisition of right-of-way. Additionally, these estimates are for new or widened
roadway facilities and do not include the costs for upgrading existing roads to current
design standards. Table 14 presents the cost estimates for each of the projects. Listed
below are the assumed unit costs (2006-dollars) that area based on the latest ADOT bid
tabulations. It is emphasized that these estimates are reported in 2006-dollars and do
not include items such as traffic signals, municipal utilities (sanitary sewer or water line)
and roadway enhancements (landscaping) as they can vary for each project. ADOT has
been experiencing approximately 30 percent annual cost increases for construction over
the past several years.
• One mile widening of 2-Lane to 4-Lane: $4,000,000
• One mile widening of 4-Lane to 6-Lane: $4,500,000
• One mile new construction of 2-Lane: $2,500,000
• One mile new construction of 4-Lane: $3,400,000
• One mile new construction of 6-Lane: $4,900,000
The projects are listed by item number in TABLE 14 and are also identified on FIGURE
21.
Table 14 2030 Transportation Improvement Program Cost Estimates (2006-Dollars)
Item
Number Location
Improvement
Type
Length
(miles)
Cost
(millions)
Responsible
Agency
1 SR 89 between Center St and
southern study limits Widen 6-Lane 5.0 $22.5 ADOT
2 SR 89 between Road 3 N and
Chino Valley Extension Widen 4-Lane 4.7 $18.8 ADOT
3 Glassford Hill Extension between
SR 89 and southern study limits Construct 6-Lane 5.6 $27.4
Yavapai
County/Chino
Valley
4 Chino Valley Extension between
SR 89 and Glassford Hill Extension Construct 4-Lane 11.5 $39.1
Yavapai
County/Chino
Valley
5 Yuma Rd between Outer Loop and
SR 89 Construct 2-Lane 11.3 $28.3
Yavapai
County/Chino
Valley
6
M.A. Perkins Rd between
Glassford Hill Extension and Chino
Valley Extension
Construct 2-Lane 8.5 $21.3
Yavapai
County/Chino
Valley
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
53
Item
Number Location
Improvement
Type
Length
(miles)
Cost
(millions)
Responsible
Agency
7 Outer Loop Road between SR 89
and western study limits Widen 4-Lane 4.5 $18.0
Yavapai
County/Chino
Valley
8 Center St between Reed Road and
western study limits Construct 4-Lane 2.0 $6.8 Yavapai
County
9 Reed Road Extension between
Road 5 N and Yuma Rd Construct 2-Lane 2.2 $5.5
Yavapai
County/Chino
Valley
10 Del Rio Connection to Reed Road
Extension Construct 2-Lane 0.7 $1.8 Chino Valley
11 Del Rio Connection to Road 5 N Construct 2-Lane 0.3 $0.8 Chino Valley
12 Eastern Del Rio Connection to
M.A. Perkins Extension Construct 2-Lane 1.0 $2.5 Yavapai
County
13 Eastern Del Rio Connection to
Road 5 N Construct 2-Lane 1.0 $2.5 Yavapai
County
14 Road 5 N between SR 89 and
Chino Valley Extension Construct 2-Lane 3.2 $8.0
Yavapai
County/Chino
Valley
15 Road 4 N between Arizona Trail
and Chino Valley Extension Construct 2-Lane 1.5 $3.8 Chino Valley
16 Road 3 N between Road 1 E and
Perkinsville Rd Construct 2-Lane 1.5 $3.8 Chino Valley
17 Road 2 N between Mohave Rd and
Chino Valley Extension Construct 2-Lane 2.0 $5.0 Chino Valley
18 Center St between Road 1 E and
Chino Valley Extension Construct 2-Lane 3.2 $8.0 Chino Valley
19 Road 2 S between Liana Dr and
Chino Valley Extension Construct 2-Lane 2.2 $5.5 Chino Valley
20 Road 5 N between Reed Rd and
Yuma Dr Construct 2-Lane 1.0 $2.5 Yavapai
County
21 Road 4 N between Reed Rd and
Yuma Dr Construct 2-Lane 1.0 $2.5 Yavapai
County
22 Road 3 N between Reed Rd and
Yuma Dr Construct 2-Lane 1.0 $2.5 Yavapai
County
23 Road 2 N between Reed Rd and
Yuma Dr Construct 2-Lane 1.0 $2.5 Yavapai
County
24 Road 2 S between Reed Rd and
Yuma Dr Construct 2-Lane 1.0 $2.5 Yavapai
County
Total $241.6
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
54
FIGURE 22 2030 Project Identification Number
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
55
7.2 Funding Plan
Development of the recommended multi-modal plan necessitates a challenge with the
current roadway infrastructure and anticipated planned growth. New development on
the existing roadway system will require an increased funding to maintain and upgrade
current facilities to new design standards.
