Payson Transportation Study final report

              Prepared for:
Town of Payson &
Arizona Department of Transportation
Payson Transportation Study
FINAL REPORT
101 North 1ST Ave.
Suite 3100
Phoenix, AZ 85003
P: 602.253.1200
F: 602.253.1202
www.jacobs.com
March, 2011
TOWN OF PAYSON
PAYSON TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Prepared for:
Town of Payson
Arizona Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Jacobs Engineering
March, 2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOWN OF PAYSON COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor Kenny Evans
John Wilson
Ed Blair
Su Connell
Fred Carpenter
Rick Crov
Michael Hughes
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Dianne Kresich, Project Manager, ADOT Multimodal Planning Division
LaRon Garrett, Public Works Director, Town of Payson
Curtis Ward, Assistant Town Engineer, Town of Payson
Bill Pederson, Public Information Officer, ADOT CCP
Debra Galbraith, Town Manager, Town of Payson
Sheila Deschaaf, Planner II, Town of Payson
Greg Gentsch, District Engineer, ADOT Prescott District
Robert LaJeunesse, ADOT Prescott District
Bill Leister, Transportation Director, CAAG
Steve Sanders, Engineering Services, Gila County
Ray Erlandsen, Acting Community Development Director, Town of Payson
Aryan Lirange, Division Bridge and Area Engineer, FHWA
Robert Ingram, Highway Project Coordinator, US Forest Service
Ed Armenta, Payson District Ranger, US Forest Service
Ivan Smith, Chairman, Tonto Apache Tribe
Sarah Luckie, Town Clerk, Town of Star Valley
Dee Phan, Environmental Planner, ADOT Environmental Planning Group
Sunny Bush, Public Involvement Consultant, URS
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ..............................................................................................................1
Study Objectives ......................................................................................................................2
Study Process ...........................................................................................................................2
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................3
Existing Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions............................................................3
Transportation Conditions ..................................................................................................17
3. FUTURE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................35
Future Socioeconomic Conditions ......................................................................................35
Future Transportation Conditions......................................................................................41
4. EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ..................................53
Transportation Issues Summary .........................................................................................53
Evaluation Criteria and Process ..........................................................................................55
Roadway Improvement Options ........................................................................................56
Evaluation of Transit Needs ................................................................................................83
Evaluation of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................84
5. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ..............................................................85
Short-Term Transportation Recommendations ................................................................85
Mid-Term Transportation Recommendations ................................................................103
Long-Term Transportation Recommendations ..............................................................115
SR 87 – SR 260 Traffic Operational Analysis Study Recommendations .....................120
Transit, Non-Motorized Modes, and Access Management Recommendations ........131
Access Management ...........................................................................................................132
Title VI and Environmental Justice Implications ...........................................................135
Funding Sources ..................................................................................................................135
Implementation Guidelines ...............................................................................................140
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study ii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1: Population and Housing Unit Growth Trends ..................................................................4
2.2: Major Employers ....................................................................................................................6
2.3: Roadway Functional Classification Definitions ..............................................................18
2.4: Pavement Serviceability and Pavement Condition Rating ............................................19
2.5: Payson Roads Pavement Condition ..................................................................................19
2.6: Payson Bridge Condition ....................................................................................................19
2.7: Crashes Top Seven Predominant Violation Types ..........................................................23
2.8: Crash Rate for Roadway Segments ...................................................................................24
2.9: Crash Rate for Intersections ................................................................................................24
3.1: Projected Employment, 2008-2030 .....................................................................................37
4.1: Transportation Improvements Evaluation Criteria ........................................................55
4.2: Transit Dependant Population Summary in Payson ......................................................83
4.3: Population and Employment Growth in Payson ............................................................83
4.4: Transit Demand Estimation for Payson ............................................................................84
5.1: Short-Term (2011 – 2015) Improvements ..........................................................................85
5.2: Mid-Term (2016 – 2020) Improvements ..........................................................................103
5.3: Long-Term (2021 – 2030) Improvements ........................................................................115
5.4: Funding Sources .................................................................................................................136
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.1: Study Area and Regional Location ......................................................................................1
1.2: Study Process ..........................................................................................................................2
2.1: Land Ownership ....................................................................................................................5
2.2: Population Density by TAZ ..................................................................................................7
2.3: Occupied Dwelling Units and Employment by Traffic Analysis Zone Year 2008 .......8
2.4: Minority, Age 65 and Older, Mobility Limited, and Below Poverty
Population Comparison .....................................................................................................9
2.5: Minority Population (Census Block) .................................................................................11
2.6: Elderly Population (Census Block) ....................................................................................12
2.7: Below Poverty Population (Census Block Group) ..........................................................13
2.8: Mobility Limited Population (Census Block Group) ......................................................14
2.9: Environmental Concerns ....................................................................................................16
2.10: Existing Roadway Functional Classification ..................................................................20
2.11: Existing Number of Lanes and Posted Speed Limits ...................................................21
2.12: Pavement and Bridge Condition .....................................................................................22
2.13: Crashes Summary ..............................................................................................................25
2.14: Illustration of LOS A through LOS F ..............................................................................27
2.15: Daily Traffic Counts ..........................................................................................................28
2.16: Level of Service Year 2009 ................................................................................................30
2.17: Year 2009 Intersection Lane Configuration and Peak Hour Level of Service ...........31
2.18: Payson Trails with Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.....................................32
3.1: Historical and Projected Population and Occupied Housing Units, 2000-2030 .........35
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT iv
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Page
3.2: Planned Developments .......................................................................................................36
3.3: Projected Occupied Dwelling Units and Employment by Traffic Analysis
Zone Year 2015 .......................................................................................................38
3.4: Projected Occupied Dwelling Units and Employment by Traffic Analysis
Zone Year 2020 .......................................................................................................39
3.5: Projected Occupied Dwelling Units and Employment by Traffic Analysis
Zone Year 2030 .......................................................................................................40
3.6: Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service with No
Improvements Year 2015 ......................................................................................42
3.7: Projected 2015 Intersection Lane Configuration and Level of Service with No
Improvements ........................................................................................................43
3.8: Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service with No
Improvements Year 2020 ......................................................................................45
3.9: Projected 2020 Intersection Lane Configuration and Level of Service with No
Improvements.........................................................................................................46
3.10: Projected Average Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service with No
Improvements Year 2030 ......................................................................................48
3.11: Projected 2030 Intersection Lane Configuration and Level of Service with No
Improvements.........................................................................................................49
3.12: Projected 2030 Weekend Traffic Volumes and Congestion Levels with No
Improvements.........................................................................................................52
4.1: Transportation Issues ..........................................................................................................54
4.2: Short-Term (2011-2015) Number of Lanes and Average Daily Traffic Volumes........58
4.3: Short-Term (2011-2015) Level of Service ..........................................................................59
4.4: Mid-Term (2016-2020) Number of Lanes and Average Daily Traffic Volumes ..........62
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT v
LIST OF FIGURES (CONINTUED)
Page
4.5: Mid-Term (2016-2020) Level of Service ............................................................................63
4.6: 2030 Alternative 1- Phase 1 Number of Lanes and Average Daily Traffic Volumes .66
4.7: 2030 Alternative 1- Phase 1 Level of Service ....................................................................67
4.8: 2030 Alternative 1- Phase I Annual Average Daily Versus Peak Season Average
Daily Traffic Volume and Congestion ................................................................68
4.9: 2030 Alternative 1- Phase 1 and Phase 2 Number of Lanes and Average Daily
Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................70
4.10: 2030 Alternative 1- Phase 1 and Phase 2 Level of Service ............................................71
4.11: 2030 Alternative 1- Phase 1 and Phase 2 Annual Average Daily Versus Peak Season
Average Daily Traffic Volume and Congestion ................................................72
4.12: 2030 Alternative 2 Number of Lanes and Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...............74
4.13: 2030 Alternative 2 Level of Service ..................................................................................75
4.14: 2030 Alternative 2 Annual Average Daily Versus Peak Season Average Daily
Traffic Volume and Congestion ...........................................................................76
4.15: 2030 Alternative 3 Number of Lanes and Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...............78
4.16: 2030 Alternative 3 Level of Service ..................................................................................79
4.17: 2030 Alternative 3 Annual Average Daily Versus Peak Season Average Daily
Traffic Volume and Congestion ...........................................................................80
4.18: 2030 Traffic Impact of Alternative Routes on SR 87 and SR 260 Corridors ...............81
4.19: 2030 Evaluation of Alternative Routes to SR 87 - SR 260 Corridor .............................82
5.1: Short-Term (2011-2015) Improvements ............................................................................88
5.2: Mid-Term (2016-2020) Improvements ............................................................................105
5.3: Long-Term (2021 – 2030) Improvements ........................................................................117
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT vi
LIST OF FIGURES (CONINTUED)
Page
5.4: Payson Trails with Existing and Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................118
5.5: Payson Urban Area Future Functionally Classified Roads .........................................119
5.6: Group 1 Recommendations ..............................................................................................125
5.7: Group 2 Recommendations ..............................................................................................126
5.8: Group 3 Recommendations ..............................................................................................130
5.9: Access Versus Mobility .....................................................................................................133
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT 1
1. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The Payson Transportation Study was funded by the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) State Planning and Research Program and administered
through ADOT’s Multimodal Planning Division. The principal focus of this study was
to develop a long-range multimodal transportation plan for the Town to address
growing demands placed on local roads as a result of significant population growth,
economic development, and increased traffic volume. In addition, the plan examined
public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian needs, and additional multimodal
opportunities necessary to accommodate growth and development.
The Town of Payson is located in the northern portion of Gila County, Arizona at the
foot of the Mogollon Rim. Located in the heart of Arizona’s rim country, Payson is a
popular recreational destination for visitors from the Phoenix metropolitan area and
throughout Arizona. The study area comprised of the official town limits of the Town
of Payson as shown in Figure 1.1.
FIGURE 1.1: STUDY AREA AND REGIONAL LOCATION
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT 2
STUDY OBJECTIVES
Large capital investments in transportation infrastructure will be required during the
next 20 years to accommodate projected levels of growth and development in the
Payson area. With guidance from Payson’s General Plan’s Circulation Element, 1999
Transportation Study, Transit Feasibility Study, and interviews with members of the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and local stakeholders, the following objectives
became the focal point of this study:
  Establish a 20-year vision for transportation in the Town of Payson.
  Develop a transportation plan that will guide transportation decision making.
  Include recommendations for roads, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes.
  Evaluate the need for an alternate route to alleviate traffic congestion on SR 87 and
SR 260 corridors. If need is established, evaluate potential alternate route concepts.
STUDY PROCESS
The study was guided by a TAC that included representatives from the Town of
Payson, ADOT, Gila County, Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG),
Tonto Apache Tribe, Town of Star Valley, and Tonto National Forest. The role of the
TAC was to provide guidance, support, advice, and recommendations, and to perform
document reviews throughout the study process. A first public open house was held on
September 9, 2009. A second public open house was held on August 10, 2010. The
Payson Public Involvement Final Report outlines comments from the public meetings.
The study process is illustrated in Figure 1.2.
FIGURE 1.2: STUDY PROCESS
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT 3
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Land Ownership Status
The Payson planning boundary covers roughly 19.5 square miles of land area.
Approximately 65.5% of the land in the Town is privately owned, while 33.7% of the
land is managed by Tonto National Forest and the remainder is managed by either the
Arizona State Land Department or owned by the Tonto Apache Tribe. Currently, a
portion of the Forest Service land is in the process of becoming eligible to be exchanged
to non-federal owners; however, the land exchange process may take several years to
complete. Figure 2.1 displays the current land ownership status in the study area.
Socioeconomic Conditions
Creating an inventory of the study area’s socioeconomic characteristics and
understanding this data is a critical element to the development of the travel demand
model to forecast traffic volumes. Below is a list of key statistics for the Town of
Payson.
  Land Area: 19.5 square miles
  Population (Year 2008): 16,965
  Housing Units (Year 2008): 8,526
  Civilian Labor Force (Year 2007): 5,988
  Median Age: 49
  Median Household Income: $33,638
  Below Poverty Percentage: 10%
  Principal Economic Activities: Tourism, retirement, and construction industries,
with a growing emphasis on manufacturing and service firms
Population and Housing Unit Growth Trends
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the Town had a population of approximately 13,620
people. Since 2000, the Town has experienced a population growth rate of 3.07% per
year, which is slightly lower than the average statewide growth rate of 3.65% per year.
Furthermore, the Town has had a 2.65% annual increase in the number of housing units
since 2000. The typical household size in Payson is 2.3 according to 2000 U.S. Census,
Payson Transportation Study FINAL REPORT 4
which is lower than the statewide average of 2.64. Table 2.1 summarizes the population
and housing growth rates for the Town.
