City of Bisbee comprehensive transportation plan final report

              Final Report
February 20, 2012
Final Report Table of Contents Page ii
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background Information ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Study Area Overview and History ........................................................................................... 4
1.3 Purpose, Need, and Study Objectives ..................................................................................... 4
1.4 Previous Plans and Studies ..................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Community Involvement ........................................................................................................ 6
1.5.1 Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................................................... 6
1.5.2 Public Open Houses ............................................................................................................... 7
1.5.3 Stakeholder Meetings ............................................................................................................ 7
2.0 Inventory of Current Conditions ............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Land Use, Population, and Socioeconomics ............................................................................ 8
2.1.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Social Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 8
2.1.3 Economic Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Roadway System Inventory and Traffic Analysis ................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Roadway Network and Functional Classifications ................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Roadway Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3 Safety and Crash History ..................................................................................................... 14
2.2.4 Current Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 22
2.2.5 Capacity and Level of Service ............................................................................................... 26
2.3 Multi-Modal Transportation ................................................................................................ 30
2.3.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Plans and Policy Documents .................................................. 30
2.3.2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .............................................................................. 30
2.3.3 Transit Plans and Policy Documents ..................................................................................... 31
2.3.4 Existing Transit Services ....................................................................................................... 31
2.3.5 Freight ................................................................................................................................ 31
2.3.6 Airport ................................................................................................................................ 32
2.3.7 Naco Port of Entry ................................................................................................................ 32
2.4 Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................... 32
2.4.1 Natural Environment ........................................................................................................... 32
2.4.2 Cultural and Historical Environment ..................................................................................... 37
3.0 Programmed Improvements ................................................................................................ 37
3.1 Short Term Programmed Improvements .............................................................................. 37
4.0 Stakeholder Identified Transportation Needs ....................................................................... 38
4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 38
4.2 Specific Needs Identified by Stakeholders ............................................................................ 38
5.0 Current Conditions Analysis of Transportation Infrastructure ............................................... 40
5.1 Roadways ............................................................................................................................ 40
5.2 Structures ............................................................................................................................ 42
5.3 Stairways ............................................................................................................................. 44
5.4 Walls .................................................................................................................................. 46
6.0 Current Condition Findings ................................................................................................... 47
Final Report Table of Contents Page iii
7.0 Future Conditions and Deficiencies Inventory .............................................................. ………48
7.1 Future Land Use .................................................................................................................. 48
7.2 Population Projections ........................................................................................................ 51
7.3 Projected Employment Characteristics ................................................................................. 53
7.4 Traffic Projections ............................................................................................................... 53
7.5 Future Condition of Roadways ............................................................................................ 62
7.5.1 Roadway Operational Issues ............................................................................................... 62
7.5.2 New Roadways ................................................................................................................... 63
7.6 Future Condition of Bridges, Culverts and Walls .................................................................. 63
7.7 Naco Port of Entry ............................................................................................................... 64
7.8 Future Transit Service .......................................................................................................... 64
7.9 Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure ........................................................................ 66
8.0 Future Conditions Findings and Summary ............................................................................ 66
9.0 Functional Classification ....................................................................................................... 68
10.0 Project Needs ...................................................................................................................... 70
10.1 Structures ............................................................................................................................ 70
10.2 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................... 71
10.3 Retaining Wall, Stairway and Railing Projects ...................................................................... 79
10.4 State Highways ................................................................................................................... 79
10.5 Transit ............................................................................................................................... 80
10.6 Alternate Modes .................................................................................................................. 81
10.7 Beautification ...................................................................................................................... 82
10.8 New Roadways .................................................................................................................... 82
10.9 Parking ............................................................................................................................... 82
11.0 Revenue and Financial Alternatives ...................................................................................... 83
11.1 Federal Funding .................................................................................................................. 83
11.2 State Funding ....................................................................................................................... 86
11.3 Local Funding ...................................................................................................................... 87
11.4 Private Funding .................................................................................................................... 89
11.5 Current Revenue Streams .................................................................................................... 90
11.6 Suggested New Revenue Approaches ................................................................................... 91
12.0 Evaluation Criteria for Project Selection ............................................................................... 91
13.0 Program Recommendations ................................................................................................. 92
Appendix 1 Stakeholder Interview Notes……………………..……………………………………………………. .......... 95
Appendix 2 Reference Documents……………………………….………………………………………………….... ........ 118
Appendix 3 Bridge Inspection Reports…………………………..…………………………………………………… ........ 119
Appendix 4 Roadway Segment Capacity and
LOS Criteria for ADOT Small Urban Area Planning Studies
Appendix 5 Field Conditions Inventory
Appendix 6 Public Involvement Summary Reports
Final Report Table of Contents Page iv
List of Figures
1 Old Bisbee ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Warren ................................................................................................................................. 1
3 San Jose ................................................................................................................................ 2
4 Regional Context.................................................................................................................... 2
5 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 5
6 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................... 9
7 FHWA Approved Functional Classification ............................................................................ 13
8 Crash Type – Old Bisbee ....................................................................................................... 16
9 Crash Type – Warren ............................................................................................................ 17
10 Crash Type – San Jose .......................................................................................................... 18
11 Crash Injury Severity – Old Bisbee ........................................................................................ 19
12 Crash Injury Severity – Warren ............................................................................................. 20
13 Crash Injury Severity – San Jose............................................................................................ 21
14 2010 Old Bisbee Traffic Count Location ................................................................................ 22
15 2010 Warren Traffic Count Location ..................................................................................... 23
16 2010 San Jose Traffic Count Locations .................................................................................. 24
17 2010 Traffic Flowband .......................................................................................................... 28
18 2010 Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 29
19 Opportunities and Constraints from the Bisbee General Plan 2003 ....................................... 33
20 Bridge and Culvert Structure Locations ................................................................................. 45
21 Future Land Use .................................................................................................................. 50
22 Forecast LOS for 2015 .......................................................................................................... 55
23 Old Bisbee/Warren Inset Area Forecast LOS for 2015 .......................................................... 56
24 Forecast LOS for 2020 ......................................................................................................... 57
25 Old Bisbee/Warren Inset Area Forecast LOS for 2020 ........................................................... 58
26 Forecast LOS for 2030 .......................................................................................................... 59
27 Old Bisbee/Warren Inset Area Forecast LOS for 2030 ........................................................... 60
28 SR 92 and Naco Highway Access Points ................................................................................ 64
29 Functional Classification Changes ......................................................................................... 69
30 Multi-Purpose Trail .............................................................................................................. 81
31 New Connection Route ........................................................................................................ 82
List of Tables
1 Social Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 8
2 Workforce Employment Categories 2008 .............................................................................. 10
3 Functional Classification Categories .................................................................................... 11
4 FHWA Approved Functional Classification ............................................................................ 12
5 Bisbee Crash Data Summary 2003-2009 ................................................................................ 14
6 Fatal Crash Type and Conditions ........................................................................................... 15
Final Report Table of Contents Page v
7 Traffic Count Data ................................................................................................................ 25
8 Roadway Segment Capacities & Level of Service Criteria for Small Urban Area ..................... 27
9 Roadway Segment Service Volumes for Small Urban Areas................................................... 27
10 Street Condition Summary by Street Segment ...................................................................... 41
11 Official Arizona Department of Commerce Population Projections ....................................... 51
12 Unofficial Population Projections for the City of Bisbee based on Initial
2010 Census Data................................................................................................................. 52
13 Ranges of the V/C Ratios Used to Define LOS ....................................................................... 54
14 Percent of Study Area Mileage by LOS Category .................................................................. 61
15 Average Volumes for Selected Roadway Segments .............................................................. 61
16 Current Street Condition Summary by Street Segment ........................................................ 62
17 Projected Growth in Transit Dependent Populations ............................................................ 65
18 Functional Classification ...................................................................................................... 68
19 Structural Projects Summary with Costs ............................................................................... 71
20a Local Roadway Projects Failed Condition ............................................................................ 71
20b Local Roadway Projects Poor Condition ................................................................................ 74
20c Local Roadway Projects Fair Condition ................................................................................ 76
21 State Highway Projects Summary with Costs ........................................................................ 80
22 Six Year Revenue History ..................................................................................................... 90
23 Short Term Projects ............................................................................................................ 92
24 Medium Term Projects ........................................................................................................ 93
25 Long Term Projects ............................................................................................................. 94
Final Report Page 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background Information
Figure 1 Old Bisbee
The City’s current City of Bisbee General
Plan calls for the creation of a
Comprehensive Transportation Master
Plan. This transportation plan addresses
that need and includes an assessment of
the City’s streets, bridges, sidewalks, public
stairs, shared-use pathways, transit, public
parking, airport, and transportation-related
drainage facilities. The
transportation plan also includes an
implementation plan that sets forth a
comprehensive capital improvement
program to bring the transportation
infrastructure up to current standards and
to provide an acceptable level of service
for current and forecast travel demands.
The transportation system needs of the community are substantial. Many of the streets in Old Bisbee,
Figure 1 Old Bisbee, are located in natural drainageways or were footpaths used for property access
that eventually were paved with little consideration of adequate roadway base preparation. There are
many public stairways that have had little or no maintenance since they were constructed. The Works
Progress Administration (WPA)-era main drainage way running through Tombstone Canyon is showing
signs of distress and has had recent localized areas of failure.
Figure 2 Warren
In the Warren neighborhood, Figure 2
Warren, most of the streets have gone for
decades without regular maintenance and
repair, and are now in poor condition. The
street conditions suffered further when
many patches were made when a major
sewer project was completed a few years
ago. Street drainage throughout the
Warren area is poor, and the utility
patches created additional drainage
problems. This situation has exacerbated
deterioration of the street surface
condition. This area also has open WPA-era
drainageways that are in need of
attention and repair in certain areas.
Final Report Page 2
Figure 3 San Jose
The San Jose area, Figure 3 San Jose, has a
number of unpaved streets. Many of
those that are paved have not received
adequate maintenance and are showing
signs of deterioration due to neglect.
The Bisbee community’s primary
shopping plaza and grocery store are
located in San Jose, along with a number
of other retail stores, businesses, and
restaurants. There are few sidewalks or
improved trails in the neighborhood
connecting residents to these shopping
facilities, and there are few continuous
sidewalks connecting San Jose to the
other Bisbee neighborhoods. The
shopping and business areas especially
need sidewalks as evidenced by the
unimproved walking paths created by pedestrians accessing the businesses. This presents safety and
accessibility concerns and issues for pedestrians, and the disabled, that need to be addressed.
The Naco Highway connects Bisbee to the Naco port-of-entry with Mexico. This is one of the major
north-south roadways in the area and connects to SR 92 in the heart of the San Jose business district.
In addition, the City of Bisbee General Plan 2003 identified opportunities for additional general
commercial, highway commercial and employment along these two corridors.
Since cessation of mining operations, tourism has become the principle economic engine for Bisbee.
