TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE........................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
PURPOSE ........................................................................................... 1
2. EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS....................................... 5
REVISED DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS .................................................... 5
SAFETY- CRASH ANALYSIS................................................................... 6
CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY .......................................................... 24
INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION ........................................................... 25
3. ROADWAY RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION.................. 27
FUNDING SOURCES UPDATE............................................................... 31
FEDERAL AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUNDS ...... 31
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.................................................................... 35
REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 36
i
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF CRASHES ... 14
2. POTENTIAL ROADWAY RELATED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES........ 15
3. SUGGESTED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR
US 191/ SR 75/ SR 78 INTERSECTION .................................................. 19
4. SUGGESTED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR
US 191/ MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION................................ 21
5. RECOMMENDED STATE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS........... 29
6. RECOMMENDED COUNTY AND LOCAL ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.............................................................. 30
7. FY 2008 FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ARIZONA IN MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS) ................................................................................... 32
8. FY 2008 ADOT REVENUE SOURCES – STATE
( IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) .......................................................... 32
9. ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND DISTRIBUTIONS
TO GREENLEE COUNTY AND COMMUNITIES FY 2008........................ 33
10. HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND REVENUE FORECAST
( IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) ........................................................... 33
11. ADOT FIVE- YEAR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS ( In Thousands of Dollars) ............ 33
12. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AMERICAN RECOVERY
AND REINVESTMENT ACT - APPROVED PROJECTS ( MARCH 13, 2009).. 34
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. STUDY AREA AND 2007 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC .............. 3
2. STUDY AREA AND 2007 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS....................................................... 4
3. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY CRASH LOCATIONS ......................... 7
4. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY CRASH LOCATIONS
CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS....................................................... 8
5. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY FATAL CRASHES............................. 9
6. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY FATAL CRASH LOCATIONS
CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS...................................................... 10
7. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY ACCIDENT RATE............................ 11
8. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY ACCIDENT RATE
CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS...................................................... 12
9. FIRST HARMFUL DEFINITION FOR CRASHES ON STATE
HIGHWAYS IN SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY................................ 13
10. RELATIONSHIP OF CRASH TO INTERSECTIN ON CRASHES
ON STATE HIGHWAYS IN SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY ................ 13
11. AERIAL VIEW OF THREE- WAY JUNCTION........................................ 18
12. PHOTOGRAPH OF THREE- WAY FROM US 191 SOUTHWESTERN
APPROACHES LOOKING TO THE NORTHEAST .................................. 18
13. EXAMPLES OF SINGLE LANE RURAL ROUNDABOUTS ....................... 23
14. EXAMPLE OF TWO LANE RURAL ROUNDABOUT .............................. 23
15. AERIAL VIEW OF DOWNTOWN CLIFTON ......................................... 26
16. AERIAL VIEW OF STATE ROUTE 75 IN YORK VALLEY ....................... 26
17. SR 75/ FAIRGROUNDS ROAD/ CHAPARRAL ROAD ............................... 27
18. US 70/ SR 75 JUNCTION IN DUNCAN ................................................. 27
iii
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
INTRODUCTION
This document is an addendum to the Southern Greenlee County Small Area
Transportation Study, Final Report, January 2008. The Final Report presented the
findings and recommendations of the Southern Greenlee County Small Area Transportation
Study ( SATS); the report provided the County with a long- range multimodal transportation
plan, practical tools for day- to- day programming, and funding of transportation
improvements. Figures 1 and 2 depict the study area along with the 2007 Average Annual
Daily Traffic ( AADT).
The SATS focused on regionally significant County roads and major roads within the
Town of Duncan and Town of Clifton. The study did not include the analysis of state
highways. The SATS developed 5-, 10-, and 20- year transportation plans for Southern
Greenlee County by identifying deficiencies and recommending projects needed to improve
mobility and safety and encourage tourism and development. The improvements were then
prioritized to maximize project benefits within budget limitations. Funding strategies and
potential funding sources were provided.
PURPOSE
This update to the SATS presents the analysis of needs and deficiencies on the state
highways in Southern Greenlee County and recommends improvement projects for the state
highways. The County will present this information to the Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT) for consideration for the Eastern Arizona ongoing Framework
Study. Although the primary focus of the update was the analysis of the state highways, a
review and update was also conducted for the local road projects.
