Gila County Small Area Transportation Study

              ô€“ ô€ ô€ ô€Œ ô€Œ ô€€  ô€ ô€’ ô€… ô€ ô€€  ô€” ô€’ ô€ ô€Ž ô€“ ô€ ô€ ô€’ ô€” ô€ ô€” ô€‰ ô€ ô€Ž ô€€  ô€“ ô€” ô€• ô€„ ô€™
ô€† ô€‰ ô€Ž ô€ ô€Œ ô€€  ô€’ ô€… ô€ ô€ ô€’ ô€”
ô€ ô€ƒ ô€” ô€ ô€‚ ô€… ô€’ ô€€  ô€€² ô€€° ô€€° ô€€¶
ô€‡ ô€‰ ô€Œ ô€ ô€€  ô€ƒ ô€ ô€• ô€Ž ô€” ô€™
ô€€  ô€ ô€¡ ô€² ô€´ ô€® ô€¥ ô€² ô€³ ô€¦ ô€¯ ô€² ô€“ ô€´ ô€² ô€¡ ô€´ ô€¥ ô€  ô€  ô€£ ô€€  ô€ ô€£ ô€´ ô€  ô€¯ ô€® ô€€¬ ô€€  ô€‰ ô€® ô€£ ô€€® ô€€ 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.................................... 1
PURPOSE AND VISION ........................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND................................................................................... 1
STUDY PROCESS................................................................................ 3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS..................................................................... 3
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS....................................... 7
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS .......................................................... 7
STATEWIDE AND AREA PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS ..................... 18
3. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS.......................... 24
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................ 24
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT...................................................... 24
CURRENT LAND USE........................................................................ 51
CURRENT ROADWAY FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS............................. 51
MULTIMODAL INVENTORY............................................................... 67
FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS .......... 73
FIRST ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................... 80
4. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN........................................... 82
EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS ...................................... 82
SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................... 88
PRIORITIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS .............................. 90
TRANSIT AND NON- MOTORIZED MODES ............................................ 93
RAIL HIGHWAY CROSSINGS ............................................................. 101
GILA COUNTY ACCESS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES............................. 101
5. BEST PRACTICES IN RURAL TRANSPORTATION............................... 105
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 105
ANALYSIS OF LOW VOLUME DIRT ROADS ......................................... 105
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR RURAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS................................................................................... 106
ANALYSIS OF HIGHWAY- RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS ............................. 108
ACTIVITY BASED BUDGETING.......................................................... 108
NEW PARADIGMS FOR RURAL AND SMALL URBAN TRANSIT
SERVICE DELIVERY.................................................................... 110
RURAL TRANSIT ITS........................................................................ 111
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Continued)
Page
6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ............. 114
RECOMMENDATION AND STRATEGY ................................................ 114
FUNDING AND REVENUE ESTIMATES ............................................... 114
APPENDIX A. ESTIMATING TRANSIT DEMAND..................................... 125
APPENDIX B. REVENUE SOURCES ....................................................... 129
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 142
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2- 1. CAAG’S ROADS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE IN GILA COUNTY ......... 9
2- 2. GILA COUNTY PROJECTS INCLUDED IN GLOBE- MIAMI AREA
TRANSPORTATION STUDY............................................................ 12
2- 3. GILA COUNTY NEEDS ESTIMATED BY ROADWAY NEEDS STUDY
UPDATE ..................................................................................... 15
2- 4. PINAL CREEK CORRIDOR MAJOR DESIGN ALIGNMENT
DIFFERENCES AND COST ESTIMATES ............................................ 17
2- 5. PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2004 – 2005 ............................................................................. 18
2- 6. DRAFT CAAG TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2006 - 2010 – PROJECTS IN GILA COUNTY................................... 20
2- 7. TENTATIVE 2006 - 2010 ADOT FIVE- YEAR TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM – GILA COUNTY PROJECTS ... 22
2- 8. MOVEAZ PROJECTS WITHIN GILA COUNTY .................................... 23
3- 1. SUMMARY OF GILA COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA........................ 25
3- 2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF GILA COUNTY MAINTAINED
ROADWAYS................................................................................ 54
3- 3. DAILY ROADWAY CAPACITIES USED IN DETERMINING LEVEL OF
SERVICE IN GILA COUNTY ........................................................... 57
3- 4. LEVEL OF SERVICE...................................................................... 58
3- 5. CURRENT AADT PER LANE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF GILA
COUNTY ROADWAYS................................................................... 59
3- 6. SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC CRASHES IN GILA COUNTY ....................... 63
3- 7. SUMMARY OF ADOT BRIDGE INSPECTIONS FOR COUNTY-MAINTAINED
STRUCTURES ......................................................... 65
3- 8. PAVEMENT CONDITION OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS .................. 69
3- 9. POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR GILA COUNTY COMMUNITIES....... 73
iv
LIST OF TABLES ( Continued)
Page
3- 10. PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.... 81
4- 1. PARTICIPANTS IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .. 89
4- 2. MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SPACING ................................................... 103
4- 3. SUGGESTED MINIMUM ACCESS SPACING BASED ON ROADWAY
SPEED AND FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION .................................. 104
5- 1. SAMPLE LOW VOLUME UNPAVED ROADS EVALUATION MATRIX .... 107
6- 1. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT
LIST - PHASE I............................................................................ 115
6- 2. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT
LIST - PHASE II........................................................................... 116
6- 3. IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PLAN ................................................ 117
6- 4. MATRIX OF FUNDING SOURCES ................................................... 118
6- 5. ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND DISTRIBUTIONS TO GILA
COUNTY AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, FY 2001 – 2005 ..................... 121
6- 6. GILA COUNTY HALF- CENT TRANSPORTATION TAX REVENUE......... 121
6- 7. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE I................................................. 124
6- 8. CASH FLOW ANALYSIS – PHASE II ................................................ 124
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1- 1. STUDY AREA ................................................................................ 2
1- 2. STUDY PROCESS ........................................................................... 4
3- 1- A. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK).................................................................. 27
3- 1- B. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) – GLOBE AREA DETAIL ................................ 28
3- 1- C. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) – PAYSON AREA DETAIL .............................. 30
3- 2- A. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK).................................................................. 31
3- 2- B. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) – GLOBE AREA DETAIL ................................ 32
3- 2- C. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) – PAYSON AREA DETAIL .............................. 33
3- 3- A. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK).................................................................. 35
3- 3- B. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL................................. 36
3- 3- C. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL............................... 37
3- 4- A. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK).................................................................. 38
3- 4- B. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL................................. 39
3- 4- C. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL............................... 40
vi
LIST OF FIGURES ( Continued)
Page
3- 5- A. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)....................................................... 42
3- 5- B. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL...................... 43
3- 5- C. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL.................... 44
3- 6- A. MOBILITY- LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)....................................................... 45
3- 6- B. MOBILITY- LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL...................... 46
3- 6- C. MOBILITY- LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL.................... 47
3- 7- A. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)....................................................... 48
3- 7- B. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - GLOBE AREA DETAIL...................... 49
3- 7- C. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) - PAYSON AREA DETAIL.................... 50
3.8 EXAMPLES OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS ..................................... 53
3- 9. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNED TO
COUNTY ROADWAYS................................................................... 55
3- 10. SIMULATION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE.......................................... 56
3- 11. EXAMPLES OF ROADWAY SAFETY ISSUES ................................... 62
3- 12. EXAMPLES OF AT- GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS IN GLOBE AREA.......... 66
3- 13. EXAMPLES OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ...................................... 68
3- 14. CASINO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.......................................... 72
3- 15. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES ........................................................ 75
vii
LIST OF FIGURES ( Continued)
Page
3- 16- A. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030............... 76
3- 16- B. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030 –
GLOBE DETAIL ....................................................................... 77
3- 16- C. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS – 2030 -
PAYSON DETAIL ..................................................................... 78
4- 1- A. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO..................................... 85
4- 1- B. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – GLOBE DETAIL ............ 86
4- 1- C. LEVEL OF SERVICE – GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS –
2030 ACCELERATED GROWTH SCENARIO – PAYSON DETAIL .......... 87
4- 2. PHASE I PROJECTS....................................................................... 91
4- 3. PHASE II PROJECTS...................................................................... 92
4- 4 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUS SERVICE .............................................. 97
4- 5. HYPOTHETICAL BUS TRANSIT ROUTES .......................................... 98
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This document presents the Transportation Plan for Gila County as a result of the Small
Area Transportation Study conducted between February 2005 and June 2006. The study
was developed by Gila County cooperatively with the Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT), Central Arizona Association of Governments, and the Tonto
National Forest. In addition, area residents’ and stakeholder input was solicited and
incorporated in the study through public participation efforts.
PURPOSE AND VISION
The purpose of the study has been to develop a 20- year transportation plan and
implementation program to guide Gila County in meeting transportation needs into the
future. Roadway and multimodal improvements were identified to address deficiencies and
needs to improve mobility and safety in the County. The study also identified how and
when these improvements should be implemented and funded. This long- range multimodal
transportation plan is intended for use in day- to- day programming and funding of
transportation improvements. In addition, transportation improvements have been
prioritized to maximize project benefits within budget limitations. Funding strategies and
sources have been included to aid the County in pursuing local, regional, state, and federal
funding. The Study Area is shown in Figure 1- 1.
Study Vision
The County’s transportation system developed in cooperation with Federal, State, Tribal,
and Local Jurisdictions, together with County residents and businesses. It will be efficient
and safe and will meet Gila County’s current and future transportation needs. Gila County
will be served by a system of roadways providing connectivity between communities and
rural areas throughout the County. The system will incorporate multimodal components
such as ride- sharing, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and airport access in addition to the needs
of motorists. As a result, closer coordination between land use and transportation
improvements will support future development and ensure roadway capacity for long- term
reduction of delays.
BACKGROUND
Gila County is located in central Arizona east and northeast of the Phoenix metropolitan
area. The County covers nearly 4,800 square miles with 55.5 percent of the land within
the Tonto National Forest, 37 percent within the Fort Apache and San Carlos reservations,
and the remaining 7.5 percent is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, by the State
Lands, or privately. Gila County is rich in topographic variety, ranging from 2,000 to
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 2
FIGURE 1- 1. STUDY AREA
7,000 feet in elevation; the lower regions are referred to as the Copper Region and the
higher elevations as the Timber Region.
The primary road network includes two US routes and four State Routes. The County
road system is comprised of 644.05 miles of roadways, of which 155.38 miles are
currently paved and 488.67 are unpaved. These mileages include roadways in the
unincorporated areas of Gila County as well as Forest Service roads for which the US
Department of Agriculture has contracted with the County for maintenance.
The majority of traffic in Gila County is concentrated on the US and State Routes. Transit
service within Gila County is limited to dial- a- ride type programs. These programs,
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 3
provided by local communities or organizations, primarily serve the senior and disabled
populations with access to medical facilities, senior programs, and other daily needs.
STUDY PROCESS
The study process is illustrated in Figure 1- 2. The study was guided by a Technical
Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from the County, ADOT, Central
Arizona Association of Governments ( CAAG), and the Tonto National Forest. An
intensive public participation process was undertaken, including two rounds of stakeholder
meetings and open houses to identify issues, solicit comments, and receive feedback on the
study process and recommendations.
The first step of the technical analysis was to analyze the existing conditions and
Environmental Justice concerns. A first stakeholder workshop was held to identify issues
and vision components for the transportation plan. Stakeholders included County
Supervisors, County Public Works Department personnel, elected officials from the City
of Globe and the Towns of Miami and Payson, city and town staffs, business community
representatives, Tribal representatives, and citizens.
An Open House was then held with the general public to present existing conditions,
issues, and transportation vision. The next major step in the technical process was to
analyze alternative roadway improvements. Based on the results of this analysis, a draft
transportation plan was developed including a transit element. A second stakeholder
workshop was held to review the draft transportation plan and identify constraints to the
plan. The draft transportation plan was then presented to an Open House of the general
public.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
  Gila County is a beautiful, largely undeveloped area with dramatic desert and
mountain scenery, lakes, rivers, and trails that has significant existing and future
tourism potential.
  Gila County is projected to have a population growth rate significantly slower than
other parts of Arizona, including neighboring Pinal County.
  The Arizona Department of Economic Security ( DES) projects that County
population will increase from 51,634 in 2005 to 66,378 in 2030.
  The percentage of County residents who are over age 65, live below the poverty
level, or are disabled is higher than the State average. The percentage of County
residents who are minority is lower than the State average.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 4
FIGURE 1- 2. STUDY PROCESS
  Nearly half the County population lives in the six incorporated communities of
Globe, Hayden, Miami, Payson, Star Valley, and Winkelman. Much of the
remainder lives in the unincorporated areas of Pine, San Carlos, Strawberry, Tonto
Basin, Young, the newly- incorporated community of Star Valley, and several
Mogollon Rim communities along SR 260 east of Star Valley. The remainder of
the County is a virtual wilderness.
  Gila County’s roadway network is linked together by and dependent on two US
Highways and five State Routes. The County also maintains 500 miles of
roadways, including 256 miles of Forest Service Roadways. Overall, the paved
roadways are in very good condition.
  The majority of the traffic in Gila County travels on the US and State Routes.
  None of the County owned or maintained roadways operate near capacity.
  From January 1999 through December 2003, 4,489 traffic crashes occurred in the
County; most crashes occurred on state highways.
