City of Benson Arizona small area transportation study

              Final Report
September 2007
City of Benson, Arizona
UCG
United Civil Group
SmallArea Transportation Study
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
CITY OF BENSON
Small Area Transportation Study
Final Report
Prepared for:
City of Benson
120 W. 6th Street
Benson, Arizona 85602
and
Arizona Department of Transportation
Transportation Planning Division
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Prepared by:
United Civil Group Corporation
2803 North 7th Avenue, Suite 16
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602.265.6155
Fax 602.265.6171
September 2007
UCG Project Number: TR5102
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
1
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Study Context ............................................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 History of Benson ...................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Report Organization ................................................................................................................................ 11
1.5 Previous Plans and Studies ....................................................................................................................... 11
1.6 Community Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 11
1.6.1 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings ......................................................................................... 11
1.6.2 Community Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.6.3 Community Meetings/Public Forums .............................................................................................. 12
2.0 TRANSPORTATION VISION, ISSUES, GOALS AND POLICIES ..................................................... 14
2.1 The Transportation Vision ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.2 Transportation Issues and Concerns ........................................................................................................ 14
2.3 Opportunities and Constraints .................................................................................................................. 18
2.4 Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Transportation Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..................................................................................... 19
2.5.1 Traffic Safety ................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5.2 Mobility Improvement ...................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.3 Right of Way .................................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.4 Project Funding ................................................................................................................................ 20
2.5.5 Land Use Integration ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.5.6 Economic Development .................................................................................................................... 21
3.0 METHODOLOGIES AND STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 23
3.1 Functional Classification .......................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Level of Service ........................................................................................................................................ 24
3.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Standards and Thresholds ................................................................ 25
3.4 Pedestrian Standards and Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 26
3.5 Bicycle Standards and Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 26
3.6 Transit Service Planning Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 26
4.0 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 28
4.1 General Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.1 Total Population ............................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Ethnicity and Race ............................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.3 Age and Sex ..................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.4 Persons per Household ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Social Characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Schooling ......................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.2 Veteran Status .................................................................................................................................. 29
4.3 Economic Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 29
4.4 Work Travel ............................................................................................................................................. 30
5.0 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...................................................................................... 32
5.1 Minority Population ................................................................................................................................. 33
5.2 Aged 65 and Older ................................................................................................................................... 34
5.3 Mobility Limited....................................................................................................................................... 35
5.4 Below Poverty Level ................................................................................................................................ 36
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
2
6.0 NETWORK INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................ 37
6.1 Interstate .................................................................................................................................................. 37
6.2 State Routes ............................................................................................................................................. 37
6.2.1 SR 90 ................................................................................................................................................ 37
6.2.2 SR 80 ................................................................................................................................................ 37
6.3 Arterials ................................................................................................................................................... 38
6.4 Collectors ................................................................................................................................................. 38
6.5 Jurisdictional Responsibility ..................................................................................................................... 40
6.6 Number of Lanes ...................................................................................................................................... 40
6.7 Speed Limits ............................................................................................................................................. 40
6.8 Intersection Traffic Control ...................................................................................................................... 43
6.9 Pavement Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 43
6.10 Traffic Data ........................................................................................................................................... 46
6.11 Level of Service ...................................................................................................................................... 55
6.12 Safety and Crash History ........................................................................................................................ 56
7.0 EXISTING MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .............................................................. 61
7.1 Non-Motorized Trails ............................................................................................................................... 61
7.2 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................................ 61
7.2.1 Local Service ................................................................................................................................... 61
7.2.2 Intercity Transit ................................................................................................................................ 61
7.2.3 Existing Rail Service ......................................................................................................................... 61
8.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 63
8.1 Socioeconomic Forecasting ....................................................................................................................... 63
8.1.1 Population Growth ............................................................................................................................ 63
8.1.2 Employment Growth ......................................................................................................................... 66
8.2 Transportation Modeling Process ............................................................................................................ 66
8.2.1 Traffic Analysis Zones ...................................................................................................................... 66
8.2.2 Traffic Assignment ............................................................................................................................ 67
8.2.3 Trip Attraction .................................................................................................................................. 67
8.2.4 The Network .................................................................................................................................... 68
8.3 Network Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................... 68
8.4 Improvement Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 68
8.5 Prioritization Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 73
8.6 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 74
8.7 Regional Connectivity ............................................................................................................................... 79
9.0 PUBLIC TRANSIT .................................................................................................................................... 82
9.1 Recommended Transit Modal Alternatives ............................................................................................... 82
9.1.1 Dial-a-Ride ....................................................................................................................................... 82
9.1.2 Reserve-a-Ride Service ..................................................................................................................... 82
9.1.3 Point Deviation Service .................................................................................................................... 83
9.2 Proposed Starter System ........................................................................................................................... 83
10.0 NON MOTORIZED CIRCULATION .................................................................................................... 85
10.1 Bicycle System Development................................................................................................................... 85
10.1.1 Bikeway Implementation Guidelines .............................................................................................. 86
10.1.2 Bikeway System Plan ...................................................................................................................... 87
10.2 Pedestrian System Development ............................................................................................................. 88
10.2.1 Sidewalk Implementation Guidelines ............................................................................................. 89
10.2.2 Sidewalk Design Elements .............................................................................................................. 89
10.3 Non-Motorized Improvements ................................................................................................................ 89
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
3
11.0 EXISTING AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES ........................................................................ 91
11.1 Available Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................... 91
11.1.1 Developer Funds ............................................................................................................................. 91
11.1.2 Construction Sales Tax ................................................................................................................... 91
11.1.3 Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) ........................................................................................... 91
11.1.4 Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF) ............................................................................. 91
11.1.5 Private Funds ................................................................................................................................. 91
11.1.6 Special Improvement Districts ......................................................................................................... 92
11.1.7 Special Road Districts ...................................................................................................................... 92
11.1.8 Economic Development Administration (EDA) .............................................................................. 92
11.1.9 USDA Rural Development .............................................................................................................. 92
11.1.10 Greater Arizona Development Authority (GADA) ........................................................................ 94
11.1.11 Economic Strength Projects .......................................................................................................... 94
11.1.12 Federal Highway Enhancement Funds ........................................................................................... 94
11.2 Obtaining Funding ................................................................................................................................. 94
11.3 Action Plan for Funding ......................................................................................................................... 95
12.0 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES .............................................................................................................. 96
12.1 Roadway Design Standards .................................................................................................................... 96
12.2 Access Management ............................................................................................................................... 97
12.2.1 Background for Access Management ............................................................................................. 97
12.2.2 Methods to Control Access ........................................................................................................... 100
12.2.3 General Access Control Guidelines .............................................................................................. 101
12.3 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines ...................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX A – Public Involvement Summary Reports 1 and 2
APPENDIX B – Priority Matrix
APPENDIX C – 3 Suggestive Access Management Guidelines
APPENDIX D – Suggestive Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
4
List of Tables
Table 1: Network Link Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 25
Table 2: Employment by Category ...................................................................................................................... 30
Table 3: Disability Status of the Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population ....................................................... 36
Table 4: Traffic Interchanges .............................................................................................................................. 37
Table 5: Average Daily Traffic – Summer 2005 ................................................................................................. 46
Table 6: Average Daily Traffic – Winter 2006 .................................................................................................... 47
Table 7: Seasonal Percent Change ....................................................................................................................... 47
Table 8: Average Traffic Speed ........................................................................................................................... 53
Table 9: 85th Percentile Speed ............................................................................................................................. 54
Table 10: Vehicle Classification .......................................................................................................................... 54
Table 11: Existing LOS ...................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 12: Accident History Data for Business Route 10 from MP 303.50 to MP 306.95 ................................... 56
Table 13: Collision Type for Business Route 10 from MP 303.50 to MP 306.95 ............................................... 56
Table 14: Collision Manner for Business Route 10 from MP 303.50 to MP 306.95 .......................................... 56
Table 15: Accident History Data for State Route 80 from MP 293.25 to MP 299.00 ......................................... 57
Table 16: Collision Type for State Route 80 from MP 293.25 to MP 299.00 ..................................................... 57
Table 17: Collision Manner for State Route 80 from MP 293.25 to MP 299.00 ................................................ 57
Table 18: Accident History Data for State Route 90 from MP 289.00 to MP 297.00 ......................................... 58
Table 19: Collision Type for State Route 90 from MP 289.00 to MP 297.00 ..................................................... 58
Table 20: Collision Manner for State Route 90 from MP 289.00 to MP 297.00 ................................................ 58
Table 21: City of Benson Crash History 2004 ..................................................................................................... 59
Table 22: Benson Crash History January-August 2005 ....................................................................................... 60
Table 23: Sunset Limited Line ............................................................................................................................ 62
Table 24: Texas Eagle Line ................................................................................................................................ 62
Table 25: Forecasted 2030 Population Growth Estimates along SR90 Only ...................................................... 65
Table 26: Total Estimated 2030 Population for Benson ...................................................................................... 65
Table 27: Estimated Housing Units for Developments in the Benson SAT Study Area ..................................... 65
Table 28: Proposed Projects for Focus Area SR90 Ranked by Priority Score ..................................................... 77
Table 29: Proposed Projects for Focus Area SR80 ............................................................................................... 78
Table 30: Proposed Projects for Focus Area Downtown ...................................................................................... 78
Table 31: Proposed Non-Motorized Projects ....................................................................................................... 90
Table 32: Minimum Street Design Criteria** ...................................................................................................... 96
Table 33: TIA Report Requirements ................................................................................................................. 102
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Study Boundary .................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3: Identified Issues .................................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 4: Proportion of Service ........................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 5: Employment Classification .................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 6: Travel to Work .................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 7: Total Population by Census Block ....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 8: Percentage of Minorities by Census Block .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 9: Percentage of Minorities by Census Block .......................................................................................... 35
Figure 10: Comparison of Below the Poverty Level for Benson versus Arizona ................................................ 36
Figure 11: Functional Classification .................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 12: Number of Lanes ............................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 13: Speed Limits ...................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 14: Existing Traffic Control Devices ....................................................................................................... 44
Figure 15: Pavement Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 16: Traffic Counts ................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 17: Traffic Counts Inset ........................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 18: Peak Hour Traffic Counts .................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 19: Peak Hour Traffic Counts Inset ........................................................................................................... 52
Figure 20: Future Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 21: Projected 2030 Average Daily Traffic ............................................................................................... 69
Figure 22: Projected 2030 Average Daily Traffic Inset....................................................................................... 70
Figure 23: Projected 2030 Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................................. 71
Figure 24: Projected 2030 Peak Hour Volumes Inset .......................................................................................... 72
Figure 25: Mid Range Plan ................................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 26: Long Range Plan ............................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 27: Improvements ................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 28: Desirable Cross Sections .................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 29: Desirable Cross Sections .................................................................................................................... 99
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Context
Recognizing that large investments in the transportation infrastructure will be required during
the next twenty-five years to accommodate projected levels of growth and development in
the Benson area, the City of Benson initiated the Benson Small Area Transportation Study
(SATS) in conjunction with Arizona Department of Transportation. The City of Benson
retained a consultant team led by United Civil Group Corporation of Phoenix, Arizona, to
conduct the study under the direction of a Technical Advisory Committee, (TAC) that
includes representatives from the City of Benson, Cochise County, Southeastern Arizona
Association of Governments (SEAGO), and the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT).
This is the first small area transportation study for the City of Benson. This study was
coordinated with other studies in the area, including the Southeastern Regional Profile and
the Northwestern Cochise County Study.
The goal of the study was to develop a comprehensive transportation plan for the Benson
area to guide multi-modal transportation planning and programming for the next 25 years by:
(a) providing reliable guidance on short, mid and long range planning of the study area;
(b) recommending improvements needed to permit the street system to satisfactorily
accommodate current and projected traffic volumes; and
(c) assisting the City of Benson in making critical land use planning decisions regarding
traffic and transportation.