TABLE 2.1: POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT GROWTH TRENDS
Geographic
Area
Population Population
Growth Rate
Housing Units Housing Units
2000 2008 2000 2008 Growth Rate
Town of Payson 13,620 16,965 3.07% 7,033 8,526 2.65%
Gila County 51,335 57,361 1.47% 28,189 - -
State of Arizona 5,130,632 6,629,455 3.65% 2,189,189 - -
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona Department of Commerce
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 5
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 6
Employment Overview
Tourism, in-migrating retirees, and seasonal residents are the primary drivers of
Payson’s economy. Currently, the Town has approximately 6,714 employees. Major
employers in the community include the Payson Regional Medical Center, Town and
County governments, the school district, Payson Care Center, and the Mazatzal Casino.
Table 2.2 summarizes the total number of employees of the four largest employers
within the Town. In addition, Mazatzal Casino, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Safeway
are the major activity centers in the Town. The Town has seven schools: three public
elementary schools, one middle school, two high schools, and one private school.
TABLE 2.2: MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Major Employers Employees
Payson Unified School District 430
Mazatzal Casino 360
Payson Regional Medical Center 290
Payson Care Center 125
As previously mentioned, socioeconomic data is one of the primary inputs for the travel
demand model that is used to estimate current traffic volumes and forecast future
traffic volumes on roadways in the study area. Population, housing units, and various
types of employment categories were inventoried for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
in the study area. A TAZ is a geographic subdivision of the study area bounded by
roads, political boundaries, natural and man-made geographical constraints (such as
rivers, washes, etc.). For this study, a travel demand model was developed that
includes 152 total TAZs. Figure 2.2 illustrates the population density and distribution
per TAZ and Figure 2.3 illustrates the occupied housing units and employment
estimates and distribution at the TAZ level.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 7
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 8
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 9
8.68%
31.06%
36.18%
29.18%
19.79%
13.02%
32.57%
4.02%
11.63%
9.70%
4.87%
13.62%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Percentage of Total Population
Minority Population Age 65 and Older
Population
Mobility Limited
Population
Below Poverty
Population
Payson
Gila County
Arizona Population
Environmental Justice Review (Title VI)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes require that individuals are
not discriminated against based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.
Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice dictates that any programs, policies, or
activities to be implemented are not to have disproportionately high adverse human
health and environmental effects on minority populations. Thus, in relation to this
study, transportation improvements should not adversely impact such groups
disproportionately. In addition to assuring that these policies are adhered to, a variety
of possible alternatives should be developed and considered in order to make sure all
groups are fairly represented in the amount and type of transportation services
provided. Below is a summary of the Title VI review; additional detail is presented in
Working Paper 1. Figure 2.4 compares the Title VI data reviewed for the Town of
Payson, Gila County, and the State of Arizona.
FIGURE 2.4: MINORITY, AGE 65 AND OLDER, MOBILITY LIMITED, AND
BELOW POVERTY POPULATION COMPARISON
Minority Population
Minority population consists of individuals who are members of the following
population groups: Native American or Native Alaskan, Asian or Pacific Islander,
Black, and Hispanic. According to the 2000 U.S. Census data:
  8.7% of total population in the Town of Payson is a minority.
  Hispanics are the largest minority group.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 10
  Minority population is lower than the countywide estimate of 31.1%.
  Minority population is lower than the statewide estimate of 36.2%.
Figure 2.5 illustrates the minority population concentrations in the Town of Payson.
Population Age 65 and Over
According to the 2000 U.S. Census data:
  Median age in the Town of Payson is 49 years old.
  Approximately 29.2% of the town’s population over 65 years of age.
  Population over 65 years of age is higher than the countywide estimates of 19.8%.
  Population over 65 years of age is higher than the statewide estimates of 13%.
Figure 2.6 displays the age 65 and over population concentrations in the Town of
Payson.
Below Poverty Population
The U.S. Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size
and composition to determine below-poverty population. If a family’s total income is
less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered
in poverty. The 2000 U.S. Census data shows that:
  9.7% of the total population in the Town is classified as below poverty.
  Below poverty status is higher than the countywide estimate of 4.9%.and lower
that the statewide estimate of 13.6.
Figure 2.7 illustrates the below poverty population concentrations.
Mobility-Limited Population
Mobility-limited population is made up of individuals who have a physical or mental
disability that prohibits them from operating an automobile. In general, mobility-limited
population groups require access to public transportation and hence for
transportation planning purposes, it is critical to identify the locations with a high
concentration of this population group. The 2000 U.S. Census data shows that:
  32.6% of the total population in the Town is mobility-limited.
  The Town’s mobility-limited population is three times higher than the statewide
estimate of 11.6%.
Figure 2.8 shows the mobility-limited population concentrations in the study area.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 11
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 12
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 13
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 14
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 15
Environmental and Cultural Resources
Environmental Overview
The Town of Payson is located at the foot of the Mogollon Rim at an elevation of 5,000
feet. Payson is surrounded by the Mogollon highland to the north, the Sonoran Desert
to the south and the Tonto National Forest to the southwest. Three varieties of
vegetation exist in the Town of Payson, Great Basin Conifer Woodland, Interior
Chaparral, and Petran Montaine Conifer Forest. Major hydrological features in the area
include Stewart Creek, Gibson Creek, and American Gulch.
Areas of Concern
Figure 2.9 shows the areas of environmental concerns in the study area.
  Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: The Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) has identified 64 locations in Payson that are former or existing
underground storage tank sites.
  Air Quality: The Town of Payson is classified as a PM-10 maintenance area.
  Superfund Sites: Payson has two Superfund locations and ADEQ is funding the
effort to clean up these sites.
  Flooding: The intersection of Main Street and SR 87 is in a floodplain and
experiences flooding during periods of heavy rainfall.
  Endangered Species: Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) has identified
several endangered species within the proximity of the planning area as shown
in Figure 2.9.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 16
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 17
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
This section inventories major elements of the existing transportation system and documents
the status/condition of each element. Major elements inventoried include bridges, pavement
condition, crashes, traffic conditions, roadway performance, and other modes of
transportation in the study area.
Existing Roadway System
Major Roadways
• SR 87/Beeline Highway is an ADOT-owned north-south highway that serves as the
primary gateway for visitors entering Payson. Local and regional traffic rely
heavily on SR 87 as it connects to Phoenix in the south, SR 260, local Payson
roads, and commercial and residential areas.
• SR 260 is an east-west highway that serves both local and regional traffic. SR 260
intersects SR 87 in the center of Payson.
• McLane Road is a north-south minor arterial street running almost parallel to SR
87 that serves local traffic. The road extends from Main Street in the south and
continues north where it intersects SR 87 north of the study area.
• Main Street is an east-west minor arterial that extends between SR 87 in the east
and Green Valley Parkway in the west. Payson first developed along Main
Street, but as the Beeline Highway and SR 260 developed, businesses relocated
along these highways.
(Note: These major roadways are shown below in Figure 2.10)
Roadway Functional Classification
Functional Classification is the grouping of streets and highways by the character of service
they area intended to provide. The three main functional classes, as defined by the FHWA,
are arterial, collector, and local. Table 2.3 lists the functional classification types and
definitions for major roadways defined by the Town of Payson’s General Plan. Figure 2.10
shows the existing functional classification of these roads as defined by the Town of Payson’s
General Plan.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 18
TABLE 2.3: ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
Major Arterial Defined as the State Highways through the planning area. These
roadways are designed to carry high volumes of traffic across the
region. Within the Payson planning area, these routes generally have
four to six travel lanes coupled with a two-way left turn lane.
Minor
Arterial
Designed with continuity that is intended to carry greater
portion of through traffic from one area of the town to
another. These roadways generally have two travel lanes and
may be constructed with a two-way left turn lane.
Collector Designed with primary purpose of collecting and distributing
traffic to and from the arterial streets. In the Payson area,
these streets typically connect local streets with arterials.
Local
Roads
All other roads are classified as local roads. Primary purpose
of these roads is to collect and distribute traffic to and from
homes and businesses to the collector streets.
Source: Town of Payson General Plan
Lanes and Posted Speed Limits
A field review was conducted to inventory the number of lanes and posted speed limits for
major roadways in the study area. In addition, traffic control type (signals, roundabouts,
stop signs, etc.) at major intersections was also inventoried. Figure 2.11 displays the number
of lanes for each roadway, speed limits, and traffic signal locations.
Pavement Condition
Pavement condition information for state highways in the study area was obtained from the
ADOT Pavement Management System and pavement condition data for major local roads
were obtained from the Town of Payson. Table 2.4 lists the pavement serviceability rating as
defined by the ADOT Pavement Management Section, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the pavement condition rating as
defined by the National Center for Pavement Preservation. Figure 2.12 displays the
pavement conditions of major roads in the study area based on these ratings. Approximately
0.6 miles of Payson roadways are in poor condition, 0.3 miles are in very poor condition, and
the remainder of the roads are in fair to very good condition. Table 2.5 lists the roads with
pavement condition rating of poor and very poor. As illustrated in Figure 2.12, Manzanita
Drive has the lowest pavement condition rating of very poor.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 19
TABLE 2.4: PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY AND PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING
Pavement
Serviceability Rating Condition
Pavement
Condition
Rating Condition
5 Perfect 90-100 Very Good
4 - 5 Very Good 75 – 90 Good
3 - 4 Good 65 - 75 Fair
2 - 3 Fair 55 – 65 Fair to Poor
1 – 2 Poor 40 – 55 Poor
0 - 1 Very Poor 0 – 40 Very Poor
0 Impassable
Source: ADOT Pavement Management Section, AASHTO, and the National Center for Pavement Preservation
TABLE 2.5: PAYSON ROADS PAVEMENT CONDITION
Street Name Beginning Ending Length
Pavement
Rating Condition
Bonita Street SR 87 Ponderosa Street 632 45 Poor
Bonita Street Ponderosa Street St Phillips Street 2,560 45 Poor
Manzanita Drive Evergreen Street S. Line of Plat 141 28 Very Poor
Manzanita Drive SR 260
N. Line Shopping
Center 625 54 Poor
Manzanita Drive
N. Line Shopping
Center S. Lot Line 407 1,400 40 Very Poor
Source: ADOT Pavement Management System, Town of Payson
Bridges and Culverts
The Town of Payson has three major bridge structures that cross the American Gulch. These
bridges are located on Vista Road, Green Valley Parkway, and Westerly Road. Table 2.6 lists
the condition of Payson bridges based on these sufficiency ratings. As shown in Table 2.6, all
bridge structures within the study area are currently in good condition. Bridge location and
conditions are also further illustrated in Figure 2.12.
TABLE 2.6: PAYSON BRIDGE CONDITION
Bridge Name Road Name
Crossing
Feature
Sufficiency
Rating Condition
American Gulch RCB Westerly Road American Gulch 99.89 Good Condition
Green Valley Park RCB
Green Valley
Parkway
American Gulch 82.94 Good Condition
American Gulch Bridge Vista Road American Gulch 98.96 Good Condition
* Bridge Sufficient Rating:
<50 = Eligible for Replacement
50 - 80 = Eligible for Rehabilitation
>80 = Good Condition
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation 1999 Status and Condition Report
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 20
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 21
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 22
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 23
Crash Data
Crash analysis was conducted for major roadways in the study area to identify trends,
patterns, predominant crash reasons, and high crash rate intersections and corridors.
All crashes in the study area occurring between January 2004 and December 2008 were
obtained from ADOT’s Accident Location Identification Surveillance System (ALISS)
database. A total of 1,147 crashes occurred in the study area over the five year period.
Analysis of the crash data found an unusually high percentage of:
  Intersection and driveway related crashes totaling 58.9% of all crashes;
  Injury crashes totaling 33% of all crashes; and
  Crashes involving pedestrians and pedalcyclists, which is significantly high for a
rural community such as Payson.
Figure 2.14 illustrates the location and number of crashes at each site over the past five
years and the location of the four fatal crashes that occurred in the study area. Table 2.7
lists the top seven predominant violation types for all crashes in the study area. The
predominant violation type for all crashes in the study area were “Speed too fast for
conditions,” “Failed to yield right-of-way,” and “Inattention”.
TABLE 2.7: CRASHES – TOP SEVEN PREDOMINANT VIOLATION TYPES
VIOLATION TYPE CRASHES PERCENTAGE
Speed Too Fast for Conditions 257 22.41%
Failed to Yield Right-Of-Way 248 21.62%
Inattention 182 15.87%
Other 104 9.07%
Unknown 97 8.46%
No Improper Driving 76 6.63%
Followed Too Closely 46 4.01%
Crash rates were estimated for various sections and key intersections along the SR 87 –
SR 260 corridor. Table 2.8 lists the roadway segment crash rates and Table 2.9 lists the
crash rates at key intersections along SR 87 and SR 260, which had the highest number
of crashes in the area. Crash rates for roadway segments are expressed in terms of
crashes per million vehicle miles traveled and crash rates for intersections are expressed
in terms of crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection. Several intersections
along SR 87 experienced a higher than average number of crashes; often these crashes
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 24
occurred at intersections where at least one leg of the intersection has a skewed
approach angle. Excessive numbers of driveways along SR 87 may be the next leading
cause for several crashes on SR 87.