  Several awkward intersections on County roadways exist where motorists must
make difficult turning movements or where sight- distances are limited.
  Transit service in the County is limited to dial- a- ride programs operated by the
Town of Miami and the Payson Senior Center. Other than shuttles connecting
First Stakeholders Meeting
Future Conditions Define Vision and Goals
Draft/ Final Report
Second Open House
Short-, Mid-, & Long Range
Transportation Plans
First Open House
Draft
Transportation Plans
Second Stakeholders Meeting
Existing Conditions
Implementation Plan
Capital Improvement
Program
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 5
Payson with the Phoenix airport, no intercity service exists. County residents and
visitors are almost entirely dependent on private automobile travel, the maintenance
of good roads, and the availability of affordable gasoline.
  The Arizona Eastern Railway, in cooperation with the Globe Mainstreet Program
and the Apache Gold Casino Resort, experimented with excursion rail service
between downtown Globe and the Casino during the spring of 2006.
  Highway- rail crossings in the Globe- Miami area appear to be in need of
reconstruction.
  The County is in the process of implementing a computerized pavement
management system and a County- wide roadway geographic information system.
  A sketch model planning process forecasts degraded levels of service on State
Routes within the County.
  Participants in the First Round of Public Involvement called for expanded public
transit service, regional planning and coordination, and alternate routes for use in
case of emergencies such as high water and wildfires.
  Best practices followed by peer jurisdictions that are reviewed and summarized
include practices for:
[ Analysis of Low Volume Dirt Roads
[ Performance Measures for Rural Transportation Systems
[ Analysis of Highway- Rail Grade Crossings
[ Activity Based Budgeting
[ New Paradigms for Rural and Small Urban Transit Service Delivery
[ Rural Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems Technology ( ITS)
  During the conduct of the Small Area Transportation Study, deficiencies and needs
were evaluated in the following seven general areas:
[ Paving and Geometry Improvements
[ Bridge Construction and Design
[ Roadway Reconstruction
[ Intersection Improvements
[ Hazard Elimination and Safety
[ Highway Rail Crossings
[ Multimodal Studies
  The consultant proposes the adoption of a phased transportation plan that
incorporates projects in each of the above areas. Seventeen short- term projects are
included in Phase I to be completed by 2010 and seventeen additional projects are
included in Phase II to be completed by 2030.
  The consultant believes that the DES 2030 population estimate of 66,378 is low and
therefore has modeled an “ Accelerated Growth†scenario that results in a forecasted
2030 population of 95,880. Under this scenario, several County roadways are
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 6
forecasted to be at or above capacity, including Chamberlain Trail and Pinal Creek
Road.
  Participants in the Second round of Public Involvement approved the draft Phase I
and Phase II plans and called for improved roadways to the community of Young
and additional funding for transportation projects.
  Regional transit demand by 2030, exclusive of urban dial- a- ride and circulator
services, is forecasted to be between 123 and 275 persons per day.
  Gila County access management policies are consistent with those employed by
peer jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The consultant team recommends that Gila County:
  Program the recommended Phase I and Phase II transportation improvements into
the Capital Program
  Establish a process to coordinate County land use and transportation decisions on a
regular basis
  Designate a transportation coordinator
  Conduct a regional bus service study
  Conduct a San Carlos Airport upgrade study
  Coordinate with the Town of Miami, the City of Globe, and the Town of Payson on
local transit studies
  Conduct a Miami- Globe- San Carlos excursion passenger rail study
  Initiate a County bicycle and pedestrian plan
  Implement the street functional classifications and roadway design guidelines for
new development
  Ensure that County access management policies are adhered to by new
developments
  Coordinate with ADOT and CAAG on a regular basis on multimodal transportation
improvements
  Establish a process to coordinate transit services with private and public agencies
  Monitor and update transportation plan and transit element
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 7
2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
This chapter presents a review of pertinent studies and plans that have previously been
conducted concerning Gila County transportation. Also included is a review of area and
statewide plans and programs including Gila County projects.
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND PLANS
SR 88 SR 188 Profile Corridor Study
The SR 88 SR 188 Profile Corridor Study was completed in November 1999 by SR Beard
& Associates for ADOT. The study profiled communities served by these two roadways
and summarized the key issues in the corridor. Regional issues discussed include the
traffic generated by the tourist appeal of corridor attractions such as the series of reservoirs
on the Salt River, the designation of Gila County as an Enterprise Zone, and the projected
population growth of Apache Junction. The physical and natural environment in the
corridor was described, together with existing transportation facilities and services.
Existing and projected needs and deficiencies were described and evaluated and future
travel demand was estimated. By 2017, the average annual daily traffic ( AADT) on SR 88
in the Globe vicinity was projected to reach 22,423, up from 8,915 in 1997.
The Study evaluated a number of alternative recommendations for corridor improvements.
Two major categories of criteria were used to prioritize the alternative recommendations:
Transportation Utility and Project Impacts. Transportation Utility criteria included person
trips served, travel time impacts, vehicle operations cost/ motor vehicle usage, operation
and maintenance costs, traffic accident rates, person hours of delay, and vehicle miles
traveled. Project Impacts criteria included impact with respect to Title VI issues, impact
on public land, impact on historic or archaeological sites, impact on visual resources,
potential noise generation, and community support. These criteria were used to give
potential projects a priority ranking.
State Route 88 between Roosevelt and Globe was renumbered as SR 188 to provide
continuity from SR 87 to Globe effective August 1999. In 2001, SR 188 from Globe to
the SR 87 junction was designated the Senator Hardt Highway in memory of A. V. “ Billâ€
Hardt, a well- respected Globe business owner and political activist who served several
terms as the City’s mayor and 30 years in the Arizona Legislature. The highway is being
improved and realigned as recommended in the study, with the work nearing completion as
of March, 2006.
The study also recommended Daily round trip bus service between Superior and
Miami/ Globe and weekly bus service between Payson and Phoenix, which have not been
implemented.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 8
Regional Transportation Plan for the Central Arizona Association of Governments
The Regional Transportation Plan for the CAAG was completed by David Evans and
Associates in April 2000. The project was conducted to identify deficiencies along the
regionally significant roadways and recommend necessary improvements for CAAG’s
short- term, mid- term, and long- term transportation plans. The plan consists of three stand-alone
technical memorandums that document the existing conditions, levels of service, and
recommended improvements, and selected projects and funding sources.
In Technical Memorandum # 1, existing conditions of the regionally significant roadways
are identified. An inventory that covered pavement condition, lane configuration traffic
control, speed limit, on- street parking, terrain land use, Average Daily Traffic ( ADT0
volumes, safety issues, right- of- way, and the presence of curbs, gutters, or sidewalks was
conducted for the regionally significant roadways. Existing deficiencies are also identified
in this memorandum.
As part of the planning process, David Evans and Associates conducted an inventory of
regionally significant roadways indicated by CAAG. The definition of a regionally
significant roadway is one that links population centers, employment centers, and major
highways, or is necessary for the efficient vehicular flow between intercity attractions.
This inventory covered roadway systems in Gila County and Pinal County. The following
characteristics were analyzed and/ or obtained for the existing conditions inventory:
  Pavement Condition
  Lane Configuration
  Traffic Control
  Speed Limit
  On- Street Parking
  Terrain
  Development
  Average Daily Traffic Volumes
  Safety Issues ( sight distance, railroad
crossing, accidents)
  Right- of- way
  Sidewalks
The purpose of the regional transportation plan was to identify deficiencies along the
significant roadways, and to recommend necessary improvements for CAAG’s short term,
mid- term, and long- term transportation improvement plans. Regionally significant
roadways identified by the project located in Gila County are shown in Table 2- 1.
Program improvements for CAAG during the fiscal year 1999 to the fiscal year 2003 were
presented in Technical Memorandum # 1. Gila County projects included in the current
CAAG Transportation Improvement Plan ( TIP) are presented in the following section of
this chapter.
Technical Memorandum # 2 analyzed existing and future traffic operations. This
memorandum also identified improvement projects during each horizon year that would
improve safety, increase Level of Service ( LOS), or improve pavement conditions. The
regionally significant routes analyzed in this report indicated roadway deficiencies that can
be classified into three major categories: capacity deficiencies, safety deficiencies,
pavement deficiencies.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 9
TABLE 2- 1. CAAG’S ROADS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
IN GILA COUNTY
Roadway Jurisdiction Classification
Houston Mesa Rd. Gila County Rural Major Collector
Colcord- Young Rd. Gila County Rural Minor Collector
Gisela Rd. Gila County Rural Major Collector
Fossil Creek Rd. Gila County Rural Minor Collector
Jesse Hayes Rd./ Pioneer Rd./ Six Shooter
Rd./ Ice House Rd.
Gila County Urban Minor Arterial/
Urban Collector
Russell Rd. Gila County Urban Collector
Highland St./ Walliman Rd. Gila County Urban Minor Arterial
Broad St. Globe Minor Arterial
Yuma St. Globe Local
Cedar St. Globe Local
Hackney Ave. Globe Local
Blake St. Globe Local
Sycamore St. Globe Local
Main St. Globe/ Gila Co. Local
Sullivan St. Miami Local
Keystone Ave. Miami Urban Collector
Airport Rd. Payson Urban Minor Arterial
McLane Rd. Payson Urban Minor Arterial
Main St. Payson Urban Minor Arterial
Mud Springs Rd. Payson Urban Collector
Country Club Dr. Payson Urban Collector
Vista Rd. Payson Urban Collector
Aero Dr. Payson Urban Collector
Granite Dells Rd. Payson Urban Collector
Phoenix St. Payson Local
Tyler Parkway Payson Local
Velasco Ave. Hayden Rural Minor Collector
Lower Rd./ San Pedro/ Canyon Rd./ 5th
St./ Hayden Ave.
Hayden Local
Golf Course Rd. Hayden Local
Quarelli St./ Giffen Ave. Winkelman Local
Source: Regional Transportation Plan for the CAAG, David Evans and Associates, April 2000
The capacity analysis performed indicates that 66 percent of the CAAG regionally
significant routes will operate at an acceptable LOS in the twenty- year horizon of 2018.
This document addresses the necessary roadway improvements required for the remaining
33 percent to operate at an acceptable LOS in the future.
Accident rates were obtained from ADOT for the roadways of regional significance.
Roadways examined for safety related improvements were listed, and those with accident
rates in excess of the national standard were addressed with proposed solutions to decrease
the high accident rates. Insufficient traffic control devices exist at many of the highway-railroad
crossings in the roadways evaluated.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 10
Pavement condition was analyzed for each individual roadway and was classified on a scale
ranging from excellent to poor. The majority of the roadways surveyed typically fell in
the category of good and fair. Recommended improvements were identified for the
roadways exhibiting poor and fair pavement conditions.
Technical Memorandum # 3 identified short- term, mid- term, and long- term transportation
improvement projects and corresponding funding sources. The Memorandum analyzed the
potential projects listed in Technical Memorandum # 2 and prioritized them based on
safety, capacity, and pavement condition criteria. Due to projected funding shortfalls, only
those roadways that would experience significant safety, capacity, and/ or pavement
problems were identified for transportation improvements in The Memorandum. The
study notes that the estimated costs for each of these projects do not include additional
costs for right- of- way acquisition or utility relocation.
Payson Small Area Transportation Study Update
The Payson Small Area Transportation Study Update was prepared for the Town of Payson
by ASL Consulting Engineers in association with Lima & Associates and Partners for
Strategic Action. The Study was completed in December 1999. An inventory of the area
roadway network was conducted including roadway widths and number of lanes, types of
intersection traffic control, average daily traffic count data, and crash data.
A transportation vision was developed and key opportunities and constraints were
identified. Goals and policies were developed with regard to traffic safety, mobility
improvement, land use integration, and economic development. Future socioeconomic and
transportation conditions were forecast by means of a transportation modeling process that
used current socioeconomic data and traffic analysis zones created using existing Payson
area roadways and 1990 Census Block boundaries. By 2020, area population was
projected to increase to 28,000 and area full- time employment to approximately 9,000.
Traffic volumes for the 2002, 2007, and 2020 horizon years were forecast, and roadway
segments predicted to have unacceptable levels of service in each of these years were
identified. Roadway projects were recommended to be completed by each horizon year
that include widening of existing roadways, construction of extensions to existing
roadways, and construction on new alignments. The most significant roadway construction
recommended outside of Town limits was the Southeast Bypass that would connect SR 87
south of Payson with SR 260 east of Town. The study also recommended transit plan and
non- motorized circulation- related improvements; however, these would take place within
the limits of the Town of Payson. The report concluded with an implementation program
and recommended policies and guidelines.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 11
Globe- Miami Area Transportation Study
The Globe- Miami Area Transportation Study was conducted by DMJM in association with
Lima & Associates. The study was completed in June 1998. The study inventoried the
Globe- Miami area’s transportation system, developed a transportation and circulation plan
for the area, and identified available sources of matching funds for transportation projects
from Federal, State, County, and other sources. Four elements were developed as a result
of the study: an executive summary, the Globe- Miami Transportation Study, the Globe-
Miami Area Initial Drainage Study, and the Globe- Miami Transportation Study Transit
Element.
Prioritized roadway projects recommended by the Globe- Miami Transportation Study in
which Gila County was expected to participate are listed in Table 2- 2.