A planning framework was established to address mobility and accessibility needs at three
levels:
Regional – The City of Benson, Cochise County, and Arizona Department of Transportation
aim to sustain growth and desirable development patterns by providing access to and through
the Benson Area via State Routes 80 and 90.
Sub-regional – The study provides for meeting mobility needs between key activity centers
via the state routes and major arterials.
Local – The study addresses mobility within sub-areas and neighborhoods by developing
local street systems as well as local transit, bikeway, and pedestrian systems.
Key elements of the SATS work program include the following:
• Review of previous plans and studies
• Inventory of existing conditions
• Socioeconomic and land use projections
• Travel demand model development
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
7
• Analysis of future conditions
• Development of recommended improvements
• Transportation funding alternatives
• Transit element
While this study included roadway facilities owned and operated by ADOT within the study
area, it is important to recognize that improvements to the state highway system can be made
only after in-depth and engineering studies are conducted by ADOT, and upon approval of
the State Transportation Board. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must
approve all traffic interchange improvements. The recommendations made by this study for
improvements on state facilities can serve only as suggestions for further study.
1.2 History of Benson
Benson has a long, rich history for a small community. Benson, one of Arizona’s original
territorial towns, was founded in 1880. In the early 1900's, the community grew along with
the demand for copper and silver. These metals were mined in the San Pedro Valley and
shipped to Benson for smelting and distribution via the railroad. In the early days of the
automobile, Benson was an important stop along the region's new east-west highway,
Interstate 10. The City of Benson was incorporated in 1924, approximately 40 years after the
completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad through southeastern Arizona.
Today, Benson serves as the gateway to the southeastern Arizona region providing needed
services to travelers, providing an ideal lifestyle available in a small western community, and
providing the convenience of a downtown historic commercial center. Attractions
surrounding the Benson area include: the Amerind Foundation, Cochise’s Stronghold,
Gammons Gulch Ghost Town Movie Set, Kartchner Caverns State Park, San Pedro Valley
Arts and Historical Society Museum, San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, and
the Vega Bray Observatory.
The City of Benson is located on Interstate 10 about 50 miles southeast of Tucson in Cochise
County, Arizona. Benson is surrounded by hills and beautiful desert within the San Pedro
River Valley, as shown on Figure 1: Vicinity Map.
Figure 2: Study Boundary illustrates the Benson area that was incorporated into the study.
The study area includes portions of Interstate 10, State Route 90 and State Route 80. This
area was defined by the Project Team to include proposed developments within the
surrounding area.
1.3 Purpose
With a growing community, the future of the City of Benson will present significant
challenges fiscally, organizationally, and developmentally. The City of Benson recognizes
the need to research, evaluate and approve a number of important issues. None more
important than a transportation plan that establishes the improvements over short, mid and
long range periods incorporating roadway, non-motorized, and transit elements.
Transportation improvements will be prioritized to maximize project benefits within budget
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
8
limitations. This study will also define funding strategies and identify funding sources,
which will allow the City to aggressively pursue local, regional, state and federal funding.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
BENSON
Source: Arizonaguide_mapl.pdf
Not to Scale
Ë
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Figure 2: Study Area
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
Not to Scale
Ë
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
11
1.4 Report Organization
This report is organized into twelve chapters as follows:
1.0 INTRODUCTION – Provides background information for the study.
2.0 TRANSPORTATION VISION, ISSUES, GOALS, AND POLICIES - Documents
key transportation issues and proposes goals and policies to address these issues
under the direction of the City Engineer.
3.0 METHODOLOGIES AND STANDARDS – Presents the methods used to evaluate
the Benson area transportation system under current and future conditions.
4.0 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS – Provides an overview of the
current socioeconomic conditions within the Benson area.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND TITLE VI – Presents minority areas within
Benson.
6.0 NETWORK INVENTORY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS – describes year 2006
transportation facilities, services, and conditions throughout the study area.
7.0 EXISTING MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM – Presents the existing
trails, transit and rail services within the Benson area.
8.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS – outlines the
population and employment forecasts for the study area and details the roadway
improvement needs to accommodate the future travel demand. Proposes the
recommended improvement plan.
9.0 PUBLIC TRANSIT – Presents a concept transit plan for the City of Benson.
10.0 NON-MOTORIZED CIRCULATION – Develops a plan for bicycles and pedestrians.
11.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM – Develops a strategy for implementing the
recommended roadway improvement plan over the next 25 years.
12.0 POLICIES AND GUIDELINES – Provides example guidelines and policies that can
be refined by the City Engineer and adopted by council in the future.
1.5 Previous Plans and Studies
Previous plans and studies have been prepared over the last five years within the Benson
Region. Specific documents consulted during the preparation of this transportation study
include:
• Benson General Plan
• Southeastern Regional Profile
• Northwest Cochise County Study
1.6 Community Involvement
Community involvement was a significant value to this study. It ensured the opportunity of
meaningful community input and inspired a broad based citizen participation and
understanding of the study process. The following sections summarize key components of
the public involvement program.
1.6.1 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings
The technical advisory committee (TAC) was formed at the onset of the study. Meetings
were held monthly to provide guidance to the planning process and review the results of the
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
12
study sections. Throughout the study process, members of the team brought issues that
required technical analysis to the attention of the team. The following agencies and their
department were represented on the TAC.
ADOT Transportation Planning Division
ADOT District Office
ADOT Regional Traffic Engineering Office
SEAGO Planning Department
Cochise County Highway and Floodplain Department
Cochise County Planning and Zoning Department
City of Benson Council
City of Benson Planning and Zoning Department
City of Benson Public Works Department
City of Benson Police Department
1.6.2 Community Interviews
A series of interviews with community representatives were conducted by the Project Team
in November 2006 to determine the local perspectives regarding community issues and to
understand key concerns within the study area. Results from these interviews were utilized
to develop key information included in the recommendations. The Project Leader, Ms. Sarah
Simpson, P.E., interviewed the following community representatives:
Benson City Mayor and Council
Benson Planning and Zoning Chairman
Benson City Manager
Benson Fire Chief
Benson Police Chief
Benson Unified School District Superintendent
Benson School Board President
St. David School Board President
United Health Care Innovations
Union Pacific Railroad
Local Developers
1.6.3 Community Meetings/Public Forums
Community meetings/public forums were scheduled at two key points in the planning
process and announced in the local newspaper. Flyers were also distributed to local
businesses, and governmental offices to notify the public of the transportation meetings.
The first public open house was held on September 27, 2005, at the Benson Fire House. The
project team gave a fifteen minute slideshow presentation of the transportation planning
process. Then, the meeting was divided into an open house forum to discuss current traffic
concerns and issues. The first meeting allowed the public to learn about study process,
review and comment on the initial plan alternatives, and find out about the current traffic
volumes on the existing roadways. The sign-in sheet shows 14 members of the general
public in attendance, as well as members of the Technical Advisory Committee.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
13
A second public meeting was held on February 28, 2007, in the City Council Chambers.
Citizens were able to communicate with the local, county and state officials as well as the
consultant team in an open house forum. At this meeting, potential transportation
improvements along with future projected development were presented and discussed. The
draft recommendations for the Benson Small Area Study were also presented. The sign-in
sheet shows 10 members of the general public in attendance, as well as members of the
Technical Advisory Committee.
Input received by the Project Team at the community meetings was incorporated in to the
working papers and into this circulation element. At each community meeting, the Project
Team distributed comment cards to solicit written comments from the public.
The Public Involvement Summary Reports for the public meetings are included in Appendix
A.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
14
2.0 TRANSPORTATION VISION, ISSUES,
GOALS AND POLICIES
2.1 The Transportation Vision
Benson must guide rapid growth in such a way that provides careful and
responsible management of natural resources, that provides leadership to
strengthen neighborhoods, and ensures that services and facilities meet
the expectations and needs of the residents. Benson is an established
community that is dedicated to ensuring the quality of life people enjoy
today, can be enjoyed by many in future generations.
2.2 Transportation Issues and Concerns
Transportation related issues and concerns were identified during discussions between the
project team members, individuals interviewed, and during community involvement
meetings. The list below incorporates all of the issues and concerns that were brought to the
attention of the Project Team.
Population Explosion – The current population in Benson is approximately 5,000 residents.
There are multiple master planned developments in the area of SR 90, two of which are
already approved. Together, these developments are expected to increase the City of Benson
population by more than 75,000 residents. This is an increase of more than 1,000% over the
next 25 years. The existing transportation facilities were not designed for this population
growth and will be severely deficient in coming years.
Defined Boundaries – There are issues regarding a three mile buffer zone between the City of
Benson and the community of St. David. There are concerns that eliminating this buffer
zone could affect Benson negatively in the future. Existing agreements made between
Benson and the St. David Community regarding the buffer zones are considered
“gentlemen’s agreements” and have not been recognized in court since Benson may not
contractually give away a right granted to it by the courts.
Access Management – Rapid growth along SR 90 and SR 80 will require access
management. This will be necessary to maintain efficiency and safety on the state routes and
major arterials.
Adequacy of Emergency Access – The future projected traffic volumes and the incomplete
street network will restrict emergency vehicle access to residential and commercial areas.
Congestion – The West Benson interchange experiences congestion at various periods of the
day, primarily due to the bottle neck created on I-10 by the B-10 (4th Street) interchange.
Portions of 4th Street – 4th Street is Benson’s “Main Street”. Currently, 4th Street is owned
and maintained by ADOT as it is part of B-10. The City and ADOT may agree to turn
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
15
portions of 4th Street (B-10) to the City. Street limits and the boundary line between City
limits and ADOT limits of 4th Street (B-10) should be addressed to determine which sections
remain in ADOT control.
San Pedro Parkway – an alternative route could be constructed from the I-10 Pomerene
Interchange south. This new route would parallel SR 80 and could be used as a by-pass route
for Benson.
Truck Route Signing – Truck route signing needs to be addressed and guidelines need to be
put in place on roadways that can be signed as “No Heavy Vehicles”.
Continuity of the Street Network – Future traffic volumes will cause significant congestion on
state routes, arterials and collectors unless major improvements are made, including
alternative east west connector routes between SR 80 and SR 90.
Lack of Alternative Transportation Mode Facilities – Currently, Benson does not have
alternatives for various transportation modes due to the lack of sidewalks, and paths. These
items need to be incorporated into new development plans early in the design process to
create a continuous biking and walking systems.
Airport Access – Airport access needs to be improved. This could be accomplished by
extending SR 90 to the north.
Routes to Tombstone and Bisbee – SR 90 and SR 80 could both be used as routes to
Tombstone and Bisbee. Signing would need to be modified on I-10 redirecting some traffic
to SR 90.
Roadway Functional Classification – The City of Benson lacks a roadway classification
system. A structured functional roadway classification system needs to be developed and
City street standards need to be defined.
Inadequate Roads and Right of Way – Arterial streets need to be expanded and gaps in the
existing street system need to be improved. Adequately spaced arterial streets and reserved
right of way for the future street system improve traffic circulation through the study area.
Unimproved Roadways/Dust Control– Unpaved roadways that currently experience
approximately 250 vehicles per day should be considered for paving. Benefits to both the
public and private users include a decrease in wear and tear on a vehicle, and a reduction in
particulate emissions.
Deficiency in Roadway Construction and Maintenance Funding – There are more roadway
projects that could be completed than funding available. Therefore, roadway construction
projects should be prioritized and funding sources noted to allow projects to be constructed
when required.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
16
Figure 3: Identified Issues illustrates the majority of issues discussed at the public meetings
graphically.
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
80
Post Rd.