TABLE 2.8: CRASH RATE FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS
*Crash rate is expressed in terms of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled.
TABLE 2.9: CRASH RATE FOR INTERSECTIONS
Intersection Crashes Volume
Intersection
Crash Rate*
SR 260 & Manzanita Drive 29 14,301 1.11
SR 87 & SR 260 41 36,279 0.62
SR 87 & Bonita Street 29 27,965 0.57
SR 87 & Tyler Parkway 10 10,579 0.52
SR 87 & Main Street 23 27,287 0.46
SR 87 & Forest Drive 13 22,540 0.32
SR 260 & Goodnow Road 12 20,405 0.32
SR 87 & Rancho Road 8 16,766 0.26
SR 260 & Rumsey Dr 11 23,928 0.25
SR 87 & Aero Drive 9 21,116 0.23
*Intersection crash rate is expressed in terms of crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection.
Road Beginning Ending Length
Average
AADT Crashes Crash Rate*
SR 87 Bonita Street SR 260 0.28 26,213 75 5.60
SR 87 Main Street Bonita Street 0.44 23,932 57 2.97
SR 260 SR 87 Manzanita Drive 0.35 19,741 28 2.22
SR 87 SR 260 Rancho Road 1.08 19,740 69 1.77
SR 87 Rancho Road MP 255 1.3 10,767 31 1.21
SR 260 Tyler Parkway Valley Road 1.38 16,582 45 1.08
SR 87 Study Boundary Main Street 1.37 18,116 41 0.91
SR 260 Manzanita Drive Tyler Parkway 1.32 17,677 35 0.82
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 25
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 26
Existing Roadway Traffic Conditions
Traffic congestion on major roadways in the Town of Payson was estimated using
existing traffic count data. The degree of traffic congestion is commonly expressed in
terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a measure of traffic flow conditions and its
values range from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing excellent traffic flow
conditions where vehicles experience minimal delays, and LOS F representing failure
conditions where vehicles experience long delays.
For a planning level analysis, the roadway LOS is determined based on the ratio of
traffic volume on the road to capacity of the road. Capacity of the road is a function of
the number of lanes, functional classification, speed, and roadway geometrics, and
provides thresholds for the maximum number of cars allowed to travel on a lane for the
peak or daily conditions. Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) characterizes LOS as:
In general for rural areas, LOS A & B represents no congestion, LOS C represents
moderate congestion, and LOS D, E, & F represent severe congestion. Figure 2.14 is a
pictorial representation of LOS A thru F.
LOS A:   Best free flow operations (on uninterrupted flow facilities) and very low
delay (on interrupted flow facilities). Freedom to select desired speeds and
to maneuver within traffic is extremely high.
LOS B:   Flow is stable, but presence of other users is noticeable. Freedom to select
desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the
freedom to maneuver within traffic.
LOS C:   Flow is stable, but the operation of users is becoming affected by the
presence of other users. Maneuvering within traffic requires substantial
vigilance on the part of the user.
LOS D:   High density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely
restricted. The driver is experiencing a generally poor level of comfort and
convenience.
LOS E:   Flow is at or near capacity. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively
uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within traffic is extremely difficult.
Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor.
LOS F:   Worst flow operations. Facility has failed or a breakdown has occurred.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 27
FIGURE 2.14: ILLUSTRATION OF LOS A THRU LOS F
LOS A and B
LOS C LOS D, E, F
FIGURE 2.14:
ILLUSTRATION
OF LOS A THRU
LOS F
Source: Highway Capacity Manual
Tourism, in-migrating retirees, and seasonal residents are the primary drivers of the
Payson economy; as a result the Town of Payson roads carry at least 15% – 30% more
traffic during the peak summer season (more than yearly average or winter season).
Existing daily traffic count data was obtained from the Town of Payson, CAAG, and
ADOT. In addition, new daily traffic counts were collected at key locations throughout
the study area. Figure 2.15 displays the daily traffic counts. As shown in the Figure
2.15, SR 87 and SR 260 are carrying the highest amount of traffic.
Final Report
Payson Transportation Study 28
Final Report
Payson Transportation Study 29
Current Roadway Level of Service
Figure 2.16 illustrates the current LOS for roadways within the Town of Payson. The
following is a summary of roadway LOS conditions:
Current Intersection Level of Service
Figure 2.17 illustrates the current overall intersection LOS, and LOS at for each turn
movement for each leg/approach of the intersection. The following is a summary of
intersection LOS conditions.
LOS F:   Entrance road to the Mazatzal casino (operated by the Tonto Apache Tribe)
LOS D:   SR 87 between SR 260 and Bonita Street
LOS C:   SR 87: Green Valley Parkway to Phoenix Street.
  SR 87: Main Street to Bonita Street.
  SR 87: SR 260 to Forest Drive.
  SR 260: SR 87 to Goodnow Road.
  Rumsey Drive: entire section.
  Saddle Lane: West of McLane Road.
  Main Street: East of SR 87.
LOS A & B:   All other roads operate at LOS B or better.
LOS D:   SR 87 /SR 260 intersection during weekend AM/PM peak hour.
LOS C:   SR 87/SR 260 intersection during weekday AM/PM peak hour.
  SR 87/Forest Drive intersection operates at LOS A. However, Forest Drive
approach operates at LOS C.
  SR 87/Bonita Street intersection operates at LOS A. However, Bonita Street
approach operates at an LOS of C.
  Main Street/Colcord Street intersection operates at LOS C.
LOS A & B:   All other roads operate at LOS B or better.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 30
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 31
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 32
Other Modes of Transportation
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Figure 2.18 illustrates the comprehensive trail plan completed by the Town of Payson to
accommodate recreational travel. The system is comprised of a series of sidewalks, bike
lanes, trails (located both in the Town and in U.S. Forest Service land).. The Town of
Payson currently maintains approximately 19 miles of sidewalks and three miles of bike
lanes.
Transit
According to the 2005 Town of Payson Public Transit Feasibility Report, the Town is
served by private carriers; however, no formal intercity public fixed transit operation
currently exists. Currently, two shuttle services provide transfers to Phoenix Sky
Harbor Airport to neighboring towns. Local and regional transit service is provided by:
  White Mountain Passenger Lines provides passenger bus and express package
delivery service from Arizona White Mountain communities to the Phoenix
metro area. The service operates daily except Sundays and select holidays
and stops at Payson Packaging.
  Timberline VIP makes round trips daily, including weekends and holidays,
between Springerville and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
  Special Needs Services in the Payson Area: Safe Ride Services provides
transportation services for the disabled. The Senior Center operates a small
bus and a van that are used to transfer seniors and to deliver meals. Two
nursing homes in Payson, the Payson Care Center and Rim Country North,
also use vehicles to transport their residents.
  Touch of Class Limousine Service provides service to/from Phoenix Sky
Harbor Airport. According to previous studies, Touch of Class has
expressed an interest in being a contract operator for the Town.
  Casino Transportation: The Mazatzal Casino operates an on-demand-response
service to bring tourists from Payson area motels and residences to
the Casino. Mazatzal Casino also operates group tours to bring patrons
from the Phoenix area to Payson and vice versa. No regularly scheduled
service is provided.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 33
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 34
Access Management
Access management is the practice of a range of strategies and techniques that improves
the safety and efficiency of roads by managing access to land developments while
preserving traffic flow on surrounding roadways. The Town of Payson does not
currently have an access management policy in place. Access to the state highway
system is managed through Arizona Administrative Rule R17-3-712, Encroachments in
Highway Rights-of-Way. Permits for driveways are granted by ADOT’s Engineering
Districts in accordance with Rule R17-3-712, when the request meets all engineering and
safety standards. ADOT is presently revising its access management guidelines for the
state highway system, which includes SR 87 and SR 260 through Payson.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 35
3. FUTURE CONDITIONS
The future horizon years for the Payson Long Range Transportation Planning Study are
years 2015, 2020, and 2030.
FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Population, Housing Unit, and Employment Forecasts
This study utilized the Arizona Department of Commerce population forecasts of 18,603
by 2015, a population of 20,132 by 2020, and a population of 22,632 by 2030 for the
Town. Furthermore, it was assumed that the current population to occupied housing
unit ratio of 2.30 in the Town of Payson will continue for future horizon years. Based on
this assumption, it was estimated that the Town of Payson will have 8,098 occupied
housing units in 2015, 8,764 occupied housing units in 2020, and 9,882 occupied housing
units in 2030. Figure 3.1 is a graphical illustration of the population and occupied
housing unit growth trends. Figure 3.2 displays the approximate locations of future
developments.
FIGURE 3.1: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND OCCUPIED
HOUSING UNITS, 2000 - 2030
13,620
5,832
16,965
7,385
18,603
8,098
20,132
8,764
22,632
9,882
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2000 2008 2015 2020 2030
Year
Population
Occupied Dwelling
Units
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 36
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 37
The Town‘s General Land Use Plan was used as a guide in developing the estimate of
future employment. Currently, the Town of Payson’s employment to population ratio
is 0.39. For this study, it was assumed that this ratio will remain constant for all future
horizon years. Based on this assumption, the Town of Payson will have approximately
7,350 employees in 2015, 7,887 employees in 2020, and 8,952 employees in 2030. Table
3.1 shows a tabular summary of projected employment for the Town of Payson.
TABLE 3.1: PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT, 2008 - 2030
2008 2015 2020 2030
Population 16,965 18,603 20,132 22,632
Total Employment 6,714 7,350 7,887 8,952
Employment/Population
Ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
Socioeconomic Data for Travel Demand Model
A travel demand model was developed using TransCAD software to estimate current
traffic volumes and to forecast future traffic volumes for horizon years 2015, 2020, and
2030. Traffic volumes were forecasted for all major roads in the study area.
Future socioeconomic data (population, housing units, and employment), was
disaggregated into the travel model’s TAZs. Housing units were distributed to
appropriate TAZs based on the location of future planned developments and the
Town’s General Land Use Plan. Employment data was also distributed to appropriate
TAZs for each employment category based on locations identified in the General Land
Use Plan. According to the town’s General Land Use Plan, the commercial growth will
continue to concentrate along SR 87 and SR 260 with the addition of Main Street. Other
employment growth areas include Airport Road and the vicinity of the SR 260 and
Tyler Parkway intersection. Figures 3.3 through 3.5 display the occupied housing units
and total employment in each TAZ for 2015, 2020, and 2030 respectively.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 38
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 39
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 40
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 41
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
The primary purpose of forecasting future traffic volumes is to estimate the additional
travel demand added to existing roadways and to forecast congestion levels due to
projected growth in population and employment.
Projected 2015 No-Build Average Weekday Traffic Conditions
Figure 3.6 displays the projected 2015 traffic volumes and LOS for the current roadway
network with projected 2015 socioeconomic conditions if no roadway improvements are
made (No-Build). Traffic volumes and LOS results in this section represent average
annual daily traffic conditions. Peak season traffic volumes and LOS levels are higher.
Projected 2015 Roadway Level of Service
The following is a summary of roadway LOS conditions:
Projected 2015 Intersection Level of Service
Figure 3.7 presents the LOS of overall intersections and for each turn movement of the
intersections. The following is summary of intersection LOS conditions:
LOS F:   Entrance road to the Mazatzal Casino (operated by the Tonto Apache
Tribe).
LOS D:   SR 87: SR 260 and Bonita Street.
  Main Street: SR 87 and Mariposa Lane.
LOS C:   SR 87: Green Valley Parkway to Bonita Street.
  SR 87: SR 260 to Forest Drive.
  SR 87: Tyler Parkway to Houston Mesa Road.
  SR 260: SR 87 to Goodnow Road.
  SR 260: Manzanita Drive to east end of study area.
  Rumsey Drive: Entire section.
  Saddle Lane: West of McLane Road.
LOS A & B:   All other roads operate at LOS B or better.
LOS D:   SR 87/SR 260 intersection during weekend AM/PM peak hour and
weekday PM peak hour.
LOS C:   SR 87/SR 260 intersection during weekday AM peak hour.
  Main Street/SR 87 intersection during PM peak hour.
LOS A & B:   All other intersections operate at LOS B or better.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 42
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 43
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 44
Projected 2020 No-Build Average Weekday Traffic Conditions
Figure 3.8 displays the projected 2020 traffic volumes and LOS for the current roadway
network with projected 2020 socioeconomic conditions if no roadway improvements are
made (No-Build). Traffic volumes and LOS results in this section represent average
annual daily traffic conditions. Peak season traffic volumes and LOS levels are higher.