The Transit Element recommendations included the following:
  Establishment of a transportation advisory committee with members from each
funding agency and other community groups that would meet at least four times
annually
  Establishment of frameworks for the sharing of vehicles and drivers between the
two existing transit operators in the area
  Expansion of general public transit service to 24 hours per day by October 1999
Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan
The Gila County Comprehensive Master Plan was developed by a consultant team
comprised of LVA Urban Design Studio and Kimley- Horn and Associates. The Plan was
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in November 2003 and contains three primary
elements: a Land Use Element, a Transportation Element, and a Community Facilities
Element.
The Transportation Element inventories existing circulation facilities within the County,
noting that the “ primary routes within Gila County consist of State Routes, including: US
60, US 70, SR 87, SR 188, SR 288, and SR 260.†The alternative modes inventory
includes descriptions of pedestrian facilities, local and intercity transit services, rail freight
services, and airports.
The Plan lists the following transportation related issues that were identified by County
residents:
  Adequacy of emergency access
  All weather property accessibility
  Lack of alternative transportation mode facilities
  Unimproved roadway/ dust control
  Deficiency in roadway construction and maintenance funding
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 12
TABLE 2- 2. GILA COUNTY PROJECTS INCLUDED IN
GLOBE- MIAMI AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Project
No.
Project Name
( Jurisdiction)
Description and
Length
Justification/ Purpose
/ Funding Source
Cost ( 1997
Dollars)
Five- Year Component
T- 3 Sixshooter
Canyon Rd
Bridge No. 8193
Construct bridge on
Sixshooter Canyon Rd just
north of Icehouse Canyon
Rd. Intersection.
Improved access to area
during flooding.
( Federal)
$ 600,000
T- 7 Miami Gardens
link
Construct 2- lane roadway,
extending Railroad Ave.
from Ragus Rd. to Miami
Gardens Rd. ( 0.27 mi.)
Alternate bypass to US
60. Would provide
second access to hospital.
( Local)
$ 260,000
T- 10 Pavement
Rehabilitation
Pavement rehabilitation
based on pavement
condition survey.
Preserve investment in
pavements. ( Local)
$ 200,000
Ten- Year Component
P- 15 Jesse Hayes
Sidewalk ( Gila
Co., Globe)
Provide sidewalk on east
side of Jesse Hayes,
Pioneer, and Sixshooter
Canyon from Ruiz Canyon
Rd. to Eastern Arizona
College. ( 2.2 mi.)
Improve comfort and
safety level of
pedestrians. ( Local)
$ 165,000
Twenty- Year Component
P- 12 Midlands – Focal
Nodes
( ADOT/ Gila Co.)
Install lighting, vegetation,
paving, and shelters at
three intersections.
Enhance pedestrian
environment. ( Local,
State, Federal)
$ 100,000
P- 13 Midlands –
Intersection
Enhancements
( ADOT/ Gila Co.)
Install lighting, vegetation,
paving, and shelters at
three intersections.
Improve pedestrian and
bicyclist crossings at
intersections. ( Local,
State, Federal)
$ 100,000
P- 14 Midlands –
Bicycle Path
( ADOT/ Gila Co.)
Construct a bicycle path
on north side of US 60.
( 1.85 mi.)
Provide connectivity for
bicyclists. ( Local, State,
Federal)
$ 75,000
T- 18 Chaparral Loop
( Alt 1) ( Gila Co.)
Construct new 2- lane
roadway along east side of
railroad from Murphy St.
to Pinaleno Pass. ( 1.6 mi)
Alternate bypass route to
US 60. Recommend
either T- 18 or T- 19.
( Local)
$ 1,500,000
T- 19 Chaparral Loop
( Alt 2) ( Gila Co.)
Construct new 2- lane
roadway along Pinal
Creek to connect to
Escudillo or Main St.
Most of road is already
present. ( 0.85 mo.)
Alternate bypass route to
US 60. Recommend
either T- 18 or T- 19.
( Local)
$ 800,000
T- 20 Pueblo Street
( Globe/ Gila Co.)
Construct new 2- lane
roadway from Sixshooter
Canyon Rd. near Pueblo
St. to a point on SR 77,
south of US 70. ( 1.9 mi.)
Alternate bypass route.
Recommend either T- 20
or T- 21. ( Local)
$ 1,800,000
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 13
TABLE 2- 2. GILA COUNTY PROJECTS INCLUDED IN
GLOBE- MIAMI AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY ( Continued)
Project
No.
Project Name
( Jurisdiction)
Description and
Length
Justification/ Purpose
/ Funding Source
Cost ( 1997
Dollars)
T- 21 Sixshooter
Canyon Road
Extension
Construct paved roadway,
extending Sixshooter
Canyon Rd. using existing
alignments of primitive
roads. ( 4.2 mi.)
Alternate bypass route.
Recommend either T- 20
or T- 21. ( Local)
$ 4,000,000
Drainage Projects
D- 9 Box culvert
crossing of
Russell Gulch at
Washburn Rd.
( Gila Co.)
Realign Washburn Rd.
and construct multi- span
bridge over Russell
Gulch.
Move Washburn Rd. out
of the 100- year flood
plain. ( Local)
$ 2,300,000
D- 10 Box culvert at
Pineway St./ US
60 ( Gila Co.)
ADOT reconstructed box
culvert ( project complete)
Increase culvert capacity
to alleviate flooding on
US 60. ( State)
$ 57,600
D- 11 Culvert at Grover
Canyon and US
60 ( Gila Co.)
Install additional culvert
crossing.
Alleviate flooding
problems on US 60.
$ 17,000
D- 12 Culvert at New
Street and US 60
( Gila Co.)
Construct culvert across
US 60 to Bloody Tanks
Wash. Requires
modification of US 60 and
New Street profiles.
Increase capacity and
alleviate drainage from
crossing railroad tracks
and US 60. ( State, Local)
$ 60,000
D- 13 Culvert at
Railroad Avenue
and Calle de
Loma ( Hill
Street) ( Gila Co.)
Construct drop inlet and
install two 30- inch pipes
to inlet. May need to
raise the profile on US 60
to accommodate
improvements.
Prevent flows from
crossing US 60. ( State,
Local)
$ 30,000
D- 14 On- site storm
drain system on
US 60 between
Latham Blvd. and
New St. ( Gila
Co.)
Construct on- site storm
drain system. Further
study required to
determine outlet design.
Alleviate ponding along
median. ( State, Local)
$ 400,000
Source: Globe- Miami Area Transportation Study, DMJM is association with Lima & Associates, June 1998.
  Need for regional transportation planning
  Inadequate roads and rights- of- way
The goal of the Transportation Element is “ A safe, efficient and cost effective multi- modal
circulation system that provides for adequate mobility and access.†To support this goal,
the following objectives are contained in the Plan:
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 14
Objective 5.0: Adopt a roadway classification system that is responsive to existing and
projected traffic access and mobility demands and that compliments the
County‘ s land use planning efforts.
Objective 5.1: Provide a balanced transportation system that promotes multi- modal
transportation opportunities and ensures adequate emergency access
Objective 5.2: Maximize the public benefit of limited roadway funding and optimize the
expenditure of funds for roadway maintenance and construction.
Objective 5.3: Encourage the formation of informal partnerships to coordinate mutually
beneficial transportation improvements.
Objective 5.4: Actively work to reduce fugitive dust levels due to vehicular traffic on
unimproved roadways.
Payson Area Public Transit Feasibility Study
The Payson Area Public Transit Feasibility Study was conducted by Lima & Associates
during 2004. Payson has higher than average percentage of senior population, significant
tourist appeal, and is geographically isolated from other urban areas. Accordingly, public
transportation both to and from and within the Town of Payson has been included in the
potential needs examined by local and regional transportation studies and plans.
The Town of Payson General Plan Update completed in 2003 suggested that both
additional intercity bus service serving Payson and a local transit system would be needed
by 2007. The Town of Payson Parking Plan, prepared in 2001, included “ transit
planning†as a goal to reduce parking needs, and the Payson Small Area Transportation
Study Update included an evaluation and recommendation of transit alternatives.
Local transit services in Payson are currently provided by several carriers including the
Senior Center, two area nursing homes, a limousine service, and the Mazatzal Casino.
With the exception of the limousine service, all of these services are designed for special
use only. The limousine service and shuttles serving Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport
constitute the services currently available to the general public.
Unmet needs were identified through the conduct of a Community Transit Workshop and a
Public Open House and transit demand for Payson was estimated at 30,177 person trips per
year using the Transit Cooperative Research Project ( TCRP) Report 3, “ Workbook for
Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation.â€
The recommended transit service scenario consists of two loop routes. Each of the routes
is structured as a “ Figure 8†that intersects at the corner of Beeline and SR 260. Portions
of the loops operate over the same roadways in opposite directions and other parts of the
loops serve different areas of Town. The schedules are structured to facilitate transfer
between loops at the Basha’s shopping center, enabling passengers originating from stops
served by only one route to reach destinations only served by the other route.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 15
The draft funding scenario estimated a first year administration and operating cost of
$ 200,442, of which the local share would be $ 70,615. The three vehicles required for the
system would cost an estimated $ 180,000 to purchase, of which the local share would be
$ 36,000. Following the conduct of a follow- up transit implementation study, the Town
Council voted in December 2004 not to pursue transit implementation in the short- term.
Year 2004 Roadway Needs Study Update
According to the Arizona Association of County Engineers Year 2000 Roadway Needs
Study Update, the 2001 - 2010 Gila County road needs was estimated at $ 104.1 million.
Of the total needs, $ 46.4 million were for new roads, $ 27.3 million were for maintenance
and operating, and $ 14.8 million were for upgrading existing new roads. The total 2001 -
2010 estimated revenues were approximately $ 70.0 million, leaving an unmet need in the
County of $ 34.0 million. Table 2- 3 lists the estimated dollar amounts needed.
TABLE 2- 3. GILA COUNTY NEEDS ESTIMATED
BY ROADWAY NEEDS STUDY UPDATE
Gila County Need 2005 - 2009 2010 - 2014 2005 - 2014
Maintenance $ 14,187,763 $ 14,187,763 $ 28,375,526
Existing Bridges 405,720 405,720 $ 811,440
New Bridges on Existing Roads 3,944,000 - 0- $ 3,944,000
Upgrade Existing Roads 30,999,410 575,634 $ 31,575,044
New Roads 43,966,000 10,726,000 $ 54,692,000
Safety 9,492,167 2,731,389 $ 12,223,556
Operating 1,418,776 1,418,776 $ 2,837,552
Total $ 104,413,836 $ 30,045,283 $ 134,459,119
Source: Arizona Association of County Engineers Year 2004 Roadway Needs Study Update, January 2005,
Tables 5A, 5B, and 5C
US 60 – Superior to Globe – Final Feasibility Report
This engineering feasibility study was completed for ADOT by Jacobs Civil in October
2004. The purpose of the study was to identify candidate routes for a four- lane divided
facility between the Superior and Globe areas ( from MP 223.8 near the Boyce Thompson
Arboretum west of Superior to MP 258 northeast of the intersection of US 60 and US 70 in
Globe). Such a facility is deemed necessary to enhance safety and operational
characteristics of the roadway and to provide an adequate LOS, given projected increases
in traffic by the design year of 2025.
The study area was divided into six segments and several potential alignments were
evaluated in each segment. Due to the estimated $ 500 million cost of the entire project,
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 16
the feasibility study recommended that two separate design- concept reports be conducted,
one in Pinal County and one in Gila County. The dividing line between the two segments
would be near the community of Top of the World where the different route scenarios
come together.
Tonto Creek Bridge Location Study
The US Army Corps of Engineers ( ACOE), acting upon a request and supporting
appropriation arranged through First District Congressman Rick Renzi’s office, conducted
a “ reconnaissance level†evaluation of candidate sites for a bridge across Tonto Creek in
the area of Tonto Basin between Roosevelt Lake and Gun Creek. A comprehensive
document published by the ACOE in September 2004 presents the findings of the
preliminary study. The purpose of the study was to identify candidate sites for a bridge,
identify socioeconomic, environmental, and engineering issues relating to each of the sites,
and to develop a management plan for progressing to an environmental assessment of the
sites, followed by a site selection and design- build process.
The five candidate sites evaluated were:
  New crossing site near the confluence of Gun Creek and Tonto Creek
  New crossing site “ Kayler Crossing†between the Gun Creek site and the Upper
Crossing
  Upper Crossing (“ Punkin/ Sheeps†Crossing)
  Middle Crossing (“ Bar- X Road†Crossing)
  Lower Crossing (“ A- Cross Road†Crossing)
The bridge is needed for the following reasons:
  Tonto Basin has some of the largest undeveloped tracts of deeded ( privately held)
land in Gila County
  Area population is projected to increase more rapidly than any other parts of the
County except Payson and Globe- Miami
  Existing low- water crossings are hazardous to motorists and closed for extensive
amounts of time during both periods of winter runoff and summer monsoon rains
  Steps taken after rainy periods to reopen the low water crossings may be adversely
impacting the ecology of the area
Stakeholders and citizens who participated in the public involvement activities related to
the ACOE project preferred the “ Punkin/ Sheeps†location over the other four. The project
to assess, design, and construct a bridge at this location is estimated to cost $ 18.3 million.