INTERSTATE
10
W. Jackson Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Union Pacific RR
INTERSTATE
10
90
Possible alternate
route to Bisbee
Pave roadway
SR90 access
management
Additional
access to airport
I-10 & SR90
traffic interchange
improvements
Improvements due
to proposed
developments
B10
intersection congestion
Improve SR80:
Add turn lanes
Improvements
due to
development
4th Street
identification &
ownership
Alternate
truck routes
Figure 3: Identified Issues
Not to Scale
Ë
Improve roadways
to connect
SR90 to SR80
Widen I-10
Suggested
San Pedro Pkwy
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
18
2.3 Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities exist within the Benson area to preserve and enhance the quality of life, to
manage the transportation system, and to promote alternative transportation modes. Specific
opportunities include the following:
• The City of Benson should consider the traffic impacts of residential and commercial
developments, including the issues of who pays for traffic mitigation required as the
result of specific development activities. These impacts need to be evaluated and,
where necessary, mitigated on a project by project basis, at the direction of the City
Engineer. Ideally, the City should adopt a consistent policy regarding traffic impact
analysis guidelines, exactions, deductions and other forms of developer contributions
to the transportation infrastructure.
• The need exists for inter-jurisdictional coordination of transportation and land use
decisions. Transportation planning needs to be coordinated throughout the Benson
area. The same is true of local land use planning where decisions are made in one
area that can have significant impacts on areas under a different jurisdiction.
• The timing of this transportation study presents an opportunity, in advance of new
development, to reserve adequate right of way widths within future roadway
corridors, and to assign functional classification to various roadways within Benson.
Major constraints on the planning and implementation of transportation improvements in the
Benson area include the following:
• Limited funding for the City, County and State
• Mountainous topography within the City
• Restrictions on the use of funding sources
2.4 Study Objectives
Based in public input received and related technical analyses, the following value-based
goals were developed to guide the planning process:
Provide a safe roadway network system in Benson with regional accessibility.
Provide a roadway network system for year 2030 with minimal congestion.
Develop a street network for Benson that incorporates bike lanes, sidewalks and off street
trail systems.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
19
Promote multimodal services capable of accommodating current, proposed, and future land
use plans. Recommend that new development include multimodal transportation facilities to
fully meet future needs.
Provide for a regional public transportation system in areas where unmet transportation
needs will exist at build-out.
Establish consistent landscape standards for roadways to develop a community that is
cohesive, clean, and presentable.
Develop short term, mid range and long term transportation plans for the City of
Benson, with projects that can be constructed within the funding budgets.
Integrate the transportation system within the land use patterns to help reduce congestion
and provide convenient access.
2.5 Transportation Goals, Objectives, and Strategies
Goals, objectives, and strategies provide direction and focus to transportation plan
development and the project implementation process. Goals describe a general objective to
be attained while strategies describe means to achieve the goals and objectives. A set of
goals, objectives and strategies was developed in response to the issues, constraints, and
opportunities identified in the Benson area transportation planning process. These goals,
objectives and strategies are presented herein as guidelines and therefore, should be revised
by the City Engineer as needed to accomplish the desired results for each project.
It is also recognized that implementation of all the strategies listed below may not be feasible
for every project because of limited funding, local priorities, and related concerns.
Professional judgment and community input can assist in applying and prioritizing these
policies on a project by project basis. The strategies that apply to a given project should be
considered during the planning and design phase of the project.
2.5.1 Traffic Safety
Objective: Maintain and enhance existing levels of traffic safety on the transportation
system serving the Benson area.
• Adopt appropriate measures of effectiveness (e.g. roadway segment accident rate,
intersection accident rate) to facilitate evaluation of roadway traffic safety.
• Annually update a program of mitigation measures, with an emphasis on inexpensive
transportation system management measures, to mitigate any safety problems
identified at high accident locations
• Include pedestrian crosswalks and signal identification at all newly signalized
intersections, and provide pedestrian push buttons wherever the normal green time is
insufficient for a safe crossing.
• Increase the priority of roadway projects that are primarily mobility related, but that
are also likely to have a beneficial impact on traffic safety.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
20
• Wherever a new arterial is constructed or an existing two lane roadway is
reconstructed, provide either a continuous center left turn lane or a physical median to
separate opposing traffic streams and provide safe storage for left turning vehicles.
2.5.2 Mobility Improvement
Objective: Maintain and enhance existing levels of mobility on roadways and other
transportation modes serving the Benson area.
• Maintain a regular traffic data collection program, including periodic traffic counts on
all arterial and major collector roadways in the Benson area.
• Adopt and apply access management guidelines to enhance traffic operations and
safety on the arterial streets whose primary function is mobility.
• Require traffic impact analyses and apply appropriate standard procedures to assess
the traffic impacts of all new developments.
• Adopt and apply the Benson Small Area Transportation Study traffic volumes and
level of service thresholds for various roadway lanes and classifications to assist in
evaluating the need for capacity improvements.
• Adopt and apply consistent roadway design standards for each functional
classification within the City of Benson. The design standards for new or
reconstructed streets should reflect functional efficiency, operating safety,
construction and maintenance costs.
• Maintain consistent roadway cross sections and access control for each functional
class of roadway.
• Install new traffic signal s only at intersection that meet one or more warrants in the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and are recommended by an engineer
that has fully studied the surrounding area.
• Coordinate traffic signal timing.
• Where possible, restrict signal installations to half mile points to maintain adequate
progression along the highways.
• Provide bikeway facilities on new or reconstructed arterial and collector streets.
• Revisit and update the Benson Small Area Transportation Study at least once every
five years with appropriate revisions to traffic forecasting.
2.5.3 Right of Way
Objective: Obtain adequate rights of way on all City streets.
• Begin a right of way program to identify right of way needs and issues as they relate
to current needs, future development and transportation needs.
• Seek appropriations for right of way acquisition projects.
• Assure that adequate rights of way are planned and reserved for the City on all
proposed connector route between SR80 and SR90.
2.5.4 Project Funding
Objective: Secure adequate funding levels to meet Benson’s transportation priorities,
including capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, and replacement costs.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
21
• Customize the definition of each project to reduce overall construction costs and to
take advantage of multiple funding programs.
• “Piggyback” several of the funding programs to cover various aspects of a project.
Based on the information presented, no single grant program is usually able to cover
the entire costs of the project.
• Focus the City’s efforts on a short list of programs that will offer the best potential for
success.
• Annually update both short range and long range forecasts of funding available to the
City for various types of projects by source.
• Annually update the five-year Capital Improvement Program that lists all
infrastructural improvements to local jurisdictional transportation systems with
funding sources identified for each project.
• Maximize the value of existing funding by coordinating and consolidating projects at
the same location or on the same roadway segment.
• Encourage private sector financial participation in the constructions of new roadways
where warranted by development activities and traffic generated thereby.
2.5.5 Land Use Integration
Objective: Coordinate land use planning, transportation planning and decision making to
ensure that transportation and land use plans and policies are mutually supportive.
• Apply subdivision control measures to ensure that development controls are in place
to plan for new transportation facilities and to protect existing investments.
• Ensure that new or improved transportation facilities are designed and constructed in
a manner consistent with the established values, lifestyle and long term land use plans
of the community.
• When constructing or reconstructing major roadway, secure sufficient right of way to
avoid costly and disruptive takings if additional widening is likely to be required in
future years.
• Where indicated by appropriate traffic engineering studies, develop and implement
neighborhood traffic mitigation or calming measures to discourage through traffic
from using residential streets.
2.5.6 Economic Development
Objective: Develop a transportation system and infrastructure in a manner that directs and
supports economic development of the Benson area.
• Preserve and maintain high mobility and levels of transportation service throughout
the Benson area to continue attracting jobs to the area.
• Where appropriate, establish and promote a system of truck routes to accommodate
commercial traffic.
• Continue to develop transportation related amenities and enhancements such as
bikeways, scenic landscaping and trails that will help attract people and jobs to the
area.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
22
• Improve street and directional signing where necessary to facilitate navigation by
tourists and newcomers who may be unfamiliar with the area.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
23
3.0 METHODOLOGIES AND STANDARDS
This chapter defines the methodologies and standards utilized in the analysis of network
performance.
3.1 Functional Classification
Functional classification, the grouping of roadways by the character of service they provide,
was developed for transportation planning purposes. Conflicts and congestion occur at
interfaces between public roadways and private traffic generating facilities, when functional
classification transitions are inadequate.
Functional classification groups streets according to the character of service they are intended
to provide. These classifications are presented as follows:
Interstates are defined as a divided highway with full control of access and are constructed
with two or more lanes for the exclusive use of traffic in each direction. Access to and from
the interstate is limited to ramp locations, and no direct access to and from adjacent property
is permitted. Interstates provide uninterrupted flow and are designed to carry the greatest
amount of traffic.
State Routes connect with the Interstates and principal arterials, provide service to trips of
moderate length, and distribute vehicles to the arterial routes. State routes move vehicles
through an area and are designed to allow motorists to traverse through an area without major
delay. However, because of the nature of a state route, towns and cities developed around
the state routes and now, State Routes have turned into “Main Streets”. An example of this is
4th Street/SR 80 in Benson. Therefore, on a city level, the state route functions as an arterial
roadway and provides connectivity between disperse communities and also as a carrier of
heavy traffic flow within the community.
Arterial Roadways are influenced by the geometric characteristics of the facility and
adjacent land uses; interaction among vehicles as determined by the traffic density and the
proportion of heavy vehicles and turning vehicles; and the effects of traffic signals along the
roadway. Arterial routes connect the collector streets to the State Routes/Interstates and also
provide some access to commercial development.
Collector Roadways provide traffic circulation within low-density areas, and can direct
access from arterials to county roads. In the Benson area, these routes typically connect local
streets with arterials, and are typically developed on the ¼ mile and ½ mile roadway spacing.
Local Roads, while not considered within this Small Area Transportation Study, play a
major role in the transportation network. Local roads are designed to provide access to
residential lots and are designed for low speeds and low volumes of traffic. Local roads are
used to connect residential areas and funnel traffic to the collector routes.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
24
Arterial Roads
Collector Roads
Local Roads
Figure 4: Proportion of Service
Source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 2004
Figure 4: Proportion of Service provides an illustration of the relationship between
functionally classified roadways in serving traffic mobility and land access. Local roads
emphasize the land access function, arterials emphasize the high level of mobility for through
movements, and collectors offer approximately balanced service for both functions. As
shown in figure 4, an arterial, provides mobility for linger distance trips with high speeds and
minimal access to adjoining properties. Conversely, the function of a local street is to
provide direct access to neighborhoods with lower speeds.
3.2 Level of Service
Levels of service provide a common and consistent means of evaluating the need for
roadway improvements. The LOS concept is widely used and offers a uniform analysis
methodology.
Beginning in 1965, the level of service (LOS) concept has been used in traffic engineering to
describe the quality of traffic flow and the degree of congestion a driver can expect. The
concept defines the near-capacity condition as Level of Service “E” while a free flow
condition under which a driver would experience very little or no delay is defined as Level of
Service “A”. Capacity analysis is the procedure used to compare the forecast traffic volume
with the theoretical carrying capacity of an intersection. The results of the capacity analysis
are an estimator of the quality of flow for that intersection.
Most jurisdictions strive to obtain a level of service C or better on surface streets and D or
better on highways and freeways. Roadways having a level of service in the D, E or F range
are considered congested and warrant further review for possible upgrading. Where feasible,
capacity improvements or other remedial actions are usually recommended if the level of
service is worse than C.
Land Ac cess
Mobility
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
25
Levels of service on roadway segments are defined as follows:
• LOS A – Free-flowing conditions. The operation of vehicles is virtually unaffected
by the presence of other vehicles, and operations are constrained only the geometric
features of the highway and driver preferences.
• LOS B – Indicative of free flow, but the presence of other vehicles begins to have a
noticeable impact on speeds and freedom to maneuver.