Projected 2020 Roadway Level of Service
The following is a summary of roadway LOS conditions:
Projected 2020 Intersection Level of Service
Figure 3.9 presents the LOS of overall intersections and for each turn movement of the
intersections. The following is summary of intersection LOS conditions:
LOS F:   Entrance road to the Mazatzal Casino (operated by the Tonto Apache Tribe).
LOS E:   SR 87: Bonita Street to SR 260.
LOS D:   SR 87: Frontier Street to Bonita Street.
  Main Street: East of SR 87.
  SR 260: Small section immediately to the east of SR 87/SR 260 intersection.
LOS C:   SR 87: Green Valley Parkway to Frontier Street.
  SR 87: SR 260 to Sherwood Drive.
  SR 87: Tyler Parkway to north of the study boundary.
  SR 260: Goodnow Road to east end of study area.
  Rumsey Drive: Entire section.
  Saddle Lane: West of McLane Road.
  Easy Street: Rumsey Drive to Zurich Drive.
LOS A & B:   All other roads operate at LOS B or better.
LOS D:   SR 87/SR 260 intersection during weekend and weekday AM/PM peak hour.
LOS C:   McLane Road/ Longhorn Road intersection during PM peak hour.
  Main Street/SR 87 intersection during PM peak hour.
LOS A & B:   All other intersections operate at LOS B or better.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 45
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 46
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 47
Projected 2030 No-Build Average Weekday Traffic Conditions
Figure 3.10 displays the projected 2030 traffic volumes and LOS for the current roadway
network with projected 2030 socioeconomic conditions if no roadway improvements are
made (No-Build). Traffic volumes and LOS results in this section represent average
annual daily traffic conditions. Peak season traffic volumes and LOS levels are higher.
Projected 2030 Roadway Level of Service
The following is a summary of roadway LOS conditions:
Projected 2030 Intersection Level of Service
Figure 3.11 presents the LOS of overall intersections and for each turn movement of the
intersections. The following is summary of intersection LOS conditions:
LOS F:   SR 87: SR 260 and Bonita Street.
  Entrance road to the Mazatzal Casino (operated by the Tonto Apache Tribe).
LOS E:   Easy Street: Rumsey Drive and Zurich Drive.
  Small section of Phoenix Street immediately to the west of SR 87.
LOS D:   SR 87: Green Valley Parkway to Bonita Street.
  SR 87: SR 260 to Frontier Street.
  SR 87: Tyler Parkway to Houston Mesa Road.
  Main Street: SR 87 and Mariposa Lane.
  SR 260: SR 87 to east end of study area.
  McLane Road: Small section immediately to the west of SR 87.
LOS C:   SR 87: Forest Drive to Airport Road.
  SR 87: Houston Mesa Road to north of study area.
  SR 87: South of Green Valley Parkway.
  Rumsey Drive: Entire section.
  Saddle Lane: West of McLane Road.
  Longhorn Road: SR 87 to Colcord Road.
  Longhorn Road: Meadow Street to McLane Road.
  Phoenix Street: East of McLane Road.
  Evergreen Street: Easy Street to Manzanita Drive.
LOS A & B:   All other roads operate at LOS B or better.
LOS F:   SR 87/SR 260 intersection during weekend PM peak hour.
LOS E:   SR 87/SR 260 intersection during weekend AM and weekday PM peak hour
LOS D:   SR 87/SR 260 intersection during weekday AM peak hour.
  Main Street/SR 87 intersection during PM peak hour.
LOS C:   McLane Road/Longhorn Road intersection during PM peak hour.
LOS A & B:   All other intersections operate at LOS B or better.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 48
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 49
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 50
Summary of Findings
The following is a summary of findings from the future conditions analysis, assuming
no roadway improvements are made:
  Traffic volumes increase significantly in future years along the SR 87 northbound
to SR 260 eastbound movement and vice versa. An alternate route would
improve traffic circulation in the southeast portion of the study area. Moreover,
if SR 87 or SR 260 were to be closed for any reason, there is no easy emergency
exit route.
  Traffic volumes on SR 87 also increase steadily in future years. Improvements to
the corridor will enable it to more effectively handle traffic volumes. Widening,
intersection improvements, traffic signals or roundabouts, and establishing better
access management guidelines are some of the improvement options that were
considered.
  Due to increased traffic volumes in future years, the SR 87/SR 260 intersection
will not operate effectively and cause increased traffic congestion.
  Traffic volumes increase along the SR 87 northbound to Main Street westbound
movement and vice versa. An alternate route would improve traffic circulation
in the southwest portion of the study area. Completing the Green Valley
Parkway connection from Main Street to SR 87 would relieve congestion on SR
87 and Main Street. Moreover, it would also serve as an alternate emergency exit
route.
  Improvements to the SR 87/Main Street/Colcord Road intersections would
relieve traffic congestion as traffic volumes increase.
  Public transit options and other non-motorized modes of transportation are
limited and may warrant expansion.
  Projects to improve internal traffic circulation would improve mobility for local
travel.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 51
Projected 2030 No-Build Average Weekend Traffic Conditions
As a result of tourism, in-migrating retires, and seasonal residents, the Town of Payson
roads carry at least 15% – 30% more traffic during weekends and peak summer season
(more than yearly average or winter season). SR 87 and SR 260 corridors are
predominantly operating at LOS D or worse levels in annual average weekday traffic
conditions in year 2030. For this weekend traffic analysis, the two corridors were
divided into segments as shown in Figure 3.12. As shown in Figure 3.12, all segments
along SR 87 and SR 260 operate at highly congested levels during weekends in year
2030.
Summary of Findings
The following is a summary of findings from the future conditions analysis, assuming
no roadway improvements are made:
  All segments of SR 87 and SR 260 corridors within the Town of Payson operate at
highly congested levels in year 2030 during the weekends.
  Due to increased traffic volumes in future years, SR 87/SR 260 intersection will
not operate effectively and cause increased traffic congestion during weekends.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 52
Figure 3.12: Projected 2030
Weekend Traffic Volumes and
Congestion Levels with No
Improvements
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 53
4. EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES SUMMARY
Based on the inventory and analysis of existing conditions, the future condition of the
Town’s existing transportation system, deficiencies and issues were identified. These
issues and deficiencies formed the basis for the next phase of the study which is the
development of the long range transportation plan. Figure 4.1 displays the major
transportation issues in the study area. Study area issues have been grouped into six
categories and the key issues in each category are listed below.
SAFETY ISSUES:   SR 87/Manzanita Drive has high crash rate.
  SR 87 between Bonita Street and SR 260 has high crash rate.
  At least one leg for several intersections on SR 87 approaches the
intersection at a skewed angle resulting in sight distance issues.
CONGESTION ISSUES:   SR 87 and SR 260 corridors are highly congested in future years
due to increase traffic volumes.
  SR 87/Main Street/Colcord Road intersections fail to meet future
traffic volumes.
  There are no alternate/emergency or circulation routes to the SR
87 North to SR 260 corridor.
  There are no alternate/emergency or circulation routes to the SR
87 North to West Main Street corridor.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
ISSUES:
  There are no alternate/emergency or circulation routes to the SR
87 North to SR 260 corridor.
  There are no alternate/emergency or circulation routes to the SR
87 North to West Main Street corridor.
PAVEMENT CONDITION
ISSUES:
  Manzanita Drive’s pavement is in very poor condition.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES:
There are several areas in Payson that are of environmental
concern and need to be considered when recommending future
roadway improvements.
REGIONAL ISSUES:   Need for roadway improvements to promote better traffic
circulation.
  Lack of local and regional transit service.
  Need for safe school bus pull-outs.
  Need for access management guidelines.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 54
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 55
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND PROCESS
Transportation system deficiency analysis and input from the public, stakeholders, and
the TAC resulted in a comprehensive list of existing and future roadway issues and
needs in the Town of Payson. Potential transportation projects and improvement
options were developed and evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative criteria.
Table 4.1 summarizes the criteria used in evaluating transportation improvement
options.
TABLE 4.1: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CRITERIA
EVALUATION CRITERIA OBJECTIVES
Safety and Security   Reduce vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle
collisions. Enhance alternate emergency routes.
Reduce emergency response times.
Congestion/Level of
Service
  Reduce congestion, bottlenecks, and travel
times for all modes.
Mobility and Access   Improve linkages between transportation
modes.
Facilitate efficient internal traffic circulation
options within the study area.
Maintain travel reliability.
Economic Development
Opportunity
  Promote transportation choices that support
economic growth.
Environmental Impacts   Protect and enhance natural, historical, and
cultural environment by minimizing potential
adverse impacts associated with transportation
system development.
Infrastructure
Preservation/Maintenance
  Preserve and maintain existing transportation
infrastructure.
Cost Efficiency and
Implementation Feasibility
  Minimize capital cost of transportation
facilities, including preservation of ROW.
Regional Connectivity   Enhance connectivity between the study area
and nearby communities.
Transportation Choices   Promote transportation choices such as
walking, bicycling, transit, and multi-use
paths.
A separate Road Safety Assessment (RSA) and Traffic Operational Analysis Study
(TOAS) were conducted to identify short-term and low cost improvements on SR 87
and SR 260. Recommendations from these studies were incorporated into the
transportation plan.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 56
Capacity-related projects such as widening existing roadways and constructing new
roadways were evaluated using the TransCAD travel demand model developed for the
Town of Payson. Potential transportation improvement projects were then prioritized
and grouped into three categories based on short-, mid-, and long-term implementation
phases.
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS
Roadway improvement options were evaluated for the short-, mid-, and long-term
phases utilizing the criteria presented in Table 4.1. Roadway improvement projects
were identified by two different categories: capacity related improvement projects and
non-capacity roadway improvement projects. Capacity related improvement projects
include widening existing roadways and constructing new roadways. Non-capacity
related improvements address safety concerns, intersection improvements, and
conducting additional planning studies. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended
projects are not yet funded.
Short-Term Roadway Improvements
The Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) for the Town of Payson, ADOT,
CAAG, and Gila County were reviewed to identify capacity improvement projects
scheduled for implementation. In addition, potential new capacity improvement
projects were identified to meet the traffic demand until 2015. Below is a list of
potential capacity and non-capacity roadway improvements evaluated:
Capacity Related Roadway Improvements
  Intersection improvements
o SR 87/SR 260 intersection
o SR 260/Manzanita Drive intersection
  Construct new roadway
o Rumsey Drive – End of pavement to McLane Road
o Mud Springs Road – Granite Dells Road to SR 260
  Reconstruct roadway
o Bonita Street - SR 87 to St. Phillips Street
o Colcord Road – Main Street to Longhorn Road
o Easy Street – Evergreen Street to Forest Drive
o Longhorn Road – Llama Ranch to Stone Creek subdivision
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 57
o Manzanita Drive - North side of shopping center to Timber Drive
o McLane Road – Main Street to Phoenix Street
o Phoenix Street – SR 87 to Sycamore Street
  Pave
o Manzanita Drive - SR 260 to north side of shopping center
Non-Capacity Related Roadway Improvements
  Conduct additional planning study
o SR 87/ Aero Drive intersection
o SR 87/ Phoenix Street intersection
o SR 87/Rancho Road intersection
o SR 87/Main Street, Colcord Road/Main Street, Frontier Street/SR 87, and
Frontier Street/Colcord Road intersections
  Safety improvements
o SR 87- Main Street to SR 260
o SR 260 - SR 87 to Manzanita Drive
o SR 87- SR 260 to Rancho Road
o Granite Dells Road / Mud Springs Road intersection
o Longhorn Road/Meadow Street intersection
o Wade Lane/Meadow Street intersection
Figure 4.2 displays the number of lanes and projected average daily traffic volumes for
Year 2015. Traffic volume projections were determined using the Payson TransCAD
travel demand model. Figure 4.3 displays the corresponding LOS. These figures
include the capacity-related roadway improvements discussed above. As shown in
Figure 4.3, all roadways operate at a LOS C or better with the exception of a few
segments on SR 87. Recommendations from the RSA and TOAS will most likely
mitigate this issue. Casino Road, owned by Tonto Apache Indian Reservation, operates
at LOS F. However, the Town of Payson does not have any jurisdiction on that
roadway.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 58
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 59
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 60
Mid-Term Roadway Improvements
TIPs for the Town of Payson, ADOT, CAAG, and Gila County were reviewed to
identify capacity improvement projects scheduled for implementation. In addition,
potential capacity improvement projects were identified to meet the traffic demand
until 2020. Below is a list of potential capacity and non-capacity roadway
improvements evaluated:
Capacity Related Roadway Improvements
  Reconstruct roadway
o Easy Street – Forest Drive to Gila Road
o Easy Street – Gila Road to Bradley Drive
o Frontier Street – SR 87 to McLane Road
o McLane Road – Airport Road to Ranchos subdivision
o McLane Road – Payson Ranchos subdivision to Payson Pines subdivision
o Mud Springs Road – Cedar Lane to Frontier Street
  Construct new roadway
o Goodnow Road – End of pavement to Bonita Street
o Green Valley Parkway – End of pavement west of SR 87 to end of
pavement south of Main Street
o Malibu Road – Easy Street to Manzanita Drive
o McLane Road – End of pavement to Green Valley Parkway
o Sherwood Drive – Boulder Ridge Road to Airport Road
o Sherwood Drive – McLane Road to Colcord Road
Non-Capacity Related Roadway Improvements
  Flood mitigation
o Main Street – SR 87 to McLane Road
o SR 87 – Near Airport Road and Rancho Road
o SR 87 – North of Aero Drive to north of Frontier Street
  Safety improvements
o Granite Dells Road – Mud Springs Road to SR 260
Figure 4.4 displays the number of lanes and projected average daily traffic volumes for
Year 2020. Figure 4.5 displays the corresponding LOS. These figures include the
capacity related roadway improvements discussed above. As shown on Figure 4.5, all
roadways operate at a LOS C or better with the exception of a few segments on SR 87,
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 61
Sherwood Drive, and Main Street. Recommendations from the RSA and TOAS will
most likely improve LOS on SR 87. Casino Road, maintained by Tonto Apache Indian
Reservation, operates at LOS F; however, the Town of Payson does not have any
jurisdiction on that roadway.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 62
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 63
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 64
Long-Term Roadway Improvements
To address long-term future travel demand in the study area, several capacity
improvements were analyzed and tested for efficiency, feasibility, and performance.