The ACOE projected that the southern- most of the existing low- water crossings, A- Cross
Road, will be under several feet of water if the water level of Roosevelt Lake reaches the
level enabled by the recent enlargement of Roosevelt Dam.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 17
Pinal Creek Corridor Study
The Pinal Creek Corridor Study was conducted in 2004 for the City of Globe and the Gila
County Public Works Division by C. L. Williams Consulting, Inc. The corridor evaluated
is located southeast of the limits of the City of Globe between Beer Tree Crossing on the
West and US Highway 70 and State Route 77 on the East. The overall purpose of the
project was to respond to emergency access needs and forecasted future traffic demand due
to regional growth and the need for access to future power transmission systems.
Five alternative alignments were evaluated. The major design alignment differences and
cost estimates of the five alternatives are listed in Table 2- 4.
TABLE 2- 4. PINAL CREEK CORRIDOR MAJOR
DESIGN ALIGNMENT DIFFERENCES AND COST ESTIMATES
Alternative
Length of
Project
( ft)
Impact to
Residential
Structures*
Earthwork
( yd2)
Estimate
of Cost
$ 000s
1. Beer Tree Crossing to SR 70 9,000 Possibly 1 Major 600,000 $ 5,294
2. Beer Tree Crossing to SR 77 11,000 Possibly 1 Major 440,000 $ 5,243
3. Walliman Road to SR 77 10,500 1 Major, 12 Minor 340,000 $ 5,139
4. Walliman Road to SR 70 8,500 1 Major, 12 Minor N/ A N/ A
5. Jess Hayes Road to SR 70 9,500 2 Major, 3 Minor 600,000 $ 5,594
* Major Structure is generally a dwelling while a Minor structure may be a detached garage.
Source: City of Globe in Cooperation with the Gila County Public Works Division, Pinal Creek Corridor
Study, C. L. Williams Consulting, Inc., September 2004
The alignment recommended by the study was Alternative 1, Beer Tree Crossing to SR 70.
The consultant found that this alignment presented the fewest conflicts to design criteria
elements and to surrounding structures. Alternative 1 was also preferred by the public,
based on feedback obtained during the public involvement process. The consultant noted
that the Pinal Creek crossing included in Alternative 5 would also benefit the project and
should be considered for inclusion in the construction project.
An 8- step planning guide outline for completing the project was provided by the
consultant. At the time the Final Report was drafted, City of Globe staff projected that
between 6 and 10 years would be needed to construct the facility due to funding
constraints.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 18
STATEWIDE AND AREA PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS
Gila County
The County has been working toward improving the regionally significant roads as well as
other County roads. Table 2- 5 presents the FY 2004 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program
for County roads.
TABLE 2- 5. PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 2004 – 2005
Project Dollar Amount
Capital Projects Funded by HELP. Loan*
Fossil Creek Phase I 262,963
Six Shooter Road 963,181
Capital Projects Funded by HELP. Matching Funds
Six Shooter Road 114,218
Ice House Bridge 160,206
Total HELP. Funded Capital Projects 1,500,568
Engineering CIP Capital Projects
Pine Creek Canyon 100,000
Aerial Mapping 100,000
Small Area Transportation Study 30,000
Star Valley Yard Turn Lane 247,826
Fairgrounds Road 500,000
Bradshaw Road 75,000
Kellner Canyon Road 165,000
Professional Services 400,000
General Plan Update 42,699
Emergency CIP Reserve 25,000
Total Engineering Capital Projects 1,690,525
Total Capital Projects 3,191,093
Source: Gila County Road Budget FY 2004- 2005
* Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program ( HELP), explained in a subsequent
section of this chapter
Fossil Creek Phase I has been constructed and Phase II is currently under design. Ice
House Bridge is also under design and going though Section 404 clearance. The design
for Sixshooter Canyon Road has been completed and the construction project is scheduled
for bidding in October 2006.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 19
Regional Planning
The CAAG 2000 Regional Transportation Plan identified four regionally significant roads
under Gila County jurisdiction. Houston Mesa Road runs from SR 87 in Payson to the
north. The road is primarily used to access campgrounds and has very limited residential
and commercial development. Fossil Creek road is a two- lane paved road that serves as
the major road in Strawberry, with significant residential and commercial development
along the road. The paved section ends approximately 2.5 miles west of SR 87, and
continues as a gravel road for another 50 miles. Colcord- Young Road is a gravel road
providing a connection between SR 260 and the community of Young. Development along
the road is limited. Gisela Road is a narrow roadway connecting the community of Gisela
to SR 87. The Regional Plan recommended installing guardrail on Gisela Road and
addressing narrow sections with poor sight distance on Colcord- Young Road. The CAAG
Transportation Improvement Program includes $ 1.25 million for the replacement of Ice
House Canyon Bridge and $ 0.625 million for a hazard elimination/ safety project for Jesse
Hays Road as shown in Table 2- 6.
ADOT Gila County Projects
The ADOT Five Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program ( FY 2005– FY 2009)
includes approximately $ 89.2 million of projects for US 60, SR 70, SR 77, SR 87, SR
188, and SR 260 in Gila County. The bulk of the funds, approximately $ 62.7 million, are
allocated for improvements to SR 260. Ten million dollars are allocated for constructing
four miles of SR 188 and $ 5.5 million is allocated to improve six miles of SR 77. Table 2-
7 lists the projects.
State Infrastructure Bank Loans
In 1995, as a provision of the National Highway System Designation Act, Congress
authorized states to establish State Infrastructure Banks to serve as funding mechanisms to
bridge the gap between transportation improvement needs and available revenues. Arizona
was one of the first states to take advantage of this program and, in 1998, established the
Highway Expansion and Extension Loan Program ( HELP) to facilitate the completion of
transportation construction projects. Infrastructure banks function much as other banks do,
lending monies on eligible projects. As the principal and interest on the loans are repaid,
the bank is replenished and the repaid funds become available, in turn, for financing
subsequent projects.
As of April 2006, HELP roadway reconstruction loans totaling $ 3,425,000 on four
projects located in Gila County were in various stages of maturity. Of this amount,
$ 1,100,000 was committed to the Town of Payson for the reconstruction of McLane Road
within the Town. The remainder of $ 2,325,000 in HELP financing was committed for
three projects sponsored by the County.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 20
TABLE 2- 6. DRAFT CAAG TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2010 –
PROJECTS IN GILA COUNTY
Fiscal Year
Sponsor / Project 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Programmed
( OA)
Projected
Available ( OA)
Miami - Sullivan St. Ph. II 340000
Miami - ( Design /
Engineering) Adonis
45,000
Globe - ( Design / Engineering)
Broad Phase III
25,650
Globe - Walliman Road
( Broad Phase II)* De
60,000
Globe - Walliman Road
( Broad Phase II)* Co
340,000
Globe - Broad Street
( Phase III)* Construction
145,350
Gila County -
Six Shooter Canyon Road*
200,000
CAAG Technology Transfer 10,000
Regional Traffic Counting 50,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $ 1,216,000
1,335,768 3,398,724
Miami - Adonis Avenue* 255,000 To Program 2,062,956
Payson - McLane Road Ph IV* 500,000
CAAG Technology Transfer 10,000
Regional Traffic Counting 50,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $ 815,000
895,272 1,591,850
Gila County -
Fossil Creek Road Phase II*
500,000 To Program 696,578
Payson - S. St. Philips 400000
Regional Traffic Counting 50,000
CAAG Technology Transfer 10,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $ 960,000
1,054,554 1,591,850
* = Highway user Revenue Fund ( HURF) exchange project
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 21
TABLE 2- 6. DRAFT CAAG TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2006 - 2010 –
PROJECTS IN GILA COUNTY ( Continued)
Fiscal Year
Sponsor / Project 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Programmed
( OA)
Projected
Available ( OA)
Gila Co. -
Ice House Canyon Rd.
50,0000 To Program 537,296
CAAG Technology Transfer 10,000
Regional Traffic Counting 50,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $ 560,000
615,156 1,591,850
CAAG Technology Transfer 10,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $ 10,000
10,985 1,591,850
Gila Co -
Broadway/ Old Oak Rd
500,000.00 To Program 1,580,865
Payson -
E. Bonita Street - Phase I
268,000.00
CAAG Technology Transfer 10,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $ 778,000
854,628 1,591,850
To Program 737,222
Total ( OA): 11,357,974
Total Dollars: $ 4,339,000
Sources: Gila County Public Works Department, Central Arizona Association of Governments
* = HURF exchange project
Working assumptions:
CAAG is 19.0215 % of rural state population
Average obligation authority is 91.033767761% over 5 year period 12/ 01/ 05
HURF exchange rate is 90% of obligation authority per ARS 28- 6993
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 22
TABLE 2- 7. TENTATIVE 2006 - 2010 ADOT FIVE- YEAR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM – GILA COUNTY PROJECTS
Dollars in Thousands ($ 000)
Route BMP Location Length Type of Work Funding FY
2006
FY
2007
FY
2008
FY
2009
FY
2010
60 236.2 County Line –
Pinto Valley
3.30 RR 3†+ ARFC &
passing lane
HES $ 2,450 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
60 236.2 County Line –
Pinto Valley
3.30 RR 3†+ ARFC &
passing lane
STP $ 4,033 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
70 253.4 Railroad
Overpass to Jct.
SR 77
1.0 Design roadway &
railroad structure
State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 340
70 253.4 Railroad
Overpass to Jct.
SR 77
1.0 Construct roadway &
railroad structure
STP $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 3,400
77 141.0 Gila River
recreational sites
3.50 Intersection
improvements
GVT $ 421 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
77 145.0 MP 145 – MP
147
2.0 Roadway construction STP $ 5,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
87 263.0 Tonto Natural
Bridge
0.10 Construct road, Phase
II
State $ 775 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
260 258.0 Lion Springs
Section
2.00 Design ( Roadway) State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,300 $ 0
260 263.1 Little Green
Valley
6.90 Reconstruct roadway NH $ 0 $ 0 $ 21,700 $ 0 $ 0
260 269.0 Doubtful
Canyon Section
0.20 Utility Relocation State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 30 $ 0
260 269.0 Doubtful
Canyon Section
3.50 Construction water State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 1,300 $ 0
260 269.0 Doubtful
Canyon Section
3.50 Reconstruct roadway NH $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 31,100 $ 0
Source, ADOT, Tentative 2006- 2010 Five- Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 23
MoveAZ
MoveAZ is the Arizona Long Range Transportation Plan that is comprised of the findings
of numerous planning studies previously conducted by ADOT, together with a
comprehensive effort to identify transportation needs, develop solutions, and recommend
specific roadway projects to address these solutions. MoveAZ was adopted by the
Transportation Board on December 17th, 2004. MoveAZ identified eight projects that are
either completely within or cross into Gila County. Projects range from major widening
projects on US 60 and SR 260 to passing lane projects on US 60 and adding shoulders for
a portion of SR 73. These projects are listed in Table 2- 8.
TABLE 2- 8. MOVEAZ PROJECTS WITHIN GILA COUNTY
Route Milepost Proposed Project Type Cost ( Millions)
US 60 223- 254 Widen to 4 lanes 392.05
SR 260 256- 282 Widen to 4 lanes 15.41
SR 77 153- 171 Climbing lanes 10.50
US 70 253- 287 Widen to 5 lane cross- section 66.30
US 60 252- 337 Climbing Lanes, Passing Lanes 28.25
SR 73 310- 335 Shoulders 13.10
US 60 241- 242 Passing lanes 6.94
US 60 - Passing/ Climbing Lanes 2.25
Note: MoveAZ was adopted by the Transportation Board on December 17th, 2004.
The recently completed ADOT Passing Lane/ Climbing Lane Study conducted by Lima &
Associates includes three projects in Gila County: US 60 Eastbound, MP 277; US 60
Westbound, MP 308; and US 60 Westbound, MP 356.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 24
3. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
This chapter presents information regarding the existing and future socioeconomic,
physical, and transportation conditions in Gila County. First the natural environment is
summarized briefly. Next, a more comprehensive evaluation of the socioeconomic
environment is described and illustrated with maps of the area developed using ArcView
GIS. The current roadway facility characteristics including traffic volumes, crash data,
and other safety concerns are summarized and a multimodal inventory is presented.
Projected future population, employment, and roadway conditions are described, including
the use of a sketch planning model in forecasting traffic volumes. The chapter concludes
with a summary of the first round of the public involvement process.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Geologists divide Arizona into three provinces: The Basin and Range Province includes
the Sonoran and Mohave Desert areas in the southern and western portions of the State and
the Colorado Plateau covers the northeastern part of the State. The Central Highlands, in
which Gila County is located, lies in between the other two geologic provinces. The
Mogollon Rim, a dramatic escarpment that extends from northwest to southeast across
much of Arizona, defines both the boundary between the Central Highlands and the
Colorado Plateau, and a portion of the northern boundary of Gila County.
Central Highlands' topography is characterized by a series of mountain ranges separated
by narrow valleys. This topography has historically made the construction of highways
and railroads within the area challenging and has also provided the County with dramatic
scenery. The geological forces that formed the mountain ranges are also responsible for
developing the mineral deposits upon which the County’s important mining industry has
been based.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Gila County contains 4,796 square miles and has a 2003 estimated population of 53,555,
for a county- wide average of just over 11 persons per square mile. Moreover, a 2003
estimated 25,785 persons, or nearly half the total, live in the five incorporated
communities of Globe, Hayden, Miami, Payson, and Winkelman. As these five
jurisdictions comprise a small fraction of the total land area within the County, the
remainder of the County is sparsely populated. Another 9,791 persons live on the San
Carlos Apache Reservation in the southeastern part of the County, many within or near the
Tribal communities of Peridot and San Carlos. Other communities in the County include
Claypool, Gisela, Pine, Rye, Strawberry, and Young. Much of the remainder is virtually
wilderness. Table 3- 1 presents a summary of County demographics.
