Gila County Small Area Transportation Study Final Report |
Previous | 1 of 7 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
-
7523.pdf
[40.78 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.
File Format:
Adobe Reader
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. “ Bill†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.†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 8†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.†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,†adds to the confusion. — Lima & Associates photo Shown here is the “ T†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 Saver†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.†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
Object Description
TITLE | Gila County Small Area Transportation Study |
CREATOR | Lima & Associates |
SUBJECT | Highway Planning--Arizona; Roads--Arizona--Design and Construction |
Browse Topic |
Transportation |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more items |
Language | English |
Publisher | Arizona Dept. of Transportation |
Material Collection |
State Documents |
Source Identifier | TRT 1.2:G 45 T 61 |
Location | o852691064 |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records |
Description
TITLE | Gila County Small Area Transportation Study Final Report |
DESCRIPTION | 151 pages (PDF version); 41,756.5 KB |
TYPE | Text |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. I may not be downloaded, reproduced, or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution |
DATE ORIGINAL | 2006-10 |
Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Born Digital |
Source Identifier | TRT 1.2:G 45 T 61 |
Location | o852691064 |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | GILA_SAT_F.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT |
PDF (Portable Document Format) |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records—Law and Research Library. |
File Size | 41756.499 KB |
Full Text | 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. “ Bill†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.†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 8†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.†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,†adds to the confusion. — Lima & Associates photo Shown here is the “ T†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 Saver†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.†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 |