This makes the primary routes bringing people into the
community a key focal point. Arizona State Routes 80 and 92, and
the Naco Highway (a Cochise County road) serve as the major
gateways for the community. These highways present
opportunities for signage, scenic corridor policies, beautification
enhancements, and multimodal shared-use regional pathways to
Tombstone, Douglas, Sierra Vista and the international border
area at Naco. SR 80 runs through Bisbee and enters the
community from the north through the Mule Mountain tunnel,
and connects to Tombstone and further north to Interstate 10.
SR 80 passes through Bisbee and continues to the east to Douglas
and its international port of entry. SR 92 intersects with SR 80
and runs southwesterly through the San Jose area. It connects
southern Bisbee with Sierra Vista, approximately 30 minutes to the west.
Bisbee’s regional context is shown in Figure 4 Regional Context.
Figure 4
Regional Context
Final Report Page 3
Bisbee began as a mining community and the mine still has a major
impact on the community in many ways, including on the layout of the
City’s transportation network and connectivity within the community.
Highway SR 80 skirts the east side of the Lavender Pit (photo to right)
copper mine. At the south end of the pit is where SR 92 intersects
with SR 80 at a roundabout near the Lowell neighborhood. The newer
residential neighborhoods and the San Jose shopping district have
built up along this highway corridor. Cochise County offices are
located just off SR 92 on Melody Lane at the west end of San Jose.
The City recently created a Streets and Infrastructure Committee. This
committee assists City staff in evaluating the transportation system
needs and proposed projects, and makes recommendations to the
City Council on needed improvement projects and their priorities. City
staff, along with members of the Streets and Infrastructure
Committee, completed a detailed street and sidewalk inventory. This inventory has been reviewed,
updated, summarized, and incorporated into this document. (See the Current Conditions section of
this report for a detailed inventory and condition assessment of the City’s transportation
infrastructure.) Of particular importance is the determination by the committee that 26% of the
streets were found to be in poor or failing condition. A priority of the City for this study was to update
that data through a more rigorous evaluation, and preserve and maintain the infrastructure that is in
fair to good condition to avoid allowing those facilities to deteriorate to the point where expensive
reconstruction is the only alternative.
This City of Bisbee Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan is to serve as a reference guide with
short-term strategies to stabilize the existing transportation infrastructure and a long-term
implementation program to address future needs of the community pertaining to multimodal
transportation safety, mobility, accessibility, circulation, and capacity. Of particular interest is that the
Bisbee transportation system includes public staircases.
Regarding public transportation, the Bisbee Bus transit program
has been managed by the City since 1993 and serves a vital
public purpose. The transit system has been further evaluated
to identify its current and future facility and operational needs,
and to identify its current and future benefits to the community.
The intercity bus service between Sierra Vista, Bisbee, and
Douglas, however, was discontinued a few years ago due to
insufficient funds to keep it in operation.
The Bisbee Municipal Airport provides general aviation services
to the community. There is an Airport Master Plan dated 1999
that contains specific recommendations for funding and
implementation of needed improvements at the airport.
The “Lavender Pit”
Copper Mine at Bisbee
Final Report Page 4
1.2 Study Area Overview and History
The study area includes the entire corporate limits of the City of Bisbee. It extends to just beyond the
City limits on US 80 to the northwest and east, and to just beyond the City limits along SR 92 to the
southwest. It also includes the Naco Highway area that connects to the international port of entry and
the City’s municipal airport. The study area is shown in Figure 5 Study Area found on the next page.
Bisbee began as a mining community in the 1880s. During the
mining era in Bisbee, over three million ounces of gold and eight
billion pounds of copper were removed from the mines. The City
was originally several distinct communities that ultimately
consolidated as did the several mining companies of the early era.
The primary satellite communities are Warren, Lowell, and San Jose,
along with smaller neighborhoods such as Bakerville, Briggs, Don
Luis, Galena, Tintown, and Saginaw.
Warren was named after George Warren, one of the original
discoverers of copper in the area in 1877. George Warren’s photo
was used as the image of the miner in the Arizona state seal. The
neighborhood of Warren was developed by the Warren Company,
created by the Calumet and Arizona Mining Company, to develop
housing for its workers. Development of the planned community of
Warren was influenced by the “City Beautiful” movement of the
early 20th century. Warren was located to the south of the main
copper ore deposits, and was connected to Bisbee by an electric
streetcar.
1.3 Purpose, Need, and Study Objectives
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to create a useful, workable transportation system planning
document that contains a realistic and achievable program for implementing transportation system
improvements throughout the study area over short, medium, and long term time frames.
Need: There is a critical need for effective transportation planning to provide improved and safer
traffic circulation throughout the study area and to preserve and protect the existing infrastructure.
Consequently, the primary goals and objectives for the transportation plan were as follows:
1. To improve the physical stability, condition, and safety of the
transportation system infrastructure.
2. To improve multimodal accessibility for all residents and visitors.
3. To minimize and mitigate any adverse environmental impacts.
4. To plan for future demands on the transportation system.
5. To identify sources of, and plan for, adequate resources to
implement the transportation plan.
George Warren
Final Report Page 5
Figure 5 Study Area
Final Report Page 6
1.4 Previous Plans and Studies
A considerable number of previous local, regional, and statewide planning documents were reviewed
as a part of this effort to capture current and historic goals and policies. In 2007, ADOT began
development of a very long range visioning process called Building a Quality Arizona (BQAZ). This
process included the development of four regional studies called framework studies for northern,
western, eastern and central Arizona areas. Additional smaller area framework studies were
undertaken for metropolitan areas of the state simultaneously. These visioning efforts were not
fiscally constrained and focused on year 2050 and beyond to a “build-out” condition, where the
capacity of the state’s developable lands was achieved. Three alternative scenarios were explored for
each area, individually focusing on personal vehicle mobility, public transit, and focused growth
alternatives. Focused growth is an effort to direct new development near existing development and
infrastructure to minimize infrastructure investment. The Eastern Arizona Framework study was
reviewed to identify issues and needs relevant to the Bisbee study area.
Several tactics were applied in order to gather all of the available information. First, the local liaisons
for the project were asked to provide all study reports and background information that they were
aware of for Bisbee, Cochise County, and ADOT. TAC members were asked for their input on
identifying any reports or studies done in the area. In a final effort to be sure that all studies were
accounted for, stakeholders were asked during their interviews if they had any reports or studies that
may benefit the plan. By including all local contacts in this process, the study team was able to compile
a comprehensive library of project and study reports that have been done in the study area. This effort
created continuity between this report and previous studies, and built on the information already
collected and planning efforts already completed to fully serve the residents of the study area. A full
list of these studies and reports can be found in Appendix 2 – Reference Documents.
1.5 Community Involvement
The Bisbee Comprehensive Transportation Plan public involvement program was conducted as a
cooperative planning process involving project stakeholders that include public agency staff, elected
officials, and interested members of the general public. Public participation is an integral part of any
transportation planning study. Study related information was
presented to, and feedback solicited from, stakeholders
throughout each phase of the study. ADOT’s Communication and
Community Partnerships Division (CCP) led the public involvement
effort with the aid of their consulting consortia firms. The
following sections summarize key components of the public
involvement process.
1.5.1 Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed at the onset of the study with key members
participating in the development of the project work program. TAC meetings were scheduled to be
held upon the submittal of each working paper to review study results and provide guidance and input
Bisbee Public Works Offices
404 Bisbee Road Bisbee AZ 85603
Final Report Page 7
into the planning process. The TAC members kept their respective agency or group fully informed on
the planning process and study progress, and brought appropriate issues requiring attention and/or
technical analysis to the attention of the study team.
Agency and stakeholder members of the TAC include:
• Tom Klimek, Bisbee Public Works Director, Local Study Manager
• Karen Lamberton, Cochise County Transportation Planner
• Luke Droeger, SEAGO Transportation Planner
• Mark Hoffman, ADOT MPD, ADOT Project Manager
• Tom Engel, ADOT Safford District, Project Engineer
• Dee Crumbacher, ADOT ITD, Traffic Engineering
• Melissa Reuter, ADOT ITD, Environmental Planning
• C.T. Revere, ADOT CCP, Public Information Officer
• Kathy Boyle, ADOT CCP, Intergovernmental Affairs
• Paki Rico, ADOT CCP
• Mike Demlong, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Consultant Team Members of the TAC include:
• Heather Honsberger, Public Involvement Outreach Manager, HDR
• Dale Miller, Project Manager, Wilbur Smith Associates
• Randall Overmyer, Project Manager, Wilbur Smith Associates
• Miguel Aceves, Transportation Engineer, Wilbur Smith Associates
1.5.2 Public Open Houses
Public open houses were held after submittal of study Working Paper #2, Future Conditions and
Deficiencies, and after submittal of study Working Paper #3, Evaluation Criteria and Improvement Plan.
These public meetings were advertised in the local newspaper and announcements were posted in
prominent locations in the City, as well as through direct notification of the TAC members,
stakeholders, and local agency representatives. These meetings served as a means to communicate
with the general public throughout the planning process to make sure that their concerns were being
heard and addressed as appropriate, and also to apprise the public of the progress and findings of the
study. Public input is important to the overall planning process, as members of the public can help to
account for any issues, concerns, or background information that might have otherwise been
overlooked by the project team and the technical advisory committee.
1.5.3 Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder meetings were held during the development of this plan. These meetings were used to
solicit and receive input from individuals who may or may not be members of the TAC, but who were
identified as key stakeholders for the study. Interview discussions were held with the participants to
learn about issues of concern to them, solicit their input, and to answer any questions that they may
have regarding the study. Each stakeholder was given a list of questions to think about in advance of
Iron Man
Old Bisbee by Court House
Final Report Page 8
the meeting so that they had time to gather their thoughts on transportation issues and information
that they wanted to discuss. The invitation sent to the stakeholders and the summarized meeting
notes from interviews can be found in Appendix 1 – Stakeholder Interview Notes.
2.0 Inventory of Current Conditions
2.1 Land Use, Population, and Socioeconomics
2.1.1 Land Use
Bisbee has a broad mix of land uses. Commercial uses are
clustered along Main Street and Tombstone Canyon in Old
Bisbee, along Bisbee Road in Lowell and along SR 92 in San
Jose, especially surrounding its intersection with the Naco
Highway. Bisbee has more public facilities and governmental offices than might be expected for a city
of its size, due to its role as the county seat of Cochise County.
There is limited availability of developable land in the Old
Bisbee and Warren areas. Development that may occur there
will be required to comply with zoning regulations and match
the urban form of the Old Bisbee Historic District or the
Warren “City Beautiful” style. Designated major growth areas
for Bisbee are in the San Jose area, and the lands surrounding
the Naco Highway from the existing developed area of San
Jose to the community of Naco and from the Naco Highway
east to the municipal airport. Existing land uses are shown in
Figure 6 Existing Land Use taken from the City of Bisbee General Plan 2003.