7.2.1 Revenue Sources
The following section describes and summarizes the revenue sources that are currently
available for funding transportation projects, including public transportation. It should be
noted that in the current environment the funding of significant transportation projects is
complex and in most cases requires multiple sources. Also, transportation funding is
dynamic and there is a need to continuously monitor the existing sources and new
sources that may become available as state and federal legislation changes. Innovation
has become the mainstay of successful transportation funding.
Local/Regional
Development Impact Fees
The Town of Chino Valley currently has a Roads Impact Fee for both residential and
commercial development. Development impact fees are one time payments for public
facilities based on a pro-rata share of costs incurred for facilities needed to
accommodate new development. Development fees relate to only capital facility
expansions benefiting new development and are not to be utilized for rehabilitation
efforts or operating expenses.
County Regional Area Road Fund
Yavapai County currently levies a county transportation excise tax for roads. State law
currently allows counties with population of four hundred thousand or less to impose a
transportation excise tax with approval of a majority of the qualified electors voting at a
countywide special election, or a majority of the qualified electors voting on the ballot
proposition at a general election. The net revenues collected under this section within a
county shall be deposited in the county's regional area road fund. Funds shall be
distributed from the monies in the county's regional area road fund to the individual
county and to the individual cities and towns in the county in the manner that is
determined by the board of supervisors. The jurisdiction receiving the revenues may
only use the revenues for street and highway purposes or for transportation projects
included in the regional transportation plan of the county as prepared by the county
regional planning agency.
Bonding
The issuance of bonds against town revenues can be used to accelerate project
construction. While not a direct funding source, bonding can be used to mitigate the
immediate impacts of significant capital improvement projects and spread the costs over
the useful life of the project. Though interest costs are incurred, the judicious use of
debt financing can serve not only as a practical means of funding major improvements,
but is also viewed as an equitable funding strategy, spreading the burden of repayment
over existing and future citizens and businesses that will benefit from the projects.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
56
Improvement Districts
Improvement districts are authorized by the state legislature for the construction of a
wide range of public works facilities. They are formed to fund repaving projects,
construction of roadways or sidewalks, installation of landscaping and other public
improvements within a defined geographic area. The districts are initiated by property
owners who combine resources with the town to finance the improvements. Property
owners are assessed over a several year time frame to repay their share of the cost of
the improvement.
State Funds
Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF)
HURF represents the most significant source of transportation funds in the state of
Arizona. Funds are derived primarily from motor vehicle fuel taxes and vehicle license
taxes. HURF funds are shared with and allocated through ADOT and distributed as an
entitlement to cities, towns and counties based on population.
Highway Extension Expansion and Loan Program (HELP)
HB 2488, enacted into law on August 21, 1998, established a comprehensive loan and
financial assistance program for eligible highway projects in Arizona. The program
designated as Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program or HELP provides the
state and communities in Arizona a new financing mechanism to stretch limited
transportation dollars and bridge the gap between the needs and available revenues.
The HELP Program provides the state and its communities with an innovative financing
mechanism to accelerate the funding of road construction projects and has proven to be
a significant tool for financing the construction of highway projects throughout the State.
Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA)
The Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) was created by the Arizona State
Legislature to assist local and tribal governments and special districts with the
development of public infrastructure. GADA leverages its funds to lower the costs of
financing and help accelerate project development for public facilities owned, operated
and maintained by a political subdivision, special district or Indian tribe. GADA has both
financial and technical assistance programs
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LATF)
LTAF I
LTAF 1 is funded from state lottery proceeds up to $23 million per year and the funds
are distributed to cities and towns on the basis of population. The funds can be used for
public transportation and transportation purposes depending on the jurisdiction's
population.