The update included the following steps:
• Consultation with Greenlee County Public Works and ADOT Safford District
• Review of previous and ongoing plans and programs
o Greenlee County Small Area Study
o Arizona East Framework Study
o ADOT Five- year Transportation Facilities Construction Program. FY 2010-
2014
o ADOT Road Safety Assessments
• Review of the ADOT Video Photo Log for each of the state highways
• Analysis and documentation of deficiencies and needs of state highways
including the analysis of crashes on the state highways
• Recommendations for improvements on state highways
• Review and update of County and local projects
• Presentation of draft recommendations to Greenlee County Board of
Supervisors ( June 19, 2009)
FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA AND 2007 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC
( AADT)
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 3
FIGURE 2. STUDY AREA AND 2007 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC
( AADT) CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 4
2. EVALUATION OF DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS
This chapter presents the measures that were used to evaluate candidate State Highway
projects that were omitted from the first phase of the project as well as re- evaluate projects
on County roadways and multimodal projects within the Study Area.
REVISED DEFICIENCIES AND NEEDS
The previous phase of the Southern Greenlee County Small Area Transportation Study
( SATS) focused on roadways operated and/ or maintained by the County and the Towns of
Duncan and Clifton, with the direction of the Arizona Department of Transportation
( ADOT). A major impetus for conducting this subsequent phase of the SATS was to
examine the deficiencies and needs of State Highway segments located within the Southern
Greenlee County study area. The current goal of ADOT to develop a Statewide
Transportation Framework as a vision for the 2050 horizon necessitates a closer look at all
state- maintained roadways.
The criteria used to evaluate candidate transportation projects for the first phase of the
project with respect to both need and feasibility were:
Need Feasibility Constraints
• Potential to address travel demand • Environmental and physical impacts
• Potential to serve residents • Topographical constraints
• Potential to provide connectivity
and/ or improve mobility between
places and major roads
• Constructability
Roadway capacity needs in the study area vary significantly due to the cyclical nature of
copper mining activity and the accompanying fluctuations in the size of the workforce at
the Morenci Mine. The criteria are:
Need Feasibility Constraints
• Infrastructure Conditions ( System
Preservation)
• Environmental and physical impacts
• Safety ( Reduction in Crashes) • Topographical constraints
• Potential to serve residents • Constructability
• Potential to provide connectivity
and/ or improve mobility between
places and major roads
• Costs/ Right- of- way/ Funding
• Potential to provide adequate
mobility during periods of peak
Morenci Mine activity
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 5
SAFETY - CRASH ANALYSIS
Crash data on roads in Southern Greenlee County was obtained from ADOT’s Accident
Location Identification Surveillance System ( ALISS) for the period of July 2002 through
June 2007. During this five- year period, 259 traffic crashes occurred in Southern
Greenlee County. The injury severity among the 259 crashes was:
• Six fatal crashes
• 167 non- injury crashes
• 69 injury crashes
• 15 possible injuries
• Two unknown
Figures 3 and 4 depict the crash locations and Figures 5 and 6 show the fatal crashes. As
illustrated in the figures, the vast majority of the crashes and the fatal crashes took place
on State or US Highways. Crash rates are illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. SR 78 has the
statistically highest crash rate of 1.1 crashes per million vehicle miles traveled due to the
relatively low traffic volumes on the state highway and number of crashes. A segment of
US 191 that parallels Chase Creek Street in Clifton ( Figure 8, top frame) may be
exhibiting a very low accident rate due to the 25 mph speed limit posted on a stretch of
roadway that is straight and level compared with adjoining segments.
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.
As illustrated in Figure 9, approximately 30 percent of the total crashes reported during the
time period began as a collision of a motor vehicle with a guardrail or other fixed object.
The second most frequent “ first harmful definition” was a collision with another motor
vehicle, over 20 percent of the total.
Most crashes on Greenlee County roads did not take place at intersections ( See Figure 10).
However, 13 crashes, or approximately 5.0 percent, of the crashes were driveway access
related and another 46 crashes, or 17.8 percent, were intersection related
Table 1 shows the segments of state highways with significant numbers of crashes. The
one- mile segments listed in the table for US 95, SR 75 and SR 78 had the highest number
of crashes within one- mile segments on the state highways within Southern Greenlee
County.