2.1.2 Social Characteristics
According to the Arizona Department of Commerce, the 2011 population estimate for Bisbee is 7,147;
up from the 2000 Census count of 6,090. Table 1 Social Characteristics summarizes the age categories
of the residents of Bisbee, based on data from the 2000 Census (the 2010 census was not yet
available):
Table 1 Social Characteristics
Social Statistics for 2000 Bisbee Study Area National Average
Less than 5 years old 5.9% 6.8%
18 years and over 78.4 74.3%
65 years and older 19.6% 12.4%
Disabled 29.5% 19.3%
Source: 2000 Census
Bisbee City Hall 118 Arizona Street
Cochise County Court House
Final Report Page 9
Figure 6 Existing Land Use
Source: City of Bisbee General Plan 2003
Final Report Page 10
Old Bisbee
Of the population that is 25 years or older, the 2000 Census collected data on educational
achievement. Based on this data, 81.6 percent of the population was a high school graduate or higher,
versus 81 percent in Arizona, and 80.4 percent nationwide. Bachelor’s degrees or higher were 23.7
percent of the population in Bisbee compared to the state and national average numbers of 23.5
percent and 24.4 percent, respectively. It is notable that the percentage of elderly and persons with
disabilities are well above the national average. This is indicative of both higher transit demand and
the need to address architectural barriers to the disabled, both for public facilities and roadway
infrastructure.
2.1.3 Economic Characteristics
The Arizona Department of Commerce reports that the 2008
civilian labor force (population 16 years and older) in the study
area totaled 3,497; which is about 54 percent of the total
population. The average unemployment rate in Bisbee in the
year 2000 was five percent, which was more than the state and
national averages, both of which were 4.0 percent at the time.
Also at that time, 13% of households in Bisbee were at or below the poverty level. By 2008, the
unemployment level had climbed to 5.9%. The Bisbee workforce is employed in the categories in Table
2 Workforce Employment Categories 2008 below (Note that the totals do not equal 100%). Revised
numbers are included in the future condition section of this report.
Table 2 Workforce Employment Categories 2008
Workforce Category Percentage of Workforce
Public Sector 39.6%
Health and Social Service 17.7%
Retail 11.6%
Accommodations and Food Service 11.6%
Construction 2.6%
Professional 2.4%
Wholesale 1.5%
Source: Arizona Department of Commerce
According to the 2000 Census data, workers in Bisbee drove an average of 19.5 minutes to work. This
is slightly lower than both the state and national average commute times of 24.9 and 25.5 minutes,
respectively. Because the roadway network carries the majority of the trips made in most
communities in the United States, it is the backbone of the community’s transportation system. This
network consists of Arizona Highways SR 80, SR 92, and the local road and street network within the
study area. These routes move people and commodities throughout Bisbee, to Douglas, Tombstone,
Final Report Page 11
Sierra Vista, and beyond. This roadway network comprises the primary surface transportation system,
and is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
2.2 Roadway System Inventory and Traffic Analysis
This section describes and defines the existing critical roadway
network for the study area. These are the significant routes
that carry the majority of traffic circulating through and within
the community. The existing traffic and traffic control on
these routes is also discussed in brief.
2.2.1 Roadway Network and Functional Classifications
Per the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), functional
classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems,
according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the
recognition that individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way.
Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary then to
determine how this travel can be channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner.
Functional classification defines the nature of this channelization process by defining the part that any
particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway network. Functional
classifications of roadways are used in transportation planning, roadway design, and to allocate federal
roadway improvement funds. Categories relevant to Bisbee are shown in Table 3 Functional
Classification Categories.
Table 3 Functional Classification Categories
Hierarchy of Functional Classification System
Rural Areas Urbanized Areas
Principal Arterials Principal Arterials
Minor Arterial Roads Minor Arterial Streets
Major & Minor Collector Roads Major and Minor Collector Streets
Local Roads Local Streets
Source: FHWA
Urban and rural areas have fundamentally different characteristics as to density and types of land use,
density of street and highway networks, nature of travel patterns, and the way in which all these
elements are related in the definitions of highway function. Consequently, functional classifications
provide for separate categories for urban and rural functional systems. Experience has shown that
extensions of rural arterial and collector routes provide an adequate arterial street network in places
of less than 5,000 in population. Hence, urban classifications are considered in the context of areas of
5,000 in population, or greater.
FHWA functional classifications are listed in descending (high to low) order of speed limit, vehicular
capacity, and access restrictions. The current functional classifications of roadways in the Bisbee study
Art Structures on Tack and Sowles
Final Report Page 12
area, as approved by FHWA, are shown in Figure 7 FHWA approved Functional Classification, shown on
the next page. For roadways to qualify for state and federal funding, they must be functionally
classified as a major collector or above. A summary of the roadways shown in Figure 7, and their
associated functional classification, are contained in Table 4 FHWA Approved Functional Classification
below.
Table 4 FHWA Approved Functional Classification
Road Name From To
Functional
Classification
Highway 80 Bisbee City Limits-West Bisbee City Limits-East Urban Principal Arterial
Highway 92 Bisbee City Limits-West Naco Highway Urban Minor Arterial
Highway 92 Naco Highway SR 80 Urban Principal Arterial
Naco Highway Sonoran Border City Limits Rural Major Collector
Naco Highway City Limits Della Street Urban Collector
Naco Highway Della Street SR 92 Urban Minor Arterial
Purdy Lane Naco Highway Airport Road Rural Minor Collector
Airport Road Purdy Lane Arizona Street Rural Minor Collector
Tombstone Canyon Road SR 80 Main Street Urban Collector
Main Street Tombstone Canyon Road SR 80 Urban Collector
Bisbee Road SR 92 Center Avenue Urban Collector
Douglas Street Center Street Ruppe Avenue Urban Collector
School Terrace Road SR 92 Bisbee Road Urban Collector
Arizona Street Airport Road Hazzard Street Rural Minor Collector
Arizona Street Hazzard Street City Limits Urban Collector
Arizona Street City Limits SR 80 Rural Minor Collector
Center Avenue School Terrace Road Bisbee Road Urban Collector
Ruppe Avenue Douglas Street Arizona Street Urban Collector
The Naco Highway has three different functional classifications. From south to north, it is a rural major
collector that changes to an urban collector, and then it changes again to a rural arterial. Unifying the
functional classification of this roadway should be considered, since it is in an urbanizing area per the
future land use plans of the community.
Final Report Page 13
Figure 7 FHWA Approved Functional Classification
Final Report Page 14
2.2.2 Roadway Characteristics
All of the major local roads and streets in the Bisbee study area
are 2-lane undivided facilities. Some local roadways in the Old
Bisbee neighborhood residential areas are one lane facilities and
do not have adequate cross sections for two vehicles to pass. SR
92 is a two lane facility except for a four lane segment south of
the roundabout in the San Jose neighborhood. SR 80 is a three
lane facility (two lanes uphill westbound and one lane downhill
eastbound) west of the Lavender Pit and a four lane facility from
there to just east of the roundabout.
2.2.3 Safety and Crash History
Overview: Crash data was obtained from the ADOT Traffic Records Section for the period 2003 through
2009. The crashes by category are quantified in the Table 5 Bisbee Crash Data Summary 2003-2009.
Table 5 Bisbee Crash Data Summary 2003-2009
Type of Crash Number
No Injury 109
Possible Injury 23
Non Incapacitating Injury 55
Incapacitating Injury 14
Fatality 7
Total Reported Crashes 208
Crash types and severity by location are displayed in the six figures (Figures 8 through 13) that follow
the page after the next page. Only one of the 208 total reported crashes involved a bicyclist or
pedestrian. Of the 208 crashes, 135 (65% of the total) occurred on the state highway system including
all seven of the reported fatalities.
The three fatalities on SR 80 included a head-on crash and two fixed objects crashes. The four fatalities
on SR 92 were all within about 1.5 miles of the Naco Highway intersection to the northeast. These
included a rear-end crash, a sideswipe, a fixed object crash, and one unknown cause crash. The data
does not tell us if driver impairment played a role in any of the reported fatal crashes. The nature and
conditions of the fatal crashes are presented in Table 6 Fatal Crash Type and Conditions shown on the
next page.
Final Report Page 15
Table 6 Fatal Crash Type and Conditions
Route Location Collision Type Lighting Weather
Surface
Condition
Junction
Related
SR 80 MP 340
Single Vehicle
Struck Fixed
Object
Daylight Clear Dry No
SR 80 MP 341 Head-On Daylight Cloudy Ice-Frost No
SR 80 MP 342
Single Vehicle
Struck Light Pole
Dark -
Unknown
Lighting
Unknown Unknown No
SR 92 MP 352 Rear End Daylight Clear Dry Yes
SR 92 MP 353
Single Vehicle
Struck Fixed
Object
Daylight Clear Dry No
SR 92 MP 353
Sideswipe
Opposite
Direction
Daylight Unknown Unknown No
SR 92 MP 353 Unknown Daylight Unknown Unknown No
Final Report Page 16
Figure 8 Crash Type – Old Bisbee
Final Report Page 17
Figure 9 Crash Type – Warren
Final Report Page 18
Figure 10 Crash Type – San Jose
Final Report Page 19
Figure 11 Crash Injury Severity – Old Bisbee
Final Report Page 20
Figure 12 Crash Injury Severity – Warren
Final Report Page 21
Figure 13 Crash Injury Severity – San Jose
Final Report Page 22
2.2.4 Current Traffic Volumes
Data Collection: Recent traffic volume data was available from a number of sources, including the
2007 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), maintained by ADOT. This database includes
recent traffic counts for all state highways and many higher level local streets. To supplement the data
in these reports, additional traffic count data was collected specifically for this study. Figure 14 Old
Bisbee Traffic Count Locations, Figure 15 Warren Traffic Count Locations, and Figure 16 San Jose Traffic
Count Locations show the locations of the supplemental traffic counts collected for this study.
Figure 14 2010 Old Bisbee Traffic Count Locations
Final Report Page 23
Figure 15 2010 Warren Traffic Count Locations
Final Report Page 24
Figure 16 2010 San Jose Traffic Count Locations
These counts were conducted on October 5 and 6, 2010. Locations marked in red indicate locations
where average daily traffic (ADT) was counted. Locations marked in green show locations where
vehicle classification counts were taken as well as ADT. Classification counts show the breakout of
traffic by vehicle type and are used to gauge commercial (truck) volumes as a percentage of total
traffic. The findings of these counts are shown in Table 7 Traffic Count Data shown on the next page.
Final Report Page 25
Table 7 2010 Traffic Count Data
MAP
ID Route Location Direction
Avg.
Vol.