LTAF II
The 1998 Legislature passed HB 2565 to provide additional statewide transit and
transportation funding to incorporated cities and towns as well as the counties. In 2000,
additional legislation was passed making the use of LTAF II funds “transit use only”
(public transportation sponsored by a local government entity or special needs
transportation) for jurisdictions allocated more than $2,500. The LTAF II funding is in the
form of multi-state lottery game and instant bingo game monies along with a portion of
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
57
the State Highway Fund's Vehicle License Tax monies. The Arizona Department of
Transportation administers the LTAF II and the State Treasurer's Office distributes the
funds to the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), and cities, towns and counties not represented by a RPTA or
MPO.
Federal Funds
On August 6, 2005 the six year, $286.4 billion, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient,
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the largest investment in
surface transportation in the nation’s history was signed into law. This act provides
numerous ways for local government to fund transportation including non-motorized as
well as roads and public transportation.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Funds
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that may be used by
States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the National
Highway System, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intra-city
and intercity bus terminals and facilities.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The purpose of the program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads. Each State's apportionment of HSIP funds is subject
to a set aside for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads.
High-risk rural roads are roadways functionally classified as rural major or minor
collectors or rural local roads with a fatality and incapacitating injury crash rate above the
statewide average for those functional classes of roadways; or likely to experience an
increase in traffic volume that leads to a crash rate in excess of the average statewide
rate.
Bridge Program (BR)
Provides funding for replacement of a structurally deficient or functionally obsolete
highway bridge or rehabilitate the structural integrity of a bridge.
Railway-Highway Crossings
The program purpose is to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at public highway-rail
grade crossings through the elimination of hazards and/or the installation/upgrade of
protective devices at crossings.
National Highway System (NHS) Program
The program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of
the NHS, including the Interstate System and designated connections to major
intermodal terminals. Under certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund
transit improvements in NHS corridors.
Safe Routes to School Program
The program purpose is to enable and encourage children, including those with
disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
58
and more appealing; and to facilitate the planning, development and implementation of
projects that will improve safety, and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in
the vicinity of schools.
Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (TCSP)
The TCSP Program is intended to address the relationships among transportation,
community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector-based
initiatives to improve those relationships.
Transportation Enhancement Program (TE)
Program purpose is to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of
the nation's intermodal transportation system. Funding is derived from a set-aside from
the state’s annual STP apportionment. The program provides funding for facilities such
as pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths, acquisition of scenic easements, restoration
of scenic or historic sites, landscaping and other scenic beautification.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funding
Section 5311 (Transit)
This program provides funds to support costs associated with transportation in non-urbanized
areas. Funds are allocated to each state on a formula basis and then the
state allocates to eligible recipients, that include public bodies and private, non-profit
organizations. Both capital and operating costs are eligible expenses.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
59
7.3 Action Plan
The following action items have been identified through the SATS process. Items are
identified as “short-term” (0-5 years), “medium-term” (5-10 years), or “long-term” (10+
years). TABLE 15 summarizes the Action Plan and responsible agency.
Table 15 Action Plan
ACTION ENTITY
SHORT TERM (0-5 Years)
Widen and improve Highway 89 from Center Street south to the town
limits
ADOT
Widen and improve Highway 89 from Road 3 North, north to the Chino
Valley Extension.
(note: the time frame for this action item may change as warranted by Del Rio
development activity)
ADOT
Develop and adopt street standards for all street classifications
throughout the town and a roadway functional classification system.
Town of Chino Valley
Plan to construct a major 4 lane highway connector from the Glassford
Hill Road to Highway 89; Chino Valley Extension (Design Concept
Report).
Yavapai County/Town of
Chino Valley
Ensure the dedication of the necessary streets right-of-way to
coordinate with the Town’s minimum right-of-way dedication standards.
Town of Chino Valley
Update the Town’s General Plan with a revised Circulation Element. Town of Chino Valley
Monitor and update the Transportation Plan as necessary to reflect
General Plan revisions.
Town of Chino Valley
Continue to develop a 5-year capital improvements budgeting program
with yearly increments for major street improvements coordinated with
the adopted major street master plan.
Town of Chino Valley
MEDIUM TERM (5-10 Years)
Continue to improve the Peavine Trail for equestrian, bicycle and
pedestrian travel.
Town of Chino Valley
Develop a trails master plan that incorporates design standards. Town of Chino Valley
Act on the recommendations that come out of the regional transit
master plan study (in progress).
Town of Chino Valley
Conduct a “downtown” circulation study. Town of Chino Valley
LONG TERM (10+ Years)
Plan to construct the Center Street connection to Williamson Valley
(Design Concept Report).