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 6
FIGURE 3. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY CRASH LOCATIONS
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 7
FIGURE 4. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY CRASH LOCATIONS
CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 8
FIGURE 5. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY FATAL CRASHES
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 9
FIGURE 6. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY FATAL CRASHES
CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 10
FIGURE 7. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY CRASH RATE
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 11
FIGURE 8. SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY CRASH RATE
CLIFTON AND DUNCAN INSETS
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 12
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 13
FIGURE 9. FIRST HARMFUL DEFINITION FOR CRASHES ON STATE
HIGHWAYS IN SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY
Source: ADOT ALISS between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2007
FIGURE 10. RELATIONSHIP OF CRASH TO INTERSECTION ON CRASHES ON
STATE HIGHWAYS IN SOUTHERN GREENLEE COUNTY
Source: ADOT ALISS between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2007
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Overturning Collision
With Other
Motor Vehicle
Collision
With Animal
Collision
With Guard
Rail
Collision
With Other
Fixed Object
Other
13 - Driveway
Access Related
46 - Occurred at
Intersection
221 - Non-
Intersection Related
TABLE 1. ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITH
SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF CRASHES
Highway Beginning End
Number of
Crashes*
US 191 MP 151.0 MP 152.0 14
US 191 MP 167.0 MP 168.0 11
SR 75 MP 396.2 MP 397.2 11
US 191 MP 145.0 MP 146.0 10
SR 78 MP 162.0 MP 163.0 8
US 191 MP 146.5 MP 147.2 8
US 191 MP 156.2 MP 156.8 8
US 191 MP 157.3 MP 158.0 8
Source: ADOT ALISS July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2007
Crash Countermeasures
Crash countermeasures that are likely to influence crashes based upon the dominant crash
type are listed in Table 2. The table lists safety challenges along with potential
countermeasures to address each of the challenges.
In addition to the roadway related safety crash measures shown in Table 2 the following
non- roadway- related countermeasures should be implemented:
• Increase alcohol enforcement and education
• Increase speed enforcement
• Increase seat belt enforcement and education
• Provide public information related to accident avoidance and defensive driving
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 14
TABLE 2. POTENTIAL ROADWAY RELATED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
Identified Safety Challenge Potential Countermeasures
Intersection related crash issues • Construct roundabouts to reduce crashes.
• Construct left- and right- run lanes to reduce crashes.
• Time yellow change intervals to be appropriate for
speed and distance traveled at intersection.
Horizontal curve issues • Provide advance warning signage.
• Add chevrons along the curve.
• Add embedded pavement markings and enhanced
curve delineation.
• Add roadside reflectors to delineate curves.
• Increase/ add pavement markings to provide 6‐ inch
centerlines and/ or edge lines.
Sight distance issues • Provide adequate sight distance at intersections.
• Trim or clear trees or bushes obstructing various
access points or existing signage.
• Add warning signs advising of potential hazards.
Run‐ off/ head- on‐ road crashes
at known location
• Enhance delineation through improved pavement
markers or roadside reflectors.
• Provide adequate clear zone to minimize crash
consequences.
• Add guardrail to limit roadway departures.
• Construct median barriers to reduce cross- median
crashes.
Edge drop‐ off • Add safety edge by adding and maintaining fill to
prevent drop‐ off at roadside which limits vehicle
ability to re‐ enter the roadway upon departure.
• Identify drop‐ off cause ( e. g., drainage) and improve.
Drainage‐ related issues • Ensure adequate drainage.
• Clear/ clean catch basins with regularity.
Weather‐ related crashes • Alter or increase winter weather treatment program.
• Utilize warning signs to identify possible hazardous
locations for motorists.
• Employ changeable message signs to alert motorists of
winter weather conditions.
Pedestrian issues • Adequately mark with advance signage and yield lines
any non- intersection cross walks.
• Construct median and pedestrian refuge areas.
• Provide pathways, sidewalks or paved shoulders along
roadways.
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 15
TABLE 2. POTENTIAL ROADWAY RELATED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES
( Continued)
Identified Safety Challenge Potential Countermeasures
Maintenance issues • Clear brush which may inhibit roadway operations or
obstruct existing roadway signage.
• Sweep roadways and shoulders regularly.
• Fill roadway cracks and potholes.
• Replace worn pavement markings and faded signs.
• Install object marker/ delineation at all headwalls and
bridge ends.
Tree or utility pole crashes • Relocate or remove existing trees or poles in
problematic locations.
• Add reflectors to trees or poles.
• Add guard rail shielding existing trees or poles.
Speed‐ related crashes • Ensure roadways are properly posted in accordance
with existing speed regulations.
• Lower the speed limit where roadway geometrics over
a substantial length of road dictate.
• Provide advance warning signs with a proper advisory
speed where the sight distance is limited.
• Consider traffic calming measures to reduce speeds.
• Consider experimental optical speed measures.
• Restripe to provide narrower lanes.
• Ensure regular enforcement of appropriate speed limits.
Parking • Restrict parking at selected locations including
constrained cross‐ section, near intersections, and on the
approaches to pedestrian crosswalks.
Passing issues • Restrict and enforce passing when adequate passing
sight distance is not provided.
Sources: Adapted from Massachusetts Traffic Safety Toolbox Series.
http:// www. mhd. state. ma. us/ safetytoolbox/ downloads/ LowCost_ Non- Intersection. pdf.
Kentucky Transportation Center – College of Engineering. Countermeasures for Fatal Crashes on
Two- Lane Rural Roads. No date.