PCT
Trucks
1 SR 80 W of WEST BLVD EB 2672 2.7%
1 SR 80 W of WEST BLVD WB 2122 4.2%
2
TOMBSTONE CANYON
RD W of WOOD CANYON RD EB/WB 1299
3
TOMBSTONE CANYON
RD W of CLAWSON AVE EB/WB 2781
4
TOMBSTONE CANYON
RD SE of CLAWSON AVE NW/SE 3785
5 TOMBSTONE CYN RD W of BREWERY AVE EB/WB 4828
6 TOMBSTONE CYN RD NW of SR 80 NW 2524
7 SR 80 E of MP 341 EB 4266 3.3%
7 SR 80 E of MP 341 WB 4238 3.0%
8 SR 92 S of SR 80/92 ROUND-ABOUT NB 3934 6.3%
8 SR 92 S of SR 80/92 ROUND-ABOUT SB 4036 2.9%
9 BISBEE RD S of SR 80/92 ROUND-ABOUT NB 2665 1.3%
9 BISBEE RD S of SR 80/92 ROUND-ABOUT SB 2652 1.2%
10 SR 80 E of SR 80/92 ROUND-ABOUT EB 2848 3.7%
10 SR 80 E of SR 80/92 ROUND-ABOUT WB 2857 4.7%
11 SR 80 E of F ST EB/WB 5618
12 SR 80 E of ARIZONA ST/WARREN RD EB 2847 5.4%
12 SR 80 E of ARIZONA ST/WARREN RD WB 2844 4.5%
13 ARIZONA ST/WARREN RD N of CITY LIMITS/YUMA TRAIL NB/SB 1002
14 ARIZONA ST/WARREN RD S of CITY LIMITS/HAZZARD ST NB 370 1.9%
14 ARIZONA ST/WARREN RD S of CITY LIMITS/HAZZARD ST SB 354 1.7%
15 BISBEE RD/DOUGLAS ST Btwn CONGDON AVE & D AUTREMONT AVE NB/SB 3653
16 CENTER AVE
Btwn BISBEE RD/DOUGLAS ST & COCHISE
ROW EB/WB 3255
17 RUPPE AVE Btwn E VISTA & ARIZONA ST/WARREN RD EB/WB 1942
18 SCHOOL TERRACE RD E of SR 92 EB/WB 3340
19 SR 92 S of CITY LIMITS/MP 354 NB/SB 10557
20 SR 92 Btwn NACO RD & SANTA CRUZ DR EB/WB 7231
21 NACO RD S of SR 92 NB/SB 6019
22 NACO HWY S of DELLA ST NB 1645 2.5%
22 NACO HWY S of DELLA ST SB 1633 2.3%
23 SR 92 Btwn NAVAJO DR & GREENLEE DR EB 2712 3.0%
23 SR 92 Btwn NAVAJO DR & GREENLEE DR WB 2722 2.4%
24 COLE AVE E of BISBEE RD EB/WB 1059
Final Report Page 26
MAP
ID Route Location Direction
Avg.
Vol.
PCT
Trucks
25 COCHISE ROW N of CENTER AVE NB/SB 302
26 HEREFORD RD Btwn NACO RD & NIGHTHAWK RD EB/WB 1033
27 WILSON RD S of SR 92 NB/SB 683
28 BARNETT RD S of NACO RD/HEREFORD RD NB/SB 633
29 MELODY LN S of SR 92 NB/SB 595
2.2.5 Capacity and Level of Service
Beginning in 1965, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) divided
highway level of service (LOS) into six letter grades, “A” through
“F,” with “A” being the best, and “F” being the worst. With the
“A” through “F” LOS scheme, traffic engineers were much better
able to explain to the general public and elected officials the
operating and design concepts of highways. The LOS letter
scheme caught on so well that it is now used throughout the
United States in transportation.
Long range transportation planning studies typically use
generalized roadway segment daily capacity and daily volume-to-capacity
(V/C) based level of service (LOS) criteria as screening
tools to help identify and quantify existing and future roadway
deficiencies. The primary advantage of the planning level
generalized criteria is that it requires relatively little data to
generate reasonable results for a large number of roadway
locations. Depending on the nature and scope of the study,
more detailed capacity and LOS analyses may or may not be
warranted. More detailed analyses require substantial
additional data collection, analysis time and cost.
This section of the report offers a reasonable set of generalized
planning-level roadway segment capacity and V/C based LOS
criteria for consistent use in ADOT small urban area
transportation planning studies. These criteria were reviewed
and approved by ADOT for use on transportation planning
studies for small urban areas such as Bisbee.
As much as possible, these criteria are based upon the Highway
Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000). However, the HCM2000 does not explicitly define roadway
segment capacity or V/C based LOS criteria for all types of roadways. For example, HCM2000 uses
average travel speed, not V/C, to measure LOS on urban streets. Consequently, the capacity and LOS
criteria suggested below for urban streets are not directly attributable to the HCM2000, but are
Final Report Page 27
reasonable approximations of determinations that may be made using HCM2000 analyses for specific
roadway segments. The HCM2000 does provide somewhat more explicit guidance for freeway V/C
based LOS (HCM2000 Exhibit 23-2), as well as for free-flowing rural multilane roadways (HCM2000
Exhibit 21-2). But even for these, the information reflects “ideal design and conditions”, which may
not exist at all locations being analyzed.
Table 8 Roadway Segment Capacities & Level of Service Criteria for Small Urban Areas below presents a
proposed set of HCM2000 based planning level roadway segment per-lane capacities and V/C based
level of service criteria suitable for use in small urban, urbanizing and suburban areas. Based upon
Table 8, Table 9 Roadway Segment Service Volumes for Small Urban Areas presents the maximum
service volumes by level of service for the most common roadway types found in small urban,
urbanizing and suburban areas.
Table 8 Roadway Segment Capacities & Level of Service Criteria for Small Urban Areas
Roadway Type
Daily
Per
Lane
Capacity
Max LOS
A V/C
Ratio
Max LOS
B V/C
Ratio
Max LOS
C V/C
Ratio
Max LOS
D V/C
Ratio
Max LOS
E V/C
Ratio
Freeway 20,000 0.29 0.47 0.68 0.88 1.00
Multilane Arterial 8,000 n/a n/a 0.70 0.95 1.00
2-Lane Arterial 7,000 n/a n/a 0.50 0.90 1.00
2-Lane Collector 5,000 n/a n/a 0.50 0.90 1.00
Table 9 Roadway Segment Service Volumes for Small Urban Areas
Roadway Type
Daily
Per
Lane
Capacity
Max LOS
A Service
Volume
Max LOS
B Service
Volume
Max LOS
C Service
Volume
Max LOS
D Service
Volume
Max LOS
E Service
Volume
4-Lane Freeway 20,000 23,000 38,000 54,000 70,000 80,000
4-Lane Arterial 8,000 n/a n/a 22,000 30,000 32,000
2-Lane Arterial 7,000 n/a n/a 7,000 13,000 14,000
2-Lane Collector 5,000 n/a n/a 5,000 9,000 10,000
Note: Service volumes have been rounded to the nearest 1,000
The flow of the modeled subarea traffic volumes for 2010 in Bisbee is shown in Figure 17 2010 Traffic
Flowband found on the following page. As would be expected, the higher-level facilities in the area
have the highest volumes. SR 92, entering the study area from the west, has a 2010 volume of 4,330
vehicles per day (vpd). SR 80, passing through the study from northwest to east, has volumes of 5,040
vpd to the west and 5,691 vpd to the east. Within the study area, the traffic flows are generally seen
to increase as they near the urban core, and diminish with turning movements at intersections.
Overall, the counted and modeled traffic flows for 2010 appear to be reasonable.
Final Report Page 28
Figure 17 2010 Traffic Flowband
The 2010 levels of service for the study area are shown in Figure 18 2010 Level of Service shown on the
next page. Extensive areas of the street system within Bisbee, Warren, and Naco operate at LOS A
under their existing conditions. Much of the two-lane section of SR 80 operates at a LOS B within the
study area with the remaining segments of the highway at LOS A. SR 92 west of Yavapai Drive operates
at LOS B while the most of the highway between Yavapai Drive and its junction with SR 80 operates at
LOS D with a segment of LOS B just east of Naco Highway and a segment of LOS A as the highway
approaches the roundabout junction with SR 80. LOS criteria such as these are based on 24 hour traffic
volumes and provide a useful planning level tool to help identify locations where existing and future
roadway capacity concerns are identified, especially when viewed in comparison to other segments
with lower LOS classifications. Prior to using this information for specific design or regulatory
purposes, the roadway segments in question require additional investigation and analysis of traffic
Final Report Page 29
volumes, forecasts and patterns to develop potential remedies for capacity or operational
improvement. Remedies are not limited solely to widening the roadway in question (although that is
one option to consider), but also to other measures such as signal placement and timing, access
management strategies, specific intersection geometric improvements such as dedicated turning lanes,
and even improvements to complimentary nearby roadways to redistribute local traffic. In more fully
developed and historic areas like old Bisbee and Warren, a full menu of options should be explored
prior to the disruption that typically accompanies major roadway widening efforts. Additional traffic
analysis should always be done as part of the preliminary design of identified projects and to assess the
impacts of proposed developments affecting the roadway segment.
Figure 18 2010 Level of Service
Final Report Page 30
Public Stairs by the
Bandshell at City Park
2.3 Multi-Modal Transportation
2.3.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Plans and Policy Documents
This study was conducted in keeping with the goals and objectives of the Bisbee General Plan, 2003.
That document calls for the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout Bisbee,
including possible future adaptive reuse of rail rights of way as part of a trail system network for the
community and surrounding region. That plan also called for
improvements to existing sidewalks, stairways, and retaining walls; and
the identification of specifically which facilities lie within the public rights
of way. The document further called for improved signage and
wayfinding, and a way to symbolically link the Old Bisbee, Warren, and
San Jose areas into one linked community. Specific bicycle linkages
identified as needed were from Old Bisbee to Warren along SR 80 around
the Lavender Pit, and from Warren to San Jose.
2.3.2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle: There are no developed bicycle facilities in the study area. While
there is bicycle use in the community, there are no developed facilities
such as bike lanes or bike paths. Riders can and do share the public rights of way with vehicles as best
they can. There is a reported increasing use of motorized bicycles in the community to better enable
bicyclists to climb the hills in Old Bisbee. Bisbee has several bicycle ride events annually, which are
major attractions for the community.
Pedestrian: Since Bisbee was developed prior to the automobile, many neighborhoods and retail areas
are greatly dependent on pedestrian access. Bisbee is served by a network of sidewalks and stairways,
due to the topography of the area and how the community developed. The structural condition of this
pedestrian infrastructure was inventoried and assessed, and the results are reported in Appendix 5
Field Inventory. Most of the sidewalk improvements are along major roadways, in retail areas, and
near parks and schools. Many of the residential areas lack sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
There is a significant need for sidewalks and/or multiuse paths
to connect the various neighborhoods to the San Jose business
district, including the retirement center located to the west
along SR 92. There is also a strong need to connect the
neighborhoods to Bisbee High School located on School Terrace
Road. School Terrace Road currently has no sidewalks in spite
of the fact that the high school is located on this road.
Bisbee has a major annual event known as the Bisbee 1000 –
The Great Stair Climb – which is a big draw and highlights its
uniqueness with the many public staircases. Part of the revenues is used for stair repairs.