• LOS C – Represents a range on which the influence of traffic density on operations
becomes marked. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream and to select an
operating speed is now clearly affected by the presence of other vehicles.
• LOS D – Borders on unstable flow. Speeds and ability to maneuver are severely
restricted because of congestion.
• LOS E – Operations are near or at capacity and flow is quite unstable.
• LOS F – Represents forced or breakdown flow.
3.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Standards and Thresholds
The analysis of roadway segment level of service is based on the number of lanes, the
functional classification of the roadway, maximum desired level of service capacity, roadway
geometrics, and existing or forecasted average daily traffic volume.
Table 1: Network Link Characteristics presents the proposed segment level of service LOS
C and D maximum volumes for various facility classifications used in this study. The
evaluation was based on Florida Department of Transportation assessment methods. These
level of service capacity volumes were also used in the Northwest Cochise County
Transportation Planning Study, dated July 2005.
Table 1: Network Link Characteristics
Functional Classification
(Facility Type)
LOS C LOS D
State Route divided – 6 lanes 38,000 46,100
State Route divided – 4 lanes 24,400 30,600
State Route – 2 lanes 10,500 14,500
Arterial Roadway - 5 lanes* 22,600 30,400
Arterial Roadway – 4 lanes 21,400 30,100
Arterial Roadway – 3 lanes* 11,025 14,500
Arterial Roadway -2 lanes 7,000 13,600
Collector Roadway - 2 lanes** 2,000 2,400
Unpaved Roadway*** 250 350
Source: FDOT 2002 Quality/LOS Handbook, Table 4-2
Note: * A 5 lane section and a 3 lane section include the two-way left turn lane.
** The LOS capacity was not defined for a collector roadway according to the FDOT method., Therefore, an
average ADT was selected that reflects collector street activity for a small community.
*** Based on dust control standards.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
26
The level of service for each segment in the network is determined by comparing the actual
traffic volumes to the capacity calculated for each roadway type by the FDOT worksheets.
The capacity is defined as the volume threshold for the type of facility. This method of
assessing roadway segment levels of service is widely used for planning applications. The
FDOT methods are based on the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual.
In rural areas, LOS C is the general standard for acceptable roadway performance, and LOS
D is generally considered acceptable for roadways in areas transitioning from rural to urban,
such as SR 80/4th Street. Capacity at LOS C and D are derived from the FDOT Generalized
Annual Average Daily Volumes for Areas Transitioning into Urbanized Area, 2002 FDOT
Quality/LOS Handbook.
For planning purposes, the Levels of Service are determined by:
• LOS D or Higher – Over Capacity
• Between LOS C and LOS D – Capacity
• LOS C or Lower – Under Capacity
It should be recognized that the actual functional capacity of roadway facilities vary by the
characteristics that exist on each facility under review. Typically, the performance and level
of service of a roadway segment are based on the ability of the intersections to accommodate
peak hour volumes. Special designs of intersections to achieve acceptable levels of service
and lower levels of approach delay could result in higher capacities compared to those shown
for LOS D. For the purposes of this study, LOS C and better for roadway segments are
considered acceptable for arterial and collector roadways under daily operating conditions.
3.4 Pedestrian Standards and Guidelines
The guidelines for the planning and design of pedestrian facilities in the Benson Area are
based on the Pedestrian Policies and Design Guidelines 2005, dated April 2005 prepared by
Maricopa Association of Governments.
3.5 Bicycle Standards and Guidelines
The guidelines for the planning and design of bikeway facilities in the Benson Area are based
on the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities prepared by the AASHTO Task Force
on Geometric Design dated 1999 and the ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans for
Phase I and II prepared by Kimley Horn dated August 2003 and December 2004,
respectively. Bicycle facilities include separated shared use paths, striped bike lanes, signed
bike routes, and shared roadways.
3.6 Transit Service Planning Guidelines
The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation Planning Handbook 2nd Edition,
dated 1999, suggests the following guidelines of bus service planning in urban areas.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
27
• Provide ¼ mile coverage service for at least 90 percent of area residents where
population density exceeds 4,000 person per square mile or three dwelling units per
acre.
• Provide ½ mile coverage service 50 to 75 percent of the population where population
density ranges from 2,000 to 4,000 persons per square mile.
• Service major employment centers, schools, and hospitals.
• Space routes about ½ mile in urban areas and 1 mile in low density suburban areas.
The following list different kinds of public transportation services and the varying services
levels.
Local transit service – operates on streets or other right of way with frequent stops and at
relatively low speeds; it serves adjacent land uses within acceptable walking distances.
Shuttle services within business districts or connecting high activity centers functionally fall
within this category.
Express service – does not attempt to serve all land areas through which it passes, but it
offers faster speeds to a selected number of stops spaced more widely apart. It includes
limited-stop and nonstop services.
Basic service – comprises routes that operate all day (although the length of the “day” may
vary from about 14 to 24 hours) and at least five days a week.
Peak service – comprises routes that operate during peak demand periods only.
Special service – comprises irregular routes operated for special events or for seasonal traffic
generators.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
28
4.0 CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
This section provides an overview of year 2005 socioeconomic conditions within the Benson
study area. It includes population and employment estimates as well as economic conditions
from the Census Bureau.
4.1 General Characteristics
The 2000 Census data prepared by the US Census Bureau was used as a base for the
socioeconomic conditions. This information was the most current available for the Benson
Study Area. Other data provided by Arizona Department of Economic Security was used
only for the more current 2004 population count.
4.1.1 Total Population
In 2000, the US Census Bureau recorded a total population of 4,711 for the City of Benson.
Then, in July the Arizona Department of Economic Security estimated that Benson grew to
by approximately 74 people to increase its total population to 4,785.
4.1.2 Ethnicity and Race
According to the 2000 Census, Hispanics constituted 19.8 percent of the City’s total
population compared to 25.3 percent for the state and 12.5 percent for the nation. Native
Americans accounted for 1.3 percent of the City’s population, African Americans for 0.7
percent, and Asian/Pacific Islanders for 0.6 percent. Multi-racial, that is persons indicating
two or more races were indicated by 2.4 percent of the population.
4.1.3 Age and Sex
The median age of Benson’s 2000 population was 49.6 – notably greater than the nation
median average of 35.3. This region attracts retirees, contributing to those over 65 which was
29.3 percent in Benson compared to the national average of 12.4 percent. These numbers
confirm that the City supports a large retired population and is a winter refuge for visitors
from colder climates.
The 2000 population in the City of Benson was 51.1 percent female and 48.9 percent male.
4.1.4 Persons per Household
The number of persons per household is one measure of population that is recorded by the
Census. In 2000 the average household size was 2.2 people per dwelling unit. This is lower
than the national household size which averaged 2.59 persons per household.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
29
4.2 Social Characteristics
4.2.1 Schooling
Of the population that is 25 years or older, the 2000 Census collected data on educational
achievement in Benson. Based on this data, 77.1 percent of the population was a high school
graduate or higher and 14.3 percent had received their Bachelor’s degree or higher.
4.2.2 Veteran Status
Approximately 23.2 percent of the Benson population, over the age of 18, are veterans
compared to the national average of 12.7 percent.
4.3 Economic Characteristics
In 2000, the civilian labor force (population 16 years and older) in Benson totaled 1,938
people ~ about 47.6 percent of the population. The average unemployment rate in Benson in
2000 was 5.7 percent, slightly higher than the state average of 5 percent and the Nation
average of 5.2 percent.
The 2000 Census data was also used to present employment data for the City of Benson
study area. Figure 5: Employment Classification, shows the 2000 employed civilian
population over the age of 16 (1,685 people) by type of profession.
Employment Classification
Professional
22%
Service
Sales 24%
25%
Construction
15%
Production
14%
Figure 5: Employment Classification
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
30
Employment by Category for the City of Benson was provided by the City of Benson
General Development Plan, WLB Group, 2002. Table 2: Employment by Category
summarizes the data. This table presents the total number of jobs available by category
within the Benson area as estimated for 2002.
Table 2: Employment by Category
Category
Employment
Total
No. %
Government 316 5.4
Service 2268 38.8
Trade 1581 27.1
Construction 352 6.0
Transportation 841 14.4
Manufacturing 258 4.4
Finance, Real Estate 223 3.8
Total (non-agricultural) 5,839 100.0
Source: City of Benson General Development Plan, October 2002, WLB Group.
According to the Benson/San Pedro Valley Chamber of Commerce web site, Arizona
Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Apache Nitrogen Products, Benson Schools and the
Benson Hospital are the area's major employers. Many residents also commute to Tucson
and Sierra Vista for employment and shopping.
4.4 Work Travel
According to the 2000 Census data, 75.1 percent of those traveling to work drove alone, and
the average daily commute time was 23 minutes. Figure 6: Travel to Work, presents the
mode split and the percentages for the City of Benson.
Travel to Work
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
drove alone carpooled transit Walked Other
means
Worked at
home
Mode Split
Percent
Figure 6: Travel to Work
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
31
Because the roadway network carries approximately 92% of all the current trips made within
the study area, it is the backbone to the community system. This network made of Interstate
10, state routes, arterials, collectors and local roads, which move people and commodities,
comprise the primary surface transportation system.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
32
5.0 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the related statutes state that individuals
cannot be excluded from participated in, denied the benefit of, or subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice directs that programs, policies, and
activities not have a disproportionately large and adverse human health and
environmental effect on minority and low-income populations.
In recent years there has been increased attention and focus on ensuring equity,
environmental justice and Title VI compliance in the delivery of government programs.
Recipients of federal assistance for transportation related projects are now required to
assure compliance with all civil rights standards applicable to the specified transportation
related projects, as they relate to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
Transportation improvements implemented from this study should not adversely impact
such groups disproportionately. To identify and address environmental justice issues,
community outreach and public involvement programs should involve under represented
populations from the planning to the implementation of any transportation improvement
project. A variety of possible alternatives should be developed and considered in order to
ensure all groups are fairly represented in the amount and type of transportation services
provided.
To be consistent with the requirements of Title VI and environmental justice, the
demographic characteristics of the study area population were examined to determine
areas where various specified populations may be disproportionately affected or
discriminated against. The total population per census block is shown in Figure 7: Total
Population for 2000. This figure shows the distribution of the population for the Benson
area.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
33
Figure 7: Total Population by Census Block
Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000
5.1 Minority Population
The minority population was reviewed to determine if there was a high percentage of
minorities living in a specific area within the study boundary. The percentage of
minorities living in Benson is lower than the state of Arizona, but higher than the
percentage for the national average. Figure 8: Percentage of Minorities by Census
Block illustrates census blocks and the percentage of minorities living in each area.
Based on this graphic, there are approximately 9 census blocks that have a minority
population greater than 46.7 percent.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
34
Figure 8: Percentage of Minorities by Census Block
Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000
5.2 Aged 65 and Older
According to the census data, approximately 13 percent of Arizona’s population is 65 and
older. The census data shows that in Benson, approximately 29.3 percent of the
population is 65 and older. This is primarily because Benson is known as a retirement
community. Figure 9: Percentage of Population 65 and Older, presents the percentages
of residents within Benson that are 65 or older by census block.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
35
Figure 9: Percentage of Minorities by Census Block
Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000
5.3 Mobility Limited
The Benson Area did not have adequate graphs that represent the percentage of persons
disabled by census block. Therefore, Table 3: Disability Status of the Civilian Non-
Institutionalized Population was reviewed to determine if there were a high percentage of
people with a disability in Benson. Based on the state average, approximately 19.4
percent of individuals between 21 and 64 have a disability. In Benson, approximately
27.8 percent of the population, between 21 and 64, has a disability. However, 43 percent
of those with a disability are employed.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
36
Table 3: Disability Status of the Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population
Disability Status of the Civilian Non-Institutionalized
Population Number Percent
Population 5 to 20 years 890 100.0
With a disability 57 6.4
Population 21 to 64 years 2,378 100.0
With a disability 660 27.8
Percent employed - 43.6
No disability 1,718 72.2
Percent employed - 66.1
Population 65 years and over 1,277 100.0
With a disability 559 43.8
5.4 Below Poverty Level
The percentages of families, families with a female householder, individuals, and
individuals over age 65 were compared to the Arizona averages to determine if Benson
has a high percentage of residents that are below the poverty level. Based on Figure 10:
Comparison of Below the Poverty Level for Benson versus Arizona, the poverty levels for
Benson appear to be comparable to the state averages.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Families Families with
female
householder, no
husband present
Individuals Individuals 65 and
older
Percentage
Benson
Arizona
Figure 10: Comparison of Below the Poverty Level for Benson versus Arizona
Source: US Bureau of the Census, 2000
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
37
6.0 NETWORK INVENTORY AND EXISTING
CONDITIONS
The City of Benson is served by Interstate 10 to the north, and by two state routes, SR 90
to the west and SR 80 to the east. Additionally, 4th Street which is SR 80 serves Benson
as “Main Street”. Benson is also served by a variety of arterial, collector and local
roadways.