FHWA Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety
Countermeasures. July 10, 2008. http:// safety. fhwa. dot. gov/ policy/ memo071008/
US 191/ SR 75/ SR 78 Intersection Road Safety Assessment
A Road Safety Assessment of the US 191/ SR 75/ SR 78 Intersection, known as Three Way
was undertaken by the ADOT Traffic Hazard Elimination ( HES) Section. ( Road Safety
Assessment US 191/ SR 75/ SR 78 Intersection: Three Way, Arizona Road Safety Assessment Program.
ADOT Traffic HES Section, February 5- 7, 2008) The assessment was an examination of user
safety of a roadway by a multi- disciplinary team.
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 16
Figure 11 is an aerial photograph of the intersection and Figure 12 is a photograph taken
from the US 191 southwestern approach looking at SR 78 to the northeast. The assessment
documented the following possible opportunities to improve safety:
• Improve sight distance and visibility.
• Improve operation problems that could be corrected by re- striping.
• Eliminate route confusion due to the intersection of the three routes – US 191,
SR 75, and SR 78.
• Reduce the confusion of multiple information at the US 191 southbound
approach.
The Assessment Team also developed a list of safety countermeasures shown in Table 3
for Three Way.
US 191/ Mountain View Road Intersection Safety Assessment
A Road Safety Assessment of the US 191/ Mountain View Road Intersection was
undertaken by the ADOT HES Section. ( Road Safety Assessment US 191/ Mountain View Road,
Arizona Road Safety Assessment Program, ADOT Traffic HES Section, September 8- 10, 2008)
The following findings were documented by the assessment:
• Horizontal and vertical curves near the intersection limit sight distance.
• Traffic queues form along Mountain View Road during the peak traffic volume
period due to mine shift changes.
The assessment note that the following practices foster a safer operation at the intersection:
• Aggressive enforcement of speed limit.
• Buses for mine employees reduce passenger vehicle traffic volumes.
• Intersection operations work well with current volumes.
The assessment documented the following possible opportunities to improve safety:
• Improve sight distance.
• Improve operations.
• Improve markings and lighting.
• Improve area wide considerations related to the operation of the intersection.
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 17
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 18
FIGURE 11. AERIAL VIEW OF THREE- WAY JUNCTION
Source: Google
FIGURE 12. PHOTOGRAPH OF THREE- WAY FROM US 191 SOUTHWESTERN
APPROACH LOOKING TO THE NORTHEAST
Source: Google
Source: ADOT Video Photo Log
191
191
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
78
75
TABLE 3. SUGGESTED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR
US 191/ SR 75/ SR 78 INTERSECTION
Identified Safety Challenge Potential Countermeasures
Sight Distance
and Visibility
• Depress the roadway elevation
• Configure intersection so major movement ( US 191) is the
through movement ( similar to Alternative 3 from 191 GE
154 H3030 01C “ Three Way Intersection” Final Project
Assessment, October 1997)
• Re- align intersection to remove the skewed approaches
• Consider construction of a roundabout
• Use 90 mil extruded thermoplastic or tape for pavement
markings
• Install raised pavement markers ( RPMs) on the
approaches, including US 191 southbound right- turn
island
• Install dribble lines for US 191 northbound left- turn
movement
• Prohibit parking along SR 75 at the convenience store,
possibly with a physical barrier
Operations
• Move US 191 northbound stop bar approximately 25 feet
closer to intersection
• Re- stripe right- turn lane on SR 75 south to provide
acceleration lane for US 191 northbound right- turning
vehicles and shorter right- turn lane for ADOT/ MDV
driveway
• Re- stripe SR 75 approach for one through lane instead of
two and install dribble lines for this lane through the
intersection
• Close convenience store driveway on SR 75 and allow
store access from the Ranger Station driveway
Route Confusion
• Re- align intersection so US 191 is the through movement
• Consider using signing that combines graphical
destination information with route numbers ( similar to
roundabout signing)
US 191
Southbound Approach
• Improve super- elevation of the free- flow right- turn curve
• Delineate right- turn island with RPMs
• Install roadside delineators along outside edge of right-turn
radius
• Increase size of the curve warning sign
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 19
TABLE 3. SUGGESTED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR
US 191/ SR 75/ SR 78 INTERSECTION ( continued)
Identified Safety Challenge Potential Countermeasures
• Consider installation of milled- in transverse rumble strips
in the right- turn lane
• Re- locate 55 mph speed limit sign to a more visible
location and place a second sign on the median side of
divided highway section
• Replace missing Speed Reduced Ahead sign prior to the
35 mph Speed Limit ( right side of road)
Speeding
• Encourage DPS to proceed with plan to provide photo
enforcement
• Consider use of speed trailer
• Conduct speed study
Signs
• Remove/ replace junction sign on SR 78 if not breakaway
• Evaluate sign retro- reflectivity and upgrade sheeting as
needed
Source: Road Safety Assessment US 191/ SR 75/ SR 78 Intersection: Three Way. Arizona Road Safety
Assessment Program, ADOT Traffic HES Section, February 5- 7, 2008.