Final Report Page 31
2.3.3 Transit Plans and Policy Documents
Transit is an important service providing mobility for those that do not have a car, are not able to drive,
or simply choose not to drive. It is especially important to the senior and disabled communities. While
transit generally takes a ‘back seat’ to automobile travel, it is a valuable resource for a community. In
addition to expanding transportation options for residents and visitors, transit can reduce overall
automobile usage, thereby decreasing vehicular traffic, lowering noise and air pollution, and reducing
dependence on oil. The 2008 Bisbee Bus Five Year Plan and the 2010 update to that document were
reviewed.
2.3.4 Existing Transit Services
The Bisbee Bus has been in continuous operation since 1986.
In the early 1990s, largely in response to the requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the service was
converted from a fixed route system to a deviated fixed
route system. A deviated route bus detours from its
designated route to pick up disabled
persons within three quarters of a mile
of the route; who previously request a ride. The bus keeps on schedule to posted
stops by allowing extra time in the schedule. Nine weekday trips and four Saturday
trips are provided with headways ranging from 70 to 90 minutes. The bus serves
Old Bisbee, Warren, San Jose, and Naco. Bisbee Bus uses “cutaway” type vehicles
equipped with wheelchair lifts.
Formerly, a commuter service was in operation, with trips between Douglas, Bisbee, and Sierra Vista.
Funding became difficult and ridership was less than what was projected; therefore the service was
discontinued. In better economic times, this operation may be revisited if the demand is sufficient.
The Bisbee Bus is funded in part through grant funds provided by ADOT through the Federal Transit
Administration Section 5311 program. Formerly, funds were also provided through the Local
Transportation Assistance Fund II (LTAF II) program, which distributed a portion of the state lottery
proceeds to local agencies for transit projects. The loss of LTAF funding has seriously hampered the
funding of transit programs, not only in Bisbee, but throughout the state.
2.3.5 Freight
Through freight traffic is not significant in the SR 92 and SR 80 corridors. Based on ADOT counts, truck
traffic on SR 92 west of Bisbee is less than 320 trucks per day. On SR 80 west of Old Bisbee, the figure
is even lower at 156 trucks per day. Local truck traffic is higher, with up to 600 trucks per day on SR 92
in the vicinity of the Naco Highway and 270 trucks per day on SR 80 near the heart of Old Bisbee. The
low truck counts recently taken on the Naco Highway south of SR 92 for this study suggest that little of
the truck traffic in the area is crossing through the Naco Port of Entry to and from Naco, Sonora.
Bisbee Bus Transit System
Final Report Page 32
2.3.6 Airport
The Bisbee Municipal Airport has two runways; one of them dirt. The primary paved runway is 5,900
feet long. Airport operations are done under contract with a fixed base operator (FBO). ADOT
Aeronautics records indicate there are currently 13 fixed base aircraft and a total of 4,900 annual
operations at this airport. The most recent Airport Master Plan was done in 1999. The plan evaluated
a number of alternatives for improvement of the airfield. The preferred alternative was to widen and
improve the primary runway (17-35), extend and pave the secondary runway (2-20), and provide
aviation, support facilities, and utility improvements.
2.3.7 Naco Port of Entry
According to US Customs and Border
Protection, the Naco Port of Entry (POE)
accommodates significant border
crossing traffic. The port handles 138
truck crossings per month, consistent
with recent traffic counts, therefore the
freight traffic through this port is
relatively small. The port handles 6,817
pedestrian crossings per month, many
attracted by retail opportunities
(especially the Safeway store at the Naco
Highway and SR 92) in Bisbee. Most
significantly, the port accommodates
23,247 personal vehicle crossings per
month, which contribute to the traffic
volumes on both SR 92 and SR 80.
Notably, Naco is the only POE in Arizona
not served directly by a state highway.
2.4 Environmental Conditions
2.4.1 Natural Environment
Major Drainage Ways: Much of Old Bisbee was built on hillsides and many roadways were constructed
in canyons, such as Brewery Gulch and Tombstone Canyon. While some improvements have been
made, the poor condition of many local roadways is the result of drainage activity occurring along and
on the pavement surface. The steep topography of the area accelerates the rate of runoff, increasing
the damage potential. Floodplain boundaries are established by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. These floodplains are illustrated in Figure 19 Opportunities and Constraints from the Bisbee
General Plan 2003.
Final Report Page 33
Figure 19 Opportunities and Constraints from the Bisbee General Plan 2003
Source: City of Bisbee General Plan 2003
Final Report Page 34
Environmental Compliance Documents: Future transportation projects with a federal nexus (e.g., those
occurring on federal lands or using federal funding, permits, facilities, equipment, employees, etc.)
must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA compliance is required when a
proposed project with a federal nexus may impact the natural or human environment. Compliance
documents assist planners and governments in identifying direct and cumulative impacts to a variety of
natural elements such as air, water, vegetation, and wildlife, as well as various human factors.
Examples of potential impacts to wildlife include: loss of nesting or roosting sites, disruption of historic
wildlife corridors, vehicle collisions, fragmentation of habitat, and introduction of exotic invasive
species. Early coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Game and Fish
Department is necessary to determine the potentially impact of the transportation project on
threatened, endangered, or other special status species and their habitats. Identifying impacts before
construction begins assists planners in developing substantive measures to mitigate or avoid negative
effects on wildlife populations and habitat within the project area. Efforts spent minimizing or
avoiding the impacts of future transportation projects on wildlife and habitat could economically
benefit the local communities served by that infrastructure.
The Economic Benefits of Considering Wildlife and Habitat: When planning for future transportation
projects, the economic benefits of wildlife and habitat (open space) on local communities should be
seriously considered. The deserts, grasslands, forests, wetlands, and other natural areas near Bisbee
support an abundance of species and habitats found only in southern Arizona. The uniqueness of the
wildlife and vegetation attracts outdoor recreationists from around the state, country, and world.
Maintaining access to natural areas and public lands for wildlife-related activities is increasingly
challenging in southern Arizona. Illegal and unethical activities (e.g., smuggling, trash dumping, private
property vandalism) are prompting private property owners, grazing permittees, and land managers to
restrict public access to some natural areas. When applicable, transportation planners should work
with the Department and land managers to ensure existing legal access into natural areas is not
impeded and in some cases, ensure unintentional new access is not created into sensitive areas (e.g.,
nesting areas, wetlands) by transportation projects. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is
committed to help preserve access to public and willing privately owned lands for wildlife-related
activities.
Hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive wildlife activities (e.g., bird watching) in Cochise County are
estimated to contribute millions of dollars annually. Wildlife-related activities directly benefit local
communities through retail sales (e.g., gasoline, supplies, food, and lodging), jobs, tax revenues, and
associated indirect effects. In 2001 (the most recent figures available), the combined economic
contributions of hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive wildlife activities in Cochise County was
estimated to be over $29 million dollars annually. Specific dollar figures are available from these
reports:
• The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting (Economic data on fishing and hunting for the
State of Arizona and for each Arizona County); Web site:
www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/FISHING_HUNTlNG%20Report.pdf
• Economic Impact Analysis of Non-consumptive Wildlife-Related Recreation in Arizona; Web
site: www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/AZ%20County%20Impacts%20-%20Southwick.pdf
Final Report Page 35
Designing transportation projects that help conserve healthy wildlife populations, habitat, and public
access to these resources, will help ensure this substantive revenue stream will continue to benefit
Bisbee, Cochise County, and the State of Arizona.
“Wildlife-friendly “Transportation Projects: Wildlife preservation efforts can be accomplished by
developers and builders making an effort to avoid riparian habitats and floodplain open space
wherever possible during the planning, design and implementation of their projects. In addition,
developers can create dedicated open or natural areas along natural area in new developments and
subdivisions. If it does become necessary to disturb these natural areas, the next best option is to
mitigate the disturbance by replanting in adjacent areas or doing restoration projects to restore native
vegetation to previously affected areas. As the population of Bisbee and southern Arizona continues
to grow, the renovation of existing roadways and development of new transportation corridors is
inevitable. Still, transportation projects can be planned and built to minimize impacts on wildlife
populations and their habitat. Roadway components such as bridges, culverts, fences, medians, and
landscaped right-of-ways can all be designed to minimize or avoid impacts. Projects can be scheduled
to avoid critical breeding seasons (e.g., migratory birds) or activity periods (e.g., roosting bats).
Transportation planners should initiate coordination with the Department’s Habitat Branch and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service early in the planning process to identify potential biological issues (e.g.,
special status species, critical habitat, wildlife corridors, etc.). In addition to coordinating with the
wildlife agencies, transportation planners can also utilize the Department’s comprehensive guidelines
useful when renovating or designing projects:
• Guidelines for Bridge Construction or Maintenance to Accommodate Fish & Wildlife Movement
and Passage (2008); Web site: http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/pdfs/BridgeGuidelines.pdf
• Guidelines for Culvert Construction to Accommodate Fish & Wildlife Movement and Passage
(2006); Web site: http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/pdfs/CulvertGuidelinesforWildlifeCrossings.pdf
• Fencing Guidelines (2006); Web site: http://www.azgfd.gov/hgis/pdfs/FencingGuidelines.pdf
• Wildlife Friendly Guidelines, Community and Project Planning (2009); Web site:
http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/WildlifeFriendlyDevelopment.pdf
Wildlife Corridors: The Arizona Game and Fish Department is working with their stakeholders to
identify important wildlife movement corridors statewide. Bisbee is in a “fracture zone” where wildlife
corridors have been interrupted by urban, agricultural and mining activities. Although no major
wildlife corridors have yet been identified in the Bisbee planning area, several have been mapped at
other Cochise County locations. The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Assessment report can be found at:
http://www.azdot.gov/inside_adot/OES/AZ_WildLife_Linkages/assessment.asp).
There are most likely wildlife corridors connecting to the Mule Mountains from surrounding natural
areas. Annual Arizona Game and Fish Department game surveys of the Mule Mountains have
inventoried populations of mule deer, white-tailed deer, javelina, mountain lions, coatimundis, golden
eagles, and a variety of other species close to Bisbee. Many of these species, partially the large
mammals, may move between the Mule Mountains and nearby habitats, requiring passage across
existing roadways. Substantive changes, renovation, or expansion of these roadways could negatively
impact or even impede historic wildlife corridors. Arizona Game and Fish Department strongly
encourages transportation planners to consider wildlife crossings very early in the planning process.
Final Report Page 36
The Arizona Game and Fish Department encourages greater
emphasis on determining and avoiding or mitigating impacts on
wildlife for transportation and development projects. They
have wildlife friendly guidelines that can be followed. These
guidelines include facilitating crossings for wildlife; mitigating
the impacts of development by providing for well designed
wildlife corridors; providing wildlife connections to agricultural
areas (for feeding); and avoiding concurrent connectivity for
humans in the same linkage corridors (such as roads, trails,
etc.). There are no major wildlife linkages currently identified in
the Bisbee area, but the proximity of the Mule Mountains suggests that wildlife crossings be
considered in future roadway improvements.