The following discusses roadway capacity improvements that were analyzed for the
study area.
Capacity Related Roadway Improvements
  Construct new roadway
o Green Valley Parkway – End of pavement north of Summit Street to
Airport Road.
o Alternative route to relieve congestion on SR 87 – SR 260 corridor.
Additional capacity is needed along SR 87 – SR 260 corridor to accommodate high
traffic volumes. Currently, no reasonable alternate route to this corridor is available in
the event of an emergency shutdown of either facility. Furthermore, widening of SR 87
– SR 260 corridor is not a preferred option because of right-of-way limitations.
Alternatives Analysis
Four alternatives were analyzed at a general planning level to determine the potential
need for and feasibility of a new route. The alternatives analyzed are:
  Alternative 1 with Phase 1 only (A1)
  Alternative 1 with Phase 1 and Phase 2 (A1P2)
  Alternative 2 (A2)
  Alternative 3 (A3)
Alternative 1 – Phase 1 Only: In Alternative 1 with Phase 1 only, the starting terminus
of the new roadway is assumed south of the SR 87/Casino Road intersection and the
ending terminus is assumed in the vicinity of the Tyler Parkway/SR 260 intersection.
Figure 4.6 shows the approximate location of Alternative 1- Phase 1 only. Primary
reasons for evaluating this option include:
  The corridor serves as an alternate route to SR 87 – SR 260 corridor as well as an
emergency evacuation route for the Town.
  The corridor has the potential to relieve traffic from the SR 87 – SR 260 corridor.
  It provides easy access to the proposed ASU campus, located in the vicinity of
Tyler Parkway/SR 260.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 65
  Combined Tyler Parkway and Alternative 1 (with Phase 1 only), the corridor
would serve as the Town’s outer loop road on the east side.
  The corridor provides a detour for the local and regional traffic, if SR 87 or SR
260 through the Town is closed-off for any reason.
  The new corridor has sufficient compelling justification and has a reasonable
chance of competing with other large scale statewide road projects to obtain
funding.
Alternative 1 (Phase 1) was analyzed using the Payson 2030 TransCAD travel demand
model. Annual average traffic volumes (AADT) for 2030 and 2030 peak season average
traffic volumes were estimated on SR 87 – SR 260 and the new corridor. Figure 4.6
shows the number of lanes and annual average traffic volume projections for this
scenario. Figure 4.7 shows the LOS for the study area roads. Figure 4.8 presents a
comparison of projected annual average and peak season traffic volumes and the
corresponding level of congestion for the SR 87 – SR 260 corridor and the Alternative 1
with Phase 1 only.
Traffic impacts of this alternative on SR 87 – SR 260 corridor include:
  A potential reduction of 21% - 38% in traffic volumes between SR 87/Casino
Road and SR 260/Tyler Parkway.
  No reduction in traffic volumes between SR 260/Tyler Parkway and eastern
town limits.
  A potential reduction of 17% in travel time along SR 87 – SR 260 corridor
(southern town limits to eastern town limits).
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 66
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 67
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 68
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 69
Alternative 1 – Phase 1 and Phase 2: Figure 4.9 shows the approximate location of
Alternative I- Phase 1 and Phase 2. Primary reasons for evaluating this option are:
  Phase 1 relieves congestion on the SR 87/SR 260 corridor and would provide an
emergency evacuation route for the Town and access to the proposed ASU
campus.
  Phase 2 can be added when the alternative route traffic volumes warrant it,
which may be beyond the year 2030 horizon.
  The two corridors potentially may relieve traffic on the SR 87 – SR 260 corridor.
  Combined Tyler Parkway and Alternative 1 (Phase 1) the corridor would serve
as the Town’s outer loop road.
  If SR 87 or SR 260 through Town is closed off for any reason the Phase 1 corridor
would serve as a local evacuation route and the Phase 2 portion would serve as
regional evacuation route.
Alternative 1 (Phase 1 and Phase 2) was also analyzed using the Payson TransCAD
travel demand model. Annual average traffic volumes (AADT) for 2030 and 2030 peak
season average traffic volumes were estimated on SR 87 – SR 260 and the new corridor.
Figure 4.9 illustrates the number of lanes and annual average traffic volume projections
for this scenario. Figure 4.10 shows the LOS for the study area roads. Figure 4.11
displays a comparison of projected annual average and peak season traffic volumes and
the corresponding level of congestion for the SR 87 – SR 260 corridor and the
Alternative 1 with Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Traffic impacts of this alternative on SR 87 – SR 260 corridor include:
  A potential reduction of 20% - 34% in traffic volumes between SR 87/Casino
Road and SR 260/Tyler Parkway.
  A potential reduction of 36% to 38% in traffic volumes between SR 260/Tyler
Parkway and eastern town limits.
  A potential reduction of 21% in travel time along SR 87 – SR 260 corridor
(southern town limits to eastern town limits).
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 70
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 71
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 72
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 73
Alternative 2: Figure 4.12 shows the approximate alignment of Alternative 2. The
primary reasons for evaluating this option are:
  The corridor strictly serves traffic that wishes to bypass Payson. It does not serve
as an emergency evacuation route for the Town or as a regional emergency
evacuation route.
  The corridor has the potential to relieve traffic on the SR 87 – SR 260 corridor.
  The corridor provides a detour for local and regional traffic if SR 87 or SR 260
through Town is closed off for any reason.
Alternative 2 was also analyzed using the Payson TransCAD travel demand model.
AADT for 2030 and 2030 peak season average traffic volumes were estimated on SR 87 –
SR 260 and the new corridor. Figure 4.12 illustrates the number of lanes and annual
average traffic volume projections for this scenario. Figure 4.13 shows the LOS for the
study area roads. Figure 4.14 displays a comparison of projected annual average and
peak season traffic volumes and the corresponding level of congestion for the SR 87 –
SR 260 corridor and Alternative 2.
Traffic impacts of this alternative on SR 87 – SR 260 corridor include:
  A potential reduction of 19% - 33% in traffic volumes between SR 87/Casino
Road and SR 260/Tyler Parkway.
  A potential reduction of 36% - 38% in traffic volumes between SR 260/Tyler
Parkway and eastern town limits.
  A potential reduction of 19% in travel time along SR 87 – SR 260 corridor
(southern town limits to eastern town limits).
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 74
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 75
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 76
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 77
Alternative 3: Figure 4.15 shows the approximate location of Alternative 3. Primary
reasons for evaluating this option include:
  The corridor may serve as an alternative route, provide an emergency
evacuation route for the Town, and provide a regional emergency evacuation
route.
  The corridor provides access to the Payson airport and the Doll Baby Ranch
community.
  It has the potential to relieve traffic on SR 87 north of SR 260, SR 87 south of SR
260, and on SR 260.
  The corridor provides a detour for traffic if SR 87 or SR 260 through Town is
closed-off for any reason.
Alternative 3 was also analyzed using the Payson TransCAD travel demand model.
AADT for 2030 and 2030 peak season average traffic volumes were estimated on SR 87 –
SR 260 and the new corridor. Figure 4.15 illustrates the number of lanes and annual
average traffic volume projections for this scenario. Figure 4.16 shows the LOS for the
study area roads. Figure 4.17 displays a comparison of projected annual average and
peak season traffic volumes and the corresponding level of congestion for the SR 87 –
SR 260 corridor and Alternative 3.
Traffic impacts of this alternative on SR 87 – SR 260 corridor include:
  A potential reduction of 5% - 9% in traffic volumes between SR 87/Casino
Road and SR 260/Tyler Parkway.
  A potential reduction of 4% - 7% in traffic volumes between SR 260/Tyler
Parkway and eastern town limits.
  A potential reduction of 4% in travel time along the SR 87 – SR 260 corridor
(southern town limits to eastern town limits).
Comparison of Alternative 1 – Phase 1, Alternative 1 – Phase 1 & 2, Alternative 2, and
Alternative 3
Alternatives were compared against each other using criteria such as traffic congestion,
traffic reduction, accessibility, safety, constructability, environmental impacts, and cost
factors. Figures 4.18 and 4.19 compare the potential impact of each alternative on SR 87
– SR 260 corridor traffic.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 78
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 79
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 80
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 81
FIGURE 4.18: TRAFFIC IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ON SR 87AND SR 260 CORRIDORS
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 82
FIGURE 4.19: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES TO SR 87 – SR 260 CORRIDOR
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 83
EVALUATION OF TRANSIT NEEDS
Currently, the Town is served by several private carriers, none of which provide formal
intercity public transit operations. In addition, two shuttle services operate between
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport and Payson, and between Payson and Show Low, Pinetop-
Lakeside, and Springerville.
Potential Transit Dependent Population
An area’s potential transit-dependent population generally includes persons 65 years of
age and older, persons with a mobility limitation, and persons considered below the
poverty level. Table 4.2 compares Payson’s demographic statistics with state and
national statistics as reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. The comparison shows that
Payson has a disproportionately larger share of elderly population than most areas in
the nation. Relative to the entire state, Payson has a higher proportion of elderly (65
years of age and older) and disabled individuals (under 65 years of age).
TABLE 4.2: TRANSIT DEPENDENT POPULATION SUMMARY IN PAYSON
Population Type 2000
Census
Percent of Total
Payson Arizona US
Entire Population 13,620
Elderly (Over 65) 3,970 29.15% 23.00% 12.40%
Below Poverty (Under 65) 1,371 10.07% 15.00% 12.40%
Disabled (Under 65) 2,135 15.68% 10.00% 19.30%
Source: US Census 2000
As an area’s population grows, so does the population of potential transit-dependent
persons. Table 4.3 shows the forecasted growth in population and employment in
Payson.
TABLE 4.3: POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN PAYSON
Year Population Employment
2000 13,620 O
2010 16,965 6,714
2015 18,603 7,395
2020 20,132 8,112
2030 22,632 9,452
Source: US Census 2000
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 84
Transit Demand Analysis
The Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment (APTNA) method, which was
utilized by the State of Arizona for its Rural Transit Needs Study (RTNS), was used in
estimating transit demand. The APTNA method estimates demand for transit by
applying trip rates to three population groups: elderly, mobility limited, and disabled.
Demand is expressed in terms of one-way passenger trips per year. Table 4.4
summarizes the transit demand projections for the Town of Payson.
TABLE 4.4: TRANSIT DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR PAYSON
Year Demand
2000 64, 648
2010 80, 525
2015 90, 080
2020 100, 304
2030 119, 290
EVALUATION OF PEDESTRIAN AND BYCYLCE FACILITES
In the Payson area, non-motorized recreational travel is highly desired by citizens. As
previously displayed in Figure 2.13, the Town’s trail system is comprised of a series of
sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails (located both in the Town and in U.S. Forest Service
land). The Town of Payson currently maintains approximately 19 miles of sidewalks
and three miles of bike lanes. New trails are also planned to complete the entire trail
network.
Needs Analysis
Payson’s existing sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails were reviewed in relation to:
  The location of activity centers such as schools, large retail establishments,
libraries, hospitals, recreation activity locations; and
  Existing and future roadway alignments.
Analyzing Payson’s existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities helped to identify new
bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would be closely integrated with the Town’s
roadway system.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 85
5. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This section presents the draft Multimodal Transportation Plan for the Town of Payson
for the short-, mid-, and long- term. This transportation plan is the result of the
deficiency and needs analysis from Working Paper 1, Working Paper 2, Working Paper
3, and Public Open House input. It is a multimodal plan that includes roadway, transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle improvements. Each project is assigned a unique project
number that the Town can use to track project progress. Unless otherwise noted, the
recommended projects are not yet funded.