Table 4 lists the countermeasures suggested by the HES section for the US 191/ Mountain
View Road.
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 20
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 21
TABLE 4. SUGGESTED SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES FOR
US 191/ MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION
Identified Safety Challenge Potential Countermeasures
Sight Distance
• Reduce speed limit to 35 mph on US 191 approaches
• Install Side Road warning signs on US 191 with advance
street name sign
• Raise height of intersection
• Install channelizing island between left- and right- turn lanes
on Mountain View Road
• Lay back slopes along US 191
Operations
• Install No Left Turn signs on US 191 southbound at bypass
ramp
• Educate truck drivers to discourage left turns at bypass ramp
• Provide an acceleration lane on US 191 for vehicles turning
left from Mountain View Road
• Install a Yield sign in the island for vehicles turning right
from US 191
• Construct a right- turn lane on US 191
• Extend the US 191 left- turn lane
• Widen US 191 at the intersection to provide a paved shoulder
• Widen the Mountain View Road approach to accommodate
large vehicles ( WB 67)
Marking and Lighting
• Refresh pavement markings on Mountain View Road with
thermoplastic tape
• Delineate the curbed island with raised pavement markers
• Install mountable curb for the island
• Remove the light pole from the island
• Install street lights at the intersection
Area Wide Considerations
• Review inter- related intersection operations at Mountain
View Road, Burro Alley, and bypass ramp entrance and exit
with consideration of the following long term options:
1. Roundabout at Mountain View Road
2. Burro Alley intersection improvements to accommodate
large vehicles turning onto US 191 northbound
3. With Burro Alley intersection improvements, consider
eliminating the bypass ramp
4. Alternatively, consider making the bypass ramp the
main road for US 191 north and south with a new T-intersection
north of Burro Alley
Source: Road Safety Assessment US 191/ Mountain View Road, Arizona Road Safety Assessment Program, ADOT
Traffic HES Section, September 8- 10, 2008.
Roundabouts
One of the countermeasures intersections studied by the ADOT HES assessment was the
construction of roundabouts. Stakeholders have expressed an interest in the construction of
potential roundabouts. General benefits of roundabouts include the following:
• Up to 90 percent reduction in fatal crashes
• Up to 75 percent reduction in injury crashes
• Costs less than traffic signals and does not require expensive equipment or
maintenance
• 30- 50 percent increase in traffic capacity thereby enhancing traffic flow
( www. azdot. gov/ ccpartnerships/ Roundabouts)
A rural roundabout would be applicable for Three Way and was one of the countermeasures
suggested for consideration by a Road Safety Assessment of the intersection. ( ADOT Traffic HES
Section, February 5- 7, 2008) Rural roundabouts have the following characteristics:
• 50 – 60 mph Approach Speeds
• Larger diameters than urban roundabouts
• Traffic control on approaches to encourage drivers to slow to appropriate speed
• Accommodate Larger Vehicles
( Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, US DOT, Publication No. FHWA- RD- 00- 067)
Examples of single- lane and two- lane rural roundabouts are illustrated in Figures 13 and 14.
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 22
FIGURE 13. EXAMPLES OF SINGLE LANE
RURAL ROUNDABOUTS
Leeds, MD Lisbon, MD
Source: FHWA Resource Center
FIGURE 14. EXAMPLE TWO LANE RURAL ROUNDABOUT
Source: FHWA Resource Center
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 23
CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY
The state highway system is the transportation spine in Southern Greenlee County. The state
highways connect Morenci, Town of Clifton, Town of Safford, and the Town of Duncan. The
road system in Southern Greenlee County has the following deficiencies concerning
connectivity and mobility.
• No parallel continuous routes to the state highways exist.
• Traffic traveling on two- lane US 191 through Clifton to Morenci and further north
experiences major capacity and topographical constraints ( See Figure 15). Two
countermeasures are suggested:
o Bypass of US 191 around the Freeport- McMoRan mine.
o Reconstruction of US 191 through the Freeport- McMoRan mine including
replacing bridge and tunnel repairs and widening.
• Through traffic is restricted through developed areas such as the Town of Duncan.
The construction of a US 70 bypass around Duncan would significantly improve
traffic flow on the state highway.
• Various segments of the state highways such as SR 75 in the York Valley area have
multiple driveways accessing the highways creating multiple conflict points ( See
Figure 16).
• Two- lane segments on some state highways lack passing lanes to permit slow
moving vehicles to be passed.