In more heavily populated counties, proposals for transportation improvements must
consider the adverse effect that widening a highway, for example, may have on the persons
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 25
TABLE 3- 1. SUMMARY OF GILA COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
% Mobility Limited
( Aged 16 – 64)
Total
Population
Total
Housing
Units
Percentage
Age 65+
Percent
Minorities
% Population
With Income
Below Poverty
% Households
With Income
Below Poverty
Total
16 - 64
Percent
With
Disability
Arizona 5,130,632 2,189,189 13.02% 36.2% 13.9% 11.8% 3,169,173 18.83%
Gila County 51,335 28,189 19.79% 31.1% 17.4% 14.8% 29,181 24.78%
Local Communities
Central Heights-
Midland City CDP 2,694 1,175 16.67% 27.4% 16.7% 15.8% 1,596 21.55%
Claypool CDP 1,794 786 15.72% 44.3% 12.1% 12.7% 1,098 22.86%
Gisela CDP 532 295 20.11% 8.1% 11.2% 13.2% 309 63.43%
Globe city 7,486 3,172 15.62% 38.5% 11.4% 11.4% 4,152 21.41%
Hayden town 892 334 14.13% 86.7% 27.3% 22.3% 510 21.76%
Miami town 1,936 930 17.10% 57.6% 23.6% 24.1% 1,093 21.87%
Payson town 13,620 7,033 29.18% 8.7% 9.9% 9.9% 7,441 24.27%
Peridot CDP 1,266 346 5.53% 98.7% 58.9% 48.0% 711 16.74%
Pine CDP 1,931 2,242 22.89% 3.8% 9.3% 9.4% 1,190 19.58%
San Carlos CDP* 3,716 994 5.36% 95.6% 58.8% 56.5% 2,222 23.85%
Strawberry CDP 1,028 1,165 25.97% 5.4% 10.8% 9.8% 633 20.22%
Tonto Basin CDP 840 726 32.74% 4.8% 18.3% 18.9% 482 52.07%
Winkelman town 443 194 14.45% 76.3% 27.2% 27.4% 284 25.00%
Young CDP 561 446 21.03% 5.2% 20.5% 21.5% 327 31.80%
* Note: San Carlos “ Census Designated Place†( CDP) is partially located in Graham County
Source: Census 2000 Summary Files 1 and 3
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 26
living in the corridor. However, in many parts of Gila County, avoiding adverse impacts
to the ecology and natural beauty of the area may be the primary concern.
Following are a series of maps created using the ArcView geographic information systems
( GIS) application. Census data regarding seven key socioeconomic factors was obtained
and depicted on the maps. The seven factors examined are: total population, occupied
dwelling units ( DU), population aged 65 and over, minority population, population living
below the poverty level, mobility- limited population, and households without automobiles.
Data for the first four factors is presented by census block. For privacy reasons, data for
the last three is only available at the census block group level. For graphical presentation
purposes, all of the data are normalized by square mile. For each factor, three maps are
presented, one that depicts the entire County, one that presents a detail of the Globe- Miami
area, and one that presents a detail of the Payson area. Note that Census 2000 data was
used for these maps as 2003 estimates for the different factors other than total population
were not available.
County Population Growth and Distribution
Table 3- 1 includes total population estimates obtained from the Arizona Department of
Economic Security ( DES) for Arizona, Gila County, and Census- designated places ( CDBs)
including the five incorporated jurisdictions within the County. The DES estimates that an
estimated 25,895 persons, or approximately 48 percent, of the County’s residents lived
within incorporated communities. The other 52 percent live in unincorporated areas.
Significant unincorporated areas include Tribal communities such as San Carlos and
Peridot, as well as the communities of Claypool, Gisela, Pine, Strawberry, Young, and the
Tonto Basin area. The DES estimates that, between the conduct of the April 2000 Census
and July 2004, the population of the State as a whole increased by 13.7 percent while that
of Gila County increased by 5.3 percent. Payson is the only community in the County
with a growth rate approaching that of the State.
Figure 3- 1- A shows the distribution of the current total population per square mile
Countywide. The western half of the County is more populated than the east, although
none of the County areas outside of Claypool, Globe, Hayden, Miami, Payson, Pine, San
Carlos, Strawberry, or Winkelman has more than 1,000 persons per square mile.
According to 2000 Census data, the County has an average population density of 10.8
persons per square mile.
Figure 3- 1- B presents a detail of the Globe- Miami area. Note that portions of the
unincorporated Claypool area are as densely populated as are the City of Globe or the
Town of Miami. The urbanized area is clustered along the US 60 corridor, with few
populated areas lying more than a mile from the highway. In several cases, these
urbanized areas abut areas with no population such as the copper mining area north of the
highway in Miami and an area within Globe city limits south of US 70 and centered on SR
77. The downtown areas of Globe and Miami are the most densely populated parts of the
region.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 27
FIGURE 3- 1- A. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 28
FIGURE 3- 1- B. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
GLOBE AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 29
Figure 3- 1- C presents a detail of the Payson area. Three principal areas of population
concentration exist. The first, in the southern portion of town, ranges from the Green
Valley Park area on the West to east and south of the Medical Center. The second is an
area to the west of and served by McLane Road; and the third is an area north and east of
the town hall complex. A smaller relatively dense area lies north and east of the airport
and an outlying concentration exists in the far western part of Payson.
Number and Distribution of Dwelling Units
Table 3- 1 lists the numbers of dwelling units in Arizona, Gila County, and the local
communities within the County. The County percentage of vacant units, 28.6, is more
than twice that for the state as a whole. This discrepancy is likely due to the large
numbers of second homes in the County. Note that the mountain communities likely to
serve as summer refuges for Phoenix area residents— Payson, Pine, and Strawberry— have
the highest vacancy rates. The average number of persons per DU for the County, 2.50, is
slightly less than the average for the entire state of 2.64. Note that the Tribal communities
of San Carlos and Peridot have significantly higher average numbers of persons per DU
than other County communities.
Figures 3- 2- A, 3- 2- B, and 3- 2- C depict the distribution of occupied DU per square mile
Countywide, in the Globe- Miami area, and in the Payson area respectively. The pattern
shown in Figure 3- 2- A is essentially identical to that in Figure 3- 1- A. One can infer from
the similarity of the two figures that the average number of persons per dwelling unit does
not vary greatly from one region of the County to another with the exception of the Tribal
communities discussed above.
Comparison of Figures 3- 1- B and 3- 2- B shows that, in most neighborhoods in the Globe-
Miami area, the average number of persons per dwelling unit does not vary. Close
examination of the Claypool area, however, shows that in several blocks immediately
south of US 60 and west of Golden Hill Road, the numbers of persons living in each
dwelling unit appears to be higher. Similar situations exist in parts of Miami as well as in
the extreme eastern part of the urban area within a half- mile of the US 70/ SR 77 junction.
Comparison of Figures 3- 1- C and 3- 2- C also show that, within the Town of Payson, the
average numbers of persons living in each dwelling unit varies somewhat from one
neighborhood to another. Areas with higher numbers of persons living in each of the DU
include the neighborhood west of Beeline and south of Longhorn, the area east of Beeline
along Cedar in the southern part of Town, and the neighborhood east of McLane and north
of Saddle in the northern end of Town.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 30
FIGURE 3- 1- C. CURRENT TOTAL POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
PAYSON AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 31
FIGURE 3- 2- A. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 32
FIGURE 3- 2- B. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
GLOBE AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 33
FIGURE 3- 2- C. OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) –
PAYSON AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 34
County Senior Population
As Table 3- 1 shows, the median age of Gila County residents is slightly higher than that of
the state as a whole. The communities with the highest median age are those that have
become popular with retirees such as Payson, Pine, Strawberry, and Tonto Basin. Note
that the Tribal communities of Peridot and San Carlos have median ages significantly
lower than those of the other County communities.
Figure 3- 3- A depicts the total population per square mile of persons aged 65 and over
Countywide. Comparison of Figure 3- 3- A with Figure 3- 1- A shows that seniors are
relatively evenly distributed compared with the total population. Exceptions are the part of
the San Carlos Apache Reservation directly east of Globe, as well as the area south of
Globe and east of SR 77, both of which have comparatively few seniors.
Comparison of Figure 3- 3- B, which shows the distribution of persons aged 65 and over in
the Globe- Miami area, with Figure 3- 1- B reveals that seniors are fairly evenly distributed
throughout the area. Figure 3- 3- C shows the concentration of seniors 65 years of age and
older in the Payson area. Within the same central corridor along SR 87, the pattern for
seniors seems to emulate that of the total population. Some of the highest densities occur
in the neighborhoods near McLane Road and Longhorn Road and SR 87 and Frontier
Street. Also, the outlying population concentration in the western part of Payson does not
have a concentration of seniors
Minority Population
Table 3- 1 also presents the numbers of minority persons in Arizona, Gila County, and the
local communities within the County. Gila County actually has a slightly lower percentage
of minority persons than the state as a whole. While the percentages of minority persons
living in the Globe- Miami area are similar to those statewide, the communities in the
northern part of the County such as Payson, Pine, Strawberry, and the Tonto Basin area
have very low numbers of minorities.
Figures 3- 4- A, 3- 4- B, and 3- 4- C show distribution of minority population per square mile
Countywide, in the Globe- Miami area, and in the Payson area. Comparison of Figure 3- 4-
A with Figure 3- 1- A reveals that minority populations are fairly evenly distributed
Countywide except that northern portions of the County, specifically the Payson and Tonto
Basin areas, have below average numbers of minorities. Comparing Figure 3- 4- B with
Figure 3- 1- B reveals that the distribution of minority population in the Globe- Miami area
closely mirrors that of the total population. However, a comparison of Figure 3- 4- C with
3- 1- C shows that the distribution of the minority population in Payson varies significantly
from that of the general population. More of a minority population exists in the southern
half of Payson, concentrated especially near SR 87 between Frontier Street and Bonita
Street. The eastern portion of Payson is virtually devoid of a minority population.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 35
FIGURE 3- 3- A. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 36
FIGURE 3- 3- B. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) -
GLOBE AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 37
FIGURE 3- 3- C. AGE 65 AND OLDER POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) -
PAYSON AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 38
FIGURE 3- 4- A. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 39
FIGURE 3- 4- B. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) -
GLOBE AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 40
FIGURE 3- 4- C. MINORITY POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK) -
PAYSON AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 41
Low Income Persons
The average percentages of persons and households living below the poverty level in Gila
County are higher than those for the state as a whole, as displayed in Table 3- 1. The
Tribal communities of Peridot and San Carlos have the highest percentages, while the
communities of Payson, Pine, and Strawberry have the lowest. Concentrations of low
income persons are shown by census block group in Figures 3- 5- A, 3- 5- B, and 3- 5- C.
Figure 3- 5- A, which depicts the locations of low- income persons Countywide, shows a
concentration of this population north of the San Carlos area, in the southeast portion of
the County. While difficult to see on the Figure, the concentration of low- income persons
in the Hayden area is significant. Figure 3- 5- B shows significant concentrations of low-income
individuals in central Miami and also in the Claypool area. Figure 3- 5- C shows
that the block group that comprises most of west- central Payson also has an average of
between 214 and 458 persons per square mile living below the poverty level. The average
income levels are higher in the outlying portions of the Town.
Mobility- Limited Populations
Table 3- 1 also shows that 24.78 percent of the persons between the ages of 16 and 64
living in Gila County reported having disabilities to the Census Bureau, compared with
18.83 percent of those statewide. Note that over 60 percent of the 309 residents of Gisela
report having disabilities, as do 52 percent of those living in the Tonto Basin area. The
Tribal community of Peridot is the only reporting community that has a percentage of
disabled persons lower than the statewide figure.
Figures 3- 6- A, 3- 6- B, and 3- 6- C depict the concentrations of mobility- limited persons
Countywide, in the Globe- Miami area, and in the Payson area respectively. Comparisons
of these figures with the previous series of figures 3- 5- A, 3- 5- B, and 3- 5- C, show that the
locations of mobility- limited populations closely match those of low- income populations.
Indeed, many mobility- limited persons have lower incomes, particularly in rural or small-urban
areas because of the comparative lack of alternative transportation services and the
consequent inability to commute to work.
Not surprisingly, Figures 3- 7- A, 3- 7- B, and 3- 7- C show that households without
automobiles are located mostly in the same areas as the low income and mobility- limited
persons. A comparison of Figures 3- 5- B, 3- 6- B, and 3- 7- B shows that many persons who
live in the Globe- Miami area who are low income and/ or mobility- limited nevertheless do
have automobiles, particularly in the area between Miami and Claypool and the portion of
the Claypool area north of US 60. Comparison of 3- 5- C, 3- 6- C, and 3- 7- C reveals
significant differences between the locations of low- income persons, mobility- limited
persons, and households without automobiles in Payson, however. For example, the area
of Town east of Beeline, north of SR 260, and south of Forest has an average of over 900
persons per square mile with mobility limitations but no households without automobiles.