Yavapai County/Town of
Chino Valley
Work with the City of Prescott, Prescott Valley, and Yavapai County to
develop a regional air transportation study.
Town of Chino Valley
(and others)
7.4 Access Management Guidelines
7.4.1 Purpose
Access management is the systematic control, location, spacing, design, and operation
of: driveways and street connections, medians, median openings, turn lanes, traffic
signals, and interchanges. The purpose is to provide (or improve upon the existing)
access to land development while at the same time preserving the ever-constant flow of
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
60
traffic on surrounding roadways; keeping crucial factors such as speed, safety and
capacity needs, in mind. ADOT defines access management as the control of the
location and design of all vehicular approaches to the state highway system including
driveways and public and private roads. This control includes the option to deny a direct
highway connection when it is appropriate.
In ADOT’s Prescott District, the Access Management Plan is to have all state highways
designated with classifications.
7.4.2 Key Category Access Factors
• Intersection Spacing
• Traffic Signal Spacing
• Allowing direct access or require to obtain alternative access
• Proof of access necessity
• Scope of access improvement, such as requiring auxiliary lanes, (deceleration and
acceleration lanes)
• Defining the levels of allowable access and spacing for different kinds of roads.
• Providing a mechanism for granting variances in cases where reasonable access to
adjacent roadways cannot be provided. In general property owners have the right of
reasonable access to an adjacent roadway but sometimes this may be restricted by
governments in order to enhance public safety or where it is of public interest to do so.
Private rights of abutting landowners to access their property tend to be subservient to
those of the public i.e. their rights to free and safe use of the public street system.
• Establishing a means of enforcing standards (red light or speeding cameras as an
example)
The challenge of access management is making the effort towards creating and
maintaining a balance between land development plans and this functional integrity of
the roadways that serve these developments and the region.
7.4.3 Legal Issues of Access Control
All private property rights including access rights are subservient to the state and its
jurisdiction and also always subject to reasonable regulation through the police force of
the local government or the state for the for the public health, safety and welfare. The
right of access is one of reasonable access, not a private one of direct access.
However, once a direct access has been provided to a non-controlled access highway
then the property owner has an access easement. Any destruction or unreasonable
restriction of said access will require compensation.
Local governments and the state have the power to regulate traffic on the highway
including restricting driveway location, spacing, size and design, restricting traffic
movement to one direction of travel and striping a highway or even constructing a
median divider which permanently limits property ingress and egress to one direction.
Different types of roads are administered by different authorities or entities, including the
state and the county, and it is important for them to understand the relationship between
land use and the functionality of the road that passes through it.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
61
Subdivision Regulations
State legislation gives the cities and counties authority to regulate subdivisions.
Subdivisions can be regulated with regard to the following access management
techniques:
• Control the number of access points in relation to road deceleration and
acceleration lanes to avoid conflict points;
• Ensure design of adequate driveway throat length to avoid a conflict with the flow
of off-site traffic;
• Provide adequate driveway spacing requirements, corner clearance, and joint
and cross access configurations;
• Orient lots, buildings, and access points to local streets and not to high-traffic-volume
arterials; and
• Require reverse frontage to ensure that lots abutting the roadway obtain access
from a local road.
A city or county site plan review process can require documentation of all access points
and the internal circulation system. Intersection controls, medians and on-site circulation
controls can be required to ensure that access and design standards for roadways are
followed, and that lots are not configured in a manner that encourages inadequate
spacing between access points.
On state highways, what constitutes “legal” access is a determination by ADOT. Since
ADOT has adopted access standards, engineering requirements and a regulatory
permitting program, legal access to a state highway may only be determined by ADOT
under the authority of the Director, not by county or city officials. Absent an ADOT
determination of legal sufficiency, the property deed should note that the property does
not have legal access established.
Zoning Ordinance
To promote effective access management, the Town of Chino Valley zoning ordinance
can: require larger minimum lot frontages; adopt minimum spacing standards for
driveways; encourage joint and cross access; require complete on-site circulation; and
promote activity centers rather than strip development.
General Plan
The Town of Chino Valley General Plan Update should Identify access issues and
problems; establish goals, objectives and policies regarding access; identify access
management approaches; and designate key transportation corridors for special
treatment.