The most important issue that the Arizona Game and
Fish Department would like to see addressed in future
projects, is that the major wildlife linkage corridors be
considered during design and construction. An
additional priority is to engage the local agencies, to help
preserve access to state and federal lands by requiring
that existing accesses be maintained, or alternately,
mitigated and replaced with new legal access roads,
should the existing access road need to be removed. They report that they are losing access to public
lands through development, making it more difficult for the public to access and enjoy these lands.
Access to public lands is very important to hunters, residents, visitors, and for public safety purposes.
The Department would like to see access corridors improved whenever opportunities may present
themselves.
Outdoor Recreation: In addition to the historic character of Bisbee, its location amid the “Sky Islands”
of southeastern Arizona offer its residents close proximity
to many natural and historical attractions. These
attractions include:
• Chiricahua National Monument
• Chiricahua Wilderness
• Fort Bowie National Monument
• Cochise Stronghold
• San Pedro Riparian Conservation Preserve
• Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory
• Slaughter Ranch
• Ramsey Canyon Nature Preserve
• Arizona Cactus Succulent Research Center
• Fort Huachuca
• Tombstone Historic District
• Coronado National Monument
• Coronado National Forest
Final Report Page 37
Noise: Adherence to the ADOT Noise Abatement Policy dated December 05, 2005, and as amended on
August 24, 2007, is advised for any new or improved state and federal funded roadway corridors. This
policy is based on the currently accepted noise abatement policies and procedures outlined by both
the United States and Arizona governing bodies. The FHWA has specific noise abatement criteria that
serve as an upper limit for projects in the State of Arizona.
Air Quality: A review of ADEQ and EPA maps reveal no ongoing air quality issues in the study area. Air
quality in the region has improved since the closing of the nearby smelter in the 1970s.
Hazardous Materials: A review of ADEQ and EPA maps reveal one hazardous material exposure
location near the study area. It is outside of the City limits northeast of Old Bisbee; likely the result of
previous mining activity. Freeport-McMoRan is currently working with ADEQ under its Voluntary
Remediation Program (VRP) to address environmental issues remaining from past mining activities.
Currently, the company is addressing potential surface
soil impacts in Old Bisbee due to past smelter
operations. Work is also ongoing in Warren to address
city roads built with sulfide-bearing material. The
company is also working with ADEQ under a mitigation
order to address sulfate impacts to groundwater
migrating southwest from former evaporation ponds.
2.4.2 Cultural and Historical Environment
The study area encompasses a number of cultural resources located in the City of Bisbee. Old Bisbee
itself is a National Historic District. Within such a district there are also individual properties on the
National Register of Historic Places. There are eleven individual properties listed in the register that
are located within the study area. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is currently processing
a residential area expansion of the old Bisbee District.
In 1993, a survey of the Warren neighborhood was
completed. The survey identified 614 Craftsman style
bungalows constructed before 1942. Warren was master
planned by Warren Henry Manning, one of the foremost
city planners and landscape architects associated with
the “City Beautiful” movement in the early 1900s. The
City of Bisbee is now pursuing a National Register District
nomination for this area.
3.0 Programmed Improvements
3.1 Short Term Programmed Improvements
City of Bisbee: The 2008-2012 City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) included funding for the Arizona
Street Reconstruction project in FY 2010 in the amount of $110,000. Also in FY 2010 is $2,000,000 for
Final Report Page 38
improvements to SR 92. Note that the second amount was placed in the City’s CIP assuming the need
for improvements to SR 92 prompted by anticipated new major development in the vicinity of Willson
Road in far west Bisbee. The funds would come from developer impact fees and/or exactions. The
new development has not yet occurred, and is reportedly on hold due to the current economic
conditions.
SEAGO: The 2011-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the SouthEastern Arizona
Governments Association (SEAGO) included FY 2010 federal funds programmed for Arizona Street
Reconstruction and sidewalks in the amount of $2,700,000: The local match for this project was
$163,203. The 2012-2016 SEAGO TIP has no programmed projects in the City of Bisbee. The SEAGO
TIP is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
4.0 Stakeholder Identified Transportation Needs
4.1 Overview
During the course of the research phase of this study, interviews
were conducted with various stakeholders to learn of areas with
known deficiencies, problems, safety concerns, or needed
improvements, and to identify any desired projects for the local community. Appendix 1 – Stakeholder
Interview Notes contained in this report includes a summary of the discussions with the stakeholders.
4.2 Specific Needs Identified by Stakeholders
The stakeholders interviewed identified a number of improvements to the transportation system for
the study area. Many of the identified needs were common to multiple stakeholders, meaning good
support for most of the identified needs for the transportation system. Many of these identified
projects were also cited by local public agencies as needed transportation system improvements:
• A continuous sidewalk and a bike lane (or a multiuse path) is needed along SR 80 around the
Lavender Pit area to connect Old Bisbee to Warren and San Jose along with safe crosswalk
locations where needed on SR 80; better lighting and speed control measures along this stretch
are needed; and improved directional signing for the pit overlook area is also needed.
• The SR 92 / Naco Highway intersection and vicinity is in need of access management measures
and safety improvements; there are many driveway access points in close proximity to this
intersection that are a source of the safety concerns at this intersection.
• The intersection of Tombstone Canyon and the streets at the Courthouse (where the Copper
Man statue is located) needs to have the travel lanes defined with directional signage,
markings, and striping; it is an area with a broad expanse of pavement that is confusing to the
typical driver; the intersection area is also devoid of sidewalks and street crosswalks that are
needed to safeguard pedestrians.
• A network of multiuse paths should be planned for phased implementation.
Final Report Page 39
Tombstone Canyon Channel in
Old Bisbee
o Arizona Street and Purdy Lane (roads from Warren to the airport) are candidate corridors.
o The abandoned railroad lines are also possible candidate corridors.
o SR 80 and SR 92 are candidate corridors that can provide regional connectivity.
o The Naco Highway is another good candidate corridor for a multiuse path to connect the
international border to Bisbee.
• A signage and wayfinding program is needed for implementation to facilitate and enhance the
visitor’s experience to Bisbee.
• Naco Road and Main Street in the Old Bisbee Downtown/tourist district need improvement to
control speeding and provide safer pedestrian crosswalks.
• Drainage improvements are needed to correct problem areas and preserve street pavements.
o On-street drainage capacity on Main Street needs to be increased with the next surface
restoration project (milling at gutters prior to overlay to restore curb height).
o Intercept surface runoff in the vicinity of the library
to redirect the stormwater into the main drainage
channel.
o The area near the historic ball field in Warren has
flooding issues and needs better drainage.
o A larger drainage inlet on SR 80 between Naco Road
and Dart Road is needed to mitigate plugging.
• Additional parking is needed throughout Old Bisbee both for visitors and residents; need small
“pockets” of parking where possible; need a parking “bank” to help businesses meet zoning
requirements for parking.
• The SR 92 corridor needs an overall access management strategy and traffic measures to
control speeds and improve safety.
• Need a funding mechanism to pay for the maintenance,
upkeep, and eventual replacement of public staircases.
• Sidewalks are needed to provide for good pedestrian
circulation throughout Bisbee.
o Need sidewalks in San Jose to connect residential
areas to shopping.
o Need sidewalks to connect Warren to San Jose.
o Need sidewalks along School Terrace Road to
provide safe pedestrian access to the high school.
o The intersection of the Naco Highway and SR 92 needs crosswalks.
• Many of the streets in Warren and Old Bisbee have poor and rough road surface conditions and
need either an overlay or, in many cases, complete reconstruction.
• Some of the public staircases and retaining walls have no handrails and safety rails, or the rails
are in poor condition.
Final Report Page 40
Lowell community within Bisbee
• Old Divide Road (county maintenance) over Mule Mountain Pass needs to be addressed and
hopefully reopened in some fashion to provide an alternate route for public safety vehicles
should the SR 80 tunnel be closed for any reason.
This listing is not intended to include all transportation system improvement needs mentioned, but
rather to include those that were mentioned by multiple stakeholders and those that fell into general
categories.
5.0 Current Conditions Analysis of Transportation Infrastructure
During October 2010 (October 18 through October 21), a field
inspection of the transportation infrastructure in Bisbee was
conducted, assisted by City of Bisbee staff and a member of the
City’s Streets and Infrastructure Committee. This inspection
included an assessment of pavement conditions, and the
locations and condition of sidewalks, stairways, retaining walls,
and drainage structures. Specific findings of that field
inspection are contained in Appendix 5 Field Inventory. This is a
companion element that is an integral part of this report. It
contains the street and structure inventory tables with infrastructure condition assessments,
associated maps, and photographic documentation. The following sections provide a brief
commentary regarding Bisbee’s transportation infrastructure.
5.1 Roadways
During the roadway field inspection, each local street within the study area was driven and video
recorded along with a voice recording describing the condition of the road and the condition rating of
the street surface. The video/voice recording files were provided to the City of Bisbee and to ADOT
MPD along with the digital files of this working paper. Some still photographs were also taken of items
of interest.
The following condition assessment rating system was used for both the streets and the structural
elements including stairways, retaining walls, and bridges/culverts:
Condition Assessment Rating System
5 – Excellent: No visible distress, new construction, no maintenance required.
4 – Good: Shows some traffic wear, very few cracks (open 1⁄4”), no patching or very few patches
in good condition; showing the first signs of aging; recent repairs or improvements;
sound structural condition; little or no maintenance required.
3 – Fair: Shows traffic wear and signs of aging, longitudinal and traverse cracks (open 1/2”),
some spaced less than 10’, patching in fair condition; significant aging and first signs of
need for strengthening; would benefit from structural/surface repairs.
Final Report Page 41
1st Street North of Bisbee Road
2 – Poor: Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks, erosion, patches in poor condition,
potholes; needs extensive reconstruction or repairs.
1 – Failed: Severe distress with extensive loss of surface/structural integrity; needs total
reconstruction.
Bisbee streets run the gamut from recently paved asphalt streets with concrete curb and gutter
sections to dirt paths, and most everything in between including old concrete street pavements and
chip seal surfaced streets with and without curb and gutter. It can be safely stated that the needs to
maintain, rehabilitate, and replace streets greatly exceed the financial ability of the City to fulfill those
needs to accomplish the goal of bringing the streets into reasonably good condition. The major
challenge facing the City is how to allocate the available resources to preserve and maintain streets in
fair to good condition to prevent them from deteriorating, and how to incrementally rebuild those
streets with little or no salvage. When roads begin to fail, they degrade rapidly, and the cost to repair
increased exponentially.
As an indication of the current situation regarding the local street conditions in Bisbee, the following
table, Table 10 Street Condition Summary by Street Segment, reports the condition assessment results
by street segment (ignoring street length for the sake of simplicity).