In west- central Payson, between Beeline and McLane, the concentrations of low- income
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 42
FIGURE 3- 5- A. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 43
FIGURE 3- 5- B. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) -
GLOBE AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 44
FIGURE 3- 5- C. POPULATION BELOW POVERTY LEVEL PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) -
PAYSON AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 45
FIGURE 3- 6- A. MOBILITY- LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 46
FIGURE 3- 6- B. MOBILITY- LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) -
GLOBE AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 47
FIGURE 3- 6- C. MOBILITY- LIMITED POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) -
PAYSON AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 48
FIGURE 3- 7- A. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE
( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 49
FIGURE 3- 7- B. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) -
GLOBE AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 50
FIGURE 3- 7- C. HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES PER SQUARE MILE ( BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUP) -
PAYSON AREA DETAIL
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 51
and mobility- limited persons are consistent from one end of Town to the other. However,
the number of households without automobiles increases significantly south of Longhorn.
CURRENT LAND USE
Of the nearly 4,800 square miles that comprise Gila County, only 3.5 percent is privately
owned— or deeded— land. Of that, about 2 percent is owned by the mines, leaving about
1.5 percent for residential, commercial, and other industrial usage. Over 55 percent of the
County lies within the Tonto National Forest, another 37 percent is Tribal land, and the
remaining 5 percent is either Arizona State Trust land or owned by the US Bureau of Land
Management.
The Tonto National Forest occupies nearly three million acres of land and is the fifth
largest forest in the United States with approximately 5.8 million visitors annually. The
San Carlos Apache Indian reservation encompasses 1,826,541 acres and is the fourth
largest reservation in Arizona while the Fort Apache Reservation covers more than 1.6
million acres.
The Gila County General Plan outlines land usage for the deeded land portions of the
County including the unincorporated rural communities of Pine and Strawberry, Young,
Tonto Basin, Gisela, and Christopher Creek. Nearly all of the residential land is shown as
being planned for 3.5 dwelling units or fewer per acre. Some higher density residential
usage is planned for portions of the Claypool area abutting the City of Globe, planned
communities near Roosevelt Lake, and within the communities of Pine and Gisela.
Multifunctional corridor or Public Facilities areas are shown abutting some of the more
heavily traveled State Routes and County roads.
Nearly all of the commercially planned or zoned land lies within local incorporated
jurisdictions with the exception of a few parcels in Claypool, Gisela, Pine, Roosevelt, Star
Valley, and Tonto Basin.
CURRENT ROADWAY FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
The existing Gila County transportation system consists of a network of primary roads
connecting communities and providing access to the local and secondary roadways that
serve land uses throughout the region. The primary road network includes two US routes:
US 60 and US 70, and five State Routes: SR 77, SR 87, SR 188, SR 288, and SR 260.
All US and State Routes are paved except significant portions of SR 288 between SR 188
and Young. The secondary road system branches off the primary routes to access private
land in both rural areas and developed communities. Currently, 155.38 miles of the
County’s 644.05- mile roadway network are paved while the remaining 488.67 miles are
unpaved. These mileages include roadways in the unincorporated areas of Gila County as
well as Forest Service roads that the US Department of Agriculture has contracted with the
County to maintain.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 52
The majority of traffic in Gila County is concentrated on the US and State Routes. State
Route 87 carries traffic volumes between 11,000 and 12,000 vehicles per day in the
vicinity of Payson, and US 60 carries between 11,000 and 17,000 vehicles per day in the
vicinity of Globe- Miami. State Route 288 carries the lowest traffic volume of the US and
State Routes. County and Forest roads provide access to pockets of private land within the
Tonto National Forest. Forest routes also provide access to recreational areas in the
Forest. Traffic volumes in the County are the highest during summer months and the
lowest during the winter months. Examples of County- maintained roadways are shown in
Figure 3- 8.
Roadway Functional Classification
Different types of roadways are classified according to their function— the specific role that
they perform in the vehicular mobility of the region. Generally, a roadway is classified
based upon the extent to which it is designed to facilitate vehicular travel from one area, or
neighborhood, to another, as opposed to facilitating access to abutting properties. Arterial
roadways are designed for travel over longer distances, with access to or from abutting
properties managed through the use of driveway spacing, center medians, or other means,
or, in the case of freeways, limited to specific traffic interchanges. Local streets provide
relatively unlimited access to the residential or commercial properties that abut them, but
are comparatively inefficient routes for longer trips. Collector streets link the arterial
streets that traverse an area with the area network of local streets, performing an
intermediate role.
The Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual includes five classes of rural roads:
  Rural Major Arterial
  Rural Arterial
  Rural Collector
  Rural Local
  Rural Very Low Volume Road
The Manual indicates different “ cross section†specifications for each class of roadway
that address the speed and traffic volume for which the roadway is designed, together with
the maximum allowable grade, the width of the travel lanes, the width and design of the
shoulders, and the thickness of pavement. The details of these specifications for the five
rural classifications are listed in Table 3- 2. Figure 3- 9 depicts a draft assignment of the
classifications to current County roadways by the consultant.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 53
FIGURE 3- 8. EXAMPLES OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS
Forest Road 512, also known as
the Young- Heber Road, is
unpaved for most of its length.
The County- maintained roadway
is programmed to be paved by
2010, providing improved access
to the community of Young. The
other access to Young, SR 288, is
also unpaved for most of its
length between the Young area
and a junction with SR 188 south
of Roosevelt.
— Lima & Associates photo
Forest Road 64, the Control
Road, is unpaved for much of its
length. The Control Road, if
improved, would provide a bypass
around the Payson area for
travelers between the Verde
Valley and the Rim Country. The
road also provides access to
summer home communities,
including Tonto Village and
Whispering Pines.
— Lima & Associates photo
Ice House Canyon Road is paved
and chip- sealed between its origin
near the City of Globe and the
National Forest boundary in the
foothills of the Pinal Mountains.
The road forms part of a loop
route through the foothills that, if
improved throughout its length,
would provide an alternative route
in case of a blockage of US 60.
The roadway also serves as an
escape route from area wildfires.
— Lima & Associates photo
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 54
TABLE 3- 2. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF GILA COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADWAYS
Functional Classification
Rural Major
Arterial Road
Rural Arterial
Road
Rural Collector
Road Rural Local Road
Rural Very Low
Volume Road
Description Four- lane roadway
providing regional
continuity in rural
areas
Two- lane roadway
providing regional
continuity in rural
areas
Two- lane roadway
providing traffic
movement between
arterial and local
streets
Two- lane roadway
providing direct
access to abutting land
uses and connecting
with collector roads
Two- lane roadway
designed to carry
ADT of 175 VPD
or less
Design Speed
( mph)
65 65 45 35 25
Design ADT > 15,000 3,000 – 15,000 1,000 – 5,000 175 – 1,000 < 175
Max. Longitudinal
Grade ( percent)
6 6 9 12%
< 4,000’ elev.
10%
> 4,000’ elev.
12%
< 4,000 elev.
10%
> 4,000 elev.
Min. R- O- W Req. 55’ X 2 55’ X 2 35’ X 2 30’ X 2 30’ X 2
Travel lane surface 4†min. AC over
10†min. ABC
4†min. AC over
10†min. ABC
3†min. AC over
10†min. ABC
3†min. AC over 8â€
min. ABC
See Note 1.
ADT = average daily traffic. AC = asphaltic concrete; ABC = aggregate base course; VPD = vehicles per day.
Note 1. Bituminous penetration and double chip seal over 8’ min. ABC < 4,000’ elevation; 3†min. AC over 8†min. ABC > 4,000’ elevation.
Source: Gila County Roadway Design Standards Manual, Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., December 2001
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 55
FIGURE 3- 9. FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ASSIGNED
TO COUNTY ROADWAYS
Source: Lima & Associates, Inc.
Traffic Volumes and Current Levels of Service
Roadway Level of Service is a measurement of how well a roadway operates. An LOS of
“ A†indicates a free flow condition and an LOS of “ F†indicates forced traffic flow or
breakdown. In rural areas of Gila County, LOS B is a logical goal. Figure 3- 10 depicts
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 56
FIGURE 3- 10. SIMULATION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
Source: Jacobs Civil, Inc., SR 89 to Wickenburg Interim Bypass Study, August 2005
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 57
simulations of the different levels of service on an Arizona roadway. Perceived and actual
roadway congestion occur due to a number of factors, including the number of lanes the
roadway has; its functional classification; and whether it traverses a rural area, an urban
area, or a city center. For example, a motorist expects to travel more slowly on a
neighborhood street than on a rural highway. Drivers also expect more delays when
driving through the central business district of an urban area than they do when driving in
rural areas. Hence, the directional capacity of a roadway segment is based on the
roadway’s functional classification and is expressed in vehicles per day.
Note that in Table 3- 2, the “ Design ADT,†or the average daily traffic for which the
roadway is designed, is expressed in a range of numbers. For the purposes of determining
current levels of service on County roadways in this project as well as estimating future
levels of service it was necessary to assign specific per- lane capacities for each functional
class of roadway. These are listed in Table 3- 3.
TABLE 3- 3. DAILY ROADWAY CAPACITIES USED IN DETERMINING
LEVEL OF SERVICE IN GILA COUNTY
Functional
Classification Area Type
Surface
Type
Per Lane
Capacity
Principal Arterial Urban Paved 10,000
Minor Arterial Urban Paved 8,000
Collector Urban Paved 5,300
Principal Arterial Rural Paved 9,000
Minor Arterial Rural Paved 6,500
Major Collector Rural Paved 5,500
Major Collector Rural Unpaved 3,000
Minor Collector Rural Paved 4,000
Minor Collector Rural Unpaved 3,000
Source: Lima & Associates
Once the functional classification and the corresponding per- lane capacity for a roadway
segment have been identified, the LOS on the segment can be estimated from the
volume/ capacity ratio ( V/ C), which is the average daily traffic volume divided by the daily
capacity of the roadway. The relationship between LOS and the V/ C ratio is provided in
Table 3- 4.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 58
TABLE 3- 4. LEVELS OF SERVICE
LOS Maximum V/ C
A 0.29
B 0.54
C 0.75
D 0.90
E 1.00
F > 1.00
Source: Transportation Research Board,
Highway Capacity Manual
Table 3- 5 lists the current per- lane Annual ADT ( AADT) and levels of service for major
Gila County roadways. To obtain these figures, recent- year traffic counts for the
roadways were factored up to 2005 levels, based on County population growth, and the
functional classification of each roadway segment was used to determine the per- lane
capacity. None of the locations counted indicates a near- capacity situation. Not
surprisingly, the highest counts are in the Payson and Globe areas. The highest Payson
area location is Moonlight Drive at SR 260, with an estimated 2005 V/ C ratio of 0.36 and
an LOS of “ B.†All other locations tested have an LOS of “ A.â€
The location in the Globe area having the highest estimated 2005 per- lane AADT is
Shooter Canyon Road at the Globe City Limits just south of Ice House Canyon Road, with
1,286. However, Old Oak Street actually has a higher V/ C ratio due to being classified as
an Urban Collector as opposed to an Urban Minor Arterial and thus having a lower per-lane
capacity. Houston Mesa Road has a comparatively high per- lane AADT based on a
count taken near its intersection with SR 87, as does Golden Hill Road based on a count
taken at its intersection with US 60.
Current LOS issues that do exist in Gila County are limited to state highways, major
arterials within local jurisdictions or— in most cases— major arterials within local
jurisdictions that also function as state highways. Gila County is a tourist attraction in its
own right and also has two corridors, the SR 87 route and the US 60 route, that connect
the metro Phoenix area with the White Mountains. Tucson area residents use SR 77 in
conjunction with US 60 to access the White Mountains in large numbers as well. Of
course, these roadways are also used by Gila County residents traveling to and from the
Phoenix and Tucson areas. However, these roadways are not maintained by the County
and, hence, are not the primary focus of this project.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 59
TABLE 3- 5. CURRENT AADT PER LANE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS
Roadway Location
Fun
Class
No. of
Lanes
2005
AADT
Per Lane Surface
Capacity
Per
Lane
V/ C
Ratio LOS
Moonlight Drive At SR 260 R Min C 2 1,421.0 Paved 4,000 0.36 B
Houston Mesa Road At Town Limits near SR 87 R Maj C 2 1,310.0 Paved 5,500 0.24 A
Six Shooter Canyon Road At City Limits just south of
Ice House Canyon Rd.