7.4.4 Methods of controlling access
Access management, as an important means for maintaining mobility, encompasses a
set of techniques that are available for use to the state and local governments to control
access to highways, major arterials and other roads. These include the following:
• Access Spacing: increasing the distance between traffic signals can reduce
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
62
congestion and improve traffic flow on major arterials, it can also raise the
standard of air on heavily traveled roads. Subdivision regulations such as lot
split regulations can ensure correct and safe spacing between access points, and
these regulations can orient said access points away from high traffic volume
arterials, for example.
• Driveway spacing: fewer driveways that are spaced further apart would allow for
more orderly merging of traffic and would present fewer challenges for drivers.
Related to driveway spacing is generally land division where lot dimensions are
concerned, also driveway lengths. Control can be taken of this through minimum
lot size and lot frontage and so on.
• Safe Turning Lanes: dedicated left- and right-turn, indirect left-turns and U-turns,
and roundabouts keep through-traffic flowing. Roundabouts represent an
opportunity to reduce an intersection with many conflict points or a severe crash
history (T-bone crashes) to one that operates with fewer conflict points and less
severe crashes (sideswipes) if they occur.
• Median Treatments: two-way left turns and non-traversable raised medians are
two of the most effective ways to regulate access and reduce crashes
• Right of Way Management: this pertains to R/W reservation for future widening,
good sight distance, access location, and other access-related issues.
7.4.5 Access Planning and Design
Access planning and design should aim to coordinate the three components of the
access system – the public roadway, the private roadway and the activity center or land
development itself. The elements that must be taken into account surrounding these
components are 1) limiting the number of conflict points, 2) separating conflict areas
(e.g., through traffic signals), 3) reducing acceleration and deceleration impacts at
access points, 4) removing vehicles from through traffic lanes, 5) spacing major
intersections to facilitate progressive travel speeds along arteries and 6) providing
adequate on-site storage.
7.4.6 Permitting Considerations
• Allow some variation from spacing standards at an administrative level.
o Distinguish between major and minor deviations from spacing standards.
o Require more vigorous review of major deviations.
• Establish permit conditions.
o Type and volume of traffic
o Interim access until alternative access is obtained.
• Address when existing access must be brought into confirmatory.
o Substantial enlargements or improvements.
o Significant change in trip generation.
o Beyond any specific permit term or condition.
o If use is discontinued.
• Need to be clearly defined.
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
63
7.4.7 Additional Resources
ADOT is currently developing a Statewide Access Management Plan in accordance with
the policies of the State Transportation Board. This plan is to develop an access
management classification system for the State Highways and also a manual to guide
the uniform application of access management throughout the state. Current general
guidance for access management criteria may be found in Roadway Design Guidelines
and Traffic Engineering Policies, Guidelines and Procedures (see:
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/RdwyEng/RoadwayDesign/ManualsGuidelines/PDF/new_rdg.pdf)
7.5 Traffic Impact Procedures/Traffic Signal Location Guidelines
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is an important tool in the overall development planning
process (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) within the Town of Chino Valley. The
TIS provides information which identifies impacts of proposed developments on the
existing, short range and long range roadway system. It also identifies mitigation
measures for the identified traffic impacts.
7.5.1 Requirements for Traffic Impact Study
Some development applications may require Traffic Impact Studies. A TIS will be
required on all new developments that generate 500 or more daily two-way trips. New
developments on State Highways must be conducted in accordance with the ADOT
Traffic Impact Analyses.
This ensures that projects which are anticipated to create traffic impacts will be required
to mitigate those impacts, while those smaller projects are not unduly burdened with a
requirement to perform a traffic study. If it is determined by the Town that a TIS is
required, the applicant and Town Engineer must obtain agreement on the specific
requirements. A meeting may be held prior to the initiation of the TIS on the following
items:
• TIS Guidelines will be discussed to ensure understanding by both the City and
TIS applicant. The Town has the final decision on the TIS requirements;
• Study area limits;
• Locations and type (AM, PM, and/or Midday, Daily) traffic counts will be
identified;
• Identifications of intersections to be evaluated;
• Study horizon years; and
• Any additional project specific requirements.
The applicant of the TIS must also coordinate with ADOT and Yavapai County as
appropriate.
The TIS will be prepared under the supervision of a registered Arizona Professional
Engineer (Civil). The report will be sealed and signed.
