City of Tombstone State Route 80 alternate route PARA study |
Previous | 1 of 24 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
-
21719.pdf
[41.99 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.
File Format:
Adobe Reader
SR 80 Alternative Route Study Final Report City of Tombstone City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation And City of Tombstone Prepared by: May 21, 2012 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study i May 2012 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................VIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area Overview ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 REVIEW OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................... 4 2.1 Final Project Assessment, SR 80 – Fremont Street between 3rd Street and 6th Street (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Historic Streetscape Assessment Report for a Roadway Transportation Enhancement Project on SR 80, Fremont Street in the Schieffelin Historic District, Tombstone, Cochise County, Arizona (2011) ............................................................... 4 2.3 Pedestrian Safety Analysis for SR 80, Highway Enhancements for Safety (HES), Tombstone, Arizona (2010) ............................................................................................. 4 2.4 Cochise County Comprehensive Plan (2006) ............................................................... 5 2.5 Tombstone Civic Town Plan (2005) ............................................................................... 5 2.6 Plan for the Creation of a Historic Environment (1972) ............................................. 5 3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS .................................................................................. 6 4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................ 9 4.1 Existing Population.......................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Current Demographic Characteristics and Environmental Justice Considerations9 4.3 Future Population .......................................................................................................... 10 4.4 Employment ................................................................................................................... 11 5.0 TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................................ 12 5.1 Existing Roadways ......................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Intersection Controls ..................................................................................................... 12 5.3 Parking ............................................................................................................................ 13 5.4 Crash Data ....................................................................................................................... 13 5.5 Programmed Network Improvements ....................................................................... 13 5.6 Regional Planned Improvements ................................................................................ 13 5.7 Existing Local Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ................................................ 14 5.8 Future No-Build Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ........................................... 20 5.9 Future Build Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service ................................................ 24 5.10 Existing and Planned Transit Service .......................................................................... 26 5.11 Railroad Characteristics ................................................................................................ 27 5.12 Pedestrian ........................................................................................................................ 27 6.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 28 6.1 Records Review .............................................................................................................. 29 6.1.1 Methods .............................................................................................................. 29 6.1.2 Prior Cultural Resource Studies ...................................................................... 29 6.1.3 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ...................................................... 32 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study ii May 2012 6.2 Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark Status ........................... 39 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 42 8.0 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INPUT ............................................................................................. 44 8.1 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................... 44 8.2 Other Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 44 8.3 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 45 9.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AN ALTERNATE CORRIDOR ............................................................... 46 9.1 Project Need .................................................................................................................... 46 9.2 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................... 47 10.0 POTENTIAL CORRIDORS ............................................................................................................... 48 10.1 Corridor Development Process .................................................................................... 48 10.2 No-Build .......................................................................................................................... 49 10.3 Corridor N1 ..................................................................................................................... 49 10.4 Corridor N2 ..................................................................................................................... 51 10.5 Corridor N3 ..................................................................................................................... 53 10.6 Corridor S1 ...................................................................................................................... 55 10.7 Corridor S2 ...................................................................................................................... 57 10.8 Corridor S3 ...................................................................................................................... 59 10.9 Corridor S4 ...................................................................................................................... 61 11.0 ALTERNATE CORRIDOR EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 63 11.1 Length of the Corridor .................................................................................................. 63 11.2 Minimizes Number of Land Owners Affected .......................................................... 64 11.3 Minimize Wash Crossings ............................................................................................ 64 11.4 Avoid Major Utilities ..................................................................................................... 64 11.5 Terrain and Topography ............................................................................................... 65 11.6 Potential Overall Corridor Cost ................................................................................... 65 11.7 Provides Route for Through Traffic that Meets Their Expectations for Long Trip Travel ............................................................................................................................... 65 11.8 Diverts Through Traffic from the Historic District ................................................... 66 11.9 Throughput Travel Time Saving ................................................................................. 66 11.10 Increases Roadway Capacity ........................................................................................ 66 11.11 Improves Safety .............................................................................................................. 67 11.12 Provides Convenient Access to the City ..................................................................... 67 11.13 Visibility of Tombstone Historic Landmark .............................................................. 67 11.14 Preserves City’s Historic Sites ...................................................................................... 68 11.15 Avoids Historic and/or Current Mining Activities ................................................... 68 11.16 Proximity to Residences and Neighborhoods ........................................................... 68 11.17 Supports and/or Creates Economic Development Opportunities for the City ..... 68 11.18 Meeting the Purpose and Need ................................................................................... 69 11.19 Summary of Observations ............................................................................................ 71 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study iii May 2012 CORRIDORS 12.0 RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................................... 73 12.1 Summary of Observations ............................................................................................ 73 12.2 Selection of a South Corridor ....................................................................................... 73 12.3 Selection of a North Corridor ....................................................................................... 75 12.4 Recommended Corridors .............................................................................................. 77 13.0 ALTERNATE CORRIDOR FEATURES .............................................................................................. 78 13.1 Cross-Section Requirements ......................................................................................... 78 13.2 Corridor Design Speeds ................................................................................................ 78 13.3 Corridor S4 ...................................................................................................................... 79 13.4 Corridor N2 ..................................................................................................................... 80 13.5 No-Build .......................................................................................................................... 80 14.0 PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................. 82 14.1 Corridor Summaries ...................................................................................................... 83 15.0 IDENTIFY AVAILABLE FUNDING MECHANISMS .......................................................................... 85 15.1 State Funding .................................................................................................................. 85 15.2 Federal Funding ............................................................................................................. 85 15.3 Other Funding Possibilities .......................................................................................... 86 16.0 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................... 87 17.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 90 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study iv May 2012 List of Tables Table 1 Existing Population.......................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 Minority Population ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 3 Population Characteristics ............................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Total Number of Households – 2020 and 2040 Projections ..................................... 11 Table 5 Employment Change – 2020 and 2040 Projections .................................................... 11 Table 6 Crash Data Summary .................................................................................................... 13 Table 7 Existing Area Arterial Highway Volumes ................................................................. 15 Table 8 Existing Peak Hour Factors .......................................................................................... 15 Table 9 Vehicle Classification ..................................................................................................... 17 Table 10 Origin-Destination Data Collection Summary .......................................................... 18 Table 11 Level of Service Upper Limit Thresholds for Roadway Segments (ADT) ............. 18 Table 12 Peak Hour Level of Service Thresholds for Two-Lane Class II & III Highways .. 20 Table 13 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................... 20 Table 14 No-Build Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 21 Table 15 Future No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 23 Table 16 2020 No-Build LOS ........................................................................................................ 23 Table 17 2030 No-Build LOS ........................................................................................................ 23 Table 18 2040 No-Build LOS ........................................................................................................ 24 Table 19 2040 Daily Build Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 24 Table 20 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Existing SR 80 Roadway .................... 25 Table 21 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Alternate SR 80 Corridor ................... 25 Table 22 2040 Build LOS ............................................................................................................... 26 Table 23 Prior Studies within 1 Mile of the Study Area ........................................................... 29 Table 24 Previously Recorded Historic Districts, Buildings and Structures within the Records Review Area .................................................................................................... 34 Table 25 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Records Review Area ......... 38 Table 26 Summary of Environmental Concerns ........................................................................ 42 Table 27 Alternate Corridor Evaluation Table .......................................................................... 70 Table 28 Level of Service Upper Limit Thresholds for Roadway Segments (ADT) ............. 78 Table 29 Planning Cost Estimate – Corridor S4 ......................................................................... 83 Table 30 Planning Cost Estimate – Corridor N2 ....................................................................... 83 Table 31 Corridor Summaries ...................................................................................................... 84 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study v May 2012 List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area Overview ...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Parcel Information ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 Existing Transportation Conditions ............................................................................ 16 Figure 5 Future Transportation Conditions ............................................................................... 22 Figure 6 Historic and Cultural Considerations ......................................................................... 33 Figure 7 Corridor Development Process .................................................................................... 48 Figure 8 Corridor N1 ..................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 9 Corridor N2 ..................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 10 Corridor N3 ..................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 11 Corridor S1 ...................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 12 Corridor S2 ...................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 13 Corridor S3 ...................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 14 Corridor S4 ...................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 15 Conceptual Alternate Corridors .................................................................................. 72 Figure 16 Typical Non-Divided Rural Highway Cross-Section ............................................... 78 List of Appendices Appendix A Public Involvement Summary Report No. 1 Appendix B Public Involvement Summary Report No. 2 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study vi May 2012 List of Acronyms AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADT Average Daily Traffic APS Arizona Public Service ASLD Arizona State Land Department BFO Board Funding Obligation BLM Bureau of Land Management BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway CC Cochise County CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality DES (Arizona) Department of Economic Security DHV Design Hour Volume EB Eastbound GAN Grant Application Notes HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCS Highway Capacity Software HELP Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program HES Hazard Elimination Program HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program HURF Highway User Revenue Fund I-10 Interstate 10 IM Interstate Maintenance LOS Level of Service MPH (or mph) Miles per Hour NB Northbound NHS National Highway System NRHP National Register of Historic Places OD Origin-Destination OHV Off-Highway Vehicle PARA Planning Assistance for Rural Areas PGP (Traffic Engineering) Policies, Guidelines and Procedures PHF Peak Hour Factor(s) R/W Right-of-Way RDG (ADOT) Roadway Design Guidelines RMA Rural Minor Arterial RMC Rural Major Collector City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study vii May 2012 RV Recreational Vehicle SB Southbound SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIB State Infrastructure Bank SR 80 State Route 80 SR 82 State Route 82 SSVEC Sulfur Springs Valley Electric Company TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UTV Utility Vehicle UPRR Union Pacific Railroad vpd Vehicles per Day WB Westbound City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study viii May 2012 Background: The purpose of the City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route study is to assess the issues and opportunities for a potential realignment of State Route 80 (SR 80). The study was initiated by the City of Tombstone City Council when they requested planning assistance from ADOT through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program. The study would determine if there is a long range need for an alternate route. The study area along SR 80 extends from SR 82 through the City of Tombstone and ends at Davis Road southeast of Tombstone. SR 80 bisects the Tombstone historic district and there are several historic buildings along Fremont Street (SR 80). As highway traffic increases along Fremont Street, the historic buildings become more vulnerable to vibration damage. Project Need: Based on its current configuration as well as input from the TAC, interested members of the public, and investigation of the study area, there were numerous reasons identified for pursuing potential SR 80 alternate alignment possibilities. Key elements in identifying the project need include: The current traffic volume on SR 80 through the Tombstone Historic District is approximately 4,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Due to growth in the region and the state, the traffic volumes are expected to double by 2040. Twenty percent of the current traffic is passing through the city with no particular destination in the study area. Trucks comprise approximately 10% of the traffic stream on a typical day. With growth in the region and state projected to increase faster than in the City of Tombstone, the through traffic and truck traffic is expected to become a higher percentage in the future. The mix of through traffic with local and tourist traffic and with pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the Tombstone Historic District creates conflict that diminishes the experience of the tourist and inflicts delays and unexpected traffic conditions on the through rural highway traveler. Special events held in the Tombstone Historic District, which occur a few times throughout the year, attract large numbers of tourists which increases pedestrian traffic throughout the Historic District. During these events, conflicts between pedestrians and through traffic along SR 80 are more likely to occur and may diminish the tourist experience. The existing traffic conditions in Tombstone do not meet the expectations of the through rural highway traveler because the speed limit on SR 80 changes from 65 mph at either end of the City to 30 mph within the Tombstone Historic Landmark. Motorists and truckers do not always fully transition from rural highway speeds to very restricted speeds in such a short distance. There are also limited passing opportunities within the study area which are atypical of a rural highway. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study ix May 2012 The historic buildings and structures throughout the City may be adversely affected by vibration from higher-speed or heavy vehicle traffic; Growth in Tombstone has been somewhat stagnant and there is a desire to provide and enhance opportunities for economic growth by providing an improved roadway system with access to developable vacant land. Project Purpose: The purpose of a potential alternative corridor is to divert through traffic from the historic district to enhance the tourist experience and protect historic resources, enhance development opportunities in other parts of Tombstone and to provide a route that meets the expectations of the through traveler by providing a route with a consistent design speed and minimal interruptions due to traffic signals and unrestricted access. Corridors Selected for Further Study: Seven alternate corridors were identified through the study process and were evaluated based on how well they met the project purpose and need and other evaluation criteria such as neighborhood impacts and safety (see section 11). Corridors S4 and Corridor N2 were selected for further study in addition to the No-Build option through input from stakeholders, Technical Advisory Committee members and members of the public. Corridor S4 diverges from SR 80 in the vicinity of Middlemarch Road near the municipal solid waste landfill and heads south across a new bridge over Walnut Gulch west of the existing SR 80 bridge (see Figure 14). It then curves to the southeast near the Sulphur Springs Valley Electrical Cooperative, Inc. (SSVEC) Tombstone Substation and crosses the west end of Allen Street and follows the SSVEC power line. Corridor S4 then crosses Charleston Road and curves east along the old runway south of Tombstone and north of the hills and near the southern City boundary. The alternate corridor would curve northeast just south of the Skyline neighborhood, curve around on the north side of the open pit mining area before it reconnects with SR 80 southeast of the City. Proximity to abandoned mine sites could create structural or cost considerations to address subsidence potential and/or impacts on bat habitats. A key stakeholder along Corridor S4 is the owner of a large open pit mine who was very receptive to Corridor S4. In addition, Corridor S4 provides a very nice view of the historic downtown Tombstone which is highly desirable to key stakeholders as a way to attract tourists into Tombstone. Corridor S4 meets the purpose and need of the study, has relatively good separation from most residential areas, has good access to the historic district, provides good opportunity for new economic development meets the expectations of regional trip travel and enhances safety. Corridor N2 avoids known historic and current mining activities. Corridor N2 diverges from SR 80 in the vicinity of Middlemarch Road near the municipal solid waste landfill and heads east north of Walnut Gulch and the north Tombstone City limits (see Figure 9). Near the northeast corner of the Tombstone City limits Corridor N2 curves south crossing Camino San Rafael Road and Gleeson Road and Walnut Gulch as it heads south to rejoin SR 80 southeast of City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study x May 2012 Tombstone. Corridor N2 is located almost entirely on state trust lands which could mitigate the negative impact of right-of-way acquisition. Corridor N2 meets the purpose and need of the study, provides good opportunity for new economic development, meets the expectations of regional trip travel and enhances safety. Although the No-build alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the study, this option would be carried forward to the next phase of study and analysis until final approvals are obtained to move forward with the alternate. The no-build options would leave SR 80 on its current alignment on Fremont Street in Tombstone. It would also include the planned narrowing of Fremont Street between 3rd Street and 6th Street. Cost and Funding: The cost of final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of Corridor S4 is estimated to be approximately $15 million while Corridor N2 is estimated to cost approximately $19 million. If a 20% factor was added for mining contingencies, then the project cost for S4 would be approximately $18 million. No funding source is currently available for the design and construction of an alternate route. Although the realignment of SR 80 is recommended, current conditions are not favorable for further action at this time to move the project forward. Future activities related to the realignment of SR 80 will occur at a time that is mutually beneficial and agreeable to both ADOT and the City of Tombstone. Public and Agency Involvement: The ADOT study team and the city council made a considerable effort to involve stakeholder agencies, stakeholders and the public during the study process. Five Technical Advisory Meetings consisting of agency stakeholders were held along with five stakeholder interviews and two public meetings. Issues including truck traffic, neighborhood impacts, business impacts and safety were expressed. Many residents who attended the public meetings expressed a preference for the No-Build option. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 1 May 2012 1.0 The purpose of the City of Tombstone State Route 80 (SR 80) Alternate Route Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Study is to assess the issues and opportunities for a potential realignment of SR 80. The intent of a potential realignment would be to serve future regional traffic, improve regional connectivity, and support efforts to retain and enhance the historic features within the City of Tombstone. This study will serve as the gateway for any future scoping documents and engineering design. The main goals and objectives of the study include: Document and analyze existing conditions along SR 80; Analyze anticipated future conditions within the study area; Determine the need for and feasibility of a realignment of SR 80; and Develop and identify a preferred corridor for a SR 80 realignment. This report provides an inventory and analysis of existing and future land use, socioeconomic, transportation, historic and environmental conditions in a study area that encompasses the City of Tombstone and the surrounding area. The information about the characteristics of the study area will provide the foundation for the identification of alternative SR 80 corridors to address community needs and anticipated deficiencies. 1.1 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW SR 80 is an east-west route traversing southeastern Arizona beginning in Benson and ending at the New Mexico state line. SR 80 provides a direct connection from Benson to Bisbee and serves as a rural minor arterial. Locally, SR 80 travels through the corporate limits of the City of Tombstone from approximate milepost 315.4 to 318.6 where it is known as Fremont Street. Within the City it serves as a collector for local streets and offers access for fronting businesses and residences. Figure 1 provides an overview of the study area characteristics. Its current location was established in 1964 when SR 80, then US 80, was moved one block north to Fremont Street from Allen Street. The purpose of the 1964 realignment was to provide more right-of-way and better accommodate the operations of motorized vehicles. Fremont Street is narrow, providing only 80 feet of right-of-way nominally between the faces of fronting buildings. When the highway was constructed in 1964, the pre-existing boardwalks and porches were removed to accommodate the new 4-lane roadway. In 2007, the 4-lane undivided street section was changed to two lanes with a center turn lane as a means to mitigate higher operating speeds that were prevalent in the historic district. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 2 May 2012 Several historic buildings are present along both sides of SR 80 as it bisects the City of Tombstone historic district. As traffic increases along the current alignment, the historic buildings become more vulnerable due to the increased vibrations of truck traffic in addition to natural deterioration. In addition, the City of Tombstone is an important tourist destination where several special events are conducted every year celebrating its Old West heritage. The largest of these special events can attract crowds of nearly 100,000 from around the world over a week-long period. The City of Tombstone is surrounded by mining claims and active and abandoned mines. Mining activity is ongoing and is largely located immediately south of the City on both private land and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, south of SR 80. ADOT is now working with the City through the Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) and Transportation Enhancements (TE) Program to construct safety improvements, implement enhancement, and perform certain historic rehabilitations on Fremont Street (SR 80) from 3rd Street to 6th Street. These improvements include narrowing the highway to make room for pedestrian facilities. These facilities will include sidewalks, landscaping and pedestrian lighting, street lights, and, where appropriate, the construction of historically consistent boardwalks and porches. Completion of these improvements is expected in 2013. Although the highway will remain a three-lane section, a consequence of this work is that there will be no room to add lanes for future vehicular capacity or safety upgrades, such as traffic or pedestrian signals, in the future. Figure 1 Study Area Overview P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\Study_Area_Overview_WP2_Final.mxd (BLC 5/22/2012) Source: Historic Districts: AZSITE 2011 Hazmat: ADEQ Website 2011 (http://gisweb.azdeq.gov) State Trust Lease: ASLD 2011 Abandoned Mine: BLM 2011 Residential Area: City of Tombstone 2011, Cochise County 2011 Approximate Open Pit Mining Area: URS 2011 Floodplains: FEMA 2008 Roads: ADOT 2009 Pipelines: Rextag Pipelines 2009 Transmission Lines/Substations: SSVEC 2011, Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. - POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2011 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd MP 321.1 MP 313.9 Tombstone Gulch Walnut Gulch Reeves Creek 4600 4500 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 5200 5100 5000 4900 5100 5100 5000 4800 4700 4600 4700 4600 4500 4700 4600 4400 4300 4500 5000 5200 4800 4800 4700 4800 4900 4800 4600 4600 4800 4600 4300 4400 4500 4700 4600 4500 4600 4700 4700 4300 4600 4900 4600 4500 5100 4200 4600 4700 4400 5200 El Paso Natural Gas Company Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Arizona Public Service Co. Arizona Public Service Co. Tombstone Cemetery Old Tombstone High School Boothill Cemetery Landin Park Walter J Meyer School Medigovich Field Tombstone Courthouse State Historical Park Tombstone High School 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Tombstone Historic District (AZSITE) 100-year Floodplain Floodway Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Mine Permitting Activity Abandoned Mine Cemetery School / School Facility Park State Park Tombstone High School / Waste-Water Treatment Plant (ASLD Lease) Residential Area Approximate Open Pit Mining Area Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land (ASLD) Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad Substation Transmission Line Natural Gas Pipeline 50-foot Contour City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 4 May 2012 2.0 There are several studies and plans that pertain to the study area. This section provides a summary for each plan or study and notes the applicability to the City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route Study. 2.1 FINAL PROJECT ASSESSMENT, SR 80 – FREMONT STREET BETWEEN 3RD STREET AND 6TH STREET (2011) As described in Section 1.1 above, a TE and HISP project is planned for construction in 2013 in Tombstone along SR 80. The TE project would address previous recommendations regarding safety and the enhancement of the historic landmark district, including constructing boardwalks or other pedestrian facilities on both sides of Fremont Street between 3rd and 6th streets, reconstructing porches along the road as historically appropriate, constructing historic district entry monuments, and landscaping and lighting improvements. As part of this project, the roadway would be narrowed from the current 68-foot width to 44 feet. On-street parking will be eliminated, and the remnants of a pedestrian bridge along Fremont Street will be removed. The new street section will have one 16-foot through lane in each direction, a continuous 12-foot center left turn lane, and curbs and gutters on each side. 2.2 HISTORIC STREETSCAPE ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR A ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ON SR 80, FREMONT STREET IN THE SCHIEFFELIN HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOMBSTONE, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA (2011) This report assesses the historic character of the streetscape along SR 80 between 3rd Street and 6th Street. The purpose of the study was to better inform the project design of the evolution of Fremont Street and properties adjacent to the corridor. Recommendations included the restoration of porches and boardwalks to buildings (pre-1960) as well as rehabilitation and preservation of any intact character-defining features of the Landmark through rehabilitation of the roadway and streetscape. 2.3 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR SR 80, HIGHWAY ENHANCEMENTS FOR SAFETY (HES), TOMBSTONE, ARIZONA (2010) This report documents a comprehensive Highway Enhancement Pedestrian Safety Analysis performed for SR 80 in downtown Tombstone. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate conditions affecting the safety of pedestrians crossing SR 80 and to recommend improvements. Selected recommendations from the safety study are planned for the project described in the previous section (2.1). City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 5 May 2012 2.4 COCHISE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2006) The Comprehensive Plan sets forth goals and development policies for land use, transportation, and other elements throughout the unincorporated areas of Cochise County. Transportation policies within the Plan address overall circulation and access management to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, particularly as future development occurs. Within the land use plan for Cochise County, Tombstone is identified within a Category B Growth Area boundary. This suggests potential for moderately paced rural residential type development, particularly to the northeast of Tombstone City limits. Land uses within the City are regulated by Tombstone in accordance with its zoning ordinance, as discussed in Section 3.1. 2.5 TOMBSTONE CIVIC TOWN PLAN (2005) This Plan documents the outcome of a 3-day charrette that was conducted in 2005. The purpose of this charrette was to consider strategies for historic preservation issues within the context of overall community and economic development goals. The charrette was partially a response to notification from the National Park Service that Tombstone’s status as a national landmark was threatened due to inappropriate alterations and new construction. The charrette produced a set of recommendations. The most pertinent to this study is the recommendation to eliminate regional traffic from Fremont Street, traffic calming on Fremont Street, and minimizing the separation of Fremont Street from the historic district. The conceptual alignment for a regional route shown in this document continues south toward Sierra Vista and Bisbee, suggesting improvement of Charleston Road. This Plan is addressed in more detail in Section 4.2. 2.6 PLAN FOR THE CREATION OF A HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (1972) Although the City of Tombstone is not required to maintain a General Plan under Arizona law, this 1972 plan was identified by City officials as a key guide to land use and other decisions in the City. The purpose of the Plan is to outline procedures for preserving and enhancing the physical record of Tombstone’s history within a community that is active with residents and tourists. The Plan is a summary of the goals of the Tombstone Restoration Commission. The Plan proposed a Schieffelin Historic Conservation District, which generally encompasses the area within the current historic district. SR 80, which was moved to Fremont Street from Allen Street in the 1960s, was identified as a potential threat to historic resources on the basis of intrusion into the historic district area. The Plan shows improvement of Charleston Road, extension of Fremont Street to the west, and development of a major arterial perpendicular to the highway at 9th Street. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 6 May 2012 3.0 Existing and planned land uses within the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing commercial land uses are clustered along SR 80 near the historic core of Tombstone, where a National Historic District Landmark has been designated. Low-density residential development has occurred north of the historic core and continues to the northeast toward Walnut Gulch. Arizona State Trust land located to the north, east, and west of downtown Tombstone is generally leased for grazing. The Tombstone High School is located along SR 80 northwest of downtown on leased State Trust land. Historic and ongoing mines or mining operations are located to the south of historic Tombstone. The southern portion of the study area is largely land managed by the BLM. This area is mostly subject to mining claims and includes a large number of abandoned mines. Figure 2 shows the current inventory of abandoned mines; this inventory is incomplete and is still ongoing by BLM. The City’s zoning reinforces the existing land use patterns and guides future development. The majority of the city (over 60 percent) is zoned for residential uses. Centered on Fremont and Allen Streets, the Business designations cover the central portion of the city including the Tombstone Historic District Landmark, as identified on Figure 2. There are some Business zones identified along SR 80 in the northwestern portion of the city as well. The land area south of the historic district is identified as an Industrial/Mining zoning district. The majority of the study area stretching between SR 82 to the north and Davis Road to the south is undeveloped private land, Arizona State Trust Land, or federal land managed by the BLM. Existing parcel boundaries within the City of Tombstone are illustrated in Figure 3. There are multiple transmission lines located throughout the study area, as shown in Figure 2. Additionally, there is a natural gas pipeline that spans the project study area from the north to the eastern edge. The pipeline does not cross within city limits as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Existing and Planned Land Use P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\LandUse_TAZs_WP1_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Zoning: City of Tombstone 2011, Cochise County 2011 State Trust Lease: ASLD 2011 Abandoned Mine: BLM 2011 TAZ: Cochise County 2011 Roads: ADOT 2009 Pipelines: Rextag Pipelines 2009 Transmission Lines/Substations: SSVEC 2011, Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. - POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative El Paso Natural Gas Company Arizona Public Service Co. Arizona Public Service Co. 456 415 388 439 324 431 426 441 448 447 445 453 440 444 442 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) Abandoned Mine Tombstone Zoning Residential Business Industrial and Warehouse Industrial and Mining Cochise County Zoning RU-4 (Rural Residential, 1 unit per 4 acres) TR-36 (Transitional Residential, 1 unit per 36,000 square feet) Mixed Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private State Trust Land Lease Status Tombstone High School / Waste-Water Treatment Plant Grazing Lease General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad Substation Transmission Line Natural Gas Pipeline 447 Figure 3 Parcel Information P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\Parcel_Information_WP1_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Parcel: Cochise County 2011 State Trust Lease: ASLD 2011 Floodplains: FEMA 2008 Roads: ADOT 2009 Pipelines: Rextag Pipelines 2009 Transmission Lines/Substations: SSVEC 2011, Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. - POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Middlemarch Rd Charleston Rd Gleeson Rd Allen St MP 318.6 MP 315.4 Tombstone Gulch Walnut Gulch Reeves Creek El Paso Natural Gas Company Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Arizona Public Service Co. Walter J Meyer School Tombstone High School 10901002 10905028C 10819001E 10902001G 10903004B 10903005 10903008A 10902001H 10903008B 60905008P 60912005 60912025 60912007 60912001X 60912008 60912009 60912006A 60912001D 60912002H 60912024B 60912002L 60912024A 60912014 60912013 10905028B 60912006B 10904030A 10905032B 10925020A 10925020 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Schieffelin Historic District Parcel 100-year Floodplain Floodway School / School Facility Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private State Trust Land Lease Status Tombstone High School / Waste-Water Treatment Plant General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad Substation Transmission Line Natural Gas Pipeline City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 9 May 2012 4.0 A review of existing and future population and employment growth trends was conducted to understand the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the City of Tombstone. Data were collected from Cochise County and the US Census for this analysis. Cochise County data are organized by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the City of Tombstone while the US Census data are broken down by census blocks. 4.1 EXISTING POPULATION According to Census data, Cochise County had population of 131,346 people in 2010. The study area had a 2010 population of 1,788 people; of which 77 percent reside within Tombstone City limits (US Census Bureau 2011). As shown in Table 1, Tombstone has lost population over the past decade even while Cochise County population grew by over 11 percent. Table 1 Existing Population Area 2000 2010 Percent Growth Tombstone 1,506 1,380 -8.40% Study Area 1,747 1,788 2.3% Cochise County 117,755 131,346 11.5% Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 24.6% Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census 4.2 CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS The potential for environmental justice considerations within the study area was assessed based on an analysis of the minority and/or low-income populations within the study area. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the population by race and ethnicity based on 2010 Census data. Data are shown for the City of Tombstone, Cochise County, and the State of Arizona to identify where there might be a disproportionately large environmental justice population. Minority populations are defined as those residents who are not reported as White/Non-Hispanic in the Census. Of the 1,380 people living in Tombstone as of the 2010 Census, over 90 percent are White. In comparison, Cochise County population is about 78 percent White. The Hispanic population in Tombstone comprises about 21 percent of the population. The Hispanic youth population in Tombstone, or persons under 18 years of age, account for approximately 39 percent of the population. Comparatively, Cochise County is approximately 32 percent Hispanic and the State of Arizona is nearly 30 percent Hispanic. It appears that the City of Tombstone does not have a disproportionate minority population relative to Cochise County as a whole. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 10 May 2012 Table 2 Minority Population Location White African American Native American Asian Pacific Islander Other Race Multi Race Total Hispanic Tombstone 1,269 6 9 9 1 39 47 1,380 288 Cochise County 103,085 5,465 1,589 2,525 418 12,989 5,275 131,346 42,543 Arizona 4,667,121 259,008 296,529 176,695 12,648 761,716 218,300 6,392,017 1,895,149 Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census The disabled population includes those who suffer from conditions such as blindness, deafness, other severe vision and/or hearing impairments, and limited mobility. According to available data, approximately 24 percent of the population of the City of Tombstone is living with a disability, which is a higher percent of the total when compared to Cochise County (19 percent) as identified in Table 3. As show in Table 3, over 26 percent of the Tombstone population is over the age of 65 and 21 percent are living below the poverty level, compared to 17 percent and 15 percent, respectively, throughout Cochise County. Table 3 Population Characteristics Total Male Population Total Female Population Persons with Disability* Persons 65+ Persons Living Below Poverty Level Tombstone 683 697 359 362 297 Cochise County 66,977 64,369 22,467 22,688 19,351 Arizona 3,175,823 3,216,194 902,252 881,831 933,113 Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census *Data from 2000 Census, since 2010 data not available 4.3 FUTURE POPULATION The analysis of future population is based on Cochise County total household projections, which are based on 2000 Census data at the time of this writing. Transportation planning in Cochise County is generally based on data summarized by TAZs which includes Cochise County projections for future population growth. Cochise County’s population estimates for 2020 and 2040 show growth to over 90,000 households countywide and over 1,300 households in the City of Tombstone. It should be noted that the number of households identified in this analysis for the study area include data from all TAZs that intersect and may extend partially beyond the study area boundary. Table 4 summarizes the Cochise County projections for future household growth from 2007 to 2040. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 11 May 2012 Table 4 Total Number of Households – 2020 and 2040 Projections Area 2007 2020 2040 Future Growth Percentage Tombstone 1,039 1,312 1,359 31% Study Area 1,041 1,432 1,584 52% Cochise County 45,546 74,031 98,386 116% Source: Cochise County, 2010 4.4 EMPLOYMENT According to Cochise County data, the City of Tombstone provided roughly 2 percent of all employment in Cochise County in 2007, supplying over 650 jobs. Future growth projections suggest that Tombstone will increase the total number of jobs to nearly 1,000 by 2040. Due to the rural nature of the study area there are no employment centers outside of the city limits. Table 5 identifies the existing and future employment projections for the City and study area based on Cochise County data. Table 5 Employment Change – 2020 and 2040 Projections Area 2007 2020 2040 Percent Change Tombstone 661 808 989 50% Study Area 661 808 989 50% Cochise County 40,920 57,083 83,673 104% Source: Cochise County, 2010 Tourism-related businesses comprise an important segment of the City of Tombstone’s economy and provide many jobs in the area. The City of Tombstone is the largest single employer with nearly 60 part-time and full-time employees. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 12 May 2012 5.0 An inventory of the current transportation system throughout the City of Tombstone was conducted to assess current conditions at study locations and to identify any current or anticipated deficiencies at the study locations. 5.1 EXISTING ROADWAYS SR 80 provides regional connectivity to the City of Tombstone, connecting to Benson and I-10 to the north and Bisbee to the south and providing connectivity to the Arizona/New Mexico border. SR 80 is also known as Fremont Street throughout the City limits and serves as a rural minor arterial with varying posted speed limits. The posted speed limit on SR 80 south of State Route 82 (SR 82) is 65 miles per hour (mph), and then reduces to 55 mph north of Middlemarch Road. The posted speed limit is reduced to 45 mph just north of Randolph Way and to 35 mph just south of Randolph Way. The 35 mph posted speed limit continues on SR 80 until 3rd Street, where the posted speed limit is reduced to 30 mph. Between 3rd Street and 6th Street, there are historic buildings located at the right-of-way line in close proximity to Fremont Street traffic. The posted speed limit increases to 35 mph south of 6th Street and increases to 45 mph north of Landin Parkway. The posted speed limit increases to 55 mph just south of Landin Parkway and then increases to 65 mph north of Davis Road. Figure 4 illustrates the street network. SR 80 consists of a two-lane roadway north of Lariat Drive consisting of one lane in each direction of travel, flaring to a three-lane section to provide a two-way left-turn lane south of Lariat Drive. The three-lane section continues to San Diego Street. South of San Diego Street SR 80 reduces to a two-lane section flaring at Davis Road to provide a southbound left-turn lane. The remainder of the streets in Tombstone are minor collectors and local streets providing access to commercial and residential areas of the city. Typically, none of these streets provide regional connectivity. Most of these streets are two lanes with a speed limit of 30 mph or less. 5.2 INTERSECTION CONTROLS All of the intersections within the City of Tombstone are unsignalized. The minor streets are stop controlled along SR 80 with SR 80 operating as free-flow. In the downtown area, primarily between 3rd Street and 6th Street, pedestrian crossing signs are present in both directions of travel along SR 80. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 13 May 2012 5.3 PARKING Parking areas are located throughout the Tombstone downtown area. SR 80 serves as the regional access to these parking lots and one parking lot is located directly along SR 80. SR 80 does not provide on-street parking between 3rd Street and 6th Street. On-street parking is provided between 1st Street and 3rd Street, then again between 6th Street and 10th Street. During normal business hours, the existing parking is sufficient to accommodate the demand. 5.4 CRASH DATA Crash data along SR 80 within the City of Tombstone limits (MP 315.4 to MP 318.6) were obtained from ADOT Traffic Records Section. It should be noted that crash data from the City of Tombstone were not provided and therefore not included within the analysis. The crash data acquired were for a five-year period from January 2006 through December 2010. Table 6 summarizes the total number of crashes per year. Table 6 Crash Data Summary Year Yearly 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Average Number of Crashes 3 0 0 3 1 7 1.4 Source: Arizona Department of Transportation 2011 As illustrated in Table 6, a total of 7 crashes have occurred between January 2006 and December 2010 with an average of 1.4 crashes occurring yearly along SR 80 within the City of Tombstone limits. The highest number of crashes occurred in 2006 and 2009 with 3 crashes. However, of the 7 crashes 3 have resulted in fatalities, or 43 percent. Two of the 3 fatal crashes occurred with pedestrians. 5.5 PROGRAMMED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS Signing and striping improvements were completed in July 2010 on SR 80 which eliminated on-street parking from 3rd Street to 6th Street, provided additional signs directing visitors to parking areas and reduced the speed limit to 30 mph. A traffic enhancement project will construct boardwalks along both sides of SR 80 from approximately 3rd Street to 6th Street. The construction of the boardwalks will include wider walkways, overhead canopies and landscaping. Additional destination signage will also be installed along SR 80 to assist in directing patrons to the historic locations. 5.6 REGIONAL PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS SR 80 in Benson is planned to be widened by horizon year 2040 to provide two lanes per direction of travel through the Benson City limits. No regional widening improvements are planned within the City of Tombstone in the five year plan. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 14 May 2012 5.7 EXISTING LOCAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Daily traffic counts were conducted by Traffic Research and Analysis, Inc. (TRA) on Thursday, August 25th and Saturday, August 27th of 2011. Daily (24-hour) traffic counts and Scheme F classification counts were recorded for each day at four locations, beginning at 12:00 AM and ending at 11:59 PM: SR 80 north of Randolph Way; SR 80 south of Landin Parkway; SR 80 south of Davis Road; and Davis Road east of SR 80. In addition, TRA collected origin and destination (OD) data at two locations along SR 80 on the same days beginning at 6:00 AM and ending at 4:59 PM: SR 80 south of Randolph Way; and SR 80 north of Landin Parkway. Table 7 presents the 2011 existing traffic volumes at the study locations. Figure 4 identifies the roadway network throughout the City of Tombstone and illustrates the existing traffic volumes. In general, traffic volumes are higher at the north end of Tombstone compared to the southern extents. The highest 24-hour volume recorded was approximately 4,000 vehicles per day on SR 80 just north of Randolph Way. It should be noted that incomplete data were obtained on Thursday, August 25th at the SR 80, north of Randolph Way location in the southbound direction. A malfunction in the tube occurred resulting in inaccurate data collection. The malfunction occurred from 4:15 PM on August 25th through 10:30 AM on August 26th. Traffic count data were collected after 10:30 AM on August 26th through Saturday, August 27th. Therefore, traffic counts obtained on Friday, August 26th from 4:15 PM through 11:45 PM were used in place of the malfunction time period. This results in a more conservative analysis as traffic volumes on Friday, August 26th were slightly higher at other locations than on Thursday, August 25th. ADOT MPD provided seasonal adjustment factors for SR 80 near the Tombstone area. The month of August had an adjustment factor of 0.998; therefore an adjustment factor of 1.0 was applied to all traffic volumes obtained. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 15 May 2012 Table 7 Existing Area Arterial Highway Volumes HWY Location Direction Class Traffic Counts 24 Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Thursday August 25, 2011 SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB* RMA 2,088 127 157 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB RMA 1,861 108 169 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way SB RMA 1,202 85 92 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way NB RMA 1,202 86 96 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB RMA 736 57 60 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB RMA 747 42 71 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB RMC 553 52 41 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB RMC 449 44 47 Saturday August 27, 2011 24 Hour Mid-day Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB RMA 2,125 191 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB RMA 1,898 149 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way SB RMA 1,474 119 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way NB RMA 1,321 118 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB RMA 862 81 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB RMA 829 80 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB RMC 529 48 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB RMC 653 43 Source: TRA, 2011 * Combination of 8/26/11 and 8/27/11 traffic volumes. RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector The existing AM and PM peak hour factors (PHF) for the study locations are summarized in Table 8. A PHF is the peak hour traffic volume divided by four times the highest 15-minute peak count. The PHF is used to gauge the platooning, or arrival of vehicles during the peak hour. The lower the PHF, the more concentrated the peak hour flow. Table 8 Existing Peak Hour Factors HWY Location Peak Hour Factor AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way 0.65 0.67 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way 0.72 0.79 SR 80 South of Davis Road 0.68 0.77 Davis Rd East of SR 80 0.59 0.65 Figure 4 Existing Traffic Conditions P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\ExistingTraffic_Conditions_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Roads: ADOT 2009 Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2011 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Graphics\Figures\PDFs\Fig4_ExistingTraffic_Conditions.pdf (RJW) 5/16/2012 52(41) / 48 553 / 529 1002 1182 449 / 653 44(47) / 43 57(60) / 81 736 / 862 1483 1691 747 / 829 42(71) / 80 86(96) / 118 1202 / 1321 2404 2795 1202 / 1474 85(92) / 119 108(169) / 149 1861 / 1898 3949 4023 2088* / 2125 127(157)* / 191 Weekday / Weekend Daily Traffic Weekday / Weekend Directional Daily Traffic Weekday AM(PM) / Weekend Peak Hour Traffic 1234 1234 1234 / 1234 123(123) / 123 * Partial Friday counts utilized City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 17 May 2012 Of the amount of traffic throughout the Tombstone area, the majority is classified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as passenger cars. Due to the absence of alternative routes between SR 82 and Davis Road, regional truck traffic including oversize loads along SR 80 from Benson and I-10 to Bisbee and Douglas are frequently routed through Tombstone. For the purposes of this evaluation, FHWA’s 10 truck vehicle classifications have been grouped into two categories as follows: Single Unit Trucks – Includes buses and single unit trucks without trailers; and Multiple Unit Trucks – Includes single unit trucks or multiple trailer trucks, recreational vehicles (RV’s) and RV trailers, and buses To analyze the amount of truck traffic in the vicinity of Tombstone an analysis was conducted over a three-day period within the city limits. Table 9 summarizes the breakdown between vehicle classifications within the City of Tombstone. Table 9 Vehicle Classification HWY Location Direction Truck Traffic Single Unit (SU) SU % of Total Multiple Unit (MU) MU % of Total Total % of Trucks Thursday August 25, 2011 SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB* 55 2.6% 78 3.7% 6.3% SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 59 3.2% 92 4.9% 8.1% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 30 2.5% 81 6.7% 9.2% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 29 2.4% 84 7.0% 9.4% SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 25 3.4% 34 4.6% 8.0% SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 19 2.5% 35 4.7% 7.2% Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 26 4.7% 42 7.6% 12.3% Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 18 4.0% 36 8.0% 12.0% Saturday August 27, 2011 SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 23 1.1% 30 1.4% 2.5% SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 15 0.8% 35 1.8% 2.6% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 13 0.9% 20 1.4% 2.3% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 10 0.8% 27 2.0% 2.8% SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 11 1.3% 12 1.4% 2.7% SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 8 1.0% 15 1.8% 2.8% Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 6 1.1% 14 2.6% 3.7% Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 7 1.1% 11 1.7% 2.8% Source: TRA, 2011 * Combination of 8/26/11 and 8/27/11 traffic volumes. Origin and destination (OD) data were also collected via license plate recognition in which the last four digits of license plates were noted. These digits were then compiled in a database and matched to determine the beginning and ending location of each. The purpose of collecting the City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 18 May 2012 OD data was to determine the amount of traffic traveling through the City. In addition, the OD data collection efforts recorded vehicles in a simplistic classification: class 4 truck (single unit truck) and larger or passenger vehicle. The data were collected from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Of the vehicles traveling south, approximately 20 percent entering Tombstone continue through the City with minimal stops during the typical weekday and Saturday. Approximately 26 percent of the vehicles traveling northbound entering Tombstone continue through the City with minimal stops during a typical weekday and Saturday. More specifically, approximately 8 percent of southbound truck traffic is through-put traffic, or traffic that makes minimal stops within the City during the typical weekday and Saturday. Approximately 50 percent of the northbound truck traffic is through-put traffic during a typical weekday while approximately 20 percent of the northbound truck traffic is through-put traffic during a typical Saturday. It should be noted that the OD data collection location on SR 80 at the southern end of Tombstone was just north of the main entrance to the mine, or just north of Landin Parkway. In addition several parking lots south of SR 80 accommodate RV’s, RV trailers, and buses which may attract many visitors entering Tombstone from the north (southbound traffic) and then return to the north. These parking lots and Charleston Road absorb RV’s, RV trailers, and buses which are believed to account for a majority of the truck trips on SR 80 within the study area. Table 10 summarizes the OD data collection. Table 10 Origin-Destination Data Collection Summary % Pass Thru Traffic Location Weekday Weekend Total Truck Total Truck SB SR 80 19% 9% 21% 7% NB SR 80 30% 51% 24% 20% Source: TRA, 2011 Existing level of service (LOS) is a function of the roadway capacity and existing traffic volumes. Table 11 provides LOS definitions as related to the daily volume thresholds for each roadway classification. Table 11 Level of Service Upper Limit Thresholds for Roadway Segments (ADT) Classification Level of Service A B C D E Rural Minor Arterial (2-lane w/ TWLTL) <5,000 7,000 10,000 13,000 15,000 Rural Minor Collector w/2 lanes <4,000 5,500 7,500 9,000 10,000 Rural Highway w/ 2-lanes <1,500 3,500 6,600 11,200 19,000 Sources: ITE Guidelines, 2000 TWLTL: Two-way left-turn lane City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 19 May 2012 Daily levels of service serve as a very good planning tool to identify segment needs based on daily traffic volumes. Peak hour analyses are more robust and account for several factors not included in the daily analyses. For this reason, infrastructure improvements are generally guided by peak hour analyses. The detailed peak hour roadway segment level of service analysis is determined considering factors such as number of lanes, the width of each lane and the width of each shoulder, the peak hour factor (PHF), the percent passing zones available, the percent trucks, buses and RVs, the existing traffic volumes, the posted or measured speed limit and the overall roadway terrain. The daily levels of service for SR 80 at the study locations were based on the ADT and thresholds identified in Table 11 for a rural minor arterial and the results are shown in Table 13. In general, SR 80 in the City of Tombstone operates with a daily LOS of A under existing conditions. The daily levels of service for Davis Road at the study location were based on the ADT and thresholds identified in Table 11 for a rural minor collector. The posted speed limit on SR 80 within the City limits changes from 55 mph at the edges to 30 mph in the downtown area. The traffic counts conducted within the City limits were located where the posted speed limit changed from 35 mph to 45 mph. For purposes of peak hour analyses, SR 80 at the study locations is classified as a Class III highway per the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010). A Class III highway is classified as a highway serving moderately developed areas that may pass through small towns or developed recreational areas. Local traffic often mixes with through (regional) traffic and the density of unsignalized roadside access points is noticeably higher than in a purely rural area. Such segments often contain reduced speed limits that reflect higher levels of activities (pedestrian and vehicular). Davis Road east of SR 80 is posted with a 55 mph speed limit and would be classified as a Class II highway. The posted speed limit on Davis Road where the traffic counts were conducted is 25 mph and is near the stop controlled intersection with SR 80. Therefore, for purposes of peak hour analyses, Davis Road is classified as a Class III highway due to the lower posted speed limit at the location where traffic counts were conducted. The HCM 2010 establishes methods and criteria to determine the roadway segment level of service. Table 12 illustrates the level of service criteria thresholds for a two-lane highway with vehicles traveling at lower speeds for a Class II and Class III highway. Final Repo SR 80 Alte Table 12 LOS P A B C D E F W Sources: 20 Peak hou posted sp peak hou the LOS i SR 80 bet compare the intera Table 13 HWY SR 80 SR 80 SR 80 Davis Rd RMA: Rural RMC: Rural 5.8 FUT The traffi the Coch approxim growth o The 2020 this stud traffic vo provided rt rnate Route PAR Peak Percent of T When deman 010 HCM ur levels of s peed limits a ur factors ide is the same i tween 3rd Str d to study s action of ped Existi Location North of R South of L South of D East of SR l Minor Arterial Major Collector TURE NO‐BU ic volumes i hise County C mately 2 perc over the last 0 and horizon y. The 2030 olumes. Futu d in Table 14 RA Study Hour Level Class II Time Spent F ≤40 >40‐55 >55‐70 >70‐85 >85 nd flow exceed capacity service were at the count entified in T in the AM an reet and 6th S egments as a destrian traf ing Level of Randolph Way Landin Parkw Davis Road 80 UILD TRAFFI in the Tombs Comprehens cent per yea 10 years, wh n year 2040 traffic foreca ure 2020, 203 4 and are illu City of Tomb Alternate R of Service T Following ds segment calculated u locations, th able 8 and th nd PM peak Street will lik higher con ffic occur. Service Class y RMA way RMA RMA RMC C VOLUMES stone area ar sive Plan an ar. Historic tr hich corresp traffic foreca asts were int 30 and horizo ustrated in F bstone State R Route PARA 20 Thresholds f Percent When dem using the Hi he traffic volu he roadway k hours. kely result in ncentration o s Daily A A A A A A C A AND LEVEL re expected nd projected raffic counts ponds to the asts were ob terpolated u on year 2040 igure 5. It sh Route 80 Study for Two‐Lan Class III t of Free‐Flo >91.7 >83.3‐91.7 >75.0‐83.3 >66.7‐75.0 ≤66.7 mand flow exc capacity ghway Capa umes and p geometrics. n decreased of vehicles an y AM Pe Hou C B A B OF SERVICE to increase b traffic forec s yield in app Cochise Cou btained from utilizing the 2 0 forecasts fo hould be not ne Class II & ow Speed eeds segment acity Softwa ercent truck . As identifie levels of ser nd turning m eak ur PM Pe Hou C B A B E based on gro asts at a rate proximately unty project m Cochise Co 2020 and ho or the study ted that the g Ma III Highw t are (HCS), th ks obtained, ed in Table 1 rvice when movements eak ur owth forecas e of y 1.8 percent ed growth r ounty for use orizon year 2 locations ar growth rates ay 2012 ways he the 13, and sts in rate. e in 2040 re s HW SR SR SR Dav Final Repo SR 80 Alte between 2 percent The grow Due to th or develo that deve reflected 2007 traff in a large Table 14 WY Loca 80 Nor 80 Sou 80 Sou vis Rd East Source: Co Design h direction factors w hour and the existi implies th direction direction the major direction Table 15. rt rnate Route PAR 2020 and 20 t per year gr wth rate betw he rural natu opment coul elopment wi in Table 14. fic volume d er growth ra No‐Bu ation rth of Randolp th of Landin th of Davis R t of SR 80 ochise County, 2 hourly volum nal (D) factor were based on d 8 percent d ing traffic co hat each pea n. During the n along SR 80 rity of traffic n along Davi . RA Study 030 and betw rowth rate. ween existin ure of Tombs ld result in a ill occur with . In addition data utilized ate. uild Daily T W ph Way 3 Parkway 2 Road 2010 Transportati mes were dev rs to the proj n the existin during the PM ounts, which ak hour has e AM peak h 0 and the we c is traveling s Road. The City of Tomb Alternate R ween 2020 an g (2011) and stone and th an increase in hin the next n, the existing d to calibrate Traffic Volu Exst Wkdy Exst Wkn 3949 4023 2404 1795 1483 1691 1002 1182 ion Model veloped by a jected 2020, ng traffic cou M peak hou h show a 55 p a higher per hour the maj estbound dir g in the north projected fu bstone State R Route PARA 21 nd horizon y d the year 20 he surroundi n traffic dem 9 years resu g traffic volu the Cochise umes t nd 2020 3 6150 5 4548 1 2388 2 2194 applying the 2030 and 20 unts, which y r. The direct percent/45 p rcent of traff jority of traff rection along hbound dire uture peak h Route 80 Study year 2040 ver 020 is higher ing area, min mand and ge ulting in the ume data co e County mo Daily T Annual Growth from Existing 4.8% 7.3% 3.9% 7.1% e following h 040 daily traf yielded 7 pe tional factor percent split. fic traveling fic is travelin g Davis Roa ection along hour traffic v ry closely ap r than the 2 p nor changes eneration. It larger grow ollected are lo odeling effor Traffic 2030 An Gr f 2 7267 1 5611 2 3254 3 2743 2 hourly (K) a ffic volumes ercent during rs were deter . The directio on the road ng in the sou ad. During th g SR 80 and e volumes are Ma pproximate t percent per y s in employm is anticipate wth rate as ower than th rts, which re nnual rowth from 2020 2040 1.7% 8384 2.1% 6673 3.1% 4120 2.3% 3292 and s. The hourly g the AM pe rmined base onal factor way in a cer uthbound he PM peak eastbound depicted in ay 2012 the year. ment ed he esults 0 Annual Growth from 2020 4 1.6% 3 1.9% 0 2.8% 2 2.0% y eak ed on rtain hour Figure 5 Future Traffic Conditions P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\FutureTraffic_Conditions_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Roads: ADOT 2009 Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad P:\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Graphics\Figures\PDFs\Fig5_FutureTraffic_Conditions.pdf (RJW) 5/16/2012 3292 127(119) 104(145) 2040 Daily Traffic Volumes 2030 Daily Traffic Volumes 2020 Daily Traffic Volumes 1234 2040 AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2030 AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2020 AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 123(123) 123(123) 123(123) 2743 106(99) 86(121) 2194 84(79) 66(97) 4120 159(148) 130(181) 3254 125(117) 103(143) 2388 92(86) 75(105) 210(294) 6673 257(240) 177(247) 5611 216(202) 143(200) 4548 175(164) 264(369) 8384 323(302) 229(320) 7267 280(262) 194(271) 6150 237(221) 1234 1234 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 23 May 2012 Table 15 Future No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes HWY Location Direction Existing 2020 2030 2040 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 127 157 237 221 280 262 323 302 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 108 169 194 271 229 320 264 369 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 85 92 175 164 216 202 257 240 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 86 96 143 200 177 247 210 294 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 57 60 92 86 125 117 159 148 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 42 71 75 105 103 143 130 181 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 52 41 84 79 106 99 127 119 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 44 47 69 97 86 121 104 145 The future segment level of service analyses for the horizon year 2020 are summarized in Table 16. For purposes of this analysis, the existing PHFs summarized in Table 8 at each location were utilized. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours. No mitigation is warranted based on LOS criteria. Table 16 2020 No-Build LOS HWY Location Class Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way RMA C C C SR 80 South of Landin Parkway RMA B C C SR 80 South of Davis Road RMA A B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 RMC A B B RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector The future segment level of service analyses for the horizon year 2030 were performed using the existing PHFs summarized in Table 8 and are summarized in Table 17. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours. No mitigation is warranted based on LOS criteria. Table 17 2030 No-Build LOS HWY Location Class Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way RMA C C C SR 80 South of Landin Parkway RMA C C C SR 80 South of Davis Road RMA A B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 RMC A B B RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 24 May 2012 The future segment level of service analyses for the horizon year 2040 were performed using the existing PHFs summarized in Table 8 and are summarized in Table 18. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours with the exception of the PM peak hour on SR 80 north of Randolph Way, which is projected to operate with a LOS D. Per ADOT Policies, Guidelines and Procedures (PGP) Section 430, mitigation is warranted on rural roadways in which the levels of service are worse than a LOS C. Table 18 2040 No-Build LOS HWY Location Class Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way RMA D C D SR 80 South of Landin Parkway RMA C C C SR 80 South of Davis Road RMA B B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 RMC A C C RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector 5.9 FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE The projected levels of service for the horizon year 2020 and 2030 indicated that additional mitigation is not warranted based on traffic volumes alone. In the horizon year 2040 the PM peak hour level of service on SR 80 drops to a LOS D. Per the ADOT PGP, mitigation is warranted based on traffic volumes. The OD data collection and summarized in Table 10 indicate that approximately 20 percent of the existing traffic on SR 80 pass-through the City with minimal delay. It is anticipated that this same percentage would pass through Tombstone in the horizon year 2040. If an alternate corridor for SR 80 were proposed, it is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the 2040 traffic volumes would utilize this corridor instead of the current SR 80 alignment. In doing so, a 20 percent reduction of traffic utilizing the existing SR 80 alignment would occur. Considering the 20 percent shift of traffic, the 2040 daily build volumes for the existing SR 80 segment and the alternate corridor are illustrated in Table 19. Table 19 2040 Daily Build Traffic Volumes HWY Location 2040 No- Build 2040 Existing Roadway 2040 Alternate Corridor SR 80 North of Randolph Way 8384 6707 1677 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway 6673 5338 1335 SR 80 South of Davis Road 4120 3296 824 Davis Rd East of SR 80 3292 2634 658 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 25 May 2012 Based on the projected 2040 daily traffic volumes summarized in Table 19 and the daily capacities for various roadways illustrated in Table 11, the alternate corridor will operate under capacity with a single lane in each direction as a rural highway. Design hourly volumes were developed by applying the following hourly (K) and directional (D) factors to the projected 2040 daily traffic volumes. The hourly factors were based on the existing traffic counts, which yielded 7 percent during the AM peak hour and 8 percent during the PM peak hour. The directional factors were determined based on the existing traffic counts conducted, which resulted in a 55 percent/45 percent split. The directional factor implies that each peak hour has a higher percent of traffic traveling on the roadway in a certain direction. During the AM peak hour the majority of traffic is traveling in the southbound direction along SR 80 and the westbound direction along Davis Road. During the PM peak hour the majority of traffic is traveling in the northbound direction along SR 80 and eastbound direction along Davis Road. The projected 2040 build peak hour traffic volumes along the existing SR 80 roadway are depicted in Table 20. Table 20 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Existing SR 80 Roadway HWY Location Direction Existing 2040 AM PM AM PM SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 127 157 258 241 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 108 169 211 295 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 85 92 206 192 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 86 96 168 235 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 57 60 127 119 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 42 71 104 145 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 52 41 101 95 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 44 47 83 116 The projected 2040 build peak hour traffic volumes along the alternate corridor of SR 80 are depicted in Table 21. Table 21 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Alternate SR 80 Corridor HWY Location Direction 2040 AM PM SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 65 60 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 53 74 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 51 48 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 42 59 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 32 30 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 26 36 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 25 24 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 21 29 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 26 May 2012 The future level of service analyses for the existing segment of SR 80 and the alternate corridor for SR 80 during the horizon year 2040 are summarized in Table 22. For purposes of peak hour analyses, the existing PHFs at each location were utilized and the alternate corridor was analyzed as a two-lane Class II highway. Class II highways generally have no-passing zones and function as access routes to Class I highways serving as scenic or recreational routes. The LOS criteria for Class II highways are identified in Table 12. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours with the addition of the future SR 80 corridor. Table 22 2040 Build LOS HWY Location Existing Roadway Alternate Corridor Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way C C C A B B SR 80 South of Landin Parkway B C C A A A SR 80 South of Davis Road B B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 A C C In addition to improving the level of service on the existing SR 80 segment, an alternate corridor would also reduce the travel time that a regional commuter would endure as the posted speed limit on the alternate corridor could be as high as 65 mph, as is the case on most rural arterial roadways in the ADOT system. It takes approximately 6 minutes to travel through the City of Tombstone limits, or where the posted speed limit changes from 65 mph, assuming no stops occur for pedestrian crossings or for vehicles entering SR 80 from access points within the City limits. If a future corridor were developed with similar extents, it would take approximately 4 minutes to traverse the same distance, resulting in a time savings of 2 minutes per vehicle. This translates to approximately 56 hours of savings per day using the projected future corridor daily traffic volumes shown in Table 19. This assumes the alternate corridor will be access controlled and of similar length to the existing segment. 5.10 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT SERVICE There are no public transit operations in the study area. The closest public transportation options are located in Benson, approximately 20 miles northwest of the City of Tombstone which offers Amtrak and Greyhound bus service. Benson Area Transit (BAT) provides deviated fixed route bus service throughout the City of Benson and to Cochise College, Mescal/J6, St David and Pomerene. Although no services operate exclusively within the City of Tombstone, there are companies that operate shuttles with stops in Tombstone providing service to Tucson International and Sierra Vista Municipal Airports. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 27 May 2012 5.11 RAILROAD CHARACTERISTICS Regional railroad connections do not exist within the City of Tombstone limits. An abandoned railroad line exists in the northwest City limits, west of SR 80. There are no future plans for construction of new railroad lines within the City. 5.12 PEDESTRIAN The City of Tombstone is rural in nature and has a history of pedestrian access and activity along Fremont and Allen Streets in the city. From 3rd Street to 6th Street, Allen Street is not open to traffic and serves as a pedestrian only thoroughfare. Upon the 1964 realignment of SR 80, pedestrian activity along Fremont Street was reduced when historic boardwalks and porches were removed for construction of the new roadway. ADOT is working with the City to improve the pedestrian facilities along Fremont Street by narrowing the highway and reconstructing new sidewalks, boardwalks and porches. These improvements are anticipated to create a more pedestrian friendly environment and represent a more historically accurate configuration of the City of Tombstone. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 28 May 2012 6.0 Given the importance of historic and cultural resources to the evaluation of a potential realignment, specific focus was provided to inventorying historic and cultural resources in the study area. Cultural resources include archaeological sites, historical buildings and structures, and places that have significance for traditional groups that have cultural affiliations with the study area. When an individual project advances, ADOT considers effects on properties listed in or eligible for the Arizona Register of Historic Places (Arizona Register) pursuant to the State Historic Preservation Act and the Arizona Antiquities Act. If Federal Highway Administration approval is required or if federal funds are used, effects on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) also would be considered pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Criteria for inclusion in the Arizona Register and in the National Register are identical (Arizona Administrative Code, Title 12, Chapter 8, Article 3, R12-8-302; Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60). To be eligible, properties must be at least 50 years old (unless they have special significance) and have national, state, or local significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. They also must possess integrity of location, design, setting materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of four criteria: Criterion A: be associated with significant historical events or trends Criterion B: be associated with historically significant people Criterion C: have distinctive characteristics of a style or type, or have artistic value, or represent a significant entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: have yielded or have potential to yield important information The State Historic Preservation Officer, in consultation with the Arizona Historic Sites Review Committee, has authority to list properties in the Arizona Register. The Keeper of the National Register (a position within the National Park Service [NPS]) has authority to list properties in the National Register, but for purposes of Section 106, consensus determinations of eligibility usually are made between the lead federal agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Specific historic and cultural resources for the study area are listed in Table 23 and Table 24. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 29 May 2012 6.1 RECORDS REVIEW 6.1.1 Methods A records review was conducted to identify and compile information about prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded archaeological and historical sites within the study area and a 1-mile buffer. A primary source of data was the AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory, a geographic information system database that includes information compiled by the AZSITE Consortium members (State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO], Arizona State Museum, Arizona State University, Museum of Northern Arizona) and other participating agencies. Information on file at SHPO provided additional data about the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark. The ADOT Historic Preservation Team Portal, a web-based geographical information system, also was checked. Prior planning documents also were reviewed, including: Plan for the Creation of a Historic Environment, prepared by Billy G. Garrett and James W. Garrison with the Tombstone Restoration Commission Inc., 1972 Tombstone Civic Town Plan, prepared by City of Tombstone, National Parks Service, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Design Studio, September 2005 6.1.2 Prior Cultural Resource Studies The records review identified 32 prior cultural resource studies within the study area and a 1-mile buffer (Table 23; Figure 6). These studies were either linear surveys or surveys of limited block areas, and most of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. Table 23 Prior Studies within 1 Mile of the Study Area Project Name/Number Scope Results Reference 1 Pioneer National Title Lease State Trust land survey 1980-51.ASM 3 acres no sites Madsen 1980 2 materials pit # 5388 survey 1980-202.ASM 40 acres no sites Gibb 1980 3 Willow Wash materials source and processing area survey 1983-177.ASM 14 acres no sites Stone 1983 4 State Trust land survey (application #16-91361) 1985-95.ASM 28 acres no sites Rozen 1985 5 San Rafael transmission line alternate route corridors survey 1985-213.ASM unknown 18 sites, none in records review area Dosh and Stebbins 1985 6 State Trust land survey (application #11-92569) 1986-56.ASM 81 acres no sites Rozen 1986 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 30 May 2012 Project Name/Number Scope Results Reference 7 U.S. Highway 80 and Gleeson Road intersection widening survey less than 1 acre 1 previously recorded site in records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)] Elson 1988 8 Fairbank-Tombstone underground cable State Trust land survey 1989-60.ASM 10 feet x 3 miles no sites Adams 1989 9 Casa Loma Triangle Housing survey 3 acres 1 previously recorded site in the records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)] Douglas 1990 10 U.S. West Communications buried cable alignment survey 1993-308.ASM less than 1 acre no sites Roth 1994 11 Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative power line right-of-way survey 1995-434.ASM 20 feet x 6,000 feet no sites Heuett 1995 12 Arizona Department of Transportation bridge survey 1996-314.ASM 16 acres no sites Kwiatkowski 1996 13 U.S. Highway 80 (Tombstone to intersection with State Route 90) survey 1997-392.ASM 405 acres 3 sites, 2 in records review area, AZ EE:8:289 and 290(ASM) Stone and Palus 1997 14 Henderson right-of-Way survey BLM-060-SP-99-16 unknown no sites Childress 1998 15 materials pit survey 1999-310.ASM/11-85.BLM 47 acres no sites Jones 1999 16 U.S. Highway 80 (Clifford Wash to Tombstone) survey 2000-270.ASM 163 acres 5 sites found in records review area, AZ EE:4:76(ASM) and AZ EE:8:300 to 303(ASM) Punzmann and Jackman 2000 17 Tombstone quarry survey SHPO-2000-1718 unknown no sites Hammack 2000 18 Bachmann Springs Project access road survey 2001-155.ASM 79 acres 1 site, not in records review area Plummer 2001 19 Bachmann Springs Project access road reroute survey 2001-430.ASM 73 acres no sites Plummer 2001 20 southeastern Arizona fiber-optic corridor survey 1,723 acres 51 previously recorded sites, none in records review area; 5 sites discovered, 1 in records review area [AZ EE:8:305(ASM)] Knoblock 2001 21 State Route 80 (milepost 318) survey 2002-234.ASM less than 1 acre no sites Klune 2002 22 State Route 80 segments survey 229 acres 7 previously recorded sites, 2 in records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)] and U.S. Highway 80 [AZ FF:9:17(ASM)] Shepard and Turner 2002 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 31 May 2012 Project Name/Number Scope Results Reference 23 State Route 82 survey 22 acres 1 previously recorded site, not in records review area Shepard 2002 24 Winters right-of-Way survey BLM-069-02-39 unknown no sites Childress 2002 25 360Network fiber-optic cable survey 2003-910.ASM 227 acres 3 previously recorded sites in the records review area, AZ EE:8:289, 290, and 291(ASM); 24 sites discovered, 1 in records review area, AZ EE:8:312(ASM) Railey and Yost 2001 26 Tombstone school site survey 2003-1294.ASM 61 acres 2 sites in records review area, AZ EE:8:335 and 336(ASM) Bauer and Hill 2002 27 Tombstone high school gas pipeline survey 2004-236.ASM 1 acre no sites Moses 2004 28 Tombstone Red Rock Phase II drill pads and access roads survey 2004-416.ASM 15 acres no sites Barr 2004 29 AZ Tombstone 2 telecommunications tower survey 2005-142.ASM 1 acre no sites Payette 2005 30 Bachmann Springs electrical services survey 2005-893.ASM 27 acres no sites Gavioli and Hesse 2005 31 Southern Silver Exploration drill pad locations and access roads survey 2007-745.ASM 24 acres no sites Barr 2008 32 Fremont Street/State Route 80 historic streetscape assessment report not applicable 3 previously recorded sites in records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)], Tombstone City Hall [AZ EE:8:75(ASM)], and U.S. Highway 80 [AZ FF:9:17(ASM)] Leonard and others 2011 Many of the prior studies were conducted along or near the SR 80, State Route 82, and Davis Road corridors for highway, fiber-optic, and utility projects. The SR 80 right-of-way has been completely surveyed within the study area, with the exception of the segment that runs through Tombstone (Punzmann and Jackman 2000; Stone and Palus 1997). The most recent study was a historic streetscape assessment of SR 80/Fremont Street for a roadway transportation enhancement project (Leonard and others 2011). Five surveys were completed for materials pits, quarries, drill pads, and associated access roads, and 5 others were small surveys for proposed rights-of-way and leases on State Trust land or public land administered by BLM. Other surveys were conducted for a telecommunications tower, the Tombstone High School and associated pipeline, roads and electrical services for the Bachmann Springs residential development project (abandoned), and another small housing project within Tombstone city limits. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 32 May 2012 6.1.3 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records review identified 28 previously recorded cultural resources within the study area and 1-mile buffer (Figure 6). Twelve of those resources are historic districts, buildings, and structures and 16 are archaeological sites. Figure 6 Environmental Considerations P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\Environmental_Considerations_WP1_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Cultural Resources: AZSITE 2011 Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Abandoned Mine: BLM 2011 Roads and Wildlife Linkage: ADOT 2009 Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd Schieffelin Grave Site and Monument Sacred Heart Catholic Church 516 Safford Street Tombstone Courthouse 219 E. Toughnut Street Tombstone City Hall 315 E. Fremont Street St. Paul's Episcopal Church 3rd and Safford Streets AZ EE:8:73(ASM) Dragoon - San Pedro River 3rd St 6th St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Tombstone Historic District (AZSITE) Previously Recorded Historical Structure Arizona Wildlife Linkages Abandoned Mine Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 34 May 2012 Historic Districts, Buildings, and Structures The historic resources identified within the study area and 1-mile buffer include the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark; the locally designated Schieffelin Historic Conservation District; four buildings individually listed in the National Register; four highways, roads, or road segments; one railroad; and one grave site (Table 24). Table 24 Previously Recorded Historic Districts, Buildings and Structures within the Records Review Area Site Number Description Register Eligibility Reference Historic Districts 1 Tombstone Historic District NHL district roughly bounded by Safford Street, Toughnut Street, Third Street, and Sixth Streets listed, Criterion A Larew 1978 2 Schieffelin Historic Conservation District district roughly bounded by Fremont Street, Toughnut Street, Third Street, and Sixth Streets locally designated conservation district within the Tombstone Historic District NHL Garrett and Garrison 1972 Historic Buildings 3 Sacred Heart Church 516 Safford Street Gothic Revival-style church constructed in 1947 listed, Criteria A and C SHPO files 4 St. Paul's Episcopal Church 3rd and Safford Streets Gothic Revival-style church constructed in 1882 listed, Criteria A, B, and C; within Tombstone Historic District NHL SHPO files 5 Tombstone City Hall 315 E. Fremont Street late Victorian-style building constructed in 1883 listed, Criterion C; within Tombstone Historic District NHL SHPO files 6 Tombstone Courthouse 219 E. Toughnut Street Territorial Victorian-style building constructed in 1882 listed, Criteria A and C; within Tombstone Historic District NHL SHPO files Historic Structures 7 Schieffelin Grave Site and Monument AZ EE:8:18(ASM) large historic stone monument marking the grave site of Ed Schieffelin, founder of Tombstone determined eligible, Criterion B and Criteria Consideration C Austin 2006 8 Tombstone to Benson Road segment AZ EE:8:290(ASM) historic road segment segments determined eligible, Criterion D Stone and Palus 1997; Railey and Yost 2001 9 Middle March Road AZ EE:8:302(ASM) historic road alignment determined ineligible Punzmann and Jackman 2000 10 El Paso & Southwestern Railroad, Tombstone Branch AZ EE:8:307(ASM) historic railroad between Fairbank and Tombstone constructed between 1902 and 1903; abandoned in 1960 recommended eligible, Criterion A Childress 2003; Myrick 1975 11 old State Route 82 AZ EE:8:312(ASM) old highway alignment recommended ineligible Railey and Yost 2001 12 U.S. Highway 80 AZ FF:9:17(ASM) AZ EE:8:291(ASM) historic highway determined eligible, Criterion D Railey and Yost 2001; ADOT 2002 NOTES: Register = National Register, NHL = National Historic Landmark, SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office, ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 35 May 2012 Tombstone began as a boom town that resulted from Ed Schieffelin’s 1877 discovery of rich silver deposits in the San Pedro Valley and the subsequent “mining rush” that followed. The Tombstone town site claim was filed in April 1879. By 1881, the population was about 6,000 and Tombstone was named the seat of Cochise County. In the early 1880s, Tombstone was the largest town in Arizona Territory with a population of about 10,000. That population included miners, speculators, prospectors, rustlers, and gamblers, as well people who operated and worked at the multiple saloons, gambling houses, dance halls, general stores, and other businesses. Tombstone also was known as one of the more cultured cities west of the Mississippi River. Schieffelin Hall hosted some of the world’s best actors and musicians, and the town also had four churches, two newspapers, schools, and libraries. The Tombstone business district was rebuilt twice in 1881 and 1882 after fires destroyed much of the town site. The town began to decline in the second half of the 1880s as a result of union strikes and flooding of the mine tunnels. In 1929, the Cochise County seat was moved to Bisbee (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005; Garrett and Garrison 1972; Granger 1983; Larew 1978). Tombstone is best known as the location of the famous gunfight at the O.K. Corral where the Earp brothers and Doc Holiday squared off against the Clantons in October 1881. After the county seat was relocated to Bisbee in 1929, the mystique of that gunfight combined with a growing interest in the “old West,” inspired the Tombstone community to reinvent itself as a tourist destination (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005; Garrett and Garrison 1972; Sheridan 1995). In 1936, NPS completed a preliminary report on historic Tombstone, and five years later completed a special report, which recommended that Tombstone be classified and designated as a national historic site (Neasham 1941). In July 1961, the Tombstone Historic District was designated a National Historic Landmark. National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States (NPS 2010). The Tombstone Historic District was considered nationally significant when it was designated because it was “one of the best preserved specimens of the rugged frontier town of the 1870s and 1880s,” the “site of one of the West’s richest silver strikes and the gunfight at the O.K. Corral,” and because it “epitomizes the legendary reputation of the Wild West and lawlessness of the 19th century mining camps” (NPS 2011). The Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark is roughly bounded by Safford Street and Toughnut Street on the north and south, and Third and Sixth streets to the east and west. Because the Tombstone Historic District was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1961, it was automatically listed in the National Register when Congress established the National Register in 1966 with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act. A National Register nomination form was not prepared until 12 years after the landmark district was officially listed (Larew 1978). There are at least 25 buildings within the Tombstone Historic City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 36 May 2012 District National Historic Landmark that are considered to be contributing properties to the district. Those properties include: 1. Buford House 2. Tombstone Courthouse (also individually listed in the National Register) 3. Goodspeed House 4. Morman (Mike) House 5. Aztec Boarding House 6. St. Paul's Episcopal Church (also individually listed in the National Register) 7. Residence at 101 N. 3rd Street 8. Milton (Jeff) House 9. Tombstone City Library (formerly the Tombstone railroad station) 10. Rose Tree Museum 11. Tombstone City Hall (also individually listed in the National Register) 12. Schieffelin Hall 13. Russ House (now Café Margarita) 14. San Jose Boarding House 15. public swimming pool 16. Birdcage Theater 17. Marlowe House 18. Sacred Heart Catholic Church (also individually listed in the National Register) 19. Pioneer House 20. English (Allen) House 21. Attorney’s offices (across the street from the courthouse) 22. Engine Company #1 Fire Station 23. Grand Hotel 24. OK Corral 25. Herring Offices The Schieffelin Historic Conservation District is a locally-designated district that has essentially the same southern, western, and eastern boundaries as the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark, but the northern boundary only extends to Fremont Street and excludes the properties on Safford Street. The district was established as part of a preservation plan for the City of Tombstone that was completed in 1972 (Garrett and Garrison 1972). Three buildings that are individually listed in the National Register are within the boundaries of the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark. Those buildings are St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Tombstone City Hall, and Tombstone Courthouse. The courthouse also is an City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 37 May 2012 Arizona State Park. The church was listed in 1971 and the city hall and courthouse were listed in 1972. The other individually listed building is the Sacred Heart Church, which was listed in the National Register in 2002. Four of the previously recorded cultural resources are historic highways or road segments and one is a historic railroad grade. Site AZ EE:8:290(ASM) is a segment of the old Tombstone to Benson Road that was in use by 1882. The road was later replaced by SR 80 and most segments have been obliterated. Segments of the road are considered eligible for the National Register for their information potential (Railey and Yost 2001; Stone and Palus 1997). An old alignment of Middle March Road [AZ EE:8:302(ASM)] and an old segment of State Route 82 also are in the records review area. The segment of Middle March Road was determined to be ineligible for the National Register and the recorders of the segment of old State Route 82 recommended it be considered ineligible (Punzmann and Jackman 2000; Railey and Yost 2001). U.S. Highway 80 [AZ FF:9:17(ASM)] was one of the first transcontinental highways in the country, extending from Tybee Island, Georgia, to San Diego, California. In Arizona, U.S. Highway 80 connected Douglas, in the southeastern part of the state, with Phoenix, and Gila Bend and Yuma to the southwest. Portions of this highway were developed originally as wagon roads during the Arizona territorial era. U.S. Highway 80 has been defunct in Arizona since 1987, but a segment of U.S. Highway 80 was converted into the eastbound lanes of Interstate 8 in the Yuma vicinity, and a segment between Buckeye and Gila Bend is now a Maricopa County road known as Old U.S. Highway 80. The segment in the study area is now designated as SR 80. As part of the historical state highway system developed between 1912 and 1955, U.S. Highway 80/SR 80 is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D (Arizona Department of Transportation 2002). The historic railroad is the Tombstone Branch of the El Paso & Southwestern Railroad [AZ EE:8:307(ASM), which was constructed between Tombstone and Fairbank between 1902 and 1903. The railroad was abandoned in 1960 (Myrick 1975). The railroad is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A. Another historical structure in the records review area is the Schieffelin Grave Site and Monument [AZ EE:8:18(ASM)], which is a large stone monument marking the grave site of Tombstone founder Ed Schieffelin. The monument was determined to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion B and Criteria Consideration C for its outstanding significance to the community of Tombstone and as the only remaining property directly associated with Schieffelin (Austin 2006). Archaeological Sites Sixteen previously recorded cultural resources in the study area and 1-mile buffer are archaeological sites. Five of the sites are prehistoric, nine sites are historic, and two sites include both prehistoric and historic components. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 38 May 2012 The prehistoric sites are scatters of flaked stone. One of the multi-component sites is scatter of prehistoric flaked stone and a historic mine shaft, and the other site is a scatter of prehistoric flaked stone, rock rings, and remnants of a historic structure. Eight of the historic archaeological sites are trash dumps and scatters associated with Tombstone and another site includes the remnants of a hard rock mine. Table 25 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Records Review Area Site Number Description Register Eligibility Reference Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sites 1 AZ EE:4:76(ASM) historic trash scatter, 1930s to 1940s determined not eligible Punzmann and Jackman 2000 2 AZ EE:4:91(ASM scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 3 AZ EE:4:92(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 4 AZ EE:4:93(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 5 AZ EE:4:94(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 6 Walnut Gulch AZ EE:8:22(ASM) scatter of prehistoric flaked stone, rock rings, remnants of historic structure unevaluated Herring 1963 7 Tombstone Historic District AZ EE:8:73(ASM) archaeological remnants of historic Tombstone determined significant, eligibility dependent on particular feature Douglas 1990; Elson 1988; Shepard and Turner 2002 8 AZ EE:8:289(ASM) late nineteenth to early twentieth century hard rock mining site recommended eligible, Criterion D Stone and Palus 1997; Railey and Yost 2001 9 AZ EE:8:300(ASM) historic trash scatter, possibly Tombstone town dump between the 1880s and 1930s determined eligible, Criterion D Punzmann and Jackman 2000 10 AZ EE:8:301(ASM) historic trash scatter determined ineligible Punzmann and Jackman 2000 11 AZ EE:8:303(ASM) historic trash scatter determined eligible, Criterion D Punzmann and Jackman 2000 12 AZ EE:8:305(ASM) historic trash scatter, 1900s to World War II recommended eligible, Criterion D Knoblock 2001 13 AZ EE:8:321(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone and potsherds unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 14 AZ EE:8:335(ASM) historic trash dump recommended eligible, Criterion D Bauer and Hill 2002 15 AZ EE:8:336(ASM) historic trash dump recommended eligible, Criterion D Bauer and Hill 2002 16 Agave Trespass AZ EE:8:338(ASM) scatter of prehistoric flaked stone and possible rock feature; historic mine shaft recommended eligible, Criterion D Childress and Cook 2003 The other historic archaeological site is the Tombstone Historic District, which was assigned a number in the Arizona State Museum site survey system in 1976 [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)]. The site boundary associated with the ASM number encompasses the Tombstone city limits and is much City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 39 May 2012 larger than the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark boundary. Because of the historical location and association, archaeological features found within the city limits generally are considered historically significant, but the National Register eligibility of individual features is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, a 3-acre survey conducted in 1990 within the Tombstone city limits for the Casa Loma Triangle Housing project found a scatter of historic artifacts and three features, including a possible prospecting pit, a concrete slab, and a concrete block, which were identified as remnants of a hospital constructed in the first decade of the twentieth century. Because of the poor condition of the features and the lack of associated artifacts, the site recorder recommended that those features had no additional potential to yield important information and warranted no further consideration. 6.2 TOMBSTONE HISTORIC DISTRICT NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS In 1963, two years after the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark was designated, the NPS conducted a biennial visit to Tombstone and reported that although the historic buildings were well preserved, the historical integrity of the landmark was being compromised by commercial development and a proposed routing of U.S. Highway 80 through the center of the landmark on Fremont Street (Brown 1963). The Tombstone Restoration Commission, which had been incorporated in 1949, drafted City Ordinance No. 146 that was enacted in April 1954. That ordinance established a restoration zone and a zoning commission, and stipulated that all new buildings be complementary to Tombstone as it appeared in 1883 (Garrett and Garrison 1972). Although Fremont Street was within the restoration zone established by the ordinance, many merchants and citizens in Tombstone feared that a highway bypassing the town would discourage tourists from stopping and disrupt residential areas north of the commercial district (Garrett and Garrison 1972). U.S. Highway 80 was constructed through the landmark district in 1964 and the historical integrity of the district continued to decline. The Tombstone Restoration Commission recognized the importance of tourism to the local economy, and in 1972, commissioned the preparation of a historic preservation plan to facilitate implementation of their program. That plan established 1885 as the baseline for restoration and introduced the proposed Schieffelin Historic Conservation District. The plan also recognized that other historically significant sites, buildings, and structures were located outside of the Schieffelin Historic Conservation District (including Boot Hill) and recommended that the commission extend its historic conservation district to these areas in order to expand tourism and improve the overall impression of the city (Garrett and Garrison 1972). Despite the commission’s best efforts, the restoration ordinance was not adequately enforced and extensive alterations to buildings within the landmark district occurred. In 1985 the NPS and State Parks Board began the process of reviewing Tombstone’s National Historic Landmark status (Hess 1985). If National Historic Landmarks do not retain a high level of historic integrity consistent with their period of significance, NPS can revoke landmark designations. The City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 40 May 2012 National Historic Landmarks Program uses four levels for characterizing the integrity of landmarks: 1. Satisfactory: in good condition, exhibiting no current or potential threat 2. Watch: landmarks face actions or circumstances that likely will cause a loss of integrity 3. Threatened: landmarks have suffered, or are in imminent danger or, a severe loss of integrity 4. Emergency: recent catastrophic damage has occurred that requires immediate intervention (NPS 2010) In 2004, the U.S. Department of the Interior classified the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark as “threatened,” with a possible loss of landmark designation. In 2005, the City of Tombstone, NPS, SHPO, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio sponsored a charrette to discuss measures to prevent more damage to the historical integrity of the district. Charrette participants pointed out that the 1881 gunfight at the O.K. Corral is not the only basis for Tombstone’s historical significance, and that the national significance recognized by the National Historic Landmark status is based on the broader history of Tombstone as a mining boom town, from its founding in 1879 to the time the county seat was moved to Bisbee in 1929 (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005). The charrette resulted in the development of a civic town plan (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005). One of the recommendations included in the plan involves the revision of Tombstone’s historic preservation strategy, which would be accomplished by: developing new design guidelines for infill construction, which includes the extension of Tombstone’s period of historical significance to 1931 (when the town reinvented itself as a tourist attraction after the Cochise County seat was moved) pursuing Certified Local Government status under the State Historic Preservation Program identifying and designating historic preservation districts revising the historic preservation ordinance The plan recommended that historic preservation districts be zoned for historic use and that the Schieffelin Historic Conservation District area be enlarged to include areas of expansion where additional related infill construction could occur and be zoned as the Central Commercial Historic District. The plan also recommended two additional areas for historic preservation zoning—a residential and mixed-use district north of the commercial district and a mining district to the south. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 41 May 2012 The plan also recommended that Tombstone pursue an alternate route for SR 80 to eliminate regional traffic and develop traffic calming on Fremont Street, and minimize Fremont Street’s separation from the Central Commercial Historic District. As a result of the 2005 charrette and the resulting plan, NPS changed the status of the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark to “watch.” The NPS, Arizona State Parks, and SHPO continue to monitor the landmark and provide advice and guidance to the City of Tombstone and property owners (NPS 2011; De Journett 2006). City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 42 May 2012 7.0 This environmental overview highlights additional natural and physical resources present in the study area that may require consideration in planning future transportation projects. Due to extensive historic mining south of Tombstone, there are concerns about subsidence in this area. Data from the AZ Geological Survey and Arizona Department of Water Resources for areas of fissures and active subsidence were reviewed. No portion of the study area was identified as an active uplift or fissure area in these databases. However, emerging data from the BLM on abandoned mines (shown in Figure 6) suggest clustering of mining activity to the southwest of downtown. Data from the Arizona Game and Fish Department were reviewed to assess potential constraints due to habitat or special status species considerations. As shown in Figure 6, a wildlife linkage area is identified in the northwestern corner of the study area and connects with the San Pedro river corridor. A review was conducted of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) online databases for sites of environmental concern within the study area. It should be noted that a site reconnaissance has not been conducted as part of this limited environmental database review. A summary of this review is provided in Table 26. Table 26 Summary of Environmental Concerns Township/ Range/ Section Site Name Location Description Significant Environmental Concern 19 South/ 22 East/ 32 Walnut Valley Ranch Subdivision Onsite Wastewater Treatment Plant No address No specific details identified No 19 South/ 22 East/ 34 City of Tombstone Middlemarch Landfill No address, northwest of S.R. 80 and Middlemarch Road Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill No 19 South/ 22 East/ 34 Bachman Springs 2338 Middlemarch Road No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 19 South/ 22 East/ 35 City of Tombstone Wastewater Treatment Plant No address No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 20 South/ 22 East/ 2 Tombstone Transfer Station No address No specific details identified No City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 43 May 2012 Township/ Range/ Section Site Name Location Description Significant Environmental Concern 20 South/ 22 East/ 2 Circle K #2701310 Southeast corner of Sumner & Bruce One LUST incident (facility 0-001393) identified in 2004. File closed by ADEQ in 2005 without reported groundwater impacts. Four USTs listed as currently in service. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 11 Tombstone Texaco 84 East Fremont Street Four USTs (facility 0- 000459) permanently removed from service in 1994. Although ADEQ eMaps shows this site as a LUST, this site is not listed on ADEQ’s online LUST database. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 11 Tombstone Chevron #9-5452 191 East Fremont Street Three USTs (facility 0-001062) listed as currently in service. Five USTs permanently removed in 1988 without a reported fuel release. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 12 Apache Market 1007 East Fremont Street Two USTs (facility 0- 004052), currently in service. No LUST incident identified. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 13 Emerald Mine – Tombstone No address Sand and gravel mine No 20 South/ 22 East/ 14 Red Mountain Pit – Tombstone 1037 South Old Bisbee Highway No specific details identified No 20 South/ 22 East/ 14 Contention Mine No address No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 20 South/ 22 East/ 15 Helday G Plant Mine No address No specific details identified No 20 South/ 22 East/ 16 State of Maine – Tombstone Silver Mine Inc. No address No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 20 South/ 22 East/ 20 Alanco Ltd – Armco Mill Facility No address No specific details identified No 20 South/
Object Description
TITLE | City of Tombstone State Route 80 alternate route PARA study |
CREATOR | URS Corporation |
SUBJECT | Transportation--Arizona--Tombstone; City planning--Arizona--Tombstone |
Browse Topic |
Government and politics |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications |
Language | English |
Contributor | URS Corporation; Arizona Dept. of Transportation; Tombstone (Ariz.) |
Publisher | Arizona Department of Transportation |
Material Collection | State Documents |
Source Identifier | TRT 5.2:T 55 |
Location | o797193807 |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--State Library of Arizona. |
Description
TITLE | City of Tombstone State Route 80 alternate route PARA study |
DESCRIPTION | 148 pages (PDF version). File size: 43002 KB |
TYPE |
Text |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DATE ORIGINAL | 2012-05-21 |
Time Period |