U Min A 2 1,286.0 Paved 6,500 0.20 A
Golden Hill ( at US 60) Atlas Sheet 17 U Min A 2 1,278.0 Paved 6,500 0.20 A
Russell Rd. South of Golden Hill Rd. R Maj C 2 1,016.0 Paved 5,500 0.18 A
Old Oak St. At Railroad Ave. UC 2 944.5 Paved 4,000 0.24 A
Golden Hill ( at 1st Street) Atlas Sheet 17 UC 2 901.0 Paved 4,000 0.23 A
Roberts Rd. At Russell Rd. U Min A 2 838.0 Unpaved 8,000 0.10 A
Fossil Creek Road At SR 87 R Min C 2 791.0 Paved 4,000 0.20 A
Whispering Pines Road At SR 87 R Min C 2 738.0 Paved 4,000 0.18 A
Hardscrabble Mesa Road At SR 87 R Maj C 2 714.5 Paved 5,500 0.13 A
Pineway St. At Railroad Ave. 2 681.5 3,000 0.23 A
Ragus Road At US 60 UC 2 550.5 Paved 5,300 0.10 A
Ice House Canyon Drive At Six Shooter Rd. R Maj C 2 548.0 Paved 5,500 0.10 A
Roberts Drive At Russell U Min A 2 518.0 Unpaved 8,000 0.06 A
Old SR 88 At SR 188 South End R Min C 2 502.0 Paved 4,000 0.13 A
Bixby Rd. N. of RR tracks 1/ 4 mile N. of SR 188 R Min C 2 494.0 Paved 4,000 0.12 A
Bixby Road ( North of SR 188) At SR 188 R Min C 2 457.0 Paved 4,000 0.11 A
Old Oak St. North of Wilson St. UC 2 429.5 Paved 4,000 0.11 A
Pine Creek Canyon Rd. At SR 87 R Maj C 2 390.5 Paved 5,500 0.07 A
Cherry Drive Atlas Sheet 17 2 359.0 3,000 0.12 A
Baker Ranch Road At SR 288 2 358.5 3,000 0.12 A
Mistletoe Drive Atlas Sheet 118 R Min C 2 355.0 Unpaved 4,000 0.09 A
Bixby Road ( South of Pinal Creek) At Kelly Rd. R Min C 2 352.5 Paved 4,000 0.09 A
New Street At Railroad Ave. 2 337.0 3,000 0.11 A
Stagecoach Trail At SR 188 2 342.0 3,000 0.11 A
Control Road North of SR 260 At SR 260 R Min C 2 341.0 Paved 4,000 0.09 A
Gisela Road At SR 87 R Maj C 2 320.5 Paved 5,500 0.06 A
FDR 71 ( Greenback Road) At Old Hwy. 188 R Min C 2 281.0 Unpaved 4,000 0.07 A
Roosevelt Estates Blvd. At SR 188 R Min C 2 264.0 Paved 4,000 0.07 A
Milky Way At SR 260 2 257.0 3,000 0.09 A
Calle De Loma At US 60 2 256.0 3,000 0.09 A
Tonto Creek Drive At Gisela Rd. R Min C 2 254.5 Paved 4,000 0.06 A
* Gila County Street Atlas page that depicts location of count. U Min A = Urban Minor Arterial; UC = Urban Collector; R Maj C = Rural Major
Collector; R Min C = Urban Minor Collector. Sources: Gila County Public Works Department, ADOT, CAAG.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 60
TABLE 3- 5. CURRENT AADT PER LANE AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS ( Continued)
Roadway Location
Fun
Class
No. of
Lanes
2005
AADT
Per Lane Surface
Capacity
Per
Lane
V/ C
Ratio LOS
Arbor Avenue Atlas Sheet 17 2 253.5 3,000 0.08 A
Fairgrounds Road At US 60 R Min C 2 250.0 Paved 4,000 0.06 A
FDR 470 ( Bar X Crossing) At SR 188 2 250.0 3,000 0.08 A
Pine Canyon Drive At SR 87 2 231.5 3,000 0.08 A
Bradshaw Drive At SR 87 R Min C 2 211.5 Paved 4,000 0.05 A
East Verde Estates Entrance Road
from SR 87
Atlas Sheet 115 R Min C 2 206.5 Paved 4,000 0.05 A
Beaver Flat Road At Houston Mesa Rd. 2 203.0 3,000 0.07 A
Kellner Canyon Road At Ice House Canyon Rd. R Maj C 2 196.0 Paved 5,500 0.04 A
Rimwood Drive At Fossil Creek Rd. R Min C 2 195.5 Paved 4,000 0.05 A
Hicks Drive At Old SR 88 R Min C 2 194.5 Paved 4,000 0.05 A
Store Crossing Near Old 188 Near Old Hwy. 188 2 184.0 3,000 0.06 A
Walliman Road Atlas Sheet 14 UC 2 182.0 Paved 5,300 0.03 A
Copper Hills Road At City Limits R Min C 2 160.5 Paved 4,000 0.04 A
Randall Place At SR 87 2 158.0 3,000 0.05 A
Bar X Road near SR 188 Near SR 188 2 146.5 3,000 0.05 A
Grover Canyon Rd. At Railroad Ave. 2 137.0 3,000 0.05 A
Strawberry Drive Atlas sheet 120 2 123.0 3,000 0.04 A
FDR 60 ( A Cross) At SR 188 R Min C 2 114.0 Unpaved 3,000 0.04 A
Winchester Rd. At Six Shooter Canyon Rd. UC 2 108.5 Paved 5,300 0.02 A
Colcord Road At SR 260 R Min C 2 103.5 Unpaved 3,000 0.03 A
Dealer's Choice At SR 260 2 94.5 3,000 0.03 A
Control Road At SR 87 R Min C 2 85.5 Unpaved 3,000 0.03 A
Control Road East of SR 87 At SR 87 R Min C 2 66.0 Unpaved 4,000 0.02 A
A Cross Road @ SR 188 Cattle Guard At SR 188 R Min C 2 58.5 Unpaved 4,000 0.01 A
Sleepy Hollow Drive ( Beaver Valley) At Forest Rd 199A 2 58.5 3,000 0.02 A
Ralls Drive At SR 87 R Min C 2 58.0 Paved 4,000 0.01 A
Control Road West side Forest Rd. 32 R Min C 2 47.5 Unpaved 3,000 0.02 A
San Carlos Drive At US 60 R Min C 2 45.5 Paved 4,000 0.01 A
Strawberry Hollow North of Apache Atlas Sheet 118 2 31.5 3,000 0.01 A
N. Strawberry Drive Atlas Sheet 120 2 30.0 3,000 0.01 A
Fuller Road At Fossil Creek Rd. R Min C 2 29.5 Paved 4,000 0.01 A
* Gila County Street Atlas page that depicts location of count. U Min A = Urban Minor Arterial; UC = Urban Collector; R Maj C = Rural Major
Collector; R Min C = Urban Minor Collector. Sources: Gila County Public Works Department, ADOT, CAAG.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 61
Hazard Elimination and Safety Issues
This section summarizes hazard elimination and safety issues on County roadways.
Examples of sites with safety issues are shown in Figure 3- 11. Three specific safety areas
are discussed below: crashes, bridge inspections, and highway- rail crossings.
Crashes
From January 1999 through December 2003, 4,489 traffic crashes occurred in Gila
County. Most of the crashes occurred on state highways, as the first segment of Table 3- 6
shows. According to the Accident Location Identification Surveillance System ( ALISS)
Database, 61 crashes, or 13 percent of the total, took place on Tonto National Forest
service roads within the County. Another 26 crashes, or 5.63 percent of the total,
occurred on Bureau of Indian Affairs Roadway ( BIA) 6, the roadway on the San Carlos
Apache Reservation that serves as a short cut between the Tribal community of San Carlos
and the Globe- Miami area. In the Payson area, 21 crashes occurred on Control Road
during the time period, and 18 crashes occurred on Houston Mesa Road. In the Globe
area, 13 crashes took place on both Broad Street and Russell Avenue. Just over 10 percent
of the crashes took place on County roads. The remaining segments of Table 3- 5 present
data exclusively related to crashes on County roads.
Depending upon the speed involved, roadway geometrics at the crash location, road and
weather conditions, driver reaction, and other issues, a traffic crash may involve one or
more phases. For example, two cars may first collide; subsequently one or both may
overturn, strike a third vehicle, or strike a fixed object. The First Harmful Definition is
the first action that causes damage to a motor vehicle, its occupants, a pedestrian, or a
fixed object.
Of the crashes reported during the time period, 181, or 39.18 percent, began as a collision
of a motor vehicle with a fixed object. The second most frequent “ first harmful
definition†was a collision between two motor vehicles, of which 140 crashes, or 30.30
percent of the total, were recorded.
Most crashes on Gila County roads did not take place at intersections. However, 16.67
percent of the crashes were intersection related and another 6.49 percent were driveway
access related. Over a third of the motorists involved in crashes were cited for “ Speed
Too Fast for Conditions†and another 17.75 percent were cited for “ Inattention.†Over 9
percent were not cited.
In summary, 55.63 percent of the crashes were caused by either overturning or collision
with a fixed object and that 72.51 percent of the crashes were of the single vehicle type.
“ Speed Too Fast for Conditions†was the most common violation listed.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 62
FIGURE 3- 11. EXAMPLES OF ROADWAY SAFETY ISSUES
Houston Mesa Road is the only
paved route between Payson and
the Whispering Pines area.
When either of two low- water
crossings such as this are
flooded, motorists must make a
lengthy detour over the largely-unpaved
Control Road.
However, bridge construction
would also close the road for
weeks, necessitating the same
detour.
— Lima & Associates photo
Heading west, pavement on the
Control Road ends at the east end
of Tonto Village. Note that the
narrow bridge further limits the
ability of motorists heading east
on Control Road to make the
acute left turn into the Tonto
Village area. The street sign,
which implies that the roadway
entering from the right in the
foreground is “ Tonto Village,â€
adds to the confusion.
— Lima & Associates photo
Shown here is the “ Tâ€
intersection with Ice House
Canyon Road, as seen from the
Kellner Canyon Road approach.
Vegetation at right, together with
the steep grade of the approach,
limits sight distance so that a
motorist turning left onto Ice
House Canyon Road must pull
nearly half way out into the
roadway to see whether the way
is clear.
— Lima & Associates photo
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 63
TABLE 3- 6. SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC CRASHES IN GILA COUNTY
Jurisdiction Where Crash Occurred No. of Crashes Percentage First Harmful Definition No. of Crashes Percentage
Crashes on City Streets 551 12.27% Overturning 76 16.45%
Crashes on County Roadways 462 10.29% Collision with other Motor Vehicle 140 30.30%
Crashes on State Highways 3,476 77.43% Collision with Pedestrian 3 0.65%
Total 4,489 100.00% Collision with Animal or Livestock 16 3.46%
Relationship of Crash to Intersection No. of Crashes Percentage Collision with Fixed Object 181 39.18%
Occurred at Intersection 77 16.67% Miscellaneous 46 9.96%
Non- Intersection Related 355 76.84% Total 462 100.00%
Driveway Access Related 30 6.49% Injury Severity No. of Crashes Percentage
Total 462 100.00% Non- injury Crashes 368 79.65%
Predominant Violation No. of Crashes Percentage Injury Crashes 82 17.75%
Speed Too Fast for Conditions 166 35.93% Fatal Crashes 12 2.60%
Inattention 82 17.75% Total 462 100.00%
Unknown 76 16.45% Type of Crash No. of Crashes Percentage
No Improper Driving 42 9.09% Single Vehicle 335 72.51%
Failed to Yield Right- Of- Way 22 4.76% Angle 25 5.41%
Other 22 4.76% Backing 19 4.11%
Drove in Opposing Traffic Lane 16 3.46% Head- on 13 2.81%
Exceeded Lawful Speed 13 2.81% Left Turn 4 0.87%
Followed Too Closely 9 1.95% Other 16 3.46%
Ran Stop Sign 6 1.30% Rear- End 24 5.19%
Made Improper Turn 5 1.08% Sideswipe ( Opposite Direction) 18 3.90%
Knowingly Operated with Faulty or
Missing Equipment 1 0.22% Sideswipe ( Same Direction) 6 1.30%
Other Unsafe Passing 1 0.22% U- Turn 2 0.43%
Unsafe Lane Change 1 0.22% Total 462 100.00%
Total 462 100.00%
Source: Accident Location Identification Surveillance System ( ALISS) Database for ADOT ( Jan 1999- Dec 2003)
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 64
Bridge Inspections
Every two years, ADOT Bridge Management conducts inspections of Gila County-maintained
bridges. The results of the most recent inspections, conducted in April 2004,
are summarized in Table 3- 7. Four of the structures, Icehouse Canyon Bridges 1 and 2,
Star Valley Bridge, and Thompson Draw Bridge, were found to be in need of repairs.
However, as of June 2005, none of the minor repairs recommended had been performed.
Rail Highway Crossings
A total of ten at- grade railroad crossings in the Globe- Claypool area were reviewed. This
area is served by the Arizona Eastern Railway, a short line railroad that operates from
Miami through Claypool and Globe to Safford and connects with the Union Pacific at
Bowie, Arizona. The day- to- day operations are managed by clerical personnel from an
office in Claypool and by the train crews themselves. The project team was unable to
contact railroad management. The Railway and the County both informed the consultant
that, due to the low volume of both train traffic and motor vehicle traffic on the cross
streets, few incidents have occurred at the crossings.
All of the ten crossings examined appear to be in poor condition. Examples of the
crossings are shown in Figure 3- 12. The protection provided at the crossings ranges from
cross bucks only to cross bucks with flashing lights and gates. In some cases, asphalt
appears to have been spread between the rails in lieu of installing a crossing. In the case
of Silver Hill Road, which was recently accepted as a country dirt road by the County, the
crossing area looks as if dirt were simply spread between the rails. In order for the gravel
ballast upon which the railroad tracks rest to function properly in holding the ties and rails
in place, and in order to prolong the useful life of the crossties, it is essential for proper
drainage to occur. Piling dirt on top of the ballast degrades the ballast material and
inhibits drainage, accelerating crosstie failure. Such crossings must be crossed by
motorists at very low speeds to avoid motor vehicle damage and can be dangerous for
motorcyclists or bicyclists to cross. Options for rail- highway crossing repairs or
reconstruction will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.
Pavement Conditions
Gila County’s computerized pavement management system is based on “ Street Saverâ€
software developed by the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The
software is designed to be used as a tool to help the County make informed and timely
decisions about pavement conditions, to prevent problems through appropriate maintenance
procedures, and to identify and repair defective pavement cost effectively.