Traffic volumes generated by the proposed development will use the latest edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. Other rates may be used
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
64
with prior approval by the Town Engineer in cases where Trip Generation may not
include specific land use category rates, limited data, or local rates may differ. Capacity
analysis methodology will be based on the most current edition of the Highway Capacity
Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board.
7.5.2 TRAFFIC STUDY OUTLINE
The following outline provides guidance for the topics that should be addressed when a
traffic study is warranted.
1 Executive Summary
a. Project Description
b. Existing Conditions
c. Probable Impacts of the Project (No-Build and Build Conditions)
d. Traffic Operations Analysis (Existing, No-Build and Build Conditions)
e. Mitigation Measures/Recommendations
f. Conclusions
2 Introduction
a. Project Description
b. Site Location and Plan
c. Study Area
d. Site Accessibility
3 Existing Conditions
a. Geometric and Traffic Control
b. Traffic Volumes
c. Level of Service
d. Safety
4 No-Build Condition (Forecasted Traffic Without Proposed Development)
a. Background Traffic Volumes
i. Annual Growth
ii. Site Specific Development (Other approved developments located
within the designated study area scheduled for completion prior to
proposed project)
b. Planned Roadway Improvements
5 Build Condition (Forecasted With Proposed Project)
a. Trip Generation
b. Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment
c. Phasing of Project
d. Build Traffic Volumes
6 Traffic Operations Analysis
a. Methodology
b. Analysis Results
i. No-Build Condition
ii. Build Condition
7 Special Analyses/Issues
a. Traffic Signal Warrants
b. Others, as appropriate
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study
65
8 Mitigation Measures/Recommendations
a. Off Site Improvement Needs
b. Proposed Site Access
c. Traffic Safety
9 Conclusions
10 Appendix
a. Traffic Count Data
b. Capacity Analysis Summary Sheets
c. Crash Data and Summaries
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study APPENDIX A
Socioeconomic Data
66
Socioeconomic Data
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 1
Table A1 2005 Base Year Estimates
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
1 24.64 5 859 323 5 3 8 0 31 2 49
2 6.14 8 193 86 0 3 1 0 17 0 21
3 2.32 6 286 100 11 8 0 0 0 58 77
4 0.50 21 357 137 12 0 0 0 0 1 13
5 1.02 20 994 367 1 6 0 2 3 3 15
6 0.22 22 0 0 65 30 13 0 6 17 131
7 0.08 30 102 37 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
8 0.26 32 76 30 151 51 18 0 5 0 225
9 1.02 28 0 0 0 0 0 174 0 0 174
10 0.32 35 131 46 35 10 0 0 0 0 45
11 0.19 36 348 217 69 46 0 0 15 0 130
12 0.24 62 5 2 26 2 0 0 0 0 28
13 1.06 49 504 180 6 2 9 0 57 0 74
14 0.32 44 158 64 27 2 6 0 1 0 36
15 0.19 45 34 13 5 0 53 0 69 0 127
16 0.32 42 217 92 14 27 26 0 2 0 69
17 0.32 38 343 140 30 20 7 0 0 2 59
18 0.19 43 58 19 21 15 0 0 10 0 46
19 4.83 48 98 37 0 0 0 0 6 0 6
20 1.08 15 345 131 0 0 2 0 1 2 5
21 0.63 40 1,299 443 0 4 4 0 1 0 9
22 0.09 54 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15
23 0.09 53 260 130 0 2 0 0 0 4 6
24 0.19 52 267 110 25 15 5 0 3 0 48
25 0.73 18 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 0.22 17 0 0 27 5 0 0 2 0 34
27 0.50 31 203 74 8 11 0 0 3 200 222
28 0.57 37 1,238 431 30 4 0 0 12 0 46
29 0.20 39 31 13 12 23 11 93 12 0 151
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 2
Table A1 2005 Base Year Estimates
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
30 0.70 24 84 30 11 8 9 0 10 0 38
31 0.29 23 126 46 71 11 2 10 3 0 97
32 0.53 16 40 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0.33 16 41 15 23 3 9 0 2 0 37
34 0.58 13 9 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
35 0.99 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 1.64 14 817 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 2.08 14 1,661 637 0 15 5 0 0 0 20
38 0.50 34 240 81 0 4 0 0 5 0 9
39 0.50 34 246 100 0 4 0 0 5 0 9
40 0.49 41 248 87 1 18 2 0 2 0 23
41 0.51 41 231 87 1 18 2 0 2 0 23
42 2.09 27 515 192 2 4 2 0 8 0 16
43 2.14 27 386 156 2 4 2 0 8 0 16
44 2.06 27 437 156 2 4 2 0 8 0 16
45 0.49 29 192 93 66 30 22 42 21 2 183
46 0.18 29 239 93 28 13 9 18 9 1 78
47 0.25 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 0.24 50 103 40 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
49 0.08 51 1 1 52 13 5 0 0 0 70
50 0.09 51 1 1 52 13 5 0 0 0 70
51 0.53 55 162 66 0 2 0 0 3 0 5
52 0.53 55 162 66 0 2 0 0 3 0 5
53 0.77 61 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11