SHORT-TERM TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Short-term phase projects are recommended to be completed within the timeframe of
2011 to 2015. Table 5.1 lists the transportation recommendations for this phase. The
project number, location, description, and estimated costs for each project are identified
in Table 5.1. Figure 5.1 is a graphical representation of the short-term transportation
recommendations for the Town of Payson.
Estimated costs for each project are expressed in 2011 dollars and are general estimates. Actual
costs for projects could vary at the time of implementation; therefore, a detailed analysis should
be performed on a case-by-case basis to determine actual costs.
TABLE 5.1: SHORT-TERM (2011 – 2015) IMPROVEMENTS
Project
Id
Project Location
Description Cost Agency
Roadway Improvements
ST – 1 SR 87/Aero Drive intersection
Conduct a traffic warrant study. Intersection needs to be
reconstructed to fix sight distance issues, if traffic signal not
warranted. Costs do not include improvement costs, which will be
determined from the traffic warrant study.
$40,000 ADOT
ST – 2 SR 87- Main Street to SR 260
Incorporate recommendations from RSA and TOAS.
RSA &
TOAS
ADOT
ST – 3 SR 87/ Phoenix Street intersection
Conduct Intersection Safety Study and implement recommendations.
Costs do not include improvement costs, which will be determined
from safety study.
$40,000 ADOT
ST – 4 SR 87/Rancho Road intersection
Conduct a traffic warrant study.
$40,000 ADOT
ST – 5 SR 87/SR 260 intersection
Incorporate recommendations from RSA and TOAS.
RSA &
TOAS
ADOT
ST – 6 SR 87 - SR 260 to Rancho Road
Incorporate recommendations from RSA and TOAS.
$25,000 ADOT
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 86
TABLE 5.1: SHORT-TERM (2011 – 2015) IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Project
Id
Project Location
Description Cost Agency
ST – 7 SR 260/Manzanita Drive intersection
Incorporate recommendations from RSA and TOAS.
RSA &
TOAS
ADOT
ST – 8 SR 260 - SR 87 to Manzanita Drive
Incorporate recommendations RSA and TOAS.
RSA &
TOAS
ADOT
ST – 9 SR 87/Airport Road intersection
Town of Payson CIP: construct new roundabout.
Project
completed
ADOT
ST – 10 SR 87/Main Street, Colcord Road/Main Street, Frontier
Street/SR 87, and Frontier Street/Colcord Road intersections
Conduct one traffic safety study that covers all four intersections.
RSA &
TOAS
ADOT/
Town of
Payson
ST – 11 Bonita Street - SR 87 to St. Phillips Street
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, bike lane in
each direction, curb and gutter on each side, and sidewalk on one side.
$1,280,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 12 Colcord Road – Main Street to Longhorn Road
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, bike lane in
each direction, curb and gutter on each side, sidewalk on east side,
compacted granite pathway on west side of road as part of PATS
system, and improved storm drain facilities.
$1,750,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 13 Easy Street – Evergreen Street to Forest Drive
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on each side, sidewalk on each side, and improved storm drain
facilities.
$730,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 14 Granite Dells Road / Mud Springs Road intersection
Town of Payson CIP: Install street lighting
$34,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 15 Longhorn Road – Llama Ranch to Stone Creek subdivision
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on south side, sidewalk on south side, and improved storm
drain facilities.
$190,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 16 Longhorn Road/Meadow Street intersection
Trim tree line and remove shrubs. Add street lighting. Improve
signage. Improve intersection geometrics.
$5,000 Town
of
Payson
ST – 17 Manzanita Drive - North side of shopping center to Timber
Drive
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, bike lane in
each direction, curb and gutter on each side, sidewalk on east side,
compacted granite pathway on west side of road as part of the Payson
Area Trails System (PATS), and improved storm drain facilities.
$1,000,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 18 Manzanita Drive - SR 260 to north side of shopping center
Re-pave roadway and perform periodic pavement preservation tasks.
$350,000 Town
of
Payson
ST – 19 McLane Road – Main Street to Phoenix Street
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, bike lane in
each direction, curb and gutter on each side, sidewalk on one side, and
improved storm drain facilities.
$955,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 20 Mud Springs Road – Granite Dells Road to SR 260
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, bike lane in
each direction, curb and gutter on each side, and sidewalk on one side.
$1,300,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 21 Phoenix Street – SR 87 to Sycamore Street
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on both sides, sidewalk on east side, and improved storm drain
facilities.
$630,000 Town of
Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 87
TABLE 5.1: SHORT-TERM (2011 – 2015) IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED)
ST – 22 Rumsey Drive – End of pavement to McLane Road
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, bike lane in
each direction, curb and gutter on each side, landscape median on
portion of road, sidewalk on south side, and compacted granite
pathway on north side of road as part of PATS system.
$560,000 Town of
Payson
ST – 23 Wade Lane/Meadow Street intersection
Trim tree line to improve sight distance. Add street lighting. Improve
signage. Improve intersection geometrics.
$5,000 Town of
Payson
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Town of Payson
Bike lanes, sidewalk, and trail improvement locations, refer to Figure
5.2. Construction costs are already included in roadway
reconstruction project cost.
Town of
Payson
* TOAS: Traffic Operational Analysis Study; RSA: Road Safety Assessment
Project
Id
Project Location
Description Cost Agency
Transit Improvements
Town of Payson
Conduct a Transit Implementation Study.
$80,000 Town of
Payson
Access Management
Town of Payson
Develop Access Management Standards and Guidelines.
$75,000 Town of
Payson
Pavement Preservation
Town of Payson
Develop and maintain Pavement Management System.
$150,000/
mile
Town of
Payson
Roadway Functional Classification
Town of Payson
Establish New Functional Classification System. Obtain FHWA
approval for reclassification of roads (shown as dotted line in Figure
5.5) to complete new functional classification system.
Town of
Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 88
FIGURE 5.1: SHORT-TERM (2011 – 2015) IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 89
Project Description for Short-Term Improvements
The following projects were identified for the short-term implementation phase. The
Project Identification Number (eg: ST -1) does NOT represent the priority of the project;
rather it is an identification number to track project progress in the future. The Town
of Payson will prioritize the projects once the study is complete.
Project No: ST – 1
Location: SR 87/Aero Drive intersection
Issues:
  Aero Drive and SR 87 intersect at a skewed
angle resulting in sight distance issues.
Project Description: Conduct a traffic warrant
study to determine the need for a traffic signal. If
the intersection does not warrant a signal, the
intersection should either be reconstructed to
correct sight distance issues or evaluated to
determine the feasibility of a roundabout.
Cost: $40,000
Benefits: Enhances safety.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 2
Location: SR 87, between Main Street and SR 260
Issues:
  Insufficient capacity at times
with low actual travel speeds.
  Considerable number of
pedestrian/bicyclist crashes.
  Insufficient signage along
highway.
  Excessive number of driveways
– potential access management
issues.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 90
  Experiences significant amount of tourist traffic and congestion, especially during
summer weekends.
Project Description: SR 87 – SR 260 corridor is often congested, especially during
summer weekends. Implement signing, striping, lighting, signal timing coordination,
access management, and other recommendations from the RSA and TOAS. A long-term
solution to the capacity limitations along the SR 87 – SR 260 corridor is to develop
alternate routes. Alternative route options are discussed in greater detail in the Potential
Long-Term Roadway Improvements section.
Cost: This project was evaluated as part of the SR 87 – SR 260 Traffic Operational
Analysis Study. Cost estimates are discussed in Chapter 4: Draft Multimodal
Transportation Plan.
Benefits: Enhances safety and improves mobility.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 3
Location: SR 87/Phoenix Street intersection
Issues:
  Phoenix Street intersects SR 87
at a skewed angle, resulting in
poor sight distance along some
approaches.
Project Description: Conduct a
signal warrant study and an
intersection safety study, and
implement recommendations. If the
intersection does not warrant a
signal, the intersection should either be reconstructed to correct sight distance issues or
evaluated to determine the feasibility of a roundabout.
Cost: $40,000
Benefits: Enhances safety.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 4
Location: SR 87/Rancho Road intersection
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 91
Issues:
  Cross-street (SR 87) has high traffic volumes that travel at a high speed of 40MPH.
This results in very limited safe left turn opportunities for traffic coming from
Rancho Road.
Project Description: Conduct a
traffic warrant study to
determine if a change in the type
of intersection control is needed,
such as the addition of a traffic
signal or roundabout.
Cost: $40,000
Benefits: Enhances safety and
increases intersection capacity.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 5
Location: SR 87/SR 260 intersection
Issues:
  Considerable number of crashes.
  Extremely high traffic volumes,
especially during peak season.
  South leg of the intersection lacks a
pedestrian crossing.
  Several key businesses are in the
vicinity.
  Several driveways are close to the
intersection.
  Other signalized intersections are in
close proximity.
  Signing and striping issues in the vicinity of the intersection.
  Intersection is not pedestrian friendly.
Project Description: Implement improvements identified in the RSA and TOAS.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 92
Cost: This project was evaluated as part of the SR 87 – SR 260 Traffic Operational
Analysis Study. Cost estimates are discussed in Chapter 4: Draft Multimodal
Transportation Plan.
Benefits: Enhances safety, improves mobility, and increases intersection capacity.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 6
Location: SR 87, between SR 260 and Rancho Road
Issues:
  Experiences significant traffic volumes.
  Adjacent to several major retail attractions.
  Experiences severe traffic congestion.
Project Description: Implement improvements
identified in the RSA and TOAS.
Cost: This project was evaluated as part of the SR 87 –
SR 260 Traffic Operational Analysis Study. Cost
estimates are discussed in Chapter 4: Draft Multimodal
Transportation Plan.
Benefits: Enhances safety and improves mobility.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 7
Location: SR 87/Manzanita Drive intersection
Issues:
  Considerable number of crashes at intersection.
  High traffic volumes at intersection.
  Traveling westbound, the speed limit is 45MPH before the intersection and
reduces to 35MPH after the intersection.
  Traveling westbound, no signs are present to warn drivers about approaching the
signal and reducing speed.
  Driveway on westbound approach is close to intersection.
  North leg of intersection has sight distance issues (right-turn movement).
  South leg (Granite Dells Road) of the intersection approaches the intersection at a
skewed angle.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 93
  Driveway to Safeway is too close to intersection on the south leg of intersection.
  Several key businesses are in the vicinity of the intersection.
Project Description: Implement
improvements identified in the RSA and
TOAS.
Cost: This project was evaluated as part
of the SR 87 – SR 260 Traffic Operational
Analysis Study. Cost estimates are
discussed in Chapter 4: Draft Multimodal
Transportation Plan.
Benefits: Enhances safety, improves
mobility, and increases intersection
capacity.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 8
Location: SR 260, between SR 87 and Manzanita Drive
Issues:
  Insufficient capacity during peak season
with low actual travel speeds.
  Signage issues.
  Excessive number of driveways –
potential access management issues.
  Traffic congestion during summer
weekends due to significantly high
tourist traffic.
Project Description: Improve signing,
striping, and lighting, coordinate signal
timing, establish access management, and implement other recommendations from the
RSA and TOAS. A long-term solution to the capacity limitations along the SR 87 – SR
260 corridor is to develop alternate routes. These options are discussed in greater detail
in the Potential Long-Term Roadway Improvements section.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 94
Cost: This project was evaluated as part of the SR 87 – SR 260 Traffic Operational
Analysis Study. Cost estimates are discussed in Chapter 4: Draft Multimodal
Transportation Plan.
Benefits: Enhances safety and improves mobility.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: ST – 9
Location: SR 87/Airport Road intersection
Issues:
  Airport Road intersects SR 87
at a skewed angle, which may
result in insufficient sight
distance.
  Traffic on Airport Road is
expected to increase 40% by
the year 2030.
Project Description: Per the Town
of Payson Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP), a new roundabout is
planned for this intersection.
Cost: Project recently completed.
Benefits: Enhances safety, improves mobility, and increases intersection capacity.
Responsible Agency: ADOT and Town of Payson
Project No: ST - 10
Location: SR 87/Main Street, Colcord Road/Main Street, Frontier Street/SR 87, and
Frontier Street/Colcord Road intersections.
Issues:
SR 87/Main Street:
  Significant number of crashes.
  Colcord Road/Main Street intersection is less than 250 feet away and significantly
influences the performance and safety of this intersection.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 95
  Considerable number of rear-end
and failed to yield ROW
type crashes confirm the
influence of Concord/Main
intersection.
  Traffic on Main Street is
expected to increase at least
20% by the year 2030, which
could worsen the safety
conditions at the intersection.