• Various segments of the state highways have off- set intersections that increase the
number of traffic conflicts. One example is the off- set intersection of Chaparral
Road and Fairgrounds Road on SR 75 in Duncan. ( See Figure 17). Widening SR
75 through the area with protected left and right turns at the re- worked
Chaparral/ Fairgrounds intersection would reduce vehicle conflict points, separate
traffic movements, and improve the overall efficiency and safety of the intersection.
• The traffic control devise at some intersections such as the US 70/ SR 75 junction in
Duncan need to be re- evaluated ( See Figure 18)
• Regional access would be greatly improved by linking I- 10 to US 70 by extending
SR 75 South along the San Simon River from US 70 to I- 10.
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 24
INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION
Road deficiencies that occur on the state highways sometimes include:
• Narrow shoulders
• Tight horizontal curves
• Roadside obstructions such as drainage structures and other appurtenances
• Deteriorating pavement conditions
The re- paving cycle for the state highways is an opportunity to remove these deficiencies. For
example, a re- paving project could include widening of shoulders and/ or the relocation of
roadside obstructions.
Due to the high crash rate on SR 78, the highway was visually observed using the ADOT
Photo Log. Deficiencies noted along SR 78 included by the visual observations included:
• Tight horizontal curves
• Switch- back cures
• Very narrow shoulders or no shoulders
• Poor pavement conditions ( Noted from visual observation using the ADOT Video
Log)
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 25
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 26
FIGURE 15. AERIAL VIEW OF DOWNTOWN CLIFTON
Source: Google
FIGURE 16. AERIAL VIEW OF STATE ROUTE 75 IN YORK VALLEY
Source: Google
191
ARIZONA 75
FIGURE 17. SR 75/ FAIRGROUNDS ROAD/ CHAPARRAL ROAD
Fairgrounds Rd
Chaparral Rd
Source: Google
FIGURE 18. US 70/ SR 75 JUNCTION IN DUNCAN
Source: Google Maps
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 27
3. ROADWAY RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATOIN
This chapter presents recommendations for improvements on state highway in Southern
Greenlee County. In addition, recommended projects are listed for improving County roads.
Table 5 presents recommended projects on state highways in Southern Greenlee County in the
short- to mid- term horizons. The following long- term state highway projects are
recommended to be included in the Arizona Framework Study and incorporated into the
Arizona Long- Range Plan.
• Construct a US 70 Bypass around Duncan.
• Construct a US 191 Bypass from Clifton to Morenci.
• Reconstruct US 191 through the Freeport- McMoRan mine including replacing
bridge and tunnel repairs & widening.
• Extend SR 75 south along the San Simon River from US 70 to I- 10.
In the mid- term, it is also recommended that a climbing lane be constructed on Northbound
US 191 at approximately MP 141 to 142 in Graham County southwest of the
Greenlee/ Graham County Boundary. While such a project would not be located within
Greenlee County, this is an example of many projects in adjacent Graham County that would
benefit Greenlee County.
It is important to note that the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT) has the
responsibility to determine the improvements on state highways. Stakeholders should
recognize it is important that improvements to the state highway system can only be made after
in- depth planning and engineering studies are conducted by ADOT, and upon approval of the
State Transportation Board. All traffic interchange improvements must be approved by the
Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA). The recommendations made by this current study
for improvements on state facilities can serve only as suggestions for further study.
Table 6 presents recommended County and Local Roadway Projects and County Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Projects.
In August 2009, ADOT provided the County with a list of County- maintained bridges listed as
Scour- critical by the Federal Highway Administration:
• Bridge 8142, Packer Wash Bridge, located on Fairgrounds Road in Duncan
• Bridge 8144, Medium Wash Bridge, located on Stevens Loop
• Bridge 8145, Waters Wash Bridge, located on Stevens Loop
• Bridge 8146, Goat Camp Canyon Bridge, located on Sheldon Loop
• Bridge 8149, Soap Box Canyon Bridge, located on Ward Canyon Road
• Bridge 8152, Gila River Bridge, located on Old Safford Highway
( Arizona Department of Transportation, List of Scour- Critical Bridges, August 2009)
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 28
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 29
TABLE 5. RECOMMENDED STATE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Description Timeframe Feasibility Constraints
US 191
• Implement low- cost safety countermeasures at the Three Way
intersection in Southern Greenlee County.
Short Low cost
• Study reconfiguration of Three Way intersection – US 191/ SR
78/ SR 75.
Mid Funding priorities
• Reconstruct Three Way intersection Long High cost
Impacts adjacent properties
US 75
• Re- stripe SR 75/ US 191 NB approach for one through lane
instead of two and install dribble lines for this lane through the
intersection.
Mid Low cost
• Implement additional traffic control at SR 75/ SR 70
intersection. Reassess configuration, striping, traffic control at
SR 75/ SR 70 and assess potential for off- street parking.