6.1 Interstate
The only interstate roadway within the Benson Study Area is Interstate 10 (I-10), which
bisects the area in a generally east-west direction. I-10 is an east west interstate serving
long interregional trips between California and New Mexico. The four lane interstate is a
major transportation link that provides high speed automobile and truck service between
the two major cities Tucson, Arizona, and Las Cruces, New Mexico. Table 4: Traffic
Interchanges, lists all of the I-10 traffic interchanges within the study area.
Table 4: Traffic Interchanges
Interchange Name Milepost
Location
SR 90 302.4
SR 80 303.8
Ocotillo Road 304.9
Pomerene Road 306.6
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, State Highway Log System, 1998
6.2 State Routes
State Route 90 and State Route 80 are both north south state routes that traverse through
the Benson Study Area. These routes link I-10 to the north, to the southern communities
of Sierra Vista, Bisbee, Douglas and on to Mexico.
6.2.1 SR 90
State Route 90 (SR 90) is an interregional route originating at I-10 and traversing
southeast to connect to SR 80. SR 90 is the primary route between Benson, Sierra Vista,
and Fort Huachuca. SR 90 also traverses to Karchner Caverns about 10 miles south of
Benson. SR 90 is constructed as a four lane state route with limited access that also
serves commercial development along the facility near the I-10 interchange.
6.2.2 SR 80
Benson’s “Main Street”, State Route 80 (SR 80) also named 4th Street, or Business Route
10 connects Benson to Tombstone and passes through St. David. SR 80 is constructed as
a five lane section within the City and functions as an arterial roadway; however, SR 80
does transition to a two lane roadway and becomes an interregional route connecting
Benson to Bisbee and Douglas.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
38
6.3 Arterials
Both Ocotillo Road and Pomerene Road function as north south arterial routes and
provide access to I-10.
Ocotillo Road is a three lane arterial that serves vehicle trips by connecting the Benson
Downtown Area to the Airport Area.
Pomerene Road is a two lane arterial that connects the Benson Downtown Area to the
Pomerene residential district.
6.4 Collectors
All other streets within the Benson Study Area are defined as collector streets. These
include: Aviation Drive, Jennela Drive, Union Street, Silverwood Lane, Patagonia Road,
Jackson Road, Haverty Lane, Pearl Street, County Rona and Wild Rabbit Road. It should
be noted that only the State Routes, Arterials and Collector Routes were analyzed as a
part of this study. Local Roadways were not analyzed.
Figure 11: Functional Classification illustrates the functional classification for the
Benson Study Area. The functional classification established for the City of Benson is
based on three primary classifications: State Route, Arterial, and Collector roads. This
classification system is consistent the City of Benson General Development Plan, dated
October 2002.
All of the roads analyzed within this Small Area Transportation Study are presented in
Figure 11.
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Interstate
State Route
Arterial
Collector
Residential
Figure 11: Existing Functional Classification
Not to Scale
Ë
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
40
6.5 Jurisdictional Responsibility
The State of Arizona is responsible for all state routes and interstate highways within the
study boundary, mainly, SR 90, SR 80 and I-10. The responsibility of the City of Benson
extends to all non-state routes within the City limits. Cochise County administers all
roadways in the unincorporated portions of the study area.
6.6 Number of Lanes
The number of lanes for each roadway to be analyzed within the study area was
inventoried to determine the number of lanes. The data were collected by driving all of
the arterial and collector streets within the study area. The cross sections of the roads
were defined by the following configurations:
• 2 Lanes - unpaved
• 2 Lanes - paved with no curb or gutter
• 2 Lanes - paved with curb and gutter
• 3 Lanes - paved with no curb or gutter
• 4 Lanes - paved with no curb or gutter
• 4 Lanes - paved with curb and gutter
• 5 Lanes - paved with curb and gutter
• 6 Lanes - paved with no curb or gutter
Figure 12: Number of Lanes, illustrates the existing year 2005 number of lanes on each
roadway. It should be noted that five lane roadways are comprised of four through lanes
plus a continuous center two-way left turn lane. Similarly, three lane roadways have two
through lanes and a continuous center two-way left turn lane.
6.7 Speed Limits
The speed limits within the study area generally range from 25 miles per hour on the
local roads and collector routes to 65 miles per hour on the state routes. Streets in the
vicinity of the elementary school are posted 15 miles per hour during school hours.
Although many of the residential streets do not have posted speed limits, the speed limit
is 25 miles per hour according to Arizona State Law. Figure 13: Speed Limits presents
the speed limits on the various routes within the Benson Study Area.
Figure 12: Existing Number of Lanes
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
2 Lanes - unpaved
2 Lanes - paved with no curb or gutter
2 Lanes - paved with curb and gutter
3 Lanes - paved with no curb or gutter
4 Lanes - paved with no curb or gutter
4 Lanes - paved with curb and gutter
5 Lanes - paved with curb and gutter
No striping
Legend:
90
Not to Scale
Ë
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Figure 13: Existing Speed Limits
SPEED
65
LIMIT
SPEED
55
LIMIT
SPEED
65
LIMIT
SPEED
65
LIMIT
SPEED
55
LIMIT
SPEED
65
LIMIT
SPEED
35
LIMIT
SPEED
45
LIMIT
SPEED
25
LIMIT
SPEED
25
LIMIT
SPEED
45
LIMIT
SPEED
55
LIMIT
SPEED
25
LIMIT SPEED
35
LIMIT
SPEED
50
LIMIT
SPEED
50
LIMIT
SPEED
50
LIMIT
SPEED
50
LIMIT
SPEED
35
LIMIT
SPEED
45
LIMIT
SPEED
45
LIMIT
SPEED
35
LIMIT
SPEED
35
LIMIT
SPEED
25
LIMIT
SPEED
25
LIMIT
Not to Scale
Ë
SR 90 TI
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
43
6.8 Intersection Traffic Control
The street intersections were inventoried to identify locations with traffic signals, two
way stops and four way stops. Figure 14: Existing Traffic Control Devices shows the
locations of this traffic control devices.
Traffic signals are valuable devices for the control of vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
However, because they assign the right of way to the various traffic movements, traffic
signals exert a profound influence on traffic flow. Currently, there are three signalized
intersections within the Benson Study Area. All three signals are located on state routes
in the Benson Downtown Area and are owned and maintained by Arizona Department of
Transportation. Intersections that are controlled by signalization include:
• 4th Street (B-10)/Ocotillo Road
• 4th Street (B-10)/Patagonia Road
• SR 90/Whetstone Commerce Drive
All-way stop signal installation is useful as a safety measure at some locations. It is used
where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roadways is approximately equal to the
major roadway. Locations of all way stops were counted if they were part of the roadway
network within the study area.
6.9 Pavement Conditions
The pavement conditions of the arterial and collector roadways were reviewed. Figure
15: Pavement Conditions illustrates the pavement quality. The categories were defined
as:
• Good
• Good to Fair
• Fair
• Fair to Poor
• Poor
• Dirt
The quality of the pavement was determined by a windshield survey using engineering
judgment.
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Figure 14: Existing Traffic Control Devices
STOP
STOP
STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
S. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Cactus St.
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
Hwy 90
S. Whetstone
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
S. San Pedro St.
7th St.
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
S. San Carlos St.
7th St.
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
Silverwood
Patagonia
W. Union
S. Ridge
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
Signalized Intersection
STOP Stop Sign
Legend:
Not to Scale
Ë
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
Figure 15: Existing Pavement Conditions
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
80
Good
Good to Fair
Fair
Fair to Poor
Poor
Dirt
Legend:
90
Not to Scale
Ë
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
46
6.10 Traffic Data
United Civil Group collected average daily traffic volumes, speeds and vehicle
classification within the City of Benson during August 2005 and January 2006, using
Timemark Traffic Counters. Table 5: Average Daily Traffic-Summer 2005 presents the
background average daily traffic (ADT) volumes that were collected for a 24 hour period
on an average weekday during the summer months in 2005.
Table 5: Average Daily Traffic – Summer 2005
Roadway
North- or
East-bound
South- or
West-bound
Average Daily
Traffic
SR 90 N of Jennela Dr 4,021 (NB) 4,483 (SB) 8,504
SR 90 N of Post Rd 3,472 (NB) 4,180 (SB) 7,652
SR 90 N of Rickets Rd 3,400 (NB) 3,405 (SB) 6,805
4th St (B-10) W of Ocotillo Rd 4,880 (EB) 4,536 (WB) 9,416
4th St (B-10) W of Patagonia Rd 5,874 (EB) 5,674 (WB) 11,548
4th St (B-10) W of Pomerene Rd 1,967 (EB) 1,872 (WB) 3,839
4th St (B-10) N of Post Rd 4,023 (NB) 3,762 (SB) 7,785
4th St (B-10) S of Post Rd 2,811 (NB) 2,816 (SB) 5,627
Ocotillo Rd N of I-10 1,066 (NB) 1,062 (SB) 2,128
Ocotillo Rd N of 4th St (B-10) 1567 (NB) 1447 (SB) 3,014
Ocotillo Rd S of Union St 443 (NB) 450 (SB) 893
Pearl St E of Patagonia Av 292 (EB) 325 (WB) 617
7th St E of Gila St 376 (EB) 415 (WB) 791
Pomerene Rd N of I-10 1,264 (NB) 1,266 (SB) 2,530
Silverwood Ln E of Patrick 243 (EB) 223 (WB) 466
Post Rd W of 4th St (B-10) 31 (EB) 31 (WB) 62
Source: United Civil Group Corporation, August 2005
Table 6: Average Daily Traffic – Winter 2006 presents the traffic volumes that were
collected during the peak season. These counts were used to determine the seasonal
variations between the summer and winter traffic volumes within the Benson Study Area.