Table 10 Street Condition Summary by Street Segment
Neighborhood →
Condition Rating
↓
San Jose &
Don Luis
Warren, Briggs,
Bakerville, Galena,
Lowell, Tin Town &
Saginaw
Old Bisbee Totals
Excellent 1 2 0 3 1%
Good 18 26 2 46 17%
Fair 17 33 23 73 27%
Poor 23 18 28 69 25%
Failed 7 50 24 81 30%
Totals 66 129 77 272 100%
Note: The table does not include SR 80 or SR 92
Over half the street segments rated poor to failed condition;
meaning they have deteriorated to the point that major
rehabilitation or complete reconstruction of the street would
be the best remedy. To paraphrase the remarks made by
several stakeholders, “the streets are in bad condition, but the
residents are used to it and drive more slowly over the
roughest areas”. Of course the consequence is additional
wear and tear on vehicles and the corresponding increased
maintenance expense; less safe driving conditions because of
the poor, rough surfaces; and increased fuel consumption leading to additional fuel costs, more
pollution, and extra use of a limited imported resource.
Final Report Page 42
Intersection of Center Ave,
30th Terrace & 16th Terrace
Spring Canyon Structure
The San Jose/Don Luis neighborhood streets are overall in better condition than the Warren area
streets. This is logical since the former neighborhoods are newer. Also as expected, the streets in Old
Bisbee, as a whole, are in the poorest condition of the three major neighborhoods since this is the
original, and the oldest part, of town with the steepest terrain. See the Roadway Inventory Table and
the Street Condition Assessment Maps contained in Appendix 5, for more detailed information on the
condition assessment rating of each street segment and the nature of the deficiencies noted.
Poor drainage conditions in some areas have contributed to
street condition degradation. When any street rehabilitation
projects are carried out, it is important that the drainage and
grading conditions associated with the street be carefully
analyzed and that drainage be accommodated on the street to
the greatest extent possible and positive drainage away from
the street is provided as well to maximize the life of the
investment being made. Otherwise, the street repairs or new
construction will have a shorter life than necessary. Improving
street related drainage is money well spent and paramount when resources are limited.
5.2 Structures
Most of the bridge structures in Bisbee are inspected on a biennial
basis by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). These
structures are considered simple concrete slab bridges with simple
tubular handrails on each side of the structure. Within the study
area, ADOT inspects ten structures on the State Highway System and
seven structures on local Bisbee roadways. Inspection Reports for
these structures are included as Appendix 3 – Bridge Inspection
Reports of this report. Bridge inspection reports have been reviewed
for deficiencies in the study area. The reports concluded that three
of the ten ADOT structures needed repairs and five of the seven local
structures needed repairs.
The condition of the Spring Canyon Bridge (Structure # 10540) under
SR 80 is being monitored by the ADOT District Engineer’s office. The wing walls of this structure are
separated from the headwall (see photo to right). At present, the district has not yet identified a
priority need for a structure rehabilitation project.
Many of the structures were constructed in the late 1920s or early 1930s and are in fair condition
based on the overall age of the structures. The handrails are not per code, do not meet crash
standards, and need upgrading to protect against vehicular strikes. Reference should be made to the
inspection reports in regards to specific deficiencies found and any rehabilitation work that should be
done between inspection cycles.
Final Report Page 43
Wooden Bridge
on OK Street
OK Street/Youngblood Structure
Black Knob View &
Minder Ave Structure
Typical Bent
Rebar
Hangers for
Utilities
Three structures were found in Old Bisbee that are not in the regular rotation for inspection. Two of
these structures are on OK Street. One of these structures
(labeled A on Figure 20) is found near Brewery Gulch and consists
of timber decking with built up timber beams. Based on visual
observation, the beams are either 4 – 2x8 beams or 4 – 2x10
beams spaced approximately 5’ on center (C/C). The decking is in
poor condition and shows strong evidence of failure. The
roadway surface is asphalt.
Per Bisbee officials, during recent rehabilitation work on homes
uphill of the structure, a temporary structure was placed over the limits of the wooden bridge so that
the trucks would not overstress the structure. This structure is in need of immediate replacement in
order to bring it up to standards and allow continued use of OK Street.
The second structure (labeled B on Figure 20) is located at
the intersection of OK Street and Youngblood. This
structure is a concrete slab bridge over a drainageway.
The structure is in fair condition. The underside of the
structure shows signs of efflorescence and overall aging
since the structure is approximately 80 to 90 years old.
There is a large vertical crack in the downhill side of the
abutment wall. The crack shows no sign of recent
movement and looks to be stable. There are some signs of
deterioration due to water intrusion and vegetation growth on the canal walls. Overall, the structure
needs little rehabilitation work and should be added to the biennial inspection list along with the other
structures located within the City of Bisbee.
The third structure (labeled C on Figure 20) is on Minder
Avenue just north of Black Knob View. This structure is a
concrete arch and is in fair condition. The railing on the
structure needs repair or replacement due to a vehicle collision.
There is some minor cracking and efflorescence due to the
structure being about 64 years old.
Overall, all of the structures, except the wooden bridge, are in
fair condition, mostly because of the age of the structures. The
biggest issue would be the lack of a barrier/guardrail on each
side of the structures. The rails need to be upgraded to meet
current AASHTO crash standards.
One other item of concern was the utility hangers that were
visible on the bridges. These need to be brought up to
standard and should be properly anchored into the structure.
Several of the structures had these new hangers, but most of
Final Report Page 44
Stairway at 101 OK Street
the hangers seen on the structures consisted of bent rebar that has been placed on the curb and the
utility was hanging from these bent rebar hangers.
Figure 20 Bridge and Culvert Structure Locations on the next page shows the locations of the structures
in the study area.
5.3 Stairways
The public stairways are found in Old Bisbee. These were built primarily in the 1920s and 1930s. The
handrails for all of the stairways consist of steel tubes welded together. The posts for the handrails are
spaced approximately every five feet (5’). Most of the handrails exhibit major rust and corrosion of the
vertical members. None of the handrails meet current standards and would need to be upgraded to
meet current building code standards on height, spacing of horizontal members, and location in
regards to the stairway locations.
The stairways themselves are generally in fair condition. Some
of the stairways occasionally have water running down the
middle of the stairways that is contributing to their overall
degradation. Most of the stairs currently do not meet current
code for both height and depth of the treads. Some of the
stairways have been recently rehabilitated by either the
property owners or the City of Bisbee. Most of the repairs that
have been recently completed are in good condition and should
extend the life of the stairway for another 10 to 15 years
without major rehabilitation work from the City. A few stairways are in need of immediate
rehabilitation due to erosion of the subbase of the stairway.
Much of Old Bisbee is a designated National Historic District. An expansion of this district is currently
underway to add in additional residential areas. Therefore, any stairways that need to be
reconstructed should be closely discussed and coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) to ascertain how the work can be done to preserve the historic nature of the stairway while
meeting current code and safety standards.
Also, as noted earlier in this report, a survey of the Warren area identified a large number of qualifying
buildings, so it is likely that a similar historic designation may follow for much, if not all, of the Warren
neighborhood. Prior to undertaking major replacement or rehabilitation work on structures, stairways
or walls in this neighborhood, discussion and coordination with SHPO should occur.
The locations of the various stairways are shown on the maps contained in Appendix 5 Field Inventory.
Final Report Page 45
Figure 20 Bridge and Culvert Structure Locations
Final Report Page 46
OK Street
OK Street wall
needs to be
Replaced
5.4 Walls
The majority of the retaining walls are located in Old Bisbee. There are several walls located in Bisbee
that are utilized in conjunction with drainage channels. These walls are mostly comprised of either
cobblestone or concrete, and the majority of the walls are in good/fair condition. Most of the drainage
ways are usually dry except during the rainy season when these drainageways will be utilized. Most of
the drainageways are clogged with debris, silt, and vegetation, and they need to be cleaned out.
In Old Bisbee, the walls are terraced to allow property owners more usable land. The City of Bisbee
has taken the stance that if the wall holds up the public street, then that wall is the City’s property and
responsibility. If the wall is utilized to gain more usable property, then the ownership and
maintenance of the wall lies with the property owner(s). It was determined during the inventory field
work that the public street right of way and deeds need to be examined to correctly determine where
the right of way line is in regards to the wall and the adjacent property owners.
Most of the walls within Old Bisbee were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, and consist of concrete
with a mixture of aggregate that includes stone, mine slag, glass, nails, and even railroad rails. A
majority of the walls are in fair condition and are starting to reach the end of their useful life due to
exposure to the elements. Several walls are in poor condition and are starting to fail and will need
immediate replacement.
The wall located on OK Street at Review Avenue is a classic
example of a wall at the end of its useful life. The wall
crumbles when touched and the above supported roadway is
showing stress cracks due to movement of the wall away from
the roadway. The wall needs to be replaced as soon as possible
due to its state of disrepair and its potential impact on the use
of OK Street and access to property owners.
There are several walls located throughout Old Bisbee that have
been rehabilitated by the property owner or the County. The
repairs consisted of a shotcrete face to restore the integrity of
the wall without totaling replacing the structure. Many of the
repairs are in very good condition and will extend the useful life
of the wall another 10 to 15 years.
It is recommended that all walls that are not yet rehabilitated
receive some rehabilitation in the next 5 years. This
rehabilitation would include new handrails, new gutter ways
between the top of wall and the roadway, and the exposed face of the wall encased in either shotcrete
or a reinforced stucco finish. The stucco finish will allow more flexibility in a color scheme for the
rehabilitation effort.
The condition and location of the retaining walls are shown in the tables and on the maps contained in
Appendix 5 Field Inventory.
Final Report Page 47
6.0 Current Condition Findings
This section identifies and describes the current conditions of the transportation system for the City of
Bisbee. The community is unique and diverse, as is the transportation system. The transportation
needs are significant and the desired transportation improvements are set forth herein. The
community is aware that mustering the resources to address the needs and meet the travel demands
will be a challenge. The goal is to spend the limited funds wisely to get the most for the money spent.
Some of the more important findings for the current condition of transportation in Bisbee are
summarized below:
An integral part of the Bisbee transportation system is
the many public stairways and retaining walls in the
Old Bisbee area. They are part of the charm, character,
and history of the community. Their preservation is
important.
Bisbee is a collection of dispersed neighborhoods
separated by features of the terrain and mining activities. This creates neighborhoods with
distinct differences and necessitates the need for good transportation circulation and
connectivity within the City.
There are lots of pedestrians and bicyclists sharing the streets and roads. While there are some
sidewalks in areas to accommodate them, there is a big demand to improve the facilities:
o More sidewalks are needed to interconnect the neighborhoods and to provide good
circulation within the neighborhoods and the City.
o Bike facilities, such as bike lanes, multiuse paths, shareways, and bike routes, are needed as
there are essentially no such facilities available today.
o Convenient and safe crossings of the major routes including SR 80 and SR 92 are a must in
and can be in the form of effectively designed crosswalks or possibly grade separated
facilities.