Short Low cost
• Implement Access Management along SR 75 in York Valley
area.
Short to
Mid
Moderate cost
Impact on adjacent properties
• Re- design SR 75 from Main St to north of Stevens Loop. Mid Moderate cost
o Realign Fairgrounds Rd. and Chaparral Rd.
o Add left- turn lanes and acceleration/ deceleration lanes.
o Realign T- intersections along SR 75 to 90 degrees at
Virden, Carlisle, McCary, Stevens Loop
• Reconstruct SR 75 from Main St to north of Stevens Loop. Long Moderate to high cost
Impact on traffic circulation
Impact on adjacent properties
US 78
• Re- pave SR 78, widen shoulders, install guardrail were
warranted.
Long Moderate cost
Topographical constraints
• Reconstruct drainage channel in West Duncan to the Gila
River
Mid Moderate cost
Funding Priorities
TABLE 6. RECOMMENDED COUNTY AND LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Description Timeframe Feasibility Constraints
County and Local Roadway Projects
• Construct or Re- construct estimated $ 27.3 million County
and Local roadway projects. Key projects include:
o Reconstruct Skyline View Road
o Construct Table Top Mesa Road
o Construct Extension of Wards Canyon Road
o Construct Rattlesnake Road from Loma Linda Road to
USFS Boundary
o Reconstruct and pave San Francisco River Road from
Frisco Avenue to end
Mid Cost
Impacts on adjacent properties
Potential environmental impacts
County Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Projects
• Rehabilitate bridges on Sheldon and Stevens Loops Short to Mid Cost
Funding priorities
Potential environmental impacts
• Preserve historic bridges on Old Safford Road and construct
parallel structures
Short to Mid Cost
Funding priorities
Potential environmental impacts
Impact on cultural resources
• Replace bridges on Ward Canyon Road Short to Mid Cost
Funding priorities
Potential environmental impacts
Impact on cultural resources
• Preserve historic San Francisco River bridge in Clifton and
construct parallel structure
Short to Mid Cost
Funding priorities
Potential environmental impacts
Impact on cultural resources
• Rehabilitate bridges over Chase Creek in Clifton Short to Mid Cost
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 30
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 31
Two other bridges on Ward Canyon Road need to be replaced, according to the County: the
Niger Canyon Bridge ( Bridge # 2), and Bridge # 3, a narrow structure over drainage.
In addition to the historic Gila River Bridge on Old Safford Highway, the County would like
to preserve three other historic structures: an overpass over an abandoned railroad right- of-way,
an overpass over the existing Arizona Eastern Railway, and the Pomroy Canyon Bridge.
It is proposed to preserve these and construct parallel structures.
FUNDING SOURCES UPDATE
A comprehensive discussion of federal, state, and local funding sources were presented in
Chapter 8: Revenue Sources of the Final Report Southern Greenlee Small Area Study. An
update of the amounts of various funding sources for roadways from the Final Report is
presented here.
Tables 7 through 11 update the dollar amounts for the following information:
• Federal Funding Sources for Arizona ( Table 7)
• ADOT Revenue Sources ( Table 8)
• Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund Distributions To Greenlee County And
Communities ( Table 9)
• Highway User Funding Revenue Forecast ( Table 10)
• ADOT Five- Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program Resource
Allocations ( Table 11)
FEDERAL AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUNDS
A total of $ 1,150,000 Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( ARRA) funds were
allocated to two projects in Greenlee County. Both projects were on US 191 as shown in
Table 12. Note that both of these projects are State System projects. The County needs to
have “ shovel- ready” projects to take advantage of any future funding programs.
TABLE 7. FY 2008 FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ARIZONA
( IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Description Amount
Surface Transportation $ 138.8
Enhancement ( TEA) $ 16.5
National Highway System $ 174.1
Interstate Maintenance $ 128.0
Highway Safety Improvement Program ( HISP) $ 33.8
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation $ 22.9
Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality $ 35.2
Recreational Trails $ 4.9
Planning and Research $ 12.6
Metropolitan Planning $ 5.3
Border Infrastructure Program $ 8.9
Safe Routes to School $ 2.8
Equity Bonus $ 74.4
Indian Reservation $ 0.6
FTA, Section 5310 $ 2.3
FTA, Section 5311 $ 9.1
Total $ 607.2
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Funding Sources and
Authorities, FY 2008 portion of State Transportation Funds are flexed to FTA
for Transit projects Statewide.