Therefore, Table 7: Seasonal Percent Change shows the differences.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
47
Table 6: Average Daily Traffic – Winter 2006
Roadway
North- or
East-bound
South- or
West-bound
Average Daily
Traffic
SR 90 N of Jennela Dr 6,372 (NB) 5,852 (SB) 12,224
SR 90 N of Post Rd 4,369 (NB) 4,341 (SB) 8,710
SR 90 N of Rickets Rd 3,203 (NB) 4,442 (SB) 7,645
4th St (B-10) W of Ocotillo Rd 4,808 (EB) 4,659 (WB) 9,467
4th St (B-10) W of Patagonia Rd 6,490 (EB) 5,802 (WB) 12,292
4th St (B-10) W of Pomerene Rd 2,008 (EB) 1,967 (WB) 3,975
4th St (B-10) N of Post Rd 4,486 (NB) 4,421 (SB) 8,907
4th St (B-10) S of Post Rd 3,104 (NB) 2,948 (SB) 6,052
Ocotillo Rd N of I-10 1,307 (NB) 1,303 (SB) 2,610
Ocotillo Rd N of 4th St (B-10) 1,838 (NB) 1,667 (SB) 3,505
Ocotillo Rd S of Union St 571 (NB) 585 (SB) 1,156
Pearl St E of Patagonia Av 226 (EB) 292 (WB) 518
7th Street E of Gila St 409 (EB) 466 (WB) 875
Pomerene Rd N of I-10 1,089 (NB) 1,310 (SB) 2,399
Silverwood Ln E of Patrick 221 (EB) 228 (WB) 449
Post Rd W of 4th St (B-10) 14 (EB) 33 (WB) 47
Patagonia Ave S of 4th St (B-10) 409 (NB) 483 (SB) 892
Patagonia Ave N of 4th St (B-10) 311 (NB) 386 (SB) 697
Source: United Civil Group Corporation, January 2006
Table 7: Seasonal Percent Change
Roadway
Average Daily
Traffic
(Summer 05)
Average
Daily
Traffic
(Winter 06)
Percent
Change
SR 90 N of Jennela Dr 8,504 12,224 33%
SR 90 N of Post Rd 7,652 8,710 12%
SR 90 N of Rickets Rd 6,805 7,645 11%
4th St (B-10)W of Ocotillo Rd 9,416 9,467 1%
4th St (B-10) W of Patagonia Rd 11,548 12,292 6%
4th St (B-10) W of Pomerene Rd 3,839 3,975 3%
SR 80 N of Post Rd 7,785 8,907 13%
SR 80 S of Post Rd 5,627 6,052 7%
Ocotillo Rd N of I-10 2,128 2,610 18%
Ocotillo Rd N of 4th St (B-10) 3,014 3,505 14%
Ocotillo Rd S of Union St 893 1,156 23%
Pearl Street E of Patagonia Av 617 518 -19%
7th Street E of Gila St 791 875 10%
Pomerene Rd N of I-10 2,530 2,399 -5%
Silverwood Ln E of Patrick 466 449 -4%
Post Rd W of 4th St (B-10) 62 47 -32%
Patagonia Ave S of 4th St (B-10) - 892 -
Patagonia Ave N of 4th St (B-10) - 697 -
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
48
The average daily traffic volumes that were collected during the summer and winter are
illustrated on Figures 16 and 17: Traffic Counts. Additionally, the peak hour volumes
for each of these locations are shown on Figures 18 and 19: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.
Traffic speeds were collected with the road tube counters. The speeds were determined
by placing two road tubes 10 feet apart and perpendicular to the traffic flow. This allows
for the collection of the timing pulses that are used to calculate the speeds of the axles as
they traverse across the road tubes.
9,048
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Figure 16: 2006 Traffic Counts
7,957
9,301
See Figure 17
67
7,215
5,717
Not to Scale
Ë
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
794
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr.
W. Via Javalina
W. Jackson Rd.
Haverty Ln.
County Rd.
E. Pearl St.
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th St.
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th St.
Silverwood Ln.
Union Pacific RR
Gila St.
2,132
W. Union St.
900
618
2,544
469
Figure 17: 2006 Traffic Counts Inset
3,872
11,515 9,463
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
3,024
Not to Scale
Ë
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
188(250)
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Figure 18: 2006 Peak Hour Traffic Counts
500(513)
291(343)
365(341)
322(361)
352(344)
See Figure 19
7(5)
8(6)
234(282)
320(293)
232(230)
Not to Scale
Ë
XX(XX) AM(PM) - Peak Hour Traffic Volume
LEGEND:
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
263(281)
269(299)
284(346)
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr.
W. Via Javalina
80
W. Jackson Rd.
Haverty Ln.
County Rd.
E. Pearl St.
Pomerene Rd.
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th St.
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th St.
Silverwood Ln.
Union Pacific RR
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Gila St.
32(37)
39(32)
85(89)
86(83)
W. Union St.
36(44)
35(50)
19(34)
26(36)
81(125)
109(95)
17(26)
22(21)
Figure 19: 2006 Peak Hour Traffic Counts Inset
130(180)
147(151)
456(487)
407(438)
346(399)
313(365)
106(148)
121(118)
Not to Scale
Ë
XX(XX) AM(PM) - Peak Hour Traffic Volume
LEGEND:
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
53
The average and 85th percentile speeds give an indication of how well the speed limits fit
the actual vehicle speeds for a given stretch of roadway. Typically, prevailing speeds are
the primary determinant of speed limits, with adjustments applied as judged appropriate
by remaining factors. According to the Traffic Engineering Handbook, 5th Edition,
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the primary measure computed
from spot speed data collection is the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. The
85th percentile speed is that speed at which 85 percent of free flowing vehicles are
traveling at or below. Use of the 85th percentile speed is based on the theory that the
large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to have a crash, and
desire to reach their destination in the shortest time possible. Once a speed study is
performed, the speed limit is usually set at the nearest 5 mph increment at or below the
85th percentile.
Table 8: Average Traffic Speeds and Table 9: 85 Percentile Speeds present the average
speeds and 85 percentile speeds for each location.
Table 8: Average Traffic Speed
Roadway
North- or
East-bound
South- or
West-bound
Average
Traffic
Speed
Posted
Speed
Limit
SR 90 N of Jennela Dr 62mph (NB) 58mph (SB) 60mph 55 mph
SR 90 N of Post Rd 65mph (NB) 68mph (SB) 67mph 55 mph
SR 90 N of Rickets Rd 72mph (NB) 72mph (SB) 72mph 65 mph
4th St (B-10) W of Ocotillo Rd 41mph (EB) 41mph (WB) 41mph 45 mph
4th St (B-10) W of Patagonia Rd 33mph (EB) 38mph (WB) 35mph 35 mph
4th St (B-10) W of Pomerene Rd 44mph (EB) 40mph (WB) 42mph 45 mph
SR 80 N of Post Rd 42mph (NB) 44mph (SB) 43mph 50 mph
SR 80 S of Post Rd 54mph (NB) 53mph (SB) 53mph 50 mph
Ocotillo Rd N of I-10 33mph (NB) 30mph (SB) 32mph 35 mph
Ocotillo Rd N of SR 80 36mph (NB) 35mph (SB) 36mph 25 mph
Ocotillo Rd S of Union St 22mph (NB) 22mph (SB) 22mph 25 mph
Pearl Street E of Patagonia Av 20mph (EB) 21mph (WB) 21mph 25 mph
7th Street E of Gila St 24mph (EB) 23mph (WB) 23mph 25 mph
Pomerene Rd N of I-10 40mph (NB) 42mph (SB) 41mph 55 mph
Silverwood Ln E of Patrick 25mph (EB) 22mph (WB) 24mph 25 mph
Post Rd W of SR 80 - - - -
Patagonia Ave S of SR80 21mph (NB) 23mph (SB) 22mph 25 mph
Patagonia Ave N of SR80 18mph (NB) 19mph (SB) 19mph 25 mph
Source: United Civil Group Corporation, August 2005
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
54
Table 9: 85th Percentile Speed
Roadway
North- or
East-bound
South- or
West-bound
Average
Traffic
Speed
Posted
Speed
Limit
SR 90 N of Jennela Dr 68mph (NB) 63mph (SB) 60mph 55 mph
SR 90 N of Post Rd 70mph (NB) 73mph (SB) 67mph 55 mph
SR 90 N of Rickets Rd 77mph (NB) 78mph (SB) 72mph 65 mph
4th St (B-10) W of Ocotillo Rd 47mph (EB) 47mph (WB) 41mph 45 mph
4th St (B-10) W of Patagonia Rd 39mph (EB) 43mph (WB) 35mph 35 mph
4th St (B-10) W of Pomerene Rd 50mph (EB) 45mph (WB) 42mph 45 mph
SR 80 N of Post Rd 48mph (NB) 50mph (SB) 43mph 50 mph
SR 80 S of Post Rd 59mph (NB) 58mph (SB) 53mph 50 mph
Ocotillo Rd N of I-10 42mph (NB) 39mph (SB) 32mph 35 mph
Ocotillo Rd N of SR 80 41mph (NB) 40mph (SB) 36mph 25 mph
Ocotillo Rd S of Union St 26mph (NB) 27mph (SB) 22mph 25 mph
Pearl Street E of Patagonia Av 25mph (EB) 25mph (WB) 21mph 25 mph
7th Street E of Gila St 28mph (EB) 27mph (WB) 23mph 25 mph
Pomerene Rd N of I-10 45mph (NB) 48mph (SB) 41mph 55 mph
Silverwood Ln E of Patrick 30mph (EB) 27mph (WB) 24mph 25 mph
Post Rd W of SR 80 - - - -
Patagonia Ave S of SR80 23mph (NB) 24mph (SB) 24mph 25 mph
Patagonia Ave N of SR80 21mph (NB) 21mph (SB) 21mph 25 mph
Source: United Civil Group Corporation, August 2005
Vehicle Classifications can also be collected using road tubes. In this instance, the timing
of pulses is used to measure the spacing between axles and the gap to classify a vehicle.
Table 10: Vehicle Classification presents the percentage of vehicles in each classification
category.
Table 10: Vehicle Classification
Roadway Bike
Passenger
Car
Bus
Delivery
Vehicle
Heavy
Vehicle
SR 90 North of Jennela Drive 0.0% 88.3% 0.8% 3.9% 7.0%
SR 90 North of Post Road 0.0% 73.6% 1.3% 6.0% 6.8%
SR 90 North of Rickets Road 0.0% 59.4% 2.0% 12.8% 5.7%
SR 80 West of Ocotillo Road 0.5% 97.9% 0.7% 8.2% 5.2%
SR 80 West of Patagonia Road 0.8% 121.7% 1.0% 9.9% 5.1%
SR 80 West of Pomerene Road 0.3% 40.5% 0.2% 2.9% 1.2%
SR 80 North of Post Road 0.5% 79.2% 1.3% 7.2% 3.1%
SR 80 South of Post Road 0.1% 57.4% 0.6% 5.5% 18.9%
Ocotillo Road North of I-10 0.1% 22.4% 0.1% 2.3% 0.5%
Ocotillo Road North of SR 80 0.3% 33.1% 0.2% 1.7% 0.6%
Ocotillo Road South of Union St 0.3% 9.5% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Pearl Street East of Patagonia Av 0.1% 7.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
7th Street East of Gila Street 0.1% 8.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Pomerene Road North of I-10 0.2% 27.4% 0.1% 1.6% 0.4%
Silverwood Lane East of Patrick 0.1% 5.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Post Road West of SR 80 - - - - -
Source: United Civil Group Corporation, August 2005
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
55
United Civil Group will collect traffic data at the locations listed above in January 2006
to give a comparison of seasons, summer traffic volumes versus winter traffic volumes.
These counts will be provided in the Draft Benson Small Area Transportation Study.
Because this is the first time that traffic count data has been collected for the City of
Benson, to historical growth trends for the key roadways within the study area could not
be calculated.