54 0.89 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 2.60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 3.67 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57 1.08 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58 1.36 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 3
Table A1 2005 Base Year Estimates
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
59 1.62 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 1.63 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 1.79 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
62 1.02 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 1.67 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 1.47 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 25.92 57 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 16.50 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 16.64 250 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 0.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 1.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 1.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 1.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 1.10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 1.37 68 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
74 0.79 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
75 0.86 177 58 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
76 1.31 68 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
77 2.15 1 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 8
78 1.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 1.10 1 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 8
80 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 1.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 0.51 456 178 1 5 2 0 1 1 10
85 0.52 385 149 1 5 2 0 1 1 10
86 1.43 105 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 0.26 11 14 5 2 3 0 0 1 14 20
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 4
Table A1 2005 Base Year Estimates
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
88 0.29 11 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 0.20 11 21 8 2 3 0 0 1 14 20
90 0.08 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 0.19 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 0.15 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 0.15 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 0.29 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 0.22 13 17 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
96 0.26 12 24 8 2 0 0 0 1 0 3
97 0.17 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0.16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0.15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 0.15 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
101 0.29 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 0.27 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
103 0.10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 1.72 10 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105 0.22 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
106 1.02 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 2.07 9 66 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 1.12 9 63 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 2.21 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 3.30 63 15 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 5
111 0.45 33 779 297 8 34 0 50 2 4 98
112 0.48 33 144 53 3 11 0 0 1 1 16
TOTAL 17,041 6,501 958 531 243 389 353 327 2,801
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 5
Table A2 2030 Projections
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
1 24.64 5 4,137 1,724 25 13 8 0 31 2 79
2 6.14 8 3,177 1,478 0 3 1 0 17 0 21
3 2.32 6 273 94 11 8 0 0 0 58 77
4 0.50 21 402 154 52 0 0 0 0 25 77
5 1.02 20 1,515 559 51 46 0 2 10 10 119
6 0.22 22 0 0 82 39 25 0 36 46 228
7 0.08 30 141 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0.26 32 150 59 152 54 15 0 15 0 236
9 1.02 28 398 153 0 0 0 55 0 0 55
10 0.32 35 542 189 10 5 0 0 0 0 15
11 0.19 36 671 258 158 76 0 0 15 0 249
12 0.24 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 1.06 49 3,155 1,191 100 80 40 0 57 0 277
14 0.32 44 1,077 436 0 30 1 0 1 0 32
15 0.19 45 158 60 15 0 78 0 95 0 188
16 0.32 42 999 425 30 10 46 0 10 0 96
17 0.32 38 551 225 65 56 20 0 0 25 166
18 0.19 43 184 60 12 24 0 0 20 0 56
19 4.83 48 867 358 50 50 20 0 6 0 126
20 1.08 15 976 371 0 35 2 0 1 2 40
21 0.63 40 1,717 586 25 15 0 0 10 0 50
22 0.09 54 0 0 55 35 25 0 0 0 115
23 0.09 53 256 128 25 15 15 0 0 10 65
24 0.19 52 255 105 75 43 15 0 10 0 143
25 0.73 18 38 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 0.22 17 38 14 35 5 0 0 2 0 42
27 0.50 31 246 123 38 24 0 0 105 71 238
28 0.57 37 1,638 570 45 25 0 0 24 0 94
29 0.20 39 138 58 156 78 35 0 35 0 304