The county is upgrading its pavement management approach, including the acquisition of
additional computer software that has the potential for more integration of pavement
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 65
TABLE 3- 7. SUMMARY OF ADOT BRIDGE INSPECTIONS FOR COUNTY- MAINTAINED STRUCTURES
Struc.
No.
Date of
Inspection Structure Name Road Name Location
Sufficiency
Rating
Maintenance/
Repair
7862 4/ 27/ 2004 Pine Creek Bridge Cedar Meadow Lane 0.25 mi. S of Cedar
Lane
88.68 None required
7871 4/ 27/ 2004 E. Verde River Bridge Houston Mesa Rd. 6.9 mi. N of SR 87 98.96 None required
7880 4/ 27/ 2004 Bray Creek Bridge Geronimo Estates Rd. 0.1 mi. S. of Control
Rd.
62.78 None required
7881 4/ 27/ 2004 E. Verde River Bridge Rim Trail Estate Rd. 0.5 mi. S of Int. Rte.
199
76.00 None required
7882 4/ 27/ 2004 Thompson Draw Bridge Johnson Blvd. 1.1 mi. N of SR 260
MP 267
21.27 See Note 1
8193 4/ 21/ 2004 Icehouse Canyon Bridge Sixshooter Canyon Rd. 1 mi. S Jct. US 60 60.21 None required
8194 4/ 21/ 2004 Pinal Creek RCB Sixshooter Canyon Rd. 3.6 mi. S of US 60 75.97 None required
8197 4/ 21/ 2004 Icehouse Canyon Bridge 2 Pinal View Drive 0.8 mi. S of
Sixshooter Rd. Jct.
54.96 See Note 2
8198 4/ 21/ 2004 Icehouse Canyon Bridge 1 Albany Drive 0.5 mi. S of
Sixshooter Rd. Jct.
89.23 See Note 3
8604 4/ 21/ 2004 Pinal Creek Bridge Dickison Drive 1.6 mi. S of US 60 66.12 None
recommended
8605 4/ 21/ 2004 Pinal Creek RCB Bixby Road 0.5 mi. E of
Old SR 88
99.92 None required
8706 4/ 21/ 2004 Pinal Creek Bridge Hicks Rd. 0.1 mi. E of
Old SR 88
91.78 None
recommended
8914 4/ 21/ 2004 Icehouse Canyon Bridge 3 Alamo Way 3.8 mi. S of US 60 97.97 None required
8995 4/ 27/ 2004 Star Valley Bridge Rainbow Drive 0.82 mi. SE of Jct.
SR 260
91.24 See Note 4
Note 1. Repair/ replace the loose rail posts on the S. side and E. end of North side. ( Bridge No. 7882)
Note 2. Fill and seal the erosion/ scour under the grouted bank protections on the N side, especially the NE ( Bridge No. 8197)
Note 3. Fill the scoured area below and under the outlet apron with rocks and cap with concrete. ( Bridge No. 8198)
Note 4. Fill the erosion/ void under the downstream end of the outlet apron and seal with concrete. ( Bridge No. 8995)
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Bridge Inspection Reports for Gila County, April 2004
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 66
FIGURE 3- 12. EXAMPLES OF AT- GRADE RAIL CROSSINGS IN GLOBE AREA
The Old Oak Road crossing is
protected by gates and flashing
lights; however, the crossing is in
poor condition. The pavement has
deteriorated and portions of the
pavement at the edges of the
roadway have eroded. The rough
crossing represents a potential
hazard to motorists.
— Gila County Public Works photo
The Pinal Creek Road crossing is
protected by cross bucks only. The
pavement in the crossing area has
deteriorated. The condition of the
rail line itself suggests that some
bad cross ties in need of
replacement may exist beneath the
crossing. If warranted by roadway
traffic volume, this crossing would
be a candidate for reconstruction.
— Gila County Public Works photo
Silver Hill Road has now been
accepted as a country dirt road.
The intersection of the roadway and
the railroad is protected by cross
bucks, but no actual crossing has
been installed. Instead, dirt has
simply been dumped on top of the
cross ties. The result is a rough
crossing for motorists and a
potentially dangerous one for
bicycle and motorcycle riders. If
roadway traffic increases, an
approved crossing should be built.
— Gila County Public Works photo
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 67
condition tracking and other roadway maintenance and improvement issues into an
integrated GIS- based system. As a result of periodic field view, the County assigns each
pavement segment an index number from 1 to 100. Numbers 1 through 24 are in the
“ Very Poor†range, 25 through 49 fall within the “ Poor†range, 50 through 69 fall within
the “ Good†range, and any index number of 70 or higher is considered “ Very Good.â€
Figure 3- 13 provides examples of these different conditions.
Gila County currently maintains over 127 miles of paved roads. Overall, the roadways are
in very good condition. The average pavement condition index assigned to the roadways is
71.57, in the “ Very Good†range. Table 3- 8 lists the roadway mileage indexed in the four
categories.
The most recent field view of the roadway surfaces for index assignment purposes was
conducted in 2002, and the more heavily traveled portions of the roadways have likely
deteriorated somewhat since then, except where maintenance has been performed in the
meantime.
MULTIMODAL INVENTORY
Alternative transportation modes within Gila County are currently very limited and
opportunities for alternative modes are limited by the disconnected County Road System.
Transit service within Gila County is limited to dial- a- ride type programs. These programs
provided by local communities or organizations, primarily serve the senior and disabled
populations with access to medical facilities, senior programs, and other daily needs.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are limited within the County, and located almost entirely
within local communities. The Tonto National Forest provides a number of hiking trails.
This section summarizes multimodal services and facilities within the County including
intercity bus service, dial- a- ride, special need services, and Casino- oriented bus and
excursion rail services.
Intercity Bus Service
Until March 2005, Greyhound Lines provided intercity bus service along the US 70- US- 60
corridor connecting Globe and Miami with Safford and points east as well as with the
Phoenix metro area. Effective March 2005, Greyhound Lines implemented a service
restructuring that resulted in the elimination of bus service to approximately half of the
Arizona communities that had been served, including Globe and Miami. Currently, no
intercity passenger transportation serves Globe or Miami.
Two shuttle services currently operate between Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport and Payson,
and between Payson and Show Low, Pinetop- Lakeside, and Springerville. White
Mountain Passenger Lines provides one round trip six days per week, and Timberline VIP
operates one round trip daily.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 68
FIGURE 3- 13. EXAMPLES OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS
Source: Oregon Department of Transportation
Very Poor
Pavement is in extremely
deteriorated condition. Numerous
areas of instability. Majority of
section is showing structural
deficiency. Riding quality is
unacceptable ( probably should slow
down).
Poor
Areas of instability, marked
evidence of structural deficiency,
large crack patterns ( alligatoring),
heavy and numerous patches,
deformation very noticeable.
Riding qualities range from
acceptable to poor. Rutting greater
than ¾ â€.
Good
Stable, minor cracking, generally
hairline and hard to detect. Minor
patching and possibly some minor
deformation evident. Dry or light
colored appearance. Very good riding
qualities. Rutting less than ½ â€.
Very Good
Pavement Structure is stable, with no
cracking, no patching, and no
deformation evident. Roadways in this
category are usually fairly new.
Riding qualities are excellent. Nothing
would improve the roadway at this
time.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 69
TABLE 3- 8. PAVEMENT CONDITION OF GILA COUNTY ROADWAYS
Pavement Condition
Index
Linear Miles of
Roadway
Percentage
of Total
100 1.69 1.32%
90 and above 10.26 8.02%
70 and above 68.96 53.64%
50 and above 28.44 22.24%
25 and above 16.83 13.16%
Below 25 1.69 1.32%
Total 127.86 100.00%
Source: Gila County Public Works Department
White Mountain Passenger Lines provides passenger bus and express package delivery
service from Arizona White Mountain communities to the Phoenix metro area. The firm
has been operating since 1937. White Mountain Passenger Lines operates daily except
Sundays and the following Holidays: Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving,
Christmas Day and New Years Day.
The bus line’s only Gila County stop is in Payson at Payson Packaging. The one- way fare
from Payson to Mesa, Phoenix, Show Low, or Snowflake is $ 25. The fare from Payson to
Heber is $ 20; Payson to Forest Lakes, $ 15; and Payson to Christopher Creek or Kohl’s
Ranch, $ 10. A Senior Citizen Discount of 10 percent is available for seniors age 62 and
over. Children under 10 years of age pay half fare when riding with an adult. The
company charges an additional $ 5.00 for pick- up at Sky Harbor Airport and asks that
passengers wishing to be picked up at the airport call ahead to confirm.
Timberline VIP makes round trips daily, including weekends and holidays, between
Springerville, Arizona, and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Several scheduled
stops are made along the way, including Scottsdale and Mesa. The Gila County
community served is Payson.
The fare between Payson and Phoenix Sky Harbor is $ 25.00. Timberline VIP uses a
shuttle vehicle manufactured by Mercedes Benz that Timbeline claims is quieter, roomier,
safer, and more comfortable than a typical 15- passenger van. Passenger luggage is carried
in a trailer painted to match the vehicle’s distinctive paint scheme.
Dial- a- Ride and Special Needs Services in the Globe- Miami Area
One dial- a- ride system, the Cobre Valley Community Transit, operates within the County.
In addition, the Globe and Miami Senior Centers provide transportation and related
services for qualifying seniors who have enrolled at their programs. Several private senior
care facilities in the area also provide transportation services for residents.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 70
Cobre Valley Community Transit, also known as “ Miami Dial- a- Ride,†provides
demand- response transit services throughout the Globe- Miami area. The system serves the
general public. The rate charged is $ 1.00 for pick- ups scheduled in advance and $ 2.00 for
same day calls. Fees are for round trips. The vans are air conditioned and equipped with
wheel chair lifts for handicapped and elderly customers.
Globe Senior Center has a new 8- passenger van that is wheelchair lift equipped. The Van
is used to bring clients to the Center in the morning, for meals and activities, and return
them home in the afternoon. During the middle of the day, the vehicle is used to transport
“ meals on wheels†to those who are homebound. They are able to provide meals to a
maximum of 35 persons because of the topographical constraints of the area.
The Federal Transit Administration ( FTA) Section 5310 program, which was used to
purchase the new van, provides capital funds only, and funds for operating expenses such
as fuel and drivers’ wages must be raised through other means. The Center had been using
volunteer drivers; however, using volunteers now makes insurance rates prohibitively
expensive. The Center believes that sufficient need for transportation to the Center and for
meals on wheels services exists to justify the purchase of another vehicle and funding is
likely available.
Miami Senior Center also offers both congregate meals at the center as well as “ meals on
wheels†type service for homebound seniors.
Copper Mountain Inn is an elder care facility that has approximately 90 residents. The
Inn has a wheelchair lift- equipped Ford van that is used for medical transportation for
residents. Residents are taken to local clinics or to specialists in the Phoenix area as
needed for treatment. The Inn recently purchased a 2005 Cutaway bus on a Ford chassis
that has two wheelchair positions and 12 seats for ambulatory passengers. The bus is used
for resident activities such as shopping trips, trips to the ice cream parlor, and other tours
and events.
Heritage Health Care Center is an elder care facility that has 96 residents. The Center
has a cutaway minibus with 10 seats and four wheelchair positions that is used for both
medically related trips as well as tours. Favorite tour activities include picnics, holiday
lights tours in season, and shopping trips.
Special Needs Services in the Payson Area
Local special needs transit services in Payson are currently provided by several carriers.
Safe Ride Services provides transportation services for the disabled. The senior center
operates a bus and a van that are used to bring seniors to the center for meals and activities
and to deliver meals to shut- ins. The Senior Center has received funding to expand their
hours of transportation service to all day from mornings only. During the twelve months
ended July 31, 2004, an average of 364 persons was carried to other destinations monthly
by the Senior Center, and an average of 220 persons per month were brought to the Center
for lunch.
Lima & Associates Gila County Small Area Transportation Study – Page 71
Two nursing homes in Payson, the Payson Care Center and Rim Country North, use
vehicles to transport their residents. The Payson Care Center vehicle has 17 seats plus
room for two wheelchairs. Activities for which the bus is used include shopping, scenic
drives, and transporting residents to and from their homes or families in nearby
communities. The bus is also used to transport patients from the Medical Center to the
Care Center, or to their homes.
Rim Country North operates a 15- passenger van for the use of residents only. The
vehicle can only handle one wheelchair bound passenger at a time. The van is used
primarily for medical trips paid for by patients’ insurance coverage, although occasional
shopping trips are made. A third nursing home in the community, the Powell House, does
not possess a vehicle for transporting residents, but relies on those provided by the Senior
Center.
Touch of Class Limousine Service operates two Lincoln Town Cars with capacities of
eight and ten persons. They charge $ 10 for any trip within the Payson town limits. The
firm also provides service to/ from Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport for $ 75.00 each way per
carload. Touch of Class has expressed an interest in being a contract operator of a transit
service for the Town of Payson.
Casino Transportation
Native American communities operate casinos in both the Globe and Payson areas. The
San Carlos Apache Tribe operates the Apache Gold Casino east of Globe and the Tonto
Apache Tribe operates the Mazatzal Casino south of Payson. Both Casinos offer
transportation as a means of attracting patrons to their facilities. Example of Casino-related
transportation services are shown in Figure 3- 14.
The Apache Gold Casino operates a comprehensive schedule of “ Fun Bus†trips departing
from various locations in the Phoenix and Tucson met