Colcord Road/Main Street:
  Significant number of crashes.
  Inadequate sight distance.
  Driveways to access adjacent businesses are close to the intersection.
Frontier Street/SR 87:
  Frontier Street intersects SR 87 at a skewed angle which results in poor sight
distance.
  Utility poles are located very close to the westbound approach which may cause
sight distance issues.
Project Description: Conduct one traffic safety study that covers all four intersections.
The study should address the effects of:
  Converting Frontier Street from a one-way street to a two-way street.
  Restricting Colcord Road/Main Street to right-in and right-out only traffic
movements.
  Force Southbound left turn traffic on Colcord Road at Main Street to use Frontier
Street/Colcord Road. The reconstruction of Frontier Road between Colcord Road
and SR 87 (See Project No: MT 5) is currently included in the Town of Payson CIP.
The traffic study should also address specific signage, striping, and lighting issues at all
four intersections.
Cost: This project was evaluated as part of the SR 87 – SR 260 Traffic Operational
Analysis Study. Cost estimates are discussed in Chapter 4: Draft Multimodal
Transportation Plan.
Benefits: Enhances safety, improves mobility, and increases intersection capacity.
Responsible Agency: ADOT and Town of Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 96
Project No: ST – 11
Location: Bonita Street - SR 87 to St. Phillips Street
Issues: Poor pavement condition.
Project Description: Per the Town of Payson CIP, this section of Bonita Street is
scheduled for reconstruction. The
street section will include:
  One travel lane in each
direction.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on one side.
Cost: $1,280,000
Benefits: Enhances safety and
increases capacity.
Responsible Agency: Town of
Payson
Project No: ST – 12
Location: Colcord Road – Main Street to Longhorn Road
Issues: Narrow road.
Project Description: Colcord Road from Main Street to
Longhorn Road is already included in the Town of Payson
CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on east side.
  Compacted granite pathway on west side of road as
part of PATS system.
  Improved storm drain facilities.
Cost: $1,750,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic circulation west of SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 97
Project No: ST – 13
Location: Easy Street – Evergreen Street to Forest Drive
Issues:
  Narrow road that provides access to several
residential neighborhoods.
  Poor pavement condition.
Project Description: Easy Street from Evergreen Street
to Forest Drive is already included in the Town of
Payson CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on each side.
  Improved storm drain facilities.
Cost: $730,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic circulation and
enhances safe pedestrian movement.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: ST – 14
Location: Granite Dells Road/Mud Springs Road intersection
Issues: Insufficient lighting.
Project Description: Install street lighting
Cost: $34,000
Benefits: Enhances safety.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: ST – 15
Location: Longhorn Road – Llama Ranch to Stone Creek subdivision
Issues: Lack of pedestrian facilities.
Project Description: Longhorn Road from Llama Ranch to Stone Creek subdivision is
already part of the Town of Payson CIP. The street section will include:
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 98
  One travel lane in
each direction.
  Curb and gutter on
south side.
  Sidewalk on south
side.
  Improved storm
drain facilities.
Cost: $190,000
Benefits: Enhances
pedestrian movement.
Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: ST – 16
Location: Longhorn Road/Meadow Street intersection
Issues:
  Intersection is adjacent to
school zone.
  Trees obstruct intersection
which may cause sight distance
issues.
  Very little or no street lighting.
Project Description: Trim tree line,
remove shrubs at intersection to
improve sight distance, add street
lighting, and improve signage and
intersection geometrics.
Cost: $5,000
Benefits: Enhances safety.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 99
Project No: ST – 17
Location: Manzanita Drive - SR 260 to north side of shopping center
Issues: Poor pavement
conditions.
Project Description: Repave
roadway and perform periodic
pavement preservation tasks.
Cost: $350,000
Benefits: Enhances safety and
increases capacity.
Responsible Town of Payson
Project No: ST – 18
Location: Manzanita Drive - North side of shopping center to Timber Drive
Issues: Poor pavement conditions.
Project Description: Per the Town of Payson CIP, this section of Manzanita Drive is
scheduled for reconstruction. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on east side.
  Compacted granite pathway on
west side of road as part of the
Payson Area Trails System (PATS).
  Improved storm drain facilities.
Cost: $1,000,000
Benefits: Enhances safety and increases
capacity.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 100
Project No: ST – 19
Location: McLane Road – Main Street to
Phoenix Street
Issues: Narrow road and poor pavement
conditions.
Project Description: McLane Road from Main
Street to Phoenix Street is included in the Town
of Payson CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on one side.
  Improved storm drain facilities.
Cost: $955,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic circulation west
of SR 87. Street would also serve as part of an
alternate route on the west side of SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: ST –20
Location: Mud Springs Road – Granite Dells Road to SR 260
Issues:
  Insufficient local traffic circulation options in the vicinity of the project.
  Use of Granite Dells Road by school buses, which is not preferable due to safety
concerns.
Project Description: Mud Springs Road connection from Granite Dells Road to SR 260
is included in the Town of Payson CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on one side.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 101
Cost: $1,300,000
Benefits: Improves roadway
connectivity, adds additional local
traffic circulation choices, and
provides easy access to SR 260. If the
proposed Arizona State University
(ASU) campus is built, this
connection would improve traffic
circulation in the area.
Responsible Agency: Town of
Payson
Project No: ST – 21
Location: Phoenix Street – SR 87 to Sycamore
Issues:
  Narrow road used to access several residential neighborhoods.
  Poor pavement conditions.
Project Description:
Phoenix Street from
SR 87 to Sycamore
is included in the
Town of Payson
CIP. The street
section will include:
  One travel lane in
each direction.
  Curb and gutter on both sides.
  Sidewalk on east side.
  Improved storm drain facilities.
Cost: $630,000
Benefits: Enhances pedestrian movement.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
* Yellow line does not represent an
exact alignment. The exact roadway
alignment will be determined during
the design phase.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 102
Project No: ST – 22
Location: Rumsey Drive – End of pavement to McLane Road
Issues: Insufficient local traffic circulation options in the vicinity of the project.
Project Description: Rumsey Drive connection to McLane Road is included in the Town
of Payson CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each
direction.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each
side.
  Landscape median on
portion of road.
  Sidewalk on south side.
  Compacted granite pathway
on north side of road as part
of PATS system.
Cost: $560,000
Benefits: Improves roadway connectivity, adds additional local traffic circulation
choices, and provides easy access to the Wal-Mart shopping complex for local traffic.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: ST – 23
Location: Wade Lane/Meadow Street intersection
Issues:
  Intersection is adjacent to school zone.
  Trees obstruct intersection which may
cause sight distance issues.
  Little or no street lighting.
Project Description: Trim tree line to improve
sight distance, add street lighting, and
improve signage and intersection geometrics.
Cost: $5,000
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
* Yellow line does not represent an
exact alignment. The exact roadway
alignment will be determined during
the design phase.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 103
MID-TERM TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mid-term phase projects are recommended to be completed within the timeframe of
2016 to 2020. Table 5.2 lists the transportation recommendations for this phase. The
project number, location, description, and estimated costs for each project are identified
in Table 5.2. Figure 5.2 is a graphical representation of the mid-term transportation
recommendations for the Town.
Estimated costs for each project are expressed in 2011 dollars and are general estimates. Actual
costs for projects could vary at the time of implementation; therefore, a detailed analysis should
be performed on a case-by-case basis to determine actual costs.
TABLE 5.2: MID-TERM (2016 – 2020) IMPROVEMENTS
Project
Id
Project Location
Description Cost Agency
Roadway Improvements
MT – 1 SR 87 – Near Airport Road and Rancho Road
Conduct a drainage study.
$45,000 ADOT
MT – 2 SR 87 – North of Aero Drive to north of Frontier Street
Conduct a drainage study.
$45,000 ADOT
MT – 3 Easy Street – Forest Drive to Gila Road
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on each side, sidewalk on each side, and improved storm
drain facilities.
$1,290,000 Town of
Payson
MT – 4 Easy Street – Gila Road to Bradley Drive
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on each side, sidewalk on each side, and improved storm
drain facilities.
$1,270,000 Town of
Payson
MT – 5 Frontier Street – SR 87 to McLane Road
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, parking in
various locations along the roadway, curb and gutter on each side,
and improved storm drain facilities.
$2,100,000 Town of
Payson
MT – 6 Goodnow Road – End of pavement to Bonita Street.
Construct roadway for one travel lane each direction, sidewalk on
one side, curb and gutter, and improved drainage facilities.
$690,000 Town of
Payson
MT – 7 Granite Dells Road – Mud Springs Road to SR 260
Widen roadway to add sufficient shoulders on each side, add
pavement markings, improve street lighting at intersections along
the road, and correct geometric issues.
$300,000 Town of
Payson
MT – 8 Green Valley Parkway – End of pavement west of SR 87 to
end of pavement south of Main Street
Phase 1 of the proposed Green Valley Parkway: one travel lane each
direction, center left turn lane, bike lane, sidewalks, curb and gutter.
$9,000,000 Town of
Payson
MT – 9 Malibu Road – Easy Street to Manzanita Drive
Construct roadway for one travel lane each direction, bike lane,
sidewalks, curb and gutter.
$500,000 Town of
Payson
MT –
10
Main Street – SR 87 to McLane Road
Conduct a drainage study.
$45,000 Town of
Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 104
TABLE 5.2: MID-TERM (2016 – 2020) IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED)
Projec
t Id
Project Location
Description Cost Agency
MT –
11
McLane Road – Airport Road to Ranchos subdivision
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on each side, bike lane on each side, sidewalk on east side,
upgrade compacted granite pathway on west side of road as part of
PATS system, and improved drainage facilities.
$1,250,000 Town of
Payson
MT –
12
McLane Road – Payson Ranchos subdivision to Payson Pines
subdivision
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on each side, bike lane on each side, sidewalk on east side,
upgrade compacted granite pathway on west side of road as part of
PATS system, and improved drainage facilities.
$880,000 Town of
Payson
MT –
13
Mud Springs Road – Cedar Lane to Frontier Street
Town of Payson CIP: one travel lane in each direction, curb and
gutter on each side, bike lane on each side, compacted granite pathway
on east side of road as part of PATS system.
$835,000 Town of
Payson
MT –
14
McLane Road – End of pavement to Green Valley Parkway
Construct roadway for one travel lane each direction, bike lane,
sidewalks, curb and gutter.
$1,750,000 Town of
Payson
MT –
15
Sherwood Drive – Boulder Ridge Road to Airport Road
Construct roadway for one travel lane each direction, bike lane,
sidewalks, curb and gutter.
$1,000,000 Town of
Payson
MT –
16
Sherwood Drive – McLane Road to Colcord Road
Construct roadway for one travel lane each direction, bike lane,
sidewalks, curb and gutter.
$800,000 Town of
Payson
MT –
17
Alternative Route to SR 87 – SR 260 Corridor; Design Concept
Study and NEPA
Conduct a Design Concept Study and NEPA to determine the
corridor alignment
$2,500,000 ADOT/
Town of
Payson
Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Town of Payson
Construct new bike lanes and sidewalks: 9 miles of bikeways, 8.5 miles
of sidewalks. See Figure 5.2
$2,200,000 Town of
Payson
Transit Improvements
Town of Payson
Develop a Transportation Demand Management Program.
Town of
Payson
Access Management
Town of Payson
Implement Access Management Standards.
Town of
Payson
Payson Transportation Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 105
FIGURE 5.2: MID-TERM (2016 – 2020) IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 106
Project Descriptions for Mid-Term Improvements
The following projects were identified for the mid-term implementation phase. The
Project Identification Number (eg: MT-1) does NOT represent the priority of the
project; rather it is an identification number to track project progress in the future. The
Town of Payson will prioritize the projects once the study is complete.
Project No: MT – 1
Location: SR 87 – Near Airport Road and Rancho Road
Issues: Flooding.
Project Description: Conduct a drainage study to
address flooding and implement recommendations from
the study.
Cost: $45,000 (Drainage study cost only)
Benefits: Enhances safety and mobility.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: MT – 2
Location: SR 87 – North of Aero Drive to north of
Frontier Road
Issues: Flooding.
Project Description: Conduct a drainage study to
address flooding and implement recommendations
from the study.
Cost: $45,000 (Drainage study cost only)
Benefits: Enhances safety and mobility.
Responsible Agency: ADOT
Project No: MT – 3
Location: Easy Street – Forest Drive to Gila Road
Issues:
  Narrow road used to access several residential neighborhoods.
  Poor pavement condition.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 107
Project Description: Reconstruction of Easy
Street from Forest Drive to Gila Road is
included in the Town of Payson CIP. The
street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on each side.
  Improved storm drain facilities.
Cost: $1,290,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic circulation and
enhances safe pedestrian movement.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 4
Location: Easy Street – Gila Road to Bradley Drive
Issues:
  Narrow road used to access several
residential neighborhoods.