6.11 Level of Service
The roadway levels of service for existing conditions were determined based on the
existing count data collected in August 2005. Estimated capacities for both LOS C and D
are presented below in Table 11: Existing Level of Service for the roadway segments
analyzed. For planning purposes, the existing capacity was determined to be over
capacity (LOS D or higher), at capacity (between LOS C and LOS D) or under capacity
(LOS C or better)
Table 11: Existing LOS
Roadway Class
Average
Daily
Traffic
LOS C
Capacity
LOS D
Capacity
Capacity
SR 90 N of Jennela Dr 6 lanes 8,504 38,000 46,100 Under
SR 90 N of Post Rd 4 lanes (D) 7,652 24,400 30,600 Under
SR 90 N of Rickets Rd 4 lanes (D) 6,805 24,400 30,600 Under
SR 80 W of Ocotillo Rd 5 lanes 9,416 22,600 30,400 Under
SR 80 W of Patagonia 5 lanes 11,548 21,400 30,100 Under
SR 80 W of Pomerene 3 lanes 3,839 11,025 14,500 Under
SR 80 N of Post Rd 2 lanes 7,785 10,500 14,500 Under
SR 80 S of Post Rd 2 lanes 5,627 10,500 14,500 Under
Ocotillo Rd North of I-10 2 lanes 2,128 7,000 13,600 Under
Ocotillo Rd N of SR 80 3 lanes 3,014 7,000 13,600 Under
Ocotillo Rd S of Union St 2 lanes 893 7,000 13,600 Under
Pearl St E of Patagonia 2 lanes (C) 617 2,000 2,400 Under
7th St E of Gila St 2 lanes (C) 791 2,000 2,400 Under
Pomerene N of I-10 2 lanes 2,530 7,000 13,600 Under
Silverwood E of Patrick 2 lanes(C) 466 2,000 2,400 Under
Post Rd W of SR 80 2 lanes (U) 62 250 350 Under
Source: United Civil Group Corporation, August 2005
Note: (D) = divided roadway, (U) = unpaved, (C) = Collector
The network performance shows that all study area facilities are operating at acceptable
levels of service in the current year 2005.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
56
6.12 Safety and Crash History
Crash records, provided by the Arizona Department of Transportation were reviewed for
a three year period from May 1, 2002 through April 30 2005. Tables 12 through 20:
Crash History summarize accidents as presented by Arizona Department of
Transportation for Business Route 10/4th Street from milepost 303.50 to milepost 306.95,
SR 80 from milepost 293.25 to milepost 299, and SR 90 from milepost 289.00 to
milepost 297.00. This data is summarized by route, type of accident, first harmful group,
and collision manner.
Table 12: Accident History Data for Business Route 10 from MP 303.50 to MP 306.95
Year
Total
Acc
PDO Injury
Fatal
Daylight Condition
Acc Veh Acc Veh Inj Day Dusk Dark
2002* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2004 4 2 4 2 4 2 0 4 0 0
2005* 2 0 0 2 5 3 0 1 0 1
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
Table 13: Collision Type for Business Route 10 from MP 303.50 to MP 306.95
Collision Type 2002* 2003 2004 2005* Total
Overturning 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Other Vehicle 0 0 4 2 6
Collision with Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Pedal Cyclist 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Vehicle Other Road 0 0 0 0 0
Animal 0 0 0 0 0
Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 0
Object in Roadway 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0
Not Reported 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
Table 14: Collision Manner for Business Route 10 from MP 303.50 to MP 306.95
Collision Manner 2002* 2003 2004 2005* Total
Angle 0 0 2 0 2
Left Turn 0 0 0 0 0
Rear End 0 0 2 1 3
Other 0 0 0 1 1
U-Turn 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
57
Table 15: Accident History Data for State Route 80 from MP 293.25 to MP 299.00
Year
Total
Acc
PDO Injury
Fatal
Daylight Condition
Acc Veh Acc Veh Inj Day Dusk Dark
2002* 11 8 16 3 3 3 0 8 1 2
2003 8 5 7 3 4 5 0 6 0 2
2004 10 6 10 4 11 12 0 9 0 1
2005* 3 2 4 1 2 6 0 3 0 0
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
Table 16: Collision Type for State Route 80 from MP 293.25 to MP 299.00
Collision Type 2002* 2003 2004 2005* Total
Overturning 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Other Vehicle 7 3 8 3 21
Collision with Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Pedal Cyclist 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Vehicle Other Road 0 0 0 0 0
Animal 0 1 0 0 1
Fixed Object 4 3 1 0 8
Object in Roadway 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 0 1 1 0 2
Not Reported 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
Table 17: Collision Manner for State Route 80 from MP 293.25 to MP 299.00
Collision Manner 2002* 2003 2004 2005* Total
Not Reported 0 0 0 0 0
Single Vehicle 4 5 2 0 11
Sideswipe (same) 0 0 1 2 3
Sideswipe (opposite) 0 0 0 0 0
Angle 0 0 1 0 1
Left Turn 1 0 0 0 1
Rear End 5 3 4 0 12
Head On 0 0 2 0 2
Backing 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 0 0 0 1
U-Turn 0 0 0 1 1
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
58
Table 18: Accident History Data for State Route 90 from MP 289.00 to MP 297.00
Year
Total
Acc
PDO Injury
Fatal
Daylight Condition
Acc Veh Acc Veh Inj Day Dusk Dark
2002* 12 10 12 2 2 3 0 2 2 8
2003 10 8 10 2 2 2 0 6 1 3
2004 11 8 8 3 3 4 0 7 0 4
2005* 6 5 5 1 1 1 0 5 0 1
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
Table 19: Collision Type for State Route 90 from MP 289.00 to MP 297.00
Collision Type 2002* 2003 2004 2005* Total
Overturning 2 0 0 0 2
Collision with Other Vehicle 2 3 2 1 8
Collision with Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Pedal Cyclist 0 0 0 0 0
Collision with Vehicle Other Road 0 0 0 0 0
Animal 7 3 6 3 19
Fixed Object 0 3 1 1 5
Object in Roadway 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 1 1 2 1 5
Not Reported 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
Table 20: Collision Manner for State Route 90 from MP 289.00 to MP 297.00
Collision Manner 2002* 2003 2004 2005* Total
Not Reported 0 0 0 0 0
Single Vehicle 10 7 9 5 31
Sideswipe (same) 0 0 1 0 1
Sideswipe (opposite) 0 0 0 0 0
Angle 0 1 0 0 1
Left Turn 0 0 0 1 1
Rear End 1 1 0 0 2
Head On 0 0 0 0 0
Backing 0 0 0 0 0
Other 1 0 1 0 2
U-Turn 0 1 0 0 1
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2005
Note: * partial year
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
59
Crash records were also provided by the City of Benson and were reviewed for a one and
a half year period from January 1, 2004 through August 31, 2005. Tables 21 and 22: City
of Benson Crash History summarize the accident data that was provided by the City of
Benson Police Department for January through December 2004 and January through
August 2005, respectively. Based on discussions with the Benson Police Chief, crash
records on 4th Street, are not duplicated with records on Business Route 10 or SR 80
provided by Arizona Department of Transportation.
Table 21: City of Benson Crash History 2004
Roadway
Accident/
No Injury
Private
Property
Accident/
No Injury
Private
Property
Accident/
No Injury
Hit & Run
Injury
Accident
Total
500blk of 4th Street 0 17 9 0 26
4thStreet and Patagonia 8 0 0 2 10
4thStreet and Ocotillo 4 0 0 6 10
West 4th Street 9 8 1 2 20
4thStreet and SR 80 5 0 0 1 6
SR 90 5 18 7 1 31
SR 80 9 7 2 5 23
East 4th Street 14 6 4 0 24
South Ocotillo 3 1 2 1 7
North Ocotillo 2 1 4 0 7
Patagonia Union 6th St 5 0 0 1 6
South Huachuca 3 1 1 0 5
East Pearl 4 0 0 1 5
East 5thStreet 1 2 0 0 3
East Mark 2 0 0 0 2
East 6thStreet 0 0 1 0 1
East 2nd Street 2 0 0 0 2
West Flint 1 0 0 0 1
West 5th Street 0 0 1 0 1
North Adams 0 0 0 1 1
East Leslie 1 0 0 0 1
East Mc Neil 1 0 0 0 1
North Easy 1 0 0 0 1
Source: Benson Police Department, September 2005
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
60
Table 22: Benson Crash History January-August 2005
Roadway
Accident/
No Injury
Private
Property
Accident/
No Injury
Private
Property
Accident/
No Injury
Hit & Run
Injury
Accident
Total
500blk of 4th Street 0 12 2 0 14
4thStreet and Patagonia 2 0 0 0 2
4thStreet and Ocotillo 4 0 0 0 4
West 4th Street 7 3 1 2 13
4thStreet and SR 80 1 0 0 1 2
SR 90 4 5 2 1 12
SR 80 2 0 0 4 6
East 4th Street 3 4 3 0 10
South Ocotillo 2 1 0 1 4
North Ocotillo 4 4 0 0 8
Patagonia Union 6th St 5 0 2 0 7
South Huachuca 4 1 1 0 6
East Pearl 1 0 0 0 1
East 5thStreet 2 1 0 0 3
Source: Benson Police Department, September 2005
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
61
7.0 EXISTING MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
7.1 Non-Motorized Trails
Non-motorized methods of transportation are limited within the City of Benson.
Currently, there are only paved shoulders ranging in two to six feet along the Interstate
and State Routes within the City of Benson.
7.2 Existing Transit Service
7.2.1 Local Service
The City of Benson currently does not have a local transit system. However, there is a
taxi service within the community, Benson Taxi. There is also a van service provided by
the Catholic Community Services that is used to assist the community in providing the
elderly with their transportation needs. This program does get assistance from the 5310
program for rural transit, section 501.C3 for the elderly. Additionally, Viacap, a
volunteer non-profit organization within Benson provides transportation services to the
elderly and disabled. Viacap’s primary purpose is to provide transportation services for
medical needs.
7.2.2 Intercity Transit
Greyhound Bus Lines has a station on 4th Street, at the Benson Flower Shop. The station
is open for operation on Monday through Friday from 8 am to 5 pm and on Saturday
from 9 am to 12:30 pm. As of October 2005, a one way fare between Tucson and Benson
was $ 15.00 and between Phoenix and Benson was $ 36.00. Discount one way fares were
available for seniors and children.
7.2.3 Existing Rail Service
Amtrak has two service lines that run through Benson, the Sunset Limited Line from
Orlando to Los Angeles and the Texas Eagle from Chicago to Los Angeles. The
schedules for each of these lines are shown on Table 23: Sunset Limited Line and Table
24: Texas Eagle Line.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
62
Table 23: Sunset Limited Line
1 Train Number 2
Read Down Read Up
1:45P SuTuTh Dp Orlando, FL Ar 8:45P WeSaMo
5:30P SuTuTh Dp Jacksonville,FL Dp 5:00P WeSaMo
12:52A MoWeFr Dp Pensacola, FL Dp 6:30A WeSaMo
11:55A MoWeFr Dp New Orleans, LA Dp 10:30P TuFrSu
9:50P MoWeFr Dp Houston, TX Dp 6:15A TuFrSu
5:40A TuThSa Dp San Antonio, TX Dp 1:00A TuFrSu
5:55P TuThSa Dp El Paso, TX Dp 9:00A MoThSa
8:26P WeFrSu Dp Benson, AZ N/A N/A N/A
10:10A ThSaMo Ar Los Angeles, CA Dp 2:30P SuWeFr
Table 24: Texas Eagle Line
1 Train Number 2
Read Down Read Up
3:20P SuTuTh Dp Chicago, IL Ar 2:14P WeSaMo
4:15P SuTuTh Dp Joliet, IL Dp 1:10P WeSaMo
9:05P SuTuTh Dp St. Louis, MO Dp 8:30A WeSaMo
4:30P MoWeFr Dp Little Rock, AR N/A N/A N/A
5:25A TuThSa Dp Malvern, AR N/A N/A N/A
5:50A TuThSa Dp Arkadelphia, AR N/A N/A N/A
7:15A TuThSa Dp Texarkana, AR N/A N/A N/A
1:40P TuThSa Dp Dallas, TX Dp 4:30P TuFrSa
4:00P TuThSa DP Forth Worth, TX Dp 3:20P TuFrSa
5:40A WeFrSu Dp San Antonio, TX Dp 8:00A TuFrSu
5:55P WeFrSu Dp El Paso, TX Dp 9:00A MoThSa
10:10A ThSaMo Ar Los Angeles, CA Dp 2:30P SuWeFr
The schedules provided show departure and arrival times to main stations only. The
Texas Eagle Line passes through Benson, AZ at 10:26 pm WeFrSu from Chicago, IL to
Los Angeles, CA, and at 3:20 am MoThSa from Los Angeles, CA to Chicago, IL.