2010s (2010-2019) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born Digital |
Source Identifier | TRT 5.2:T 55 |
Location | o797193807 |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | 16907.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--State Library of Arizona. |
File Size | 44033058 Bytes |
Full Text | SR 80 Alternative Route Study Final Report City of Tombstone City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation And City of Tombstone Prepared by: May 21, 2012 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study i May 2012 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................VIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area Overview ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 REVIEW OF RELEVANT PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................... 4 2.1 Final Project Assessment, SR 80 – Fremont Street between 3rd Street and 6th Street (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Historic Streetscape Assessment Report for a Roadway Transportation Enhancement Project on SR 80, Fremont Street in the Schieffelin Historic District, Tombstone, Cochise County, Arizona (2011) ............................................................... 4 2.3 Pedestrian Safety Analysis for SR 80, Highway Enhancements for Safety (HES), Tombstone, Arizona (2010) ............................................................................................. 4 2.4 Cochise County Comprehensive Plan (2006) ............................................................... 5 2.5 Tombstone Civic Town Plan (2005) ............................................................................... 5 2.6 Plan for the Creation of a Historic Environment (1972) ............................................. 5 3.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS .................................................................................. 6 4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................ 9 4.1 Existing Population.......................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Current Demographic Characteristics and Environmental Justice Considerations9 4.3 Future Population .......................................................................................................... 10 4.4 Employment ................................................................................................................... 11 5.0 TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................................ 12 5.1 Existing Roadways ......................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Intersection Controls ..................................................................................................... 12 5.3 Parking ............................................................................................................................ 13 5.4 Crash Data ....................................................................................................................... 13 5.5 Programmed Network Improvements ....................................................................... 13 5.6 Regional Planned Improvements ................................................................................ 13 5.7 Existing Local Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ................................................ 14 5.8 Future No-Build Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ........................................... 20 5.9 Future Build Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service ................................................ 24 5.10 Existing and Planned Transit Service .......................................................................... 26 5.11 Railroad Characteristics ................................................................................................ 27 5.12 Pedestrian ........................................................................................................................ 27 6.0 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 28 6.1 Records Review .............................................................................................................. 29 6.1.1 Methods .............................................................................................................. 29 6.1.2 Prior Cultural Resource Studies ...................................................................... 29 6.1.3 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ...................................................... 32 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study ii May 2012 6.2 Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark Status ........................... 39 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................... 42 8.0 STAKEHOLDER AND PUBLIC INPUT ............................................................................................. 44 8.1 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................... 44 8.2 Other Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 44 8.3 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 45 9.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR AN ALTERNATE CORRIDOR ............................................................... 46 9.1 Project Need .................................................................................................................... 46 9.2 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................... 47 10.0 POTENTIAL CORRIDORS ............................................................................................................... 48 10.1 Corridor Development Process .................................................................................... 48 10.2 No-Build .......................................................................................................................... 49 10.3 Corridor N1 ..................................................................................................................... 49 10.4 Corridor N2 ..................................................................................................................... 51 10.5 Corridor N3 ..................................................................................................................... 53 10.6 Corridor S1 ...................................................................................................................... 55 10.7 Corridor S2 ...................................................................................................................... 57 10.8 Corridor S3 ...................................................................................................................... 59 10.9 Corridor S4 ...................................................................................................................... 61 11.0 ALTERNATE CORRIDOR EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 63 11.1 Length of the Corridor .................................................................................................. 63 11.2 Minimizes Number of Land Owners Affected .......................................................... 64 11.3 Minimize Wash Crossings ............................................................................................ 64 11.4 Avoid Major Utilities ..................................................................................................... 64 11.5 Terrain and Topography ............................................................................................... 65 11.6 Potential Overall Corridor Cost ................................................................................... 65 11.7 Provides Route for Through Traffic that Meets Their Expectations for Long Trip Travel ............................................................................................................................... 65 11.8 Diverts Through Traffic from the Historic District ................................................... 66 11.9 Throughput Travel Time Saving ................................................................................. 66 11.10 Increases Roadway Capacity ........................................................................................ 66 11.11 Improves Safety .............................................................................................................. 67 11.12 Provides Convenient Access to the City ..................................................................... 67 11.13 Visibility of Tombstone Historic Landmark .............................................................. 67 11.14 Preserves City’s Historic Sites ...................................................................................... 68 11.15 Avoids Historic and/or Current Mining Activities ................................................... 68 11.16 Proximity to Residences and Neighborhoods ........................................................... 68 11.17 Supports and/or Creates Economic Development Opportunities for the City ..... 68 11.18 Meeting the Purpose and Need ................................................................................... 69 11.19 Summary of Observations ............................................................................................ 71 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study iii May 2012 CORRIDORS 12.0 RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................................... 73 12.1 Summary of Observations ............................................................................................ 73 12.2 Selection of a South Corridor ....................................................................................... 73 12.3 Selection of a North Corridor ....................................................................................... 75 12.4 Recommended Corridors .............................................................................................. 77 13.0 ALTERNATE CORRIDOR FEATURES .............................................................................................. 78 13.1 Cross-Section Requirements ......................................................................................... 78 13.2 Corridor Design Speeds ................................................................................................ 78 13.3 Corridor S4 ...................................................................................................................... 79 13.4 Corridor N2 ..................................................................................................................... 80 13.5 No-Build .......................................................................................................................... 80 14.0 PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE .............................................................................................. 82 14.1 Corridor Summaries ...................................................................................................... 83 15.0 IDENTIFY AVAILABLE FUNDING MECHANISMS .......................................................................... 85 15.1 State Funding .................................................................................................................. 85 15.2 Federal Funding ............................................................................................................. 85 15.3 Other Funding Possibilities .......................................................................................... 86 16.0 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................... 87 17.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 90 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study iv May 2012 List of Tables Table 1 Existing Population.......................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 Minority Population ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 3 Population Characteristics ............................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Total Number of Households – 2020 and 2040 Projections ..................................... 11 Table 5 Employment Change – 2020 and 2040 Projections .................................................... 11 Table 6 Crash Data Summary .................................................................................................... 13 Table 7 Existing Area Arterial Highway Volumes ................................................................. 15 Table 8 Existing Peak Hour Factors .......................................................................................... 15 Table 9 Vehicle Classification ..................................................................................................... 17 Table 10 Origin-Destination Data Collection Summary .......................................................... 18 Table 11 Level of Service Upper Limit Thresholds for Roadway Segments (ADT) ............. 18 Table 12 Peak Hour Level of Service Thresholds for Two-Lane Class II & III Highways .. 20 Table 13 Existing Level of Service ............................................................................................... 20 Table 14 No-Build Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 21 Table 15 Future No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 23 Table 16 2020 No-Build LOS ........................................................................................................ 23 Table 17 2030 No-Build LOS ........................................................................................................ 23 Table 18 2040 No-Build LOS ........................................................................................................ 24 Table 19 2040 Daily Build Traffic Volumes ................................................................................ 24 Table 20 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Existing SR 80 Roadway .................... 25 Table 21 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Alternate SR 80 Corridor ................... 25 Table 22 2040 Build LOS ............................................................................................................... 26 Table 23 Prior Studies within 1 Mile of the Study Area ........................................................... 29 Table 24 Previously Recorded Historic Districts, Buildings and Structures within the Records Review Area .................................................................................................... 34 Table 25 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Records Review Area ......... 38 Table 26 Summary of Environmental Concerns ........................................................................ 42 Table 27 Alternate Corridor Evaluation Table .......................................................................... 70 Table 28 Level of Service Upper Limit Thresholds for Roadway Segments (ADT) ............. 78 Table 29 Planning Cost Estimate – Corridor S4 ......................................................................... 83 Table 30 Planning Cost Estimate – Corridor N2 ....................................................................... 83 Table 31 Corridor Summaries ...................................................................................................... 84 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study v May 2012 List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area Overview ...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3 Parcel Information ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4 Existing Transportation Conditions ............................................................................ 16 Figure 5 Future Transportation Conditions ............................................................................... 22 Figure 6 Historic and Cultural Considerations ......................................................................... 33 Figure 7 Corridor Development Process .................................................................................... 48 Figure 8 Corridor N1 ..................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 9 Corridor N2 ..................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 10 Corridor N3 ..................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 11 Corridor S1 ...................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 12 Corridor S2 ...................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 13 Corridor S3 ...................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 14 Corridor S4 ...................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 15 Conceptual Alternate Corridors .................................................................................. 72 Figure 16 Typical Non-Divided Rural Highway Cross-Section ............................................... 78 List of Appendices Appendix A Public Involvement Summary Report No. 1 Appendix B Public Involvement Summary Report No. 2 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study vi May 2012 List of Acronyms AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADT Average Daily Traffic APS Arizona Public Service ASLD Arizona State Land Department BFO Board Funding Obligation BLM Bureau of Land Management BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway CC Cochise County CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality DES (Arizona) Department of Economic Security DHV Design Hour Volume EB Eastbound GAN Grant Application Notes HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCS Highway Capacity Software HELP Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program HES Hazard Elimination Program HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program HURF Highway User Revenue Fund I-10 Interstate 10 IM Interstate Maintenance LOS Level of Service MPH (or mph) Miles per Hour NB Northbound NHS National Highway System NRHP National Register of Historic Places OD Origin-Destination OHV Off-Highway Vehicle PARA Planning Assistance for Rural Areas PGP (Traffic Engineering) Policies, Guidelines and Procedures PHF Peak Hour Factor(s) R/W Right-of-Way RDG (ADOT) Roadway Design Guidelines RMA Rural Minor Arterial RMC Rural Major Collector City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study vii May 2012 RV Recreational Vehicle SB Southbound SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIB State Infrastructure Bank SR 80 State Route 80 SR 82 State Route 82 SSVEC Sulfur Springs Valley Electric Company TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TIGER Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UTV Utility Vehicle UPRR Union Pacific Railroad vpd Vehicles per Day WB Westbound City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study viii May 2012 Background: The purpose of the City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route study is to assess the issues and opportunities for a potential realignment of State Route 80 (SR 80). The study was initiated by the City of Tombstone City Council when they requested planning assistance from ADOT through the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program. The study would determine if there is a long range need for an alternate route. The study area along SR 80 extends from SR 82 through the City of Tombstone and ends at Davis Road southeast of Tombstone. SR 80 bisects the Tombstone historic district and there are several historic buildings along Fremont Street (SR 80). As highway traffic increases along Fremont Street, the historic buildings become more vulnerable to vibration damage. Project Need: Based on its current configuration as well as input from the TAC, interested members of the public, and investigation of the study area, there were numerous reasons identified for pursuing potential SR 80 alternate alignment possibilities. Key elements in identifying the project need include: The current traffic volume on SR 80 through the Tombstone Historic District is approximately 4,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Due to growth in the region and the state, the traffic volumes are expected to double by 2040. Twenty percent of the current traffic is passing through the city with no particular destination in the study area. Trucks comprise approximately 10% of the traffic stream on a typical day. With growth in the region and state projected to increase faster than in the City of Tombstone, the through traffic and truck traffic is expected to become a higher percentage in the future. The mix of through traffic with local and tourist traffic and with pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the Tombstone Historic District creates conflict that diminishes the experience of the tourist and inflicts delays and unexpected traffic conditions on the through rural highway traveler. Special events held in the Tombstone Historic District, which occur a few times throughout the year, attract large numbers of tourists which increases pedestrian traffic throughout the Historic District. During these events, conflicts between pedestrians and through traffic along SR 80 are more likely to occur and may diminish the tourist experience. The existing traffic conditions in Tombstone do not meet the expectations of the through rural highway traveler because the speed limit on SR 80 changes from 65 mph at either end of the City to 30 mph within the Tombstone Historic Landmark. Motorists and truckers do not always fully transition from rural highway speeds to very restricted speeds in such a short distance. There are also limited passing opportunities within the study area which are atypical of a rural highway. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study ix May 2012 The historic buildings and structures throughout the City may be adversely affected by vibration from higher-speed or heavy vehicle traffic; Growth in Tombstone has been somewhat stagnant and there is a desire to provide and enhance opportunities for economic growth by providing an improved roadway system with access to developable vacant land. Project Purpose: The purpose of a potential alternative corridor is to divert through traffic from the historic district to enhance the tourist experience and protect historic resources, enhance development opportunities in other parts of Tombstone and to provide a route that meets the expectations of the through traveler by providing a route with a consistent design speed and minimal interruptions due to traffic signals and unrestricted access. Corridors Selected for Further Study: Seven alternate corridors were identified through the study process and were evaluated based on how well they met the project purpose and need and other evaluation criteria such as neighborhood impacts and safety (see section 11). Corridors S4 and Corridor N2 were selected for further study in addition to the No-Build option through input from stakeholders, Technical Advisory Committee members and members of the public. Corridor S4 diverges from SR 80 in the vicinity of Middlemarch Road near the municipal solid waste landfill and heads south across a new bridge over Walnut Gulch west of the existing SR 80 bridge (see Figure 14). It then curves to the southeast near the Sulphur Springs Valley Electrical Cooperative, Inc. (SSVEC) Tombstone Substation and crosses the west end of Allen Street and follows the SSVEC power line. Corridor S4 then crosses Charleston Road and curves east along the old runway south of Tombstone and north of the hills and near the southern City boundary. The alternate corridor would curve northeast just south of the Skyline neighborhood, curve around on the north side of the open pit mining area before it reconnects with SR 80 southeast of the City. Proximity to abandoned mine sites could create structural or cost considerations to address subsidence potential and/or impacts on bat habitats. A key stakeholder along Corridor S4 is the owner of a large open pit mine who was very receptive to Corridor S4. In addition, Corridor S4 provides a very nice view of the historic downtown Tombstone which is highly desirable to key stakeholders as a way to attract tourists into Tombstone. Corridor S4 meets the purpose and need of the study, has relatively good separation from most residential areas, has good access to the historic district, provides good opportunity for new economic development meets the expectations of regional trip travel and enhances safety. Corridor N2 avoids known historic and current mining activities. Corridor N2 diverges from SR 80 in the vicinity of Middlemarch Road near the municipal solid waste landfill and heads east north of Walnut Gulch and the north Tombstone City limits (see Figure 9). Near the northeast corner of the Tombstone City limits Corridor N2 curves south crossing Camino San Rafael Road and Gleeson Road and Walnut Gulch as it heads south to rejoin SR 80 southeast of City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study x May 2012 Tombstone. Corridor N2 is located almost entirely on state trust lands which could mitigate the negative impact of right-of-way acquisition. Corridor N2 meets the purpose and need of the study, provides good opportunity for new economic development, meets the expectations of regional trip travel and enhances safety. Although the No-build alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the study, this option would be carried forward to the next phase of study and analysis until final approvals are obtained to move forward with the alternate. The no-build options would leave SR 80 on its current alignment on Fremont Street in Tombstone. It would also include the planned narrowing of Fremont Street between 3rd Street and 6th Street. Cost and Funding: The cost of final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of Corridor S4 is estimated to be approximately $15 million while Corridor N2 is estimated to cost approximately $19 million. If a 20% factor was added for mining contingencies, then the project cost for S4 would be approximately $18 million. No funding source is currently available for the design and construction of an alternate route. Although the realignment of SR 80 is recommended, current conditions are not favorable for further action at this time to move the project forward. Future activities related to the realignment of SR 80 will occur at a time that is mutually beneficial and agreeable to both ADOT and the City of Tombstone. Public and Agency Involvement: The ADOT study team and the city council made a considerable effort to involve stakeholder agencies, stakeholders and the public during the study process. Five Technical Advisory Meetings consisting of agency stakeholders were held along with five stakeholder interviews and two public meetings. Issues including truck traffic, neighborhood impacts, business impacts and safety were expressed. Many residents who attended the public meetings expressed a preference for the No-Build option. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 1 May 2012 1.0 The purpose of the City of Tombstone State Route 80 (SR 80) Alternate Route Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) Study is to assess the issues and opportunities for a potential realignment of SR 80. The intent of a potential realignment would be to serve future regional traffic, improve regional connectivity, and support efforts to retain and enhance the historic features within the City of Tombstone. This study will serve as the gateway for any future scoping documents and engineering design. The main goals and objectives of the study include: Document and analyze existing conditions along SR 80; Analyze anticipated future conditions within the study area; Determine the need for and feasibility of a realignment of SR 80; and Develop and identify a preferred corridor for a SR 80 realignment. This report provides an inventory and analysis of existing and future land use, socioeconomic, transportation, historic and environmental conditions in a study area that encompasses the City of Tombstone and the surrounding area. The information about the characteristics of the study area will provide the foundation for the identification of alternative SR 80 corridors to address community needs and anticipated deficiencies. 1.1 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW SR 80 is an east-west route traversing southeastern Arizona beginning in Benson and ending at the New Mexico state line. SR 80 provides a direct connection from Benson to Bisbee and serves as a rural minor arterial. Locally, SR 80 travels through the corporate limits of the City of Tombstone from approximate milepost 315.4 to 318.6 where it is known as Fremont Street. Within the City it serves as a collector for local streets and offers access for fronting businesses and residences. Figure 1 provides an overview of the study area characteristics. Its current location was established in 1964 when SR 80, then US 80, was moved one block north to Fremont Street from Allen Street. The purpose of the 1964 realignment was to provide more right-of-way and better accommodate the operations of motorized vehicles. Fremont Street is narrow, providing only 80 feet of right-of-way nominally between the faces of fronting buildings. When the highway was constructed in 1964, the pre-existing boardwalks and porches were removed to accommodate the new 4-lane roadway. In 2007, the 4-lane undivided street section was changed to two lanes with a center turn lane as a means to mitigate higher operating speeds that were prevalent in the historic district. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 2 May 2012 Several historic buildings are present along both sides of SR 80 as it bisects the City of Tombstone historic district. As traffic increases along the current alignment, the historic buildings become more vulnerable due to the increased vibrations of truck traffic in addition to natural deterioration. In addition, the City of Tombstone is an important tourist destination where several special events are conducted every year celebrating its Old West heritage. The largest of these special events can attract crowds of nearly 100,000 from around the world over a week-long period. The City of Tombstone is surrounded by mining claims and active and abandoned mines. Mining activity is ongoing and is largely located immediately south of the City on both private land and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, south of SR 80. ADOT is now working with the City through the Highway Safety Improvements Program (HSIP) and Transportation Enhancements (TE) Program to construct safety improvements, implement enhancement, and perform certain historic rehabilitations on Fremont Street (SR 80) from 3rd Street to 6th Street. These improvements include narrowing the highway to make room for pedestrian facilities. These facilities will include sidewalks, landscaping and pedestrian lighting, street lights, and, where appropriate, the construction of historically consistent boardwalks and porches. Completion of these improvements is expected in 2013. Although the highway will remain a three-lane section, a consequence of this work is that there will be no room to add lanes for future vehicular capacity or safety upgrades, such as traffic or pedestrian signals, in the future. Figure 1 Study Area Overview P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\Study_Area_Overview_WP2_Final.mxd (BLC 5/22/2012) Source: Historic Districts: AZSITE 2011 Hazmat: ADEQ Website 2011 (http://gisweb.azdeq.gov) State Trust Lease: ASLD 2011 Abandoned Mine: BLM 2011 Residential Area: City of Tombstone 2011, Cochise County 2011 Approximate Open Pit Mining Area: URS 2011 Floodplains: FEMA 2008 Roads: ADOT 2009 Pipelines: Rextag Pipelines 2009 Transmission Lines/Substations: SSVEC 2011, Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. - POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2011 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd MP 321.1 MP 313.9 Tombstone Gulch Walnut Gulch Reeves Creek 4600 4500 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 5200 5100 5000 4900 5100 5100 5000 4800 4700 4600 4700 4600 4500 4700 4600 4400 4300 4500 5000 5200 4800 4800 4700 4800 4900 4800 4600 4600 4800 4600 4300 4400 4500 4700 4600 4500 4600 4700 4700 4300 4600 4900 4600 4500 5100 4200 4600 4700 4400 5200 El Paso Natural Gas Company Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Arizona Public Service Co. Arizona Public Service Co. Tombstone Cemetery Old Tombstone High School Boothill Cemetery Landin Park Walter J Meyer School Medigovich Field Tombstone Courthouse State Historical Park Tombstone High School 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Tombstone Historic District (AZSITE) 100-year Floodplain Floodway Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Mine Permitting Activity Abandoned Mine Cemetery School / School Facility Park State Park Tombstone High School / Waste-Water Treatment Plant (ASLD Lease) Residential Area Approximate Open Pit Mining Area Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land (ASLD) Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad Substation Transmission Line Natural Gas Pipeline 50-foot Contour City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 4 May 2012 2.0 There are several studies and plans that pertain to the study area. This section provides a summary for each plan or study and notes the applicability to the City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route Study. 2.1 FINAL PROJECT ASSESSMENT, SR 80 – FREMONT STREET BETWEEN 3RD STREET AND 6TH STREET (2011) As described in Section 1.1 above, a TE and HISP project is planned for construction in 2013 in Tombstone along SR 80. The TE project would address previous recommendations regarding safety and the enhancement of the historic landmark district, including constructing boardwalks or other pedestrian facilities on both sides of Fremont Street between 3rd and 6th streets, reconstructing porches along the road as historically appropriate, constructing historic district entry monuments, and landscaping and lighting improvements. As part of this project, the roadway would be narrowed from the current 68-foot width to 44 feet. On-street parking will be eliminated, and the remnants of a pedestrian bridge along Fremont Street will be removed. The new street section will have one 16-foot through lane in each direction, a continuous 12-foot center left turn lane, and curbs and gutters on each side. 2.2 HISTORIC STREETSCAPE ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR A ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT ON SR 80, FREMONT STREET IN THE SCHIEFFELIN HISTORIC DISTRICT, TOMBSTONE, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA (2011) This report assesses the historic character of the streetscape along SR 80 between 3rd Street and 6th Street. The purpose of the study was to better inform the project design of the evolution of Fremont Street and properties adjacent to the corridor. Recommendations included the restoration of porches and boardwalks to buildings (pre-1960) as well as rehabilitation and preservation of any intact character-defining features of the Landmark through rehabilitation of the roadway and streetscape. 2.3 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR SR 80, HIGHWAY ENHANCEMENTS FOR SAFETY (HES), TOMBSTONE, ARIZONA (2010) This report documents a comprehensive Highway Enhancement Pedestrian Safety Analysis performed for SR 80 in downtown Tombstone. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate conditions affecting the safety of pedestrians crossing SR 80 and to recommend improvements. Selected recommendations from the safety study are planned for the project described in the previous section (2.1). City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 5 May 2012 2.4 COCHISE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2006) The Comprehensive Plan sets forth goals and development policies for land use, transportation, and other elements throughout the unincorporated areas of Cochise County. Transportation policies within the Plan address overall circulation and access management to ensure safe and smooth traffic flow, particularly as future development occurs. Within the land use plan for Cochise County, Tombstone is identified within a Category B Growth Area boundary. This suggests potential for moderately paced rural residential type development, particularly to the northeast of Tombstone City limits. Land uses within the City are regulated by Tombstone in accordance with its zoning ordinance, as discussed in Section 3.1. 2.5 TOMBSTONE CIVIC TOWN PLAN (2005) This Plan documents the outcome of a 3-day charrette that was conducted in 2005. The purpose of this charrette was to consider strategies for historic preservation issues within the context of overall community and economic development goals. The charrette was partially a response to notification from the National Park Service that Tombstone’s status as a national landmark was threatened due to inappropriate alterations and new construction. The charrette produced a set of recommendations. The most pertinent to this study is the recommendation to eliminate regional traffic from Fremont Street, traffic calming on Fremont Street, and minimizing the separation of Fremont Street from the historic district. The conceptual alignment for a regional route shown in this document continues south toward Sierra Vista and Bisbee, suggesting improvement of Charleston Road. This Plan is addressed in more detail in Section 4.2. 2.6 PLAN FOR THE CREATION OF A HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (1972) Although the City of Tombstone is not required to maintain a General Plan under Arizona law, this 1972 plan was identified by City officials as a key guide to land use and other decisions in the City. The purpose of the Plan is to outline procedures for preserving and enhancing the physical record of Tombstone’s history within a community that is active with residents and tourists. The Plan is a summary of the goals of the Tombstone Restoration Commission. The Plan proposed a Schieffelin Historic Conservation District, which generally encompasses the area within the current historic district. SR 80, which was moved to Fremont Street from Allen Street in the 1960s, was identified as a potential threat to historic resources on the basis of intrusion into the historic district area. The Plan shows improvement of Charleston Road, extension of Fremont Street to the west, and development of a major arterial perpendicular to the highway at 9th Street. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 6 May 2012 3.0 Existing and planned land uses within the study area are shown in Figure 2. Existing commercial land uses are clustered along SR 80 near the historic core of Tombstone, where a National Historic District Landmark has been designated. Low-density residential development has occurred north of the historic core and continues to the northeast toward Walnut Gulch. Arizona State Trust land located to the north, east, and west of downtown Tombstone is generally leased for grazing. The Tombstone High School is located along SR 80 northwest of downtown on leased State Trust land. Historic and ongoing mines or mining operations are located to the south of historic Tombstone. The southern portion of the study area is largely land managed by the BLM. This area is mostly subject to mining claims and includes a large number of abandoned mines. Figure 2 shows the current inventory of abandoned mines; this inventory is incomplete and is still ongoing by BLM. The City’s zoning reinforces the existing land use patterns and guides future development. The majority of the city (over 60 percent) is zoned for residential uses. Centered on Fremont and Allen Streets, the Business designations cover the central portion of the city including the Tombstone Historic District Landmark, as identified on Figure 2. There are some Business zones identified along SR 80 in the northwestern portion of the city as well. The land area south of the historic district is identified as an Industrial/Mining zoning district. The majority of the study area stretching between SR 82 to the north and Davis Road to the south is undeveloped private land, Arizona State Trust Land, or federal land managed by the BLM. Existing parcel boundaries within the City of Tombstone are illustrated in Figure 3. There are multiple transmission lines located throughout the study area, as shown in Figure 2. Additionally, there is a natural gas pipeline that spans the project study area from the north to the eastern edge. The pipeline does not cross within city limits as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Existing and Planned Land Use P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\LandUse_TAZs_WP1_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Zoning: City of Tombstone 2011, Cochise County 2011 State Trust Lease: ASLD 2011 Abandoned Mine: BLM 2011 TAZ: Cochise County 2011 Roads: ADOT 2009 Pipelines: Rextag Pipelines 2009 Transmission Lines/Substations: SSVEC 2011, Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. - POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative El Paso Natural Gas Company Arizona Public Service Co. Arizona Public Service Co. 456 415 388 439 324 431 426 441 448 447 445 453 440 444 442 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) Abandoned Mine Tombstone Zoning Residential Business Industrial and Warehouse Industrial and Mining Cochise County Zoning RU-4 (Rural Residential, 1 unit per 4 acres) TR-36 (Transitional Residential, 1 unit per 36,000 square feet) Mixed Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private State Trust Land Lease Status Tombstone High School / Waste-Water Treatment Plant Grazing Lease General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad Substation Transmission Line Natural Gas Pipeline 447 Figure 3 Parcel Information P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\Parcel_Information_WP1_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Parcel: Cochise County 2011 State Trust Lease: ASLD 2011 Floodplains: FEMA 2008 Roads: ADOT 2009 Pipelines: Rextag Pipelines 2009 Transmission Lines/Substations: SSVEC 2011, Platts, A Division of the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. - POWERmap (Platts analytical database: 2009) Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Middlemarch Rd Charleston Rd Gleeson Rd Allen St MP 318.6 MP 315.4 Tombstone Gulch Walnut Gulch Reeves Creek El Paso Natural Gas Company Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative Arizona Public Service Co. Walter J Meyer School Tombstone High School 10901002 10905028C 10819001E 10902001G 10903004B 10903005 10903008A 10902001H 10903008B 60905008P 60912005 60912025 60912007 60912001X 60912008 60912009 60912006A 60912001D 60912002H 60912024B 60912002L 60912024A 60912014 60912013 10905028B 60912006B 10904030A 10905032B 10925020A 10925020 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Schieffelin Historic District Parcel 100-year Floodplain Floodway School / School Facility Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private State Trust Land Lease Status Tombstone High School / Waste-Water Treatment Plant General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad Substation Transmission Line Natural Gas Pipeline City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 9 May 2012 4.0 A review of existing and future population and employment growth trends was conducted to understand the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the City of Tombstone. Data were collected from Cochise County and the US Census for this analysis. Cochise County data are organized by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) within the City of Tombstone while the US Census data are broken down by census blocks. 4.1 EXISTING POPULATION According to Census data, Cochise County had population of 131,346 people in 2010. The study area had a 2010 population of 1,788 people; of which 77 percent reside within Tombstone City limits (US Census Bureau 2011). As shown in Table 1, Tombstone has lost population over the past decade even while Cochise County population grew by over 11 percent. Table 1 Existing Population Area 2000 2010 Percent Growth Tombstone 1,506 1,380 -8.40% Study Area 1,747 1,788 2.3% Cochise County 117,755 131,346 11.5% Arizona 5,130,632 6,392,017 24.6% Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census 4.2 CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS The potential for environmental justice considerations within the study area was assessed based on an analysis of the minority and/or low-income populations within the study area. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the population by race and ethnicity based on 2010 Census data. Data are shown for the City of Tombstone, Cochise County, and the State of Arizona to identify where there might be a disproportionately large environmental justice population. Minority populations are defined as those residents who are not reported as White/Non-Hispanic in the Census. Of the 1,380 people living in Tombstone as of the 2010 Census, over 90 percent are White. In comparison, Cochise County population is about 78 percent White. The Hispanic population in Tombstone comprises about 21 percent of the population. The Hispanic youth population in Tombstone, or persons under 18 years of age, account for approximately 39 percent of the population. Comparatively, Cochise County is approximately 32 percent Hispanic and the State of Arizona is nearly 30 percent Hispanic. It appears that the City of Tombstone does not have a disproportionate minority population relative to Cochise County as a whole. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 10 May 2012 Table 2 Minority Population Location White African American Native American Asian Pacific Islander Other Race Multi Race Total Hispanic Tombstone 1,269 6 9 9 1 39 47 1,380 288 Cochise County 103,085 5,465 1,589 2,525 418 12,989 5,275 131,346 42,543 Arizona 4,667,121 259,008 296,529 176,695 12,648 761,716 218,300 6,392,017 1,895,149 Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census The disabled population includes those who suffer from conditions such as blindness, deafness, other severe vision and/or hearing impairments, and limited mobility. According to available data, approximately 24 percent of the population of the City of Tombstone is living with a disability, which is a higher percent of the total when compared to Cochise County (19 percent) as identified in Table 3. As show in Table 3, over 26 percent of the Tombstone population is over the age of 65 and 21 percent are living below the poverty level, compared to 17 percent and 15 percent, respectively, throughout Cochise County. Table 3 Population Characteristics Total Male Population Total Female Population Persons with Disability* Persons 65+ Persons Living Below Poverty Level Tombstone 683 697 359 362 297 Cochise County 66,977 64,369 22,467 22,688 19,351 Arizona 3,175,823 3,216,194 902,252 881,831 933,113 Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 Census *Data from 2000 Census, since 2010 data not available 4.3 FUTURE POPULATION The analysis of future population is based on Cochise County total household projections, which are based on 2000 Census data at the time of this writing. Transportation planning in Cochise County is generally based on data summarized by TAZs which includes Cochise County projections for future population growth. Cochise County’s population estimates for 2020 and 2040 show growth to over 90,000 households countywide and over 1,300 households in the City of Tombstone. It should be noted that the number of households identified in this analysis for the study area include data from all TAZs that intersect and may extend partially beyond the study area boundary. Table 4 summarizes the Cochise County projections for future household growth from 2007 to 2040. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 11 May 2012 Table 4 Total Number of Households – 2020 and 2040 Projections Area 2007 2020 2040 Future Growth Percentage Tombstone 1,039 1,312 1,359 31% Study Area 1,041 1,432 1,584 52% Cochise County 45,546 74,031 98,386 116% Source: Cochise County, 2010 4.4 EMPLOYMENT According to Cochise County data, the City of Tombstone provided roughly 2 percent of all employment in Cochise County in 2007, supplying over 650 jobs. Future growth projections suggest that Tombstone will increase the total number of jobs to nearly 1,000 by 2040. Due to the rural nature of the study area there are no employment centers outside of the city limits. Table 5 identifies the existing and future employment projections for the City and study area based on Cochise County data. Table 5 Employment Change – 2020 and 2040 Projections Area 2007 2020 2040 Percent Change Tombstone 661 808 989 50% Study Area 661 808 989 50% Cochise County 40,920 57,083 83,673 104% Source: Cochise County, 2010 Tourism-related businesses comprise an important segment of the City of Tombstone’s economy and provide many jobs in the area. The City of Tombstone is the largest single employer with nearly 60 part-time and full-time employees. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 12 May 2012 5.0 An inventory of the current transportation system throughout the City of Tombstone was conducted to assess current conditions at study locations and to identify any current or anticipated deficiencies at the study locations. 5.1 EXISTING ROADWAYS SR 80 provides regional connectivity to the City of Tombstone, connecting to Benson and I-10 to the north and Bisbee to the south and providing connectivity to the Arizona/New Mexico border. SR 80 is also known as Fremont Street throughout the City limits and serves as a rural minor arterial with varying posted speed limits. The posted speed limit on SR 80 south of State Route 82 (SR 82) is 65 miles per hour (mph), and then reduces to 55 mph north of Middlemarch Road. The posted speed limit is reduced to 45 mph just north of Randolph Way and to 35 mph just south of Randolph Way. The 35 mph posted speed limit continues on SR 80 until 3rd Street, where the posted speed limit is reduced to 30 mph. Between 3rd Street and 6th Street, there are historic buildings located at the right-of-way line in close proximity to Fremont Street traffic. The posted speed limit increases to 35 mph south of 6th Street and increases to 45 mph north of Landin Parkway. The posted speed limit increases to 55 mph just south of Landin Parkway and then increases to 65 mph north of Davis Road. Figure 4 illustrates the street network. SR 80 consists of a two-lane roadway north of Lariat Drive consisting of one lane in each direction of travel, flaring to a three-lane section to provide a two-way left-turn lane south of Lariat Drive. The three-lane section continues to San Diego Street. South of San Diego Street SR 80 reduces to a two-lane section flaring at Davis Road to provide a southbound left-turn lane. The remainder of the streets in Tombstone are minor collectors and local streets providing access to commercial and residential areas of the city. Typically, none of these streets provide regional connectivity. Most of these streets are two lanes with a speed limit of 30 mph or less. 5.2 INTERSECTION CONTROLS All of the intersections within the City of Tombstone are unsignalized. The minor streets are stop controlled along SR 80 with SR 80 operating as free-flow. In the downtown area, primarily between 3rd Street and 6th Street, pedestrian crossing signs are present in both directions of travel along SR 80. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 13 May 2012 5.3 PARKING Parking areas are located throughout the Tombstone downtown area. SR 80 serves as the regional access to these parking lots and one parking lot is located directly along SR 80. SR 80 does not provide on-street parking between 3rd Street and 6th Street. On-street parking is provided between 1st Street and 3rd Street, then again between 6th Street and 10th Street. During normal business hours, the existing parking is sufficient to accommodate the demand. 5.4 CRASH DATA Crash data along SR 80 within the City of Tombstone limits (MP 315.4 to MP 318.6) were obtained from ADOT Traffic Records Section. It should be noted that crash data from the City of Tombstone were not provided and therefore not included within the analysis. The crash data acquired were for a five-year period from January 2006 through December 2010. Table 6 summarizes the total number of crashes per year. Table 6 Crash Data Summary Year Yearly 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Average Number of Crashes 3 0 0 3 1 7 1.4 Source: Arizona Department of Transportation 2011 As illustrated in Table 6, a total of 7 crashes have occurred between January 2006 and December 2010 with an average of 1.4 crashes occurring yearly along SR 80 within the City of Tombstone limits. The highest number of crashes occurred in 2006 and 2009 with 3 crashes. However, of the 7 crashes 3 have resulted in fatalities, or 43 percent. Two of the 3 fatal crashes occurred with pedestrians. 5.5 PROGRAMMED NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS Signing and striping improvements were completed in July 2010 on SR 80 which eliminated on-street parking from 3rd Street to 6th Street, provided additional signs directing visitors to parking areas and reduced the speed limit to 30 mph. A traffic enhancement project will construct boardwalks along both sides of SR 80 from approximately 3rd Street to 6th Street. The construction of the boardwalks will include wider walkways, overhead canopies and landscaping. Additional destination signage will also be installed along SR 80 to assist in directing patrons to the historic locations. 5.6 REGIONAL PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS SR 80 in Benson is planned to be widened by horizon year 2040 to provide two lanes per direction of travel through the Benson City limits. No regional widening improvements are planned within the City of Tombstone in the five year plan. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 14 May 2012 5.7 EXISTING LOCAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Daily traffic counts were conducted by Traffic Research and Analysis, Inc. (TRA) on Thursday, August 25th and Saturday, August 27th of 2011. Daily (24-hour) traffic counts and Scheme F classification counts were recorded for each day at four locations, beginning at 12:00 AM and ending at 11:59 PM: SR 80 north of Randolph Way; SR 80 south of Landin Parkway; SR 80 south of Davis Road; and Davis Road east of SR 80. In addition, TRA collected origin and destination (OD) data at two locations along SR 80 on the same days beginning at 6:00 AM and ending at 4:59 PM: SR 80 south of Randolph Way; and SR 80 north of Landin Parkway. Table 7 presents the 2011 existing traffic volumes at the study locations. Figure 4 identifies the roadway network throughout the City of Tombstone and illustrates the existing traffic volumes. In general, traffic volumes are higher at the north end of Tombstone compared to the southern extents. The highest 24-hour volume recorded was approximately 4,000 vehicles per day on SR 80 just north of Randolph Way. It should be noted that incomplete data were obtained on Thursday, August 25th at the SR 80, north of Randolph Way location in the southbound direction. A malfunction in the tube occurred resulting in inaccurate data collection. The malfunction occurred from 4:15 PM on August 25th through 10:30 AM on August 26th. Traffic count data were collected after 10:30 AM on August 26th through Saturday, August 27th. Therefore, traffic counts obtained on Friday, August 26th from 4:15 PM through 11:45 PM were used in place of the malfunction time period. This results in a more conservative analysis as traffic volumes on Friday, August 26th were slightly higher at other locations than on Thursday, August 25th. ADOT MPD provided seasonal adjustment factors for SR 80 near the Tombstone area. The month of August had an adjustment factor of 0.998; therefore an adjustment factor of 1.0 was applied to all traffic volumes obtained. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 15 May 2012 Table 7 Existing Area Arterial Highway Volumes HWY Location Direction Class Traffic Counts 24 Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Thursday August 25, 2011 SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB* RMA 2,088 127 157 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB RMA 1,861 108 169 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way SB RMA 1,202 85 92 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way NB RMA 1,202 86 96 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB RMA 736 57 60 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB RMA 747 42 71 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB RMC 553 52 41 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB RMC 449 44 47 Saturday August 27, 2011 24 Hour Mid-day Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB RMA 2,125 191 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB RMA 1,898 149 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way SB RMA 1,474 119 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way NB RMA 1,321 118 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB RMA 862 81 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB RMA 829 80 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB RMC 529 48 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB RMC 653 43 Source: TRA, 2011 * Combination of 8/26/11 and 8/27/11 traffic volumes. RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector The existing AM and PM peak hour factors (PHF) for the study locations are summarized in Table 8. A PHF is the peak hour traffic volume divided by four times the highest 15-minute peak count. The PHF is used to gauge the platooning, or arrival of vehicles during the peak hour. The lower the PHF, the more concentrated the peak hour flow. Table 8 Existing Peak Hour Factors HWY Location Peak Hour Factor AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way 0.65 0.67 SR 80 South of Landin Park Way 0.72 0.79 SR 80 South of Davis Road 0.68 0.77 Davis Rd East of SR 80 0.59 0.65 Figure 4 Existing Traffic Conditions P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\ExistingTraffic_Conditions_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Roads: ADOT 2009 Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2011 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Graphics\Figures\PDFs\Fig4_ExistingTraffic_Conditions.pdf (RJW) 5/16/2012 52(41) / 48 553 / 529 1002 1182 449 / 653 44(47) / 43 57(60) / 81 736 / 862 1483 1691 747 / 829 42(71) / 80 86(96) / 118 1202 / 1321 2404 2795 1202 / 1474 85(92) / 119 108(169) / 149 1861 / 1898 3949 4023 2088* / 2125 127(157)* / 191 Weekday / Weekend Daily Traffic Weekday / Weekend Directional Daily Traffic Weekday AM(PM) / Weekend Peak Hour Traffic 1234 1234 1234 / 1234 123(123) / 123 * Partial Friday counts utilized City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 17 May 2012 Of the amount of traffic throughout the Tombstone area, the majority is classified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as passenger cars. Due to the absence of alternative routes between SR 82 and Davis Road, regional truck traffic including oversize loads along SR 80 from Benson and I-10 to Bisbee and Douglas are frequently routed through Tombstone. For the purposes of this evaluation, FHWA’s 10 truck vehicle classifications have been grouped into two categories as follows: Single Unit Trucks – Includes buses and single unit trucks without trailers; and Multiple Unit Trucks – Includes single unit trucks or multiple trailer trucks, recreational vehicles (RV’s) and RV trailers, and buses To analyze the amount of truck traffic in the vicinity of Tombstone an analysis was conducted over a three-day period within the city limits. Table 9 summarizes the breakdown between vehicle classifications within the City of Tombstone. Table 9 Vehicle Classification HWY Location Direction Truck Traffic Single Unit (SU) SU % of Total Multiple Unit (MU) MU % of Total Total % of Trucks Thursday August 25, 2011 SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB* 55 2.6% 78 3.7% 6.3% SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 59 3.2% 92 4.9% 8.1% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 30 2.5% 81 6.7% 9.2% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 29 2.4% 84 7.0% 9.4% SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 25 3.4% 34 4.6% 8.0% SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 19 2.5% 35 4.7% 7.2% Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 26 4.7% 42 7.6% 12.3% Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 18 4.0% 36 8.0% 12.0% Saturday August 27, 2011 SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 23 1.1% 30 1.4% 2.5% SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 15 0.8% 35 1.8% 2.6% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 13 0.9% 20 1.4% 2.3% SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 10 0.8% 27 2.0% 2.8% SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 11 1.3% 12 1.4% 2.7% SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 8 1.0% 15 1.8% 2.8% Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 6 1.1% 14 2.6% 3.7% Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 7 1.1% 11 1.7% 2.8% Source: TRA, 2011 * Combination of 8/26/11 and 8/27/11 traffic volumes. Origin and destination (OD) data were also collected via license plate recognition in which the last four digits of license plates were noted. These digits were then compiled in a database and matched to determine the beginning and ending location of each. The purpose of collecting the City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 18 May 2012 OD data was to determine the amount of traffic traveling through the City. In addition, the OD data collection efforts recorded vehicles in a simplistic classification: class 4 truck (single unit truck) and larger or passenger vehicle. The data were collected from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Of the vehicles traveling south, approximately 20 percent entering Tombstone continue through the City with minimal stops during the typical weekday and Saturday. Approximately 26 percent of the vehicles traveling northbound entering Tombstone continue through the City with minimal stops during a typical weekday and Saturday. More specifically, approximately 8 percent of southbound truck traffic is through-put traffic, or traffic that makes minimal stops within the City during the typical weekday and Saturday. Approximately 50 percent of the northbound truck traffic is through-put traffic during a typical weekday while approximately 20 percent of the northbound truck traffic is through-put traffic during a typical Saturday. It should be noted that the OD data collection location on SR 80 at the southern end of Tombstone was just north of the main entrance to the mine, or just north of Landin Parkway. In addition several parking lots south of SR 80 accommodate RV’s, RV trailers, and buses which may attract many visitors entering Tombstone from the north (southbound traffic) and then return to the north. These parking lots and Charleston Road absorb RV’s, RV trailers, and buses which are believed to account for a majority of the truck trips on SR 80 within the study area. Table 10 summarizes the OD data collection. Table 10 Origin-Destination Data Collection Summary % Pass Thru Traffic Location Weekday Weekend Total Truck Total Truck SB SR 80 19% 9% 21% 7% NB SR 80 30% 51% 24% 20% Source: TRA, 2011 Existing level of service (LOS) is a function of the roadway capacity and existing traffic volumes. Table 11 provides LOS definitions as related to the daily volume thresholds for each roadway classification. Table 11 Level of Service Upper Limit Thresholds for Roadway Segments (ADT) Classification Level of Service A B C D E Rural Minor Arterial (2-lane w/ TWLTL) <5,000 7,000 10,000 13,000 15,000 Rural Minor Collector w/2 lanes <4,000 5,500 7,500 9,000 10,000 Rural Highway w/ 2-lanes <1,500 3,500 6,600 11,200 19,000 Sources: ITE Guidelines, 2000 TWLTL: Two-way left-turn lane City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 19 May 2012 Daily levels of service serve as a very good planning tool to identify segment needs based on daily traffic volumes. Peak hour analyses are more robust and account for several factors not included in the daily analyses. For this reason, infrastructure improvements are generally guided by peak hour analyses. The detailed peak hour roadway segment level of service analysis is determined considering factors such as number of lanes, the width of each lane and the width of each shoulder, the peak hour factor (PHF), the percent passing zones available, the percent trucks, buses and RVs, the existing traffic volumes, the posted or measured speed limit and the overall roadway terrain. The daily levels of service for SR 80 at the study locations were based on the ADT and thresholds identified in Table 11 for a rural minor arterial and the results are shown in Table 13. In general, SR 80 in the City of Tombstone operates with a daily LOS of A under existing conditions. The daily levels of service for Davis Road at the study location were based on the ADT and thresholds identified in Table 11 for a rural minor collector. The posted speed limit on SR 80 within the City limits changes from 55 mph at the edges to 30 mph in the downtown area. The traffic counts conducted within the City limits were located where the posted speed limit changed from 35 mph to 45 mph. For purposes of peak hour analyses, SR 80 at the study locations is classified as a Class III highway per the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM 2010). A Class III highway is classified as a highway serving moderately developed areas that may pass through small towns or developed recreational areas. Local traffic often mixes with through (regional) traffic and the density of unsignalized roadside access points is noticeably higher than in a purely rural area. Such segments often contain reduced speed limits that reflect higher levels of activities (pedestrian and vehicular). Davis Road east of SR 80 is posted with a 55 mph speed limit and would be classified as a Class II highway. The posted speed limit on Davis Road where the traffic counts were conducted is 25 mph and is near the stop controlled intersection with SR 80. Therefore, for purposes of peak hour analyses, Davis Road is classified as a Class III highway due to the lower posted speed limit at the location where traffic counts were conducted. The HCM 2010 establishes methods and criteria to determine the roadway segment level of service. Table 12 illustrates the level of service criteria thresholds for a two-lane highway with vehicles traveling at lower speeds for a Class II and Class III highway. Final Repo SR 80 Alte Table 12 LOS P A B C D E F W Sources: 20 Peak hou posted sp peak hou the LOS i SR 80 bet compare the intera Table 13 HWY SR 80 SR 80 SR 80 Davis Rd RMA: Rural RMC: Rural 5.8 FUT The traffi the Coch approxim growth o The 2020 this stud traffic vo provided rt rnate Route PAR Peak Percent of T When deman 010 HCM ur levels of s peed limits a ur factors ide is the same i tween 3rd Str d to study s action of ped Existi Location North of R South of L South of D East of SR l Minor Arterial Major Collector TURE NO‐BU ic volumes i hise County C mately 2 perc over the last 0 and horizon y. The 2030 olumes. Futu d in Table 14 RA Study Hour Level Class II Time Spent F ≤40 >40‐55 >55‐70 >70‐85 >85 nd flow exceed capacity service were at the count entified in T in the AM an reet and 6th S egments as a destrian traf ing Level of Randolph Way Landin Parkw Davis Road 80 UILD TRAFFI in the Tombs Comprehens cent per yea 10 years, wh n year 2040 traffic foreca ure 2020, 203 4 and are illu City of Tomb Alternate R of Service T Following ds segment calculated u locations, th able 8 and th nd PM peak Street will lik higher con ffic occur. Service Class y RMA way RMA RMA RMC C VOLUMES stone area ar sive Plan an ar. Historic tr hich corresp traffic foreca asts were int 30 and horizo ustrated in F bstone State R Route PARA 20 Thresholds f Percent When dem using the Hi he traffic volu he roadway k hours. kely result in ncentration o s Daily A A A A A A C A AND LEVEL re expected nd projected raffic counts ponds to the asts were ob terpolated u on year 2040 igure 5. It sh Route 80 Study for Two‐Lan Class III t of Free‐Flo >91.7 >83.3‐91.7 >75.0‐83.3 >66.7‐75.0 ≤66.7 mand flow exc capacity ghway Capa umes and p geometrics. n decreased of vehicles an y AM Pe Hou C B A B OF SERVICE to increase b traffic forec s yield in app Cochise Cou btained from utilizing the 2 0 forecasts fo hould be not ne Class II & ow Speed eeds segment acity Softwa ercent truck . As identifie levels of ser nd turning m eak ur PM Pe Hou C B A B E based on gro asts at a rate proximately unty project m Cochise Co 2020 and ho or the study ted that the g Ma III Highw t are (HCS), th ks obtained, ed in Table 1 rvice when movements eak ur owth forecas e of y 1.8 percent ed growth r ounty for use orizon year 2 locations ar growth rates ay 2012 ways he the 13, and sts in rate. e in 2040 re s HW SR SR SR Dav Final Repo SR 80 Alte between 2 percent The grow Due to th or develo that deve reflected 2007 traff in a large Table 14 WY Loca 80 Nor 80 Sou 80 Sou vis Rd East Source: Co Design h direction factors w hour and the existi implies th direction direction the major direction Table 15. rt rnate Route PAR 2020 and 20 t per year gr wth rate betw he rural natu opment coul elopment wi in Table 14. fic volume d er growth ra No‐Bu ation rth of Randolp th of Landin th of Davis R t of SR 80 ochise County, 2 hourly volum nal (D) factor were based on d 8 percent d ing traffic co hat each pea n. During the n along SR 80 rity of traffic n along Davi . RA Study 030 and betw rowth rate. ween existin ure of Tombs ld result in a ill occur with . In addition data utilized ate. uild Daily T W ph Way 3 Parkway 2 Road 2010 Transportati mes were dev rs to the proj n the existin during the PM ounts, which ak hour has e AM peak h 0 and the we c is traveling s Road. The City of Tomb Alternate R ween 2020 an g (2011) and stone and th an increase in hin the next n, the existing d to calibrate Traffic Volu Exst Wkdy Exst Wkn 3949 4023 2404 1795 1483 1691 1002 1182 ion Model veloped by a jected 2020, ng traffic cou M peak hou h show a 55 p a higher per hour the maj estbound dir g in the north projected fu bstone State R Route PARA 21 nd horizon y d the year 20 he surroundi n traffic dem 9 years resu g traffic volu the Cochise umes t nd 2020 3 6150 5 4548 1 2388 2 2194 applying the 2030 and 20 unts, which y r. The direct percent/45 p rcent of traff jority of traff rection along hbound dire uture peak h Route 80 Study year 2040 ver 020 is higher ing area, min mand and ge ulting in the ume data co e County mo Daily T Annual Growth from Existing 4.8% 7.3% 3.9% 7.1% e following h 040 daily traf yielded 7 pe tional factor percent split. fic traveling fic is travelin g Davis Roa ection along hour traffic v ry closely ap r than the 2 p nor changes eneration. It larger grow ollected are lo odeling effor Traffic 2030 An Gr f 2 7267 1 5611 2 3254 3 2743 2 hourly (K) a ffic volumes ercent during rs were deter . The directio on the road ng in the sou ad. During th g SR 80 and e volumes are Ma pproximate t percent per y s in employm is anticipate wth rate as ower than th rts, which re nnual rowth from 2020 2040 1.7% 8384 2.1% 6673 3.1% 4120 2.3% 3292 and s. The hourly g the AM pe rmined base onal factor way in a cer uthbound he PM peak eastbound depicted in ay 2012 the year. ment ed he esults 0 Annual Growth from 2020 4 1.6% 3 1.9% 0 2.8% 2 2.0% y eak ed on rtain hour Figure 5 Future Traffic Conditions P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\FutureTraffic_Conditions_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Roads: ADOT 2009 Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 6th St 3rd St San Diego St Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad P:\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Graphics\Figures\PDFs\Fig5_FutureTraffic_Conditions.pdf (RJW) 5/16/2012 3292 127(119) 104(145) 2040 Daily Traffic Volumes 2030 Daily Traffic Volumes 2020 Daily Traffic Volumes 1234 2040 AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2030 AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2020 AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 123(123) 123(123) 123(123) 2743 106(99) 86(121) 2194 84(79) 66(97) 4120 159(148) 130(181) 3254 125(117) 103(143) 2388 92(86) 75(105) 210(294) 6673 257(240) 177(247) 5611 216(202) 143(200) 4548 175(164) 264(369) 8384 323(302) 229(320) 7267 280(262) 194(271) 6150 237(221) 1234 1234 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 23 May 2012 Table 15 Future No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes HWY Location Direction Existing 2020 2030 2040 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 127 157 237 221 280 262 323 302 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 108 169 194 271 229 320 264 369 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 85 92 175 164 216 202 257 240 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 86 96 143 200 177 247 210 294 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 57 60 92 86 125 117 159 148 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 42 71 75 105 103 143 130 181 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 52 41 84 79 106 99 127 119 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 44 47 69 97 86 121 104 145 The future segment level of service analyses for the horizon year 2020 are summarized in Table 16. For purposes of this analysis, the existing PHFs summarized in Table 8 at each location were utilized. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours. No mitigation is warranted based on LOS criteria. Table 16 2020 No-Build LOS HWY Location Class Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way RMA C C C SR 80 South of Landin Parkway RMA B C C SR 80 South of Davis Road RMA A B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 RMC A B B RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector The future segment level of service analyses for the horizon year 2030 were performed using the existing PHFs summarized in Table 8 and are summarized in Table 17. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours. No mitigation is warranted based on LOS criteria. Table 17 2030 No-Build LOS HWY Location Class Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way RMA C C C SR 80 South of Landin Parkway RMA C C C SR 80 South of Davis Road RMA A B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 RMC A B B RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 24 May 2012 The future segment level of service analyses for the horizon year 2040 were performed using the existing PHFs summarized in Table 8 and are summarized in Table 18. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours with the exception of the PM peak hour on SR 80 north of Randolph Way, which is projected to operate with a LOS D. Per ADOT Policies, Guidelines and Procedures (PGP) Section 430, mitigation is warranted on rural roadways in which the levels of service are worse than a LOS C. Table 18 2040 No-Build LOS HWY Location Class Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way RMA D C D SR 80 South of Landin Parkway RMA C C C SR 80 South of Davis Road RMA B B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 RMC A C C RMA: Rural Minor Arterial RMC: Rural Major Collector 5.9 FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE The projected levels of service for the horizon year 2020 and 2030 indicated that additional mitigation is not warranted based on traffic volumes alone. In the horizon year 2040 the PM peak hour level of service on SR 80 drops to a LOS D. Per the ADOT PGP, mitigation is warranted based on traffic volumes. The OD data collection and summarized in Table 10 indicate that approximately 20 percent of the existing traffic on SR 80 pass-through the City with minimal delay. It is anticipated that this same percentage would pass through Tombstone in the horizon year 2040. If an alternate corridor for SR 80 were proposed, it is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the 2040 traffic volumes would utilize this corridor instead of the current SR 80 alignment. In doing so, a 20 percent reduction of traffic utilizing the existing SR 80 alignment would occur. Considering the 20 percent shift of traffic, the 2040 daily build volumes for the existing SR 80 segment and the alternate corridor are illustrated in Table 19. Table 19 2040 Daily Build Traffic Volumes HWY Location 2040 No- Build 2040 Existing Roadway 2040 Alternate Corridor SR 80 North of Randolph Way 8384 6707 1677 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway 6673 5338 1335 SR 80 South of Davis Road 4120 3296 824 Davis Rd East of SR 80 3292 2634 658 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 25 May 2012 Based on the projected 2040 daily traffic volumes summarized in Table 19 and the daily capacities for various roadways illustrated in Table 11, the alternate corridor will operate under capacity with a single lane in each direction as a rural highway. Design hourly volumes were developed by applying the following hourly (K) and directional (D) factors to the projected 2040 daily traffic volumes. The hourly factors were based on the existing traffic counts, which yielded 7 percent during the AM peak hour and 8 percent during the PM peak hour. The directional factors were determined based on the existing traffic counts conducted, which resulted in a 55 percent/45 percent split. The directional factor implies that each peak hour has a higher percent of traffic traveling on the roadway in a certain direction. During the AM peak hour the majority of traffic is traveling in the southbound direction along SR 80 and the westbound direction along Davis Road. During the PM peak hour the majority of traffic is traveling in the northbound direction along SR 80 and eastbound direction along Davis Road. The projected 2040 build peak hour traffic volumes along the existing SR 80 roadway are depicted in Table 20. Table 20 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Existing SR 80 Roadway HWY Location Direction Existing 2040 AM PM AM PM SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 127 157 258 241 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 108 169 211 295 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 85 92 206 192 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 86 96 168 235 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 57 60 127 119 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 42 71 104 145 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 52 41 101 95 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 44 47 83 116 The projected 2040 build peak hour traffic volumes along the alternate corridor of SR 80 are depicted in Table 21. Table 21 Future Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes – Alternate SR 80 Corridor HWY Location Direction 2040 AM PM SR 80 North of Randolph Way SB 65 60 SR 80 North of Randolph Way NB 53 74 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway SB 51 48 SR 80 South of Landin Parkway NB 42 59 SR 80 South of Davis Road SB 32 30 SR 80 South of Davis Road NB 26 36 Davis Rd East of SR 80 WB 25 24 Davis Rd East of SR 80 EB 21 29 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 26 May 2012 The future level of service analyses for the existing segment of SR 80 and the alternate corridor for SR 80 during the horizon year 2040 are summarized in Table 22. For purposes of peak hour analyses, the existing PHFs at each location were utilized and the alternate corridor was analyzed as a two-lane Class II highway. Class II highways generally have no-passing zones and function as access routes to Class I highways serving as scenic or recreational routes. The LOS criteria for Class II highways are identified in Table 12. All of the study locations are projected to operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak hours with the addition of the future SR 80 corridor. Table 22 2040 Build LOS HWY Location Existing Roadway Alternate Corridor Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SR 80 North of Randolph Way C C C A B B SR 80 South of Landin Parkway B C C A A A SR 80 South of Davis Road B B B Davis Rd East of SR 80 A C C In addition to improving the level of service on the existing SR 80 segment, an alternate corridor would also reduce the travel time that a regional commuter would endure as the posted speed limit on the alternate corridor could be as high as 65 mph, as is the case on most rural arterial roadways in the ADOT system. It takes approximately 6 minutes to travel through the City of Tombstone limits, or where the posted speed limit changes from 65 mph, assuming no stops occur for pedestrian crossings or for vehicles entering SR 80 from access points within the City limits. If a future corridor were developed with similar extents, it would take approximately 4 minutes to traverse the same distance, resulting in a time savings of 2 minutes per vehicle. This translates to approximately 56 hours of savings per day using the projected future corridor daily traffic volumes shown in Table 19. This assumes the alternate corridor will be access controlled and of similar length to the existing segment. 5.10 EXISTING AND PLANNED TRANSIT SERVICE There are no public transit operations in the study area. The closest public transportation options are located in Benson, approximately 20 miles northwest of the City of Tombstone which offers Amtrak and Greyhound bus service. Benson Area Transit (BAT) provides deviated fixed route bus service throughout the City of Benson and to Cochise College, Mescal/J6, St David and Pomerene. Although no services operate exclusively within the City of Tombstone, there are companies that operate shuttles with stops in Tombstone providing service to Tucson International and Sierra Vista Municipal Airports. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 27 May 2012 5.11 RAILROAD CHARACTERISTICS Regional railroad connections do not exist within the City of Tombstone limits. An abandoned railroad line exists in the northwest City limits, west of SR 80. There are no future plans for construction of new railroad lines within the City. 5.12 PEDESTRIAN The City of Tombstone is rural in nature and has a history of pedestrian access and activity along Fremont and Allen Streets in the city. From 3rd Street to 6th Street, Allen Street is not open to traffic and serves as a pedestrian only thoroughfare. Upon the 1964 realignment of SR 80, pedestrian activity along Fremont Street was reduced when historic boardwalks and porches were removed for construction of the new roadway. ADOT is working with the City to improve the pedestrian facilities along Fremont Street by narrowing the highway and reconstructing new sidewalks, boardwalks and porches. These improvements are anticipated to create a more pedestrian friendly environment and represent a more historically accurate configuration of the City of Tombstone. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 28 May 2012 6.0 Given the importance of historic and cultural resources to the evaluation of a potential realignment, specific focus was provided to inventorying historic and cultural resources in the study area. Cultural resources include archaeological sites, historical buildings and structures, and places that have significance for traditional groups that have cultural affiliations with the study area. When an individual project advances, ADOT considers effects on properties listed in or eligible for the Arizona Register of Historic Places (Arizona Register) pursuant to the State Historic Preservation Act and the Arizona Antiquities Act. If Federal Highway Administration approval is required or if federal funds are used, effects on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) also would be considered pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Criteria for inclusion in the Arizona Register and in the National Register are identical (Arizona Administrative Code, Title 12, Chapter 8, Article 3, R12-8-302; Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60). To be eligible, properties must be at least 50 years old (unless they have special significance) and have national, state, or local significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. They also must possess integrity of location, design, setting materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of four criteria: Criterion A: be associated with significant historical events or trends Criterion B: be associated with historically significant people Criterion C: have distinctive characteristics of a style or type, or have artistic value, or represent a significant entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: have yielded or have potential to yield important information The State Historic Preservation Officer, in consultation with the Arizona Historic Sites Review Committee, has authority to list properties in the Arizona Register. The Keeper of the National Register (a position within the National Park Service [NPS]) has authority to list properties in the National Register, but for purposes of Section 106, consensus determinations of eligibility usually are made between the lead federal agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Specific historic and cultural resources for the study area are listed in Table 23 and Table 24. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 29 May 2012 6.1 RECORDS REVIEW 6.1.1 Methods A records review was conducted to identify and compile information about prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded archaeological and historical sites within the study area and a 1-mile buffer. A primary source of data was the AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory, a geographic information system database that includes information compiled by the AZSITE Consortium members (State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO], Arizona State Museum, Arizona State University, Museum of Northern Arizona) and other participating agencies. Information on file at SHPO provided additional data about the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark. The ADOT Historic Preservation Team Portal, a web-based geographical information system, also was checked. Prior planning documents also were reviewed, including: Plan for the Creation of a Historic Environment, prepared by Billy G. Garrett and James W. Garrison with the Tombstone Restoration Commission Inc., 1972 Tombstone Civic Town Plan, prepared by City of Tombstone, National Parks Service, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Design Studio, September 2005 6.1.2 Prior Cultural Resource Studies The records review identified 32 prior cultural resource studies within the study area and a 1-mile buffer (Table 23; Figure 6). These studies were either linear surveys or surveys of limited block areas, and most of the study area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. Table 23 Prior Studies within 1 Mile of the Study Area Project Name/Number Scope Results Reference 1 Pioneer National Title Lease State Trust land survey 1980-51.ASM 3 acres no sites Madsen 1980 2 materials pit # 5388 survey 1980-202.ASM 40 acres no sites Gibb 1980 3 Willow Wash materials source and processing area survey 1983-177.ASM 14 acres no sites Stone 1983 4 State Trust land survey (application #16-91361) 1985-95.ASM 28 acres no sites Rozen 1985 5 San Rafael transmission line alternate route corridors survey 1985-213.ASM unknown 18 sites, none in records review area Dosh and Stebbins 1985 6 State Trust land survey (application #11-92569) 1986-56.ASM 81 acres no sites Rozen 1986 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 30 May 2012 Project Name/Number Scope Results Reference 7 U.S. Highway 80 and Gleeson Road intersection widening survey less than 1 acre 1 previously recorded site in records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)] Elson 1988 8 Fairbank-Tombstone underground cable State Trust land survey 1989-60.ASM 10 feet x 3 miles no sites Adams 1989 9 Casa Loma Triangle Housing survey 3 acres 1 previously recorded site in the records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)] Douglas 1990 10 U.S. West Communications buried cable alignment survey 1993-308.ASM less than 1 acre no sites Roth 1994 11 Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative power line right-of-way survey 1995-434.ASM 20 feet x 6,000 feet no sites Heuett 1995 12 Arizona Department of Transportation bridge survey 1996-314.ASM 16 acres no sites Kwiatkowski 1996 13 U.S. Highway 80 (Tombstone to intersection with State Route 90) survey 1997-392.ASM 405 acres 3 sites, 2 in records review area, AZ EE:8:289 and 290(ASM) Stone and Palus 1997 14 Henderson right-of-Way survey BLM-060-SP-99-16 unknown no sites Childress 1998 15 materials pit survey 1999-310.ASM/11-85.BLM 47 acres no sites Jones 1999 16 U.S. Highway 80 (Clifford Wash to Tombstone) survey 2000-270.ASM 163 acres 5 sites found in records review area, AZ EE:4:76(ASM) and AZ EE:8:300 to 303(ASM) Punzmann and Jackman 2000 17 Tombstone quarry survey SHPO-2000-1718 unknown no sites Hammack 2000 18 Bachmann Springs Project access road survey 2001-155.ASM 79 acres 1 site, not in records review area Plummer 2001 19 Bachmann Springs Project access road reroute survey 2001-430.ASM 73 acres no sites Plummer 2001 20 southeastern Arizona fiber-optic corridor survey 1,723 acres 51 previously recorded sites, none in records review area; 5 sites discovered, 1 in records review area [AZ EE:8:305(ASM)] Knoblock 2001 21 State Route 80 (milepost 318) survey 2002-234.ASM less than 1 acre no sites Klune 2002 22 State Route 80 segments survey 229 acres 7 previously recorded sites, 2 in records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)] and U.S. Highway 80 [AZ FF:9:17(ASM)] Shepard and Turner 2002 City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 31 May 2012 Project Name/Number Scope Results Reference 23 State Route 82 survey 22 acres 1 previously recorded site, not in records review area Shepard 2002 24 Winters right-of-Way survey BLM-069-02-39 unknown no sites Childress 2002 25 360Network fiber-optic cable survey 2003-910.ASM 227 acres 3 previously recorded sites in the records review area, AZ EE:8:289, 290, and 291(ASM); 24 sites discovered, 1 in records review area, AZ EE:8:312(ASM) Railey and Yost 2001 26 Tombstone school site survey 2003-1294.ASM 61 acres 2 sites in records review area, AZ EE:8:335 and 336(ASM) Bauer and Hill 2002 27 Tombstone high school gas pipeline survey 2004-236.ASM 1 acre no sites Moses 2004 28 Tombstone Red Rock Phase II drill pads and access roads survey 2004-416.ASM 15 acres no sites Barr 2004 29 AZ Tombstone 2 telecommunications tower survey 2005-142.ASM 1 acre no sites Payette 2005 30 Bachmann Springs electrical services survey 2005-893.ASM 27 acres no sites Gavioli and Hesse 2005 31 Southern Silver Exploration drill pad locations and access roads survey 2007-745.ASM 24 acres no sites Barr 2008 32 Fremont Street/State Route 80 historic streetscape assessment report not applicable 3 previously recorded sites in records review area, Tombstone Historic District [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)], Tombstone City Hall [AZ EE:8:75(ASM)], and U.S. Highway 80 [AZ FF:9:17(ASM)] Leonard and others 2011 Many of the prior studies were conducted along or near the SR 80, State Route 82, and Davis Road corridors for highway, fiber-optic, and utility projects. The SR 80 right-of-way has been completely surveyed within the study area, with the exception of the segment that runs through Tombstone (Punzmann and Jackman 2000; Stone and Palus 1997). The most recent study was a historic streetscape assessment of SR 80/Fremont Street for a roadway transportation enhancement project (Leonard and others 2011). Five surveys were completed for materials pits, quarries, drill pads, and associated access roads, and 5 others were small surveys for proposed rights-of-way and leases on State Trust land or public land administered by BLM. Other surveys were conducted for a telecommunications tower, the Tombstone High School and associated pipeline, roads and electrical services for the Bachmann Springs residential development project (abandoned), and another small housing project within Tombstone city limits. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 32 May 2012 6.1.3 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The records review identified 28 previously recorded cultural resources within the study area and 1-mile buffer (Figure 6). Twelve of those resources are historic districts, buildings, and structures and 16 are archaeological sites. Figure 6 Environmental Considerations P:\TRANSPORTATION\ADOT_TPD\23446138_Tombstone_PARA_Scope\GIS\mxds\FinalReport\Environmental_Considerations_WP1_Final.mxd (BLC 5/16/2012) Source: Cultural Resources: AZSITE 2011 Historic District: AZSITE 2011 Abandoned Mine: BLM 2011 Roads and Wildlife Linkage: ADOT 2009 Base: ALRIS 1997 - 2010, BTS 2010 SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 8 15 40 17 10 10 19 40 Phoenix Flagstaff Tucson Project Area Tombstone Randolf Way Landin Park Way Lariat Dr Camino San Rafael Rd Schieffelin Grave Site and Monument Sacred Heart Catholic Church 516 Safford Street Tombstone Courthouse 219 E. Toughnut Street Tombstone City Hall 315 E. Fremont Street St. Paul's Episcopal Church 3rd and Safford Streets AZ EE:8:73(ASM) Dragoon - San Pedro River 3rd St 6th St San Diego St Old Bisbee Hwy Fremont St Davis Rd Allen St Middlemarch Rd Gleeson Rd Charleston Rd MP 318.6 MP 315.4 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend City of Tombstone Boundary Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark / National Register of Historic Places District Tombstone Historic District (AZSITE) Previously Recorded Historical Structure Arizona Wildlife Linkages Abandoned Mine Surface Management Bureau of Land Management State Trust Land Private General Features Milepost Marker State Route Local Road Abandoned Railroad City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 34 May 2012 Historic Districts, Buildings, and Structures The historic resources identified within the study area and 1-mile buffer include the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark; the locally designated Schieffelin Historic Conservation District; four buildings individually listed in the National Register; four highways, roads, or road segments; one railroad; and one grave site (Table 24). Table 24 Previously Recorded Historic Districts, Buildings and Structures within the Records Review Area Site Number Description Register Eligibility Reference Historic Districts 1 Tombstone Historic District NHL district roughly bounded by Safford Street, Toughnut Street, Third Street, and Sixth Streets listed, Criterion A Larew 1978 2 Schieffelin Historic Conservation District district roughly bounded by Fremont Street, Toughnut Street, Third Street, and Sixth Streets locally designated conservation district within the Tombstone Historic District NHL Garrett and Garrison 1972 Historic Buildings 3 Sacred Heart Church 516 Safford Street Gothic Revival-style church constructed in 1947 listed, Criteria A and C SHPO files 4 St. Paul's Episcopal Church 3rd and Safford Streets Gothic Revival-style church constructed in 1882 listed, Criteria A, B, and C; within Tombstone Historic District NHL SHPO files 5 Tombstone City Hall 315 E. Fremont Street late Victorian-style building constructed in 1883 listed, Criterion C; within Tombstone Historic District NHL SHPO files 6 Tombstone Courthouse 219 E. Toughnut Street Territorial Victorian-style building constructed in 1882 listed, Criteria A and C; within Tombstone Historic District NHL SHPO files Historic Structures 7 Schieffelin Grave Site and Monument AZ EE:8:18(ASM) large historic stone monument marking the grave site of Ed Schieffelin, founder of Tombstone determined eligible, Criterion B and Criteria Consideration C Austin 2006 8 Tombstone to Benson Road segment AZ EE:8:290(ASM) historic road segment segments determined eligible, Criterion D Stone and Palus 1997; Railey and Yost 2001 9 Middle March Road AZ EE:8:302(ASM) historic road alignment determined ineligible Punzmann and Jackman 2000 10 El Paso & Southwestern Railroad, Tombstone Branch AZ EE:8:307(ASM) historic railroad between Fairbank and Tombstone constructed between 1902 and 1903; abandoned in 1960 recommended eligible, Criterion A Childress 2003; Myrick 1975 11 old State Route 82 AZ EE:8:312(ASM) old highway alignment recommended ineligible Railey and Yost 2001 12 U.S. Highway 80 AZ FF:9:17(ASM) AZ EE:8:291(ASM) historic highway determined eligible, Criterion D Railey and Yost 2001; ADOT 2002 NOTES: Register = National Register, NHL = National Historic Landmark, SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office, ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 35 May 2012 Tombstone began as a boom town that resulted from Ed Schieffelin’s 1877 discovery of rich silver deposits in the San Pedro Valley and the subsequent “mining rush” that followed. The Tombstone town site claim was filed in April 1879. By 1881, the population was about 6,000 and Tombstone was named the seat of Cochise County. In the early 1880s, Tombstone was the largest town in Arizona Territory with a population of about 10,000. That population included miners, speculators, prospectors, rustlers, and gamblers, as well people who operated and worked at the multiple saloons, gambling houses, dance halls, general stores, and other businesses. Tombstone also was known as one of the more cultured cities west of the Mississippi River. Schieffelin Hall hosted some of the world’s best actors and musicians, and the town also had four churches, two newspapers, schools, and libraries. The Tombstone business district was rebuilt twice in 1881 and 1882 after fires destroyed much of the town site. The town began to decline in the second half of the 1880s as a result of union strikes and flooding of the mine tunnels. In 1929, the Cochise County seat was moved to Bisbee (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005; Garrett and Garrison 1972; Granger 1983; Larew 1978). Tombstone is best known as the location of the famous gunfight at the O.K. Corral where the Earp brothers and Doc Holiday squared off against the Clantons in October 1881. After the county seat was relocated to Bisbee in 1929, the mystique of that gunfight combined with a growing interest in the “old West,” inspired the Tombstone community to reinvent itself as a tourist destination (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005; Garrett and Garrison 1972; Sheridan 1995). In 1936, NPS completed a preliminary report on historic Tombstone, and five years later completed a special report, which recommended that Tombstone be classified and designated as a national historic site (Neasham 1941). In July 1961, the Tombstone Historic District was designated a National Historic Landmark. National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States (NPS 2010). The Tombstone Historic District was considered nationally significant when it was designated because it was “one of the best preserved specimens of the rugged frontier town of the 1870s and 1880s,” the “site of one of the West’s richest silver strikes and the gunfight at the O.K. Corral,” and because it “epitomizes the legendary reputation of the Wild West and lawlessness of the 19th century mining camps” (NPS 2011). The Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark is roughly bounded by Safford Street and Toughnut Street on the north and south, and Third and Sixth streets to the east and west. Because the Tombstone Historic District was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1961, it was automatically listed in the National Register when Congress established the National Register in 1966 with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act. A National Register nomination form was not prepared until 12 years after the landmark district was officially listed (Larew 1978). There are at least 25 buildings within the Tombstone Historic City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 36 May 2012 District National Historic Landmark that are considered to be contributing properties to the district. Those properties include: 1. Buford House 2. Tombstone Courthouse (also individually listed in the National Register) 3. Goodspeed House 4. Morman (Mike) House 5. Aztec Boarding House 6. St. Paul's Episcopal Church (also individually listed in the National Register) 7. Residence at 101 N. 3rd Street 8. Milton (Jeff) House 9. Tombstone City Library (formerly the Tombstone railroad station) 10. Rose Tree Museum 11. Tombstone City Hall (also individually listed in the National Register) 12. Schieffelin Hall 13. Russ House (now Café Margarita) 14. San Jose Boarding House 15. public swimming pool 16. Birdcage Theater 17. Marlowe House 18. Sacred Heart Catholic Church (also individually listed in the National Register) 19. Pioneer House 20. English (Allen) House 21. Attorney’s offices (across the street from the courthouse) 22. Engine Company #1 Fire Station 23. Grand Hotel 24. OK Corral 25. Herring Offices The Schieffelin Historic Conservation District is a locally-designated district that has essentially the same southern, western, and eastern boundaries as the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark, but the northern boundary only extends to Fremont Street and excludes the properties on Safford Street. The district was established as part of a preservation plan for the City of Tombstone that was completed in 1972 (Garrett and Garrison 1972). Three buildings that are individually listed in the National Register are within the boundaries of the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark. Those buildings are St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Tombstone City Hall, and Tombstone Courthouse. The courthouse also is an City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 37 May 2012 Arizona State Park. The church was listed in 1971 and the city hall and courthouse were listed in 1972. The other individually listed building is the Sacred Heart Church, which was listed in the National Register in 2002. Four of the previously recorded cultural resources are historic highways or road segments and one is a historic railroad grade. Site AZ EE:8:290(ASM) is a segment of the old Tombstone to Benson Road that was in use by 1882. The road was later replaced by SR 80 and most segments have been obliterated. Segments of the road are considered eligible for the National Register for their information potential (Railey and Yost 2001; Stone and Palus 1997). An old alignment of Middle March Road [AZ EE:8:302(ASM)] and an old segment of State Route 82 also are in the records review area. The segment of Middle March Road was determined to be ineligible for the National Register and the recorders of the segment of old State Route 82 recommended it be considered ineligible (Punzmann and Jackman 2000; Railey and Yost 2001). U.S. Highway 80 [AZ FF:9:17(ASM)] was one of the first transcontinental highways in the country, extending from Tybee Island, Georgia, to San Diego, California. In Arizona, U.S. Highway 80 connected Douglas, in the southeastern part of the state, with Phoenix, and Gila Bend and Yuma to the southwest. Portions of this highway were developed originally as wagon roads during the Arizona territorial era. U.S. Highway 80 has been defunct in Arizona since 1987, but a segment of U.S. Highway 80 was converted into the eastbound lanes of Interstate 8 in the Yuma vicinity, and a segment between Buckeye and Gila Bend is now a Maricopa County road known as Old U.S. Highway 80. The segment in the study area is now designated as SR 80. As part of the historical state highway system developed between 1912 and 1955, U.S. Highway 80/SR 80 is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion D (Arizona Department of Transportation 2002). The historic railroad is the Tombstone Branch of the El Paso & Southwestern Railroad [AZ EE:8:307(ASM), which was constructed between Tombstone and Fairbank between 1902 and 1903. The railroad was abandoned in 1960 (Myrick 1975). The railroad is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A. Another historical structure in the records review area is the Schieffelin Grave Site and Monument [AZ EE:8:18(ASM)], which is a large stone monument marking the grave site of Tombstone founder Ed Schieffelin. The monument was determined to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion B and Criteria Consideration C for its outstanding significance to the community of Tombstone and as the only remaining property directly associated with Schieffelin (Austin 2006). Archaeological Sites Sixteen previously recorded cultural resources in the study area and 1-mile buffer are archaeological sites. Five of the sites are prehistoric, nine sites are historic, and two sites include both prehistoric and historic components. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 38 May 2012 The prehistoric sites are scatters of flaked stone. One of the multi-component sites is scatter of prehistoric flaked stone and a historic mine shaft, and the other site is a scatter of prehistoric flaked stone, rock rings, and remnants of a historic structure. Eight of the historic archaeological sites are trash dumps and scatters associated with Tombstone and another site includes the remnants of a hard rock mine. Table 25 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Records Review Area Site Number Description Register Eligibility Reference Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Sites 1 AZ EE:4:76(ASM) historic trash scatter, 1930s to 1940s determined not eligible Punzmann and Jackman 2000 2 AZ EE:4:91(ASM scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 3 AZ EE:4:92(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 4 AZ EE:4:93(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 5 AZ EE:4:94(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 6 Walnut Gulch AZ EE:8:22(ASM) scatter of prehistoric flaked stone, rock rings, remnants of historic structure unevaluated Herring 1963 7 Tombstone Historic District AZ EE:8:73(ASM) archaeological remnants of historic Tombstone determined significant, eligibility dependent on particular feature Douglas 1990; Elson 1988; Shepard and Turner 2002 8 AZ EE:8:289(ASM) late nineteenth to early twentieth century hard rock mining site recommended eligible, Criterion D Stone and Palus 1997; Railey and Yost 2001 9 AZ EE:8:300(ASM) historic trash scatter, possibly Tombstone town dump between the 1880s and 1930s determined eligible, Criterion D Punzmann and Jackman 2000 10 AZ EE:8:301(ASM) historic trash scatter determined ineligible Punzmann and Jackman 2000 11 AZ EE:8:303(ASM) historic trash scatter determined eligible, Criterion D Punzmann and Jackman 2000 12 AZ EE:8:305(ASM) historic trash scatter, 1900s to World War II recommended eligible, Criterion D Knoblock 2001 13 AZ EE:8:321(ASM) scatter of Archaic (Cochise) flaked stone and potsherds unevaluated; surface collection completed Whalen 1975 14 AZ EE:8:335(ASM) historic trash dump recommended eligible, Criterion D Bauer and Hill 2002 15 AZ EE:8:336(ASM) historic trash dump recommended eligible, Criterion D Bauer and Hill 2002 16 Agave Trespass AZ EE:8:338(ASM) scatter of prehistoric flaked stone and possible rock feature; historic mine shaft recommended eligible, Criterion D Childress and Cook 2003 The other historic archaeological site is the Tombstone Historic District, which was assigned a number in the Arizona State Museum site survey system in 1976 [AZ EE:8:73(ASM)]. The site boundary associated with the ASM number encompasses the Tombstone city limits and is much City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 39 May 2012 larger than the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark boundary. Because of the historical location and association, archaeological features found within the city limits generally are considered historically significant, but the National Register eligibility of individual features is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, a 3-acre survey conducted in 1990 within the Tombstone city limits for the Casa Loma Triangle Housing project found a scatter of historic artifacts and three features, including a possible prospecting pit, a concrete slab, and a concrete block, which were identified as remnants of a hospital constructed in the first decade of the twentieth century. Because of the poor condition of the features and the lack of associated artifacts, the site recorder recommended that those features had no additional potential to yield important information and warranted no further consideration. 6.2 TOMBSTONE HISTORIC DISTRICT NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS In 1963, two years after the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark was designated, the NPS conducted a biennial visit to Tombstone and reported that although the historic buildings were well preserved, the historical integrity of the landmark was being compromised by commercial development and a proposed routing of U.S. Highway 80 through the center of the landmark on Fremont Street (Brown 1963). The Tombstone Restoration Commission, which had been incorporated in 1949, drafted City Ordinance No. 146 that was enacted in April 1954. That ordinance established a restoration zone and a zoning commission, and stipulated that all new buildings be complementary to Tombstone as it appeared in 1883 (Garrett and Garrison 1972). Although Fremont Street was within the restoration zone established by the ordinance, many merchants and citizens in Tombstone feared that a highway bypassing the town would discourage tourists from stopping and disrupt residential areas north of the commercial district (Garrett and Garrison 1972). U.S. Highway 80 was constructed through the landmark district in 1964 and the historical integrity of the district continued to decline. The Tombstone Restoration Commission recognized the importance of tourism to the local economy, and in 1972, commissioned the preparation of a historic preservation plan to facilitate implementation of their program. That plan established 1885 as the baseline for restoration and introduced the proposed Schieffelin Historic Conservation District. The plan also recognized that other historically significant sites, buildings, and structures were located outside of the Schieffelin Historic Conservation District (including Boot Hill) and recommended that the commission extend its historic conservation district to these areas in order to expand tourism and improve the overall impression of the city (Garrett and Garrison 1972). Despite the commission’s best efforts, the restoration ordinance was not adequately enforced and extensive alterations to buildings within the landmark district occurred. In 1985 the NPS and State Parks Board began the process of reviewing Tombstone’s National Historic Landmark status (Hess 1985). If National Historic Landmarks do not retain a high level of historic integrity consistent with their period of significance, NPS can revoke landmark designations. The City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 40 May 2012 National Historic Landmarks Program uses four levels for characterizing the integrity of landmarks: 1. Satisfactory: in good condition, exhibiting no current or potential threat 2. Watch: landmarks face actions or circumstances that likely will cause a loss of integrity 3. Threatened: landmarks have suffered, or are in imminent danger or, a severe loss of integrity 4. Emergency: recent catastrophic damage has occurred that requires immediate intervention (NPS 2010) In 2004, the U.S. Department of the Interior classified the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark as “threatened,” with a possible loss of landmark designation. In 2005, the City of Tombstone, NPS, SHPO, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio sponsored a charrette to discuss measures to prevent more damage to the historical integrity of the district. Charrette participants pointed out that the 1881 gunfight at the O.K. Corral is not the only basis for Tombstone’s historical significance, and that the national significance recognized by the National Historic Landmark status is based on the broader history of Tombstone as a mining boom town, from its founding in 1879 to the time the county seat was moved to Bisbee in 1929 (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005). The charrette resulted in the development of a civic town plan (City of Tombstone, NPS, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, and Arizona State University Community Design Studio 2005). One of the recommendations included in the plan involves the revision of Tombstone’s historic preservation strategy, which would be accomplished by: developing new design guidelines for infill construction, which includes the extension of Tombstone’s period of historical significance to 1931 (when the town reinvented itself as a tourist attraction after the Cochise County seat was moved) pursuing Certified Local Government status under the State Historic Preservation Program identifying and designating historic preservation districts revising the historic preservation ordinance The plan recommended that historic preservation districts be zoned for historic use and that the Schieffelin Historic Conservation District area be enlarged to include areas of expansion where additional related infill construction could occur and be zoned as the Central Commercial Historic District. The plan also recommended two additional areas for historic preservation zoning—a residential and mixed-use district north of the commercial district and a mining district to the south. City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 41 May 2012 The plan also recommended that Tombstone pursue an alternate route for SR 80 to eliminate regional traffic and develop traffic calming on Fremont Street, and minimize Fremont Street’s separation from the Central Commercial Historic District. As a result of the 2005 charrette and the resulting plan, NPS changed the status of the Tombstone Historic District National Historic Landmark to “watch.” The NPS, Arizona State Parks, and SHPO continue to monitor the landmark and provide advice and guidance to the City of Tombstone and property owners (NPS 2011; De Journett 2006). City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 42 May 2012 7.0 This environmental overview highlights additional natural and physical resources present in the study area that may require consideration in planning future transportation projects. Due to extensive historic mining south of Tombstone, there are concerns about subsidence in this area. Data from the AZ Geological Survey and Arizona Department of Water Resources for areas of fissures and active subsidence were reviewed. No portion of the study area was identified as an active uplift or fissure area in these databases. However, emerging data from the BLM on abandoned mines (shown in Figure 6) suggest clustering of mining activity to the southwest of downtown. Data from the Arizona Game and Fish Department were reviewed to assess potential constraints due to habitat or special status species considerations. As shown in Figure 6, a wildlife linkage area is identified in the northwestern corner of the study area and connects with the San Pedro river corridor. A review was conducted of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) online databases for sites of environmental concern within the study area. It should be noted that a site reconnaissance has not been conducted as part of this limited environmental database review. A summary of this review is provided in Table 26. Table 26 Summary of Environmental Concerns Township/ Range/ Section Site Name Location Description Significant Environmental Concern 19 South/ 22 East/ 32 Walnut Valley Ranch Subdivision Onsite Wastewater Treatment Plant No address No specific details identified No 19 South/ 22 East/ 34 City of Tombstone Middlemarch Landfill No address, northwest of S.R. 80 and Middlemarch Road Closed Municipal Solid Waste Landfill No 19 South/ 22 East/ 34 Bachman Springs 2338 Middlemarch Road No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 19 South/ 22 East/ 35 City of Tombstone Wastewater Treatment Plant No address No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 20 South/ 22 East/ 2 Tombstone Transfer Station No address No specific details identified No City of Tombstone State Route 80 Alternate Route PARA Study Final Report SR 80 Alternate Route PARA Study 43 May 2012 Township/ Range/ Section Site Name Location Description Significant Environmental Concern 20 South/ 22 East/ 2 Circle K #2701310 Southeast corner of Sumner & Bruce One LUST incident (facility 0-001393) identified in 2004. File closed by ADEQ in 2005 without reported groundwater impacts. Four USTs listed as currently in service. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 11 Tombstone Texaco 84 East Fremont Street Four USTs (facility 0- 000459) permanently removed from service in 1994. Although ADEQ eMaps shows this site as a LUST, this site is not listed on ADEQ’s online LUST database. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 11 Tombstone Chevron #9-5452 191 East Fremont Street Three USTs (facility 0-001062) listed as currently in service. Five USTs permanently removed in 1988 without a reported fuel release. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 12 Apache Market 1007 East Fremont Street Two USTs (facility 0- 004052), currently in service. No LUST incident identified. No 20 South/ 22 East/ 13 Emerald Mine – Tombstone No address Sand and gravel mine No 20 South/ 22 East/ 14 Red Mountain Pit – Tombstone 1037 South Old Bisbee Highway No specific details identified No 20 South/ 22 East/ 14 Contention Mine No address No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 20 South/ 22 East/ 15 Helday G Plant Mine No address No specific details identified No 20 South/ 22 East/ 16 State of Maine – Tombstone Silver Mine Inc. No address No specific details identified, NPDES permit No 20 South/ 22 East/ 20 Alanco Ltd – Armco Mill Facility No address No specific details identified No 20 South/ |