  Poor pavement condition.
Project Description: Reconstruction of Easy
Street from Gila Road to Bradley Drive is
included in the Town of Payson CIP. The street
section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Sidewalk on each side.
  Improved storm drain facilities.
Cost: $1,270,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic circulation and
enhances safe pedestrian movement.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 108
Project No: MT – 5
Location: Frontier Street – SR 87 to McLane Road
Issues: Narrow road with poor pavement condition.
Project Description: Reconstruction of Frontier Street from SR 87 to McLane Road is
included in the Town of Payson CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each
direction.
  Parking in various
locations along the
roadway.
  Curb and gutter on
each side.
  Improved storm drain
facilities.
Cost: $2,100,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic circulation and relieves traffic on Main Street.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 6
Location: Goodnow Road – End of pavement to
Bonita Street.
Issues:
  SR 87/SR 260 intersection experiences high
traffic volumes and is severely congested.
  There are very few direct routes to bypass the
SR 87/SR 260 intersection.
  Traffic and lack of connectivity may be
inconvenient for local traffic.
Project Description: New roadway extends
Goodnow Road to Bonita Street. The new
roadway would have one travel lane in each
direction, sidewalk on one side, curb and gutter,
and improved drainage facilities.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 109
Cost: $690,000
Benefits: Provides an easy alternative to bypass SR 87/SR 260, which is particularly
beneficial for local traffic because they can access key businesses on SR 260 from side
roads instead of using SR 260 or SR 87, and enhances traffic circulation in the area.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 7
Location: Granite Dells Road – Mud Springs Road to SR 260
Issues:
  Narrow road that is
frequently used by school
buses.
  Narrow shoulders.
  Steep grades and curves.
Project Description: Widen
roadway to add sufficient
shoulders on each side, add
pavement markings, improve
street lighting, and intersection geometrics.
Cost: $300,000
Benefits: Enhances safety and mobility.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 8
Location: Green Valley Parkway – End of pavement west of SR 87 to end of pavement
south of Main Street
Issues:
  Future growth area.
  Lack of an alternate route to SR 87 – Main Street corridor.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 110
Project Description: This is Phase 1 of the
proposed Green Valley Parkway corridor. The
new roadway would connect SR 87 to Main
Street and would have one travel lane in each
direction, a center left turn lane, a bike lane,
sidewalks, and curb and gutter.
Cost: $9,000,000
Benefits: Relieves congestion on existing SR 87-
Main Street traffic, provides easy access to
Green Valley Park and Payson Airport, and
improves traffic circulation for locals on the
west side of SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 9
Location: Malibu Road – Easy Street to Manzanita Drive
Issues:
  Traffic circulation
options on the northeast
side of the SR 87 are very
limited.
  This area is home to
several residential
neighborhoods.
Project Description: The new
roadway extends Malibu
Road from Easy Street to
Manzanita Drive and would
have one travel lane in each direction, a bike lane, sidewalks, and curb and gutter.
Cost: $500,000
Benefits: Enhances mobility on the northeast side of SR 87, improves roadway
connectivity, allows back access to businesses along SR 87 and 260, and allows local
traffic options to using SR 87 or SR 260.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
* Yellow line does not represent an
exact alignment. The exact roadway
alignment will be determined during
the design phase.
* Yellow line does not represent an
exact alignment. The exact roadway
alignment will be determined during
the design phase.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 111
Project No: MT – 10
Location: Main Street – SR 87 to McLane Road
Issues: Flooding.
Project Description: Conduct a
drainage study to address
flooding and implement
recommendations from the
study.
Cost: $45,000 (Drainage study
cost only)
Benefits: Enhances safety and
mobility.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 11
Location: McLane Road ��� Payson Ranchos subdivision to the Payson Pines subdivision
Issues: Narrow road with limited pedestrian facilities and poor/fair pavement
condition.
Project Description: Reconstruction of McLane Road
from Payson Ranchos subdivision to the Payson
Pines subdivision is included in the Town of Payson
CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Sidewalk on east side.
  Upgrade compacted granite pathway on west
side of road as part of PATS system.
  Improved drainage facilities.
Cost: $1,250,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic mobility, enhances
safe pedestrian movement, and serves as alternate
parallel route to SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 112
Project No: MT – 12
Location: McLane Road – Ranchos subdivision to
Pines subdivision
Issues: Narrow road with limited pedestrian
facilities and average pavement condition.
Project Description: McLane Road from Ranchos
subdivision to Pines subdivision is part of the Town
of Payson CIP. The street section will include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Sidewalk on east side.
  Upgrade compacted granite pathway on west
side of road as part of PATS system.
  Improved drainage facilities.
Cost: $880,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic mobility, enhances
safe pedestrian movement, and serves as alternate parallel route to SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 13
Location: Mud Springs Road – Cedar Lane to
Frontier Street
Issues: Narrow road with no pedestrian facilities.
Project Description: Reconstruction of Mud Springs
Road from Cedar Lane to Frontier Street is included
in the Town of Payson CIP. The street section will
include:
  One travel lane in each direction.
  Curb and gutter on each side.
  Bike lane in each direction.
  Compacted granite pathway on east side of
road as part of PATS system.
Cost: $835,000
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 113
Benefits: Improves local traffic circulation, enhances safe pedestrian movement, and
serves as an alternate parallel route to SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 14
Location: McLane Road – End of pavement to Green Valley Parkway
Issues:
  Future growth area.
  Lack of an alternate route to SR 87 –
Main Street corridor.
Project Description: New roadway connects
SR 87 to Main Street, completing the McLane
Road corridor that runs parallel to SR 87 on
the west side. The new roadway would have
one travel lane each direction, a bike lane,
sidewalks, and curb and gutter.
Cost: $1,750,000
Benefits: Serves as an alternate reliever to
existing SR 87 traffic, provides easy access to
Green Valley park and businesses on Main
Street, and improves traffic circulation for
locals on the west side of SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 15
Location: Sherwood Drive – Sherwood
Drive to Airport Road
Issues: Future growth area.
Project Description: New roadway
connects Sherwood Drive to Airport
Road. The new roadway would have one
travel lane each direction, a bike lane,
sidewalks, and curb and gutter.
Cost: $1,000,000
* Yellow line does not represent an
exact alignment. The exact roadway
alignment will be determined during
the design phase.
* Yellow line does not
represent an exact
alignment. The exact
roadway alignment will
be determined during the
design phase.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 114
Benefits: Enhances mobility in the airport area and serves as a parallel route to Airport
Road.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 16
Location: Sherwood Drive – McLane Road to Colcord Road
Issues: Future growth area.
Project Description: New
roadway connection between
McLane Road and Colcord
Road. The new roadway would
have one travel lane in each
direction, a bike lane, sidewalks,
and curb and gutter.
Cost: $800,000
Benefits: Enhances mobility in
the airport area, serves as
parallel route to Airport Road,
and improves traffic circulation on the west side of SR 87.
Responsible Agency: Town of Payson
Project No: MT – 17
Location: Alternative Route to SR 87 – SR 260 Corridor; Design Concept Study and
NEPA
Issues: Congestion along SR 87 – SR 260 Corridor and lack of an alternate route to this
corridor
Project Description: Conduct a Design Concept Study and NEPA to determine the
corridor alignment
Cost: $2,500,000
Benefits: Improves local traffic mobility and serves as alternate route to SR 87 – SR 260
corridor.
Responsible Agency: ADOT/Town of Payson
* Yellow line does not represent an
exact alignment. The exact roadway
alignment will be determined during
the design phase.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 115
LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Long-term phase projects are recommended to be completed within the timeframe of
2021 to 2030. Table 5.3 lists the transportation recommendations for this phase. The
project number, location, description, agency responsibility, and estimated costs (in
2011 dollars) for each project are identified in Table 5.3. Figure 5.3 is a graphical
representation of the long-term transportation recommendations for the Town. Figure
5.4 shows the proposed bike lanes, sidewalks, and trails.
Estimated costs for each project are expressed in 2011 dollars and are general estimates. Actual
costs for projects could vary at the time of implementation; therefore, a detailed analysis should
be performed on a case-by-case basis to determine actual costs.
5.3: LONG-TERM (2021 – 2030) IMPROVEMENTS
Project
Id
Project Location
Description Cost Agency
Roadway Improvements
LT – 2 Green Valley Parkway – End of pavement north of
Summit Street to Airport Road
Phase 2 of the proposed Green Valley Parkway: one travel
lane each direction, center left turn lane, bike lane, sidewalks,
curb and gutter.
$15,000,000 Town of
Payson
LT – 1 Construct Alternative Route to SR 87 – SR 260
Corridor
See Below ADOT/
Town of
Payson
Alternative 1 – Phase 1
SR 87 (south of Casino Road) to SR 260 (in the vicinity of
Tyler Parkway)
$27,000,000
Alternative 1 – Phase 1 and Phase 2
SR 87 (south of Casino Road) to SR 260 (in the vicinity of
Tyler Parkway) and from Alternative 1-Phase 1 to SR 260
Alt 1-Phase 1
$27,000,000
Alt 1-Phase 2
$60,000,000
Alternative 2
SR 87 (south of Casino Road) to SR 260
$72,000,000
Alternative 3
SR 87 (south of Casino Road) west to SR 87(north of Payson)
and continuing east to SR 260
$128,000,000
Pavement Preservation
LT - 3 Town of Payson
Pavement Preservation Maintenance and Management.
Town of
Payson
Transit Improvements
Town of Payson
Establish a Town Transit department.
Town of
Payson
Town of Payson
Implement recommendations from the Transit
Implementation Study.
Town of
Payson
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 116
Functional Classification
Payson’s current adopted roadway functional classification is outdated. Several
roadways recommended for improvements in this study function as collectors or above,
yet they are classified as local roads. Figure 5.5 displays the proposed roadway
functional classification developed as part of this study. Lines shown in a dotted
pattern on the map need to be reclassified as collectors before applying for federal
funds. ADOT has guidelines in place to request reclassification of roadways. They can
be accessed from the web link shown below.
http://tpd.azdot.gov/mpd/gis/fclass/index.asp
Once the roads to be reclassified have been identified, the Town of Payson should first
coordinate with the CAAG to prepare the appropriate applications to reclassify the
roadways. Applications must be submitted to ADOT through CAAG. Final roadway
classification will be forwarded to the FHWA for final approval.
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 117
FIGURE 5.3: LONG-TERM (2021 – 2030) IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 118
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 119
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 120
SR 87 – SR 260 TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS STUDY
RECOMMENDATIONS
As the three phases (short-, mid-, and long-) were being developed, the study team
concluded that:
  SR 87 and SR 260 corridors experience severe congestion on the weekends during
the summer months; and
  Simple traffic operational and geometric improvements at the SR 87 / SR 260
intersection and along SR 87 and SR 260 corridors will significantly improve the
traffic flow through Town.
The study team recommended that a TOAS and RSA be conducted for SR 87: Bonita
Street to Rumsey Drive and SR 260: SR 87 to Manzanita Drive. Based on traffic
operational analysis, field review, and the RSA, the study packaged the geometric and
operational improvements into three distinct groups.
Group 1 Recommendations
Group 1 recommendations are defined as improvements that are low-cost and can be
implemented within a year. Based on the field review, peak hour observations and the
RSA, the following are the recommended Group 1 improvements and are displayed in
Figure 5.6.
SR 87 / SR 260 Intersection
1. Delineate the raised island, located on the southeast corner, by painting the
curb would improve the intersection.
2. Install 100ft of solid white gore striping on SR 260, eastbound from the raised
island.
3. Obliterate the existing crosswalk striping from the southeast corner of the
intersection to the raised island and striping a new crosswalk south of the
existing crosswalk would improve intersection.
4. Construct an additional crosswalk and ramp at the south leg of SR 87.
5. Update the signal timing to add a pedestrian phase for the eastbound through
traffic.
6. Reconfigure the traffic signing on eastbound Longhorn Drive to improve
visibility; moving the route signs to mount them on the traffic signal poles, and
FINAL REPORT
Payson Transportation Study 121
combining and relocating the lane-use signs to avoid blocking the guide sign
would improve intersection safety.
7. Install consistent signing for all the driveways in the area of the intersection is
recommended.
8. Delineate the westbound outside lane to be a trap right-turn lane only is
recommended.
9. Trim trees obscuring signage visibility.
10. Adjust all pedestrian push buttons to be ADA compliant is recommended.
11. Move existing speed limit sign (35MPH) closer to SR 260 is recommended.
Cost Estimate:
The construction costs for Group 1 improvements listed above is approximately $20,000,
which includes materials, labor and a 15% contingency. However, this estimate does
not include the engineering design cost, which is typically 10-12% of the construction
cost.
Group 2 Recommendations
Group 2 recommendations are defined as minor geometric improvements that need to
be designed and can be implemented in a 1 – 2 year time frame, or as par