30 0.70 24 1,092 397 28 15 5 0 115 71 234
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 6
Table A2 2030 Projections
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
31 0.29 23 235 85 93 22 10 25 10 0 160
32 0.53 16 173 65 60 9 16 0 9 0 94
33 0.33 16 109 40 38 6 10 0 6 0 60
34 0.58 13 535 175 7 0 0 0 0 3 10
35 0.99 11 67 23 2 5 0 0 1 23 31
36 1.64 14 2,943 1,216 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
37 2.08 14 3,743 1,547 0 19 0 0 0 0 19
38 0.50 34 449 152 5 5 0 0 15 0 25
39 0.50 34 421 171 5 5 0 0 15 0 25
40 0.49 41 462 169 7 44 5 0 5 0 61
41 0.51 41 570 216 8 45 5 0 5 0 63
42 2.09 27 2,732 1,093 66 33 29 0 8 0 136
43 2.14 27 2,796 1,119 68 34 30 0 8 0 140
44 2.06 27 2,694 1,078 66 33 29 0 8 0 136
45 0.49 29 479 216 144 36 45 88 26 7 346
46 0.18 29 178 80 53 14 17 32 9 3 128
47 0.25 50 125 49 5 0 0 0 0 0 5
48 0.24 50 122 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 5
49 0.08 51 19 7 77 42 11 0 0 0 130
50 0.09 51 20 8 78 43 12 0 0 0 133
51 0.53 55 390 159 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
52 0.53 55 387 158 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
53 0.77 61 18 6 2 0 1 0 2 0 5
54 0.89 60 901 402 1 0 1 0 2 1 5
55 2.60 60 2,643 1,180 4 1 3 0 5 2 15
56 3.67 61 84 31 7 2 3 0 10 1 23
57 1.08 61 25 9 2 1 1 0 3 0 7
58 1.36 63 46 23 21 39 20 0 10 10 100
59 1.62 64 532 242 0 0 380 0 363 0 743
60 1.63 64 533 242 0 0 380 0 364 0 744
61 1.79 65 2,909 1,322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 7
Table A2 2030 Projections
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
62 1.02 65 1,654 752 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 1.67 66 1,915 736 17 0 0 0 0 0 17
64 1.47 66 1,678 646 14 0 0 0 0 0 14
65 25.92 57 195 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 16.50 8 3 7 4 0 0 0 0 11
67 16.64 599 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 0.61 22 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 1.01 201 68 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
70 1.18 234 79 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
71 1.03 205 69 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
72 1.10 219 74 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
73 1.37 273 93 13 5 0 0 95 71 184
74 0.79 670 260 13 6 0 0 95 71 185
75 0.86 1,328 437 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
76 1.31 261 88 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
77 2.15 129 50 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
78 1.57 138 54 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
79 1.10 0 0 14 3 0 0 94 72 183
80 0.19 26 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 0.71 97 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 1.27 57 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 1.00 45 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 0.51 924 359 5 7 5 0 5 5 27
85 0.52 950 370 5 8 5 0 5 5 28
86 1.43 869 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 0.26 11 437 145 0 0 0 0 0 7 7
88 0.29 11 340 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 0.20 11 426 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 0.08 11 339 131 57 38 13 0 0 0 108
91 0.19 11 358 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 0.15 11 226 87 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Town of Chino Valley Small Area Transportation Study Socioeconomic Data APPENDIX A
A -- 8
Table A2 2030 Projections
TAZ Area (Sq Mi) CYMPO
TAZ Population Dwelling
Units
Retail
(Emp)
Service
(Emp)
Office
(Emp)
Public Office
(Emp)
Industrial
(Emp)
Manufacturing
(Emp)
Total
Employees
93 0.15 11 243 94 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
94 0.29 13 166 64 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
95 0.22 13 221 79 0 0 0 0 3 2 5
96 0.26 12 24 8 0 0 0 0 11 0 11
97 0.17 12 200 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0.16 12 387 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0.15 12 894 347 137 91 61 0 2 0 291
100 0.15 12 366 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
101 0.29 12 634 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 0.27 12 1,075 417 165 110 37 0 0 0 312
103 0.10 10 490 190 75 50 17 0 0 0 142
104 1.72 10 2,360 915 118 78 26 0 0 0 222
105 0.22 10 1,069 364 70 47 16 0 0 0 133
106 1.02 9 220 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 2.07 9 1,145 431 8 6 5 0 50 5 74
108 1.12 9 242 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 2.21 63 75 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 3.30 63 113 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 0.45 33 1,880 716 8 56 0 0 0 0 64
112 0.48 33 863 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 79,621 31,792 2,847 1,757 1,544 202 1,862 612 8,824