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
63
8.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS
As a sub-consultant to United Civil Group, the transportation modeling company, DKS
Associates, developed travel forecasts for the Benson Arizona Small Area Transportation
Study. These forecasts were derived by developing estimates of the increment of travel
that could be expected from growth in the Benson Planning Area and adding that growth
to the estimates of existing traffic volumes developed by United Civil Group. Existing
(2005) traffic counts were provided for 17 locations. For each of these locations, an
estimate of total daily two-way volumes was provided as well as peak hour AM and peak
hour PM volumes by direction of flow. In order to forecast traffic volumes, population
projections and employment projections were needed.
8.1 Socioeconomic Forecasting
Substantial residential development growth is expected to occur in Benson over the next
25 years, resulting in approximately 25,000 new housing units. These land use
developments, not previously incorporated into published population forecasts for the
City, in addition to standard estimates from other sources, were used to develop the 2030
population forecasts for Benson. These forecasts will be used to support both the
Southeastern Arizona Regional Transportation Profile and the Benson Small Area
Transportation Study. Methods and results are presented below.
8.1.1 Population Growth
DKS developed long-range forecasts of population (2030) using area estimates of growth
developed by Cambridge Systematics for the Southeast Arizona Regional Transportation
Profile Study for the Arizona Department of Transportation. For that work, Cambridge
drew from population forecasts prepared by Woods & Poole, a proprietary database of
population and employment forecasts used by ADOT to help forecast growth in regions
across Arizona, and the Cochise County Long-Term Development and Demographic
Analysis Study, which identified major new land-use development projects in the study
area.
Cambridge Systematics estimated an addition of 25,400 new housing units in the study
area in the next 25 years as indicated in Table 25: Forecasted 2030 Population Growth
Estimates Based on Proposed Development along SR90 Only. Table 26: Total Estimated
2030 Population for Benson presents the estimated population for the entire Benson study
area. Figure 20: Future Land Use from the City of Benson’s General Plan 2002 was
used to assist in determining land patterns over the next 30 years.
Figure 20: Future Land Use
Not to Scale
Ë
Source: Benson General Plan, October 2002, prepared by WLB Group
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
65
Table 25: Forecasted 2030 Population Growth Estimates Based on Proposed
Developments along SR90 Only
Region Major Development
New
Housing
Units
Population
Growth
Benson
Study Area
Whetstone Development 14,000 33,600
Smith Ranch Development 4,500 10,800
Developments South of Whetstone 6,900 16,560
Total All Developments 25,400 60,960
Table 26: Total Estimated 2030 Population for Benson
Region Forecast
Population
(2030)
Benson
Study Area
W&P 2030 Estimate (Excludes SR90 Developments) 17,250
Future Land Use Developments on SR 90 60,960
Total Population 78,210
The population in major developments was then distributed based on the known locations
of planned development as identified in Table 27: Estimated Housing Units for
Developments in the Benson SAT Study Area.
Table 27: Estimated Housing Units for Developments in the Benson SAT Study Area
Subdivision Names At Build Out Stage
Canyons at Whetstone Phase lll* 391 Preliminary Plat
Canyons at Whetstone Phase ll* 179 Final Plat
Canyons at Whetstone* 190 Final Approval
Cottonwood Bluffs* 100 Final Approval
Cottonwood Highlands* 170 Final Approval
Kartchner Vista* 201 Final Plat
Del Webb Pulte* 13,750 Conceptual
San Pedro Golf Estates 224 Final Plat
Turquoise Hills (Hwy 80) 32 Final Plat
La Mesa San Pedro 13 Preliminary Plat
Old Homestead 24 Final Plat
San Pedro Vista 121 Preliminary Plat
House Ridge Estates 33 Final Plat
Whetstone Hills Estates* 265 Final Plat
Water Crest 53 Preliminary Plat
La Cholla Heights 45 Final Plat
Total 15,791
* Those developments off State Hwy 90
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
66
Cambridge Systematics also estimated that additional housing units would be located
south of the Whetstone Ranch development on SR 90. Therefore, this growth was
located south on SR 90.
Home-based travel was generated for the new growth by applying vehicle trip generation
rates taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. One-third of all new units were
assumed to be for retired individuals and two-thirds for traditional populations. This is
the rough splits expected in the Anthem at Whetstone Ranch development as indicated in
the Preliminary Concept Plan submitted for the development.
Based on Cochise county projections, growth is also likely to occur within the currently
developed areas of Benson. Therefore, approximately 5,000 units of expected growth
were assumed on the basis of existing residential zoning and vacant land in the remainder
of Benson – not along SR 90 or west of SR 90.
The detailed analysis of population growth is provided in Working Paper #2.
8.1.2 Employment Growth
No estimates of employment growth were developed by Cambridge Systematics for the
Southeast Arizona Regional Transportation Profile Study. Therefore, estimates of
employment were developed through previous studies within the region. These forecasts
represent an update of forecasts prepared for the Benson General Plan, which was
adopted in 2002.
It was determined that the estimated growth in employment will be approximately 3,000
jobs along SR 90 and 5,200 in the remainder of Benson. The new jobs along SR 90 were
located the SR90 corridor. The locations of new jobs for the remainder of Benson were
located according the amount of undeveloped land within the Benson area.
The estimates for jobs were then provided for job growth in the following categories:
• Airport Related
• Retail
• Industrial
• Other
The detailed analysis of employment growth is provided in Working Paper #2.
8.2 Transportation Modeling Process
8.2.1 Traffic Analysis Zones
Once the population estimates and employment estimates are determined, these total
forecasts need to be distributed throughout the Benson region. This is done through the
development of traffic analysis zones (TAZ). TAZ’s are geographical zonal units used to
tabulate land used and trip generation data. Boundaries of the TAZ’s are defined based
on similar land uses, physical barriers, census blocks and major streets in the
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
67
transportation system. TAZ’s were developed for the Benson region based on known
growth and through the review of other studies in the area. The existing roadway
network is used as the basis for the TAZ break out.
8.2.2 Traffic Assignment
Next, the population and employment estimates are assigned to the correct TAZ.
Therefore, The Airport Related were located in the zone with the airport, the Retail were
divided between the TAZ’s with Commercial zoning, the Industrial were divided among
the zones with Industrial zoning, and the Other were divided between the zones with
Business Park zoning. For the retail employment, 70% was allocated to Commercial
TAZ along SR 90, 20% to Commercial TAZ along SR 80 and 10% to all other
commercial TAZ.
The following categories of land uses were used to obtain trip attraction rates from the
ITE Trip Generation Manual:
Airport – 022 Airport
Retail – 815 Discount Retail
Industrial - 110 Light Industrial
Other Non-Retail - Average of 710 General Office Building and 770 Business
Park
8.2.3 Trip Attraction
Trips generated or attracted by new development were added to the existing traffic counts
by defining how trips would get into and out of each traffic analysis zone. When
multiple access points were identified for a zone, percentages were identified for each
access point.
For each access point, routes for exiting or entering traffic were identified and the
percentage of traffic using each route was estimated. All trips entering a roadway were
assumed to travel the length of the roadway from the entry point to the end of the
roadway within the study area. The volume of traffic to be added to each existing traffic
count are calculated by adding together all of the volumes of entering or exiting traffic
that are defined to affect the individual count location. This is defined in a matrix with
traffic count locations as the columns and the access points/routes of travel as the rows.
A percentage in the matrix indicates that traffic from (or to) an access point /route should
be added to the existing traffic count for the future forecast. The percentage indicates the
portion of the traffic from the access point that should be added to the count.
The amount of traffic that should be added to a traffic count location was determined by
allocating the expected growth in travel to destination areas. The 63 zones were
aggregated into seven groups and four external destinations were identified to reflect
destinations outside the study area. These represented the following:
• Points West on I-10
• Points East on I-10
City of Benson Small Area Transportation Study
September 2007 FINAL REPORT
68
• Points South of Benson
• Points Northeast of Benson
The seven internal groups were as follows:
• Benson Central Core
• North Benson
• South Benson
• Southeast Benson (Along SR 80)
• SR 90 Business Area
• Whetstone and other Residential on SR 90
• Smith Ranch
Within Benson, household-based trips were allocated to destinations based on the amount
of employment by zone group and the residential end of trips to businesses (generated by
new employment) were allocated on the basis of households. The allocations were then
used to define the routes that would be used for each group-to-group pair and the routes
were used to define which new trips should be added to the existing counts.
8.2.4 The Network
A network with four external and seven internal zones in the study area was then
developed in Traffix to distribute trips previously generated between each zone-to-zone
pair. Traffix was used to apply the new travel to selected routes and to sum the volumes
for key roadway corridors in the area including I-10, Business I-10, SR-90, SR-80,
Ocotillo Rd., Pomerene Rd., and Post Rd. Traffix then produced estimates of the
average daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour traffic volumes for the future
year forecasts as shown in Figures 21 through 24: Projected 2030 Traffic Volumes on the
base network. These figures summarize the forecasted traffic growth within the Benson
study area in the next 25 years on the current transportation system.
8.3 Network Deficiencies
The current transportation system was loaded with projected traffic volumes for the short,
mid and long range conditions. Forecasted levels of service for the base systems present
the volume to capacity ratio for each year analyzed. The roadway segment levels of
service were then calculated.
8.4 Improvement Alternatives
A variety of multimodal transportation improvements with respect to land use, traffic
circulation and traffic volumes were then analyzed. The types of improvements include
widening of existing streets, construction of new roadways, restriping of existing
roadways, improved transit operations, and provision for pedestrians and cyclists.
14,760
18,240
7,957
91,700
90,060
9,048
Figure 21: Projected 2030 Average Daily Traffic
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
9,301
See Figure 22
67
7,215
5,717
Not to Scale
Ë
78,670
5,020
XX
- Existing 2005 ADT
XX
- Projected 2030 ADT
Legend:
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th
Silverwood
Union Pacific RR
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
SR 90 TI
71,930
84,580
14,960
3,024
Figure 22: Projected 2030 Average Daily Traffic Inset
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr.
W. Via Javalina
W. Jackson Rd.
Haverty Ln.
County Rd.
E. Pearl St.
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7th St.
Wild Rabbit Rd.
Patagonia
Aviation Dr.
4th St.
Silverwood Ln.
Union Pacific RR
Gila St.
2,132
W. Union St.
900
2,544
3,872
11,515 9,463
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Not to Scale
Ë
28,510
44,230 36,700
26,210
9,280
18,590
XX
- Existing 2005 ADT
XX
- Projected 2030 ADT
Legend:
SR 80 TI
Ocotillo TI
Pomerene TI
284(346)
760(1,080)
1,110(790)
291(343)
4,960(4,500)
90
80
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
INTERSTATE
10
Figure 23: Projected 2030 Peak Hour Volumes
269(299)
365(341)
322(361)
352(344)
See Figure 24
7(5)
8(6)
234(282)
320(293)
232(230)
188(250)
Not to Scale
Ë
3,830(3,950)
3,630(5,250) 3,360(4,750)
4,820(4,570)
3,260(4,750)
140(340)
490(270)
610(1,120)
730(750)
XX
- Existing 2005 ADT
XX
- Projected 2030 ADT
Legend:
Whetstone Rd.
Whetstone Rd.
Union Pacific RR
N. Ocotillo Rd.
W. Jennela Dr. W. Via Javalina
Post Rd.
W. Jackson Rd.
County Rd.
E. Pearl
Pomerene Rd.
Business I-10
S. Ocotillo Rd.
7