TABLE 8. FY 2008 ADOT REVENUE SOURCES – STATE
( IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Description FY- 2008Actual
Gasoline Tax $ 492.5
Use Fuel Tax $ 207.5
Motor Carrier Fee $ 40.2
Vehicle License Tax $ 385.2
Registration $ 162.8
Other $ 56.0
Total $ 1,344.5
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services,
Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund, September 2008
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 32
TABLE 9. ARIZONA HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND DISTRIBUTIONS TO
GREENLEE COUNTY AND COMMUNITIES
FY 2008
Jurisdiction Amount
Total Counties in State $ 251,942,354
Greenlee County $ 947,625
Clifton $ 258,235
Duncan $ 82,542
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services, 2008
TABLE 10. HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND REVENUE FORECAST
( IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Fiscal
Year Gasoline Use Fuel
Motor
Carrier VLT Registration Other
HURF
Total
2008 492.5 207.9 40.2 385.2 162.8 56.0 1,344.5
2009 498.9 210.9 41.6 408.9 168.5 58.2 1,387.0
2010 514.1 209.8 43.7 439.4 172/ 3 62.1 1,441.4
2011 528.7 213.9 45.4 478.6 177.6 65.1 1,509.3
2012 546.6 219.9 47.1 519.8 183.0 68.4 1,584.8
2013 562.7 226.7 49.0 567.3 189.0 71.7 1,666.4
2014 578.5 233.8 50.9 614.0 194.5 75.0 1,746.7
2015 597.9 241.2 52.8 664.6 200.2 78.3 1,835.0
2016 614.4 249.0 54.9 720.9 206.2 81.5 1,926.9
2017 629.8 256.1 56.9 774.3 212.2 85.1 2,014.4
2018 643.2 263.9 59.1 836.8 218.4 88.6 2,110.0
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services, September 2008
TABLE 11. ADOT FIVE- YEAR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS ( IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Total
System Preservation 233,803 200,538 191,959 225,487 223,959 1,075,746
System Management 82,273 74,373 73,173 79,773 77,273 608,038
System Improvements 313,561 145,847 58,583 247,314 256,926 1,022,231
Total Resource
Allocations 629,637 420,758 323,715 552,574 558,258 2,484,942
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Five- year Transportation Facilities Construction Program 2010-
2014
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 33
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 34
TABLE 12. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT - APPROVED PROJECTS ( MARCH 13, 2009)
Priority
Project
ID RT
Begin
MP
Ending
MP CO Project Name Type of Work Programmed Cost
5 6 191 159.5 160.5 GE
Black Hills Back Country
Byway at MP 159.5
Intersection
Improvement No $ 750,000
20 23 191 175 185 GE
Lower Coronado Trail at
MP 175
Drainage
Improvement No 400,000
TOTAL $ 1,150,000
Source: http:// www. azdot. gov/ recovery/
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 35
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The following are recommended actions to implement the recommended improvements:
• Adopt Small Area Transportation Study Update
• Set up Implementation Task Force
o ADOT
o Greenlee County
o Town of Clifton
o Town of Duncan
o Southeastern Arizona Association of Governments ( SEAGO)
o Freeport- McMoRan Mine
• Set priorities for projects, studies, and Design Concept Reports ( DCRs)
• Identify responsibilities and timeline
• Program ADOT and County Projects
• Continuously collect land use, demographics, traffic, and safety data
o County Sheriff’s office completes accident reports and submits to ADOT
o County, SEAGO, and ADOT collect traffic counts
o County updates land use and demographics
• Periodically update Transportation Study Update
REFERENCES
Arizona Department of Transportation, Accident Location Identification Surveillance
System, July 2002 through June 2007.
Arizona Department of Transportation, Five- Year Transportation Facilities Construction
Program, FY 2010- 2014.
Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Services Management Division,
Financial Reports Posted on http:// www. azdot. gov/ inside_ adot/ fms/ FMSIndex. asp.
Arizona Department of Transportation, Highway Video Log, 2008.
Arizona Department of Transportation Safford District, Road Safety Assessment, US
191/ SR 75/ SR 78 Intersection - Three Way, February 5- 7, 2008.
Arizona Department of Transportation Safford District/ Freeport- McMoRan, Road Safety
Assessment, US 191/ Mountain View Road, September 8- 10, 2008.
Arizona Department of Transportation, List of Scour- Critical Bridges, August 2009.
Federal Highway Administration, Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and
Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures. July 10, 2008
Federal Highway Administration, National Bridge Inspection Standards— Scour
Evaluations and Plans of Action for Scour Critical Bridges, Memorandum, January 4,
2008.
Greenlee County, Southern Greenlee County Small Area Transportation Study, January
2008.
Kentucky Transportation Center – College of Engineering. Countermeasures for Fatal
Crashes on Two- Lane Rural Roads.
Massachusetts Traffic Safety Toolbox Series, www. mhd. state. ma. us/ safetytoolbox/
downloads/ LowCost_ Non- Intersection. pdf
Lima & Associates Southern Greenlee County SATS Addendum – Page 36