Parking in Old Bisbee for residents and visitors alike is critically needed and an innovative
means of providing more parking needs to be explored.
The inventory and condition assessment of the transportation assets confirmed the findings of
the City’s Streets and Infrastructure Committee; that some 25% of the street segments are in
poor condition and 30% have failed, meaning complete reconstruction is the best solution.
A considerable source of economic development for the community is from tourism, and there
is a significant need for a good signage and wayfinding program to enhance the visitor’s
experience. The objective is to make it easy for the visitor to circulate around town and to find
all the attractions, shopping, and destinations the community has to offer.
Traffic volumes on SR 92 suggest a future congestion problem, especially in the
segment from the Naco Highway to the roundabout. In conjunction with
ADOT, a plan for the improvement of SR 92 should be developed that would
include an access management plan, future capacity enhancements, and the
Final Report Page 48
protection and preservation of anticipated additional highway right of way.
Fatality crash rates along both SR 80 and SR 92 appear to exceed state averages for two lane
arterial facilities. The mountainous terrain, curves, and unique visual attractions of the Bisbee
area may all play a role in this serious problem. The City should work closely with ADOT, the
Highway Patrol, and the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety to develop a menu of safety
measures to reduce the number and severity of crashes along these arterial routes.
The Bisbee Bus system has had a long and successful history and fulfills a critical need for those
who must use, or choose to use, public transportation. Transit will become increasingly
important to the community in the future.
There is undeveloped land in the vicinity of the airport, and the City has significant land
holdings in that area. This resource lends itself to the development of a business park to attract
and generate employment opportunities. Such a facility will, in turn, build tax base to generate
additional revenues to help support the maintenance and operation of the transportation
system.
The Naco Port of Entry is another asset to be capitalized on for economic development
opportunities. This is the only international border crossing in Arizona not served by a state
highway. The stewardship of this road should be discussed with ADOT.
A strategy on how to effectively address the many travel demands and fulfill the many
infrastructure improvement needs is a key component of the transportation plan.
7.0 Future Conditions and Deficiencies Inventory
7.1 Future Land Use
The City of Bisbee General Plan 2003 covers an area much larger than the current corporate limits. This
larger area, an ultimate growth area for the community, describes five specific planning areas. Three
of these, the Old Bisbee, Saginaw, and Warren areas, are primarily historic and will have little new
development activity. They will, however, have redevelopment activities focused on the renovation of
existing structures. As much of these areas is historic, redevelopment activities will be done while
following the City’s Design Guidelines for the Bisbee Historic Districts, and guidelines of the National
Register of Historic Places.
The General Plan does address two specific planning areas with significant growth potential. These are
the Bisbee Municipal Airport Area and the San Jose Area. These areas were previously identified as
growth areas for Bisbee in the Cochise County Comprehensive Plan. The Bisbee Municipal Airport Area
is totally outside of the current city limits. This is an area of 6,373 acres, or just under 10 square miles.
The San Jose Area is partially within the current city limits. This planning area is 11,453 acres in size, or
just under 18 square miles. Of this area, 2,376 acres is currently within the city. The area is bisected
by SR 92, and includes the Naco Highway, the community of Naco and the international Port of Entry.
Almost all of the future new development potential for Bisbee is within these two growth areas.
The Bisbee Municipal Airport Area is a target for airport compatible uses, which includes industrial and
commercial uses. The noise contours established in the Bisbee Municipal Airport Master Plan identify
Final Report Page 49
areas where future residential uses would not be suitable. Runway approach/departure and transition
zones also protect both the flying public and adjacent property owners. Airport Road, Bisbee Junction
Road and Purdy Lane are the existing roadways that serve the airport. It s important to consider
upgrades to these facilities that can direct traffic generated by future airport compatible uses away
from residential areas.
Most of the future growth in Bisbee will occur in the San Jose and Airport Growth Areas indentified in
the General Plan. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic entering the area through the nearby Naco Port of
Entry will likely stimulate future retail activity in this area. It should be noted that there are no plans to
increase capacity at this POE, and traffic is most likely to remain at levels that are generated by the
Naco, Sonora area. The General Plan envisions new residential uses occurring adjacent to existing
residential areas and highway commercial, retail and commercial uses locating along the Naco Highway
and SR 92 corridors. Other areas will develop as mixed use following specific plans or master plans to
be developed. Redevelopment of vacant buildings may occur in the Old Bisbee and Warren areas.
Seventy percent of the land in the growth area is designated as a “development reserve area” to be
developed in the future in a master planned fashion. Figure 21, Future Land Use from the City of
Bisbee General Plan 2003, shows the anticipated uses summarized in this section.
Growth in nearby Sierra Vista is somewhat constrained from extending east along SR 90 due to public
open space lands along the San Pedro River. It is likely to continue moving south along SR 92, towards
the Bisbee study area.
Final Report Page 50
Figure 21 Future Land Use
Final Report Page 51
7.2 Population Projections
Official population projections are developed by the Arizona Department of Commerce. These
projections currently extend to the year 2055. Projections are done for incorporated communities,
counties, and for geographical unincorporated areas adjacent to cities and towns that are referred to
as Census County Divisions (CCDs). The Bisbee CCD includes areas located within the City of Sierra
Vista, with a current population of just over 19,000. Because of this, the entire Bisbee CCD data is not
included in the following table, which excludes those portions of the CCD now within Sierra Vista. The
table includes only the City of Bisbee proper, Naco, and some outlying areas to the southwest along SR
92 not a part of Sierra Vista. Cochise County and Arizona projections are included for comparison.
Table 11 Official Arizona Department of Commerce Population Projections
Location 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030
City of Bisbee 7,147 7,489 7,867 8,195 8,483
Naco 899 920 943 964 982
Bisbee CCD (Remainder) 3,886 4,028 4,340 4,424 4,585
Area Total 11,932 12,437 13,050 13,583 14,050
Cochise County 148,672 158,650 169,717 179,317 187,725
Total Arizona Population 7,186,070 7,915,629 8,779,567 9,588,745 10,347,543
The three local areas in Table 11 above are projected to grow by just under 18% by 2030. During the
same period, total State of Arizona population is projected to grow by 44%. Since tourism is a
significant component of Bisbee’s economy, the higher overall state growth rate suggests that tourism
may well grow at a rate faster than local population growth.
Initial data from the 2010 Census indicates that Bisbee did not grow as projected. In fact, the 2010
Census reports that the City of Bisbee had a population of 5,575, down from the 2000 Census count of
6,090. There are a number of possible explanations for this drop. The comparison between
Department of Commerce estimates and actual Census counts can be misleading. Projections and
estimates produced throughout the decade are primarily developed from issued building permits, and
then multiplied by the average persons per household, taking into account the vacancy rate from the
last decennial census. Areas that have a very high seasonal or vacation home population typically see
this type of discrepancy when the actual census numbers come in. The Census only counts permanent
year round residents so homes built or purchased as for investment, seasonal second homes or as Bed
and Breakfast businesses do not translate into a census count population increase. The Department of
Commerce typically revises population projections following census counts, but this has not been done
yet. New projections are expected in late 2012, and will likely be tempered by 2010 census data.
The 2010 Census reports that Bisbee had 664 vacant housing units; if these had the average persons
per household number in them (2.05), the total population of Bisbee would have been 6,930 at the
time of the Census count that Bisbee was carrying about three times as many housing units on the
market than had been previously typical in the market. This was also the case in many other
communities due to the rising number of residential foreclosures.
Final Report Page 52
Although the economy may have had some impact on the population count in Bisbee, the primary
reason for the change has to do with the changing demographics of the city. The 2000 Census
reported that Bisbee had a household size averaging 2.20 with a median age of 43.2 and with 19.6% of
the population over the age of 65. In 2010, the average household size dropped to 2.05, median age
rose to 48.8 and the percentage of the population over 65 rose to 20.7%.
Another telling factor is the number of 10-19 year olds in the 2000 Census (721) who do not carry over
in place (as 20-29 year olds) into 2010. A drop of 177 people in this category suggests that, once
graduated from high school, a notable percentage of Bisbee young people leave for college, military or
other locations rather than remain here.
If persons per household had remained the same, Bisbee would have had a count closer to 5,633, an
increase of 58 people. If the vacancy rate has remained the same (15.3% instead of 20.2%), there
would have been an additional 162 houses with people in them, an increase, at current occupancy
rates, of 348 people. However, what happened during the decade is that an increase of 5.1% in the
number of vacant houses (more rentals, more seasonal homes, more homes on the market) combined
with a decline in the number of people living in each housing unit resulted in the count in the 2010 that
was lower than what had been projected.
Because of this data, a revised population projection for the City of Bisbee and surrounding areas
within the study area was developed using a 1 percent annual growth rate from 2010 to 2030, with the
2010 Census count as a starting point. Actual census data for Bisbee and Naco are shown, while the
population for the remainder area of the Bisbee CCD was extrapolated from the difference between
the 2010 Arizona official projections and the census counts for the other portions of the study area.
Table 12 shows these projections.
Table 12 Unofficial Population Projections for the City of Bisbee based on Initial 2010 Census Data
Location 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
City of Bisbee 5,575 5,854 6,147 6,454 6,777
Naco 1,046 1,098 1,153 1,211 1,271
Bisbee CCD
(Remainder)
2,990 3,140 3,297 3,462 3,635
Total Study Area 9,611 10,092 10,597 11,127 11,683
It should be noted that occupants of seasonal residences still require utilities, services and
transportation infrastructure while in town, so reduced population counts should not necessarily
suggest reduced demand for transportation infrastructure.
Note: Cochise County staff has spent considerable effort evaluating the data from the 2010 Census,
and reaching conclusions on the impacts. Development of the above section was greatly facilitated by
the work done by Karen Lamberton, AICP, Cochise County Transportation Planner.
Final Report Page 53
7.3 Projected Employment Characteristics
Because there is no known source for future employment data, the magnitude and distribution of
future employment was estimated by WSA. The Arizona Department of Commerce reports that the
2008 civilian labor force (population 16 years and older) in the City of Bisbee totaled 3,497. Assuming
that the employment rate (0.627 jobs per capita) remains constant, 2030 employment would be about
4,249 using the revised growth projections in Table 12. According to the above Department of
Commerce data, the Cochise County projected growth rate from 2011 to 2030 in Table 11 above is
26.3%, exceeding the Bisbee area projected growth rate over the same period. The 2010 census data
indicates that all area communities failed to meet the official projections, so the area growth rate is
likely optimistic. Since Bisbee is the county seat, it would still be expected that growth in county
government service jobs to meet the demand of county population growth (albeit lower than the
projections) would, in part, support employment growth in Bisbee.
7.4 Traffic Projections
A computer travel demand model was developed for use in this study. Existing traffic volumes, percent
trucks, and level of service (LOS) in the model are based on the Cochise County travel demand model
and traffic count data collected for this study. The existing 2007 base year and the 2020 and 2040
forecast years for the Cochise County travel demand model were used to extrapolate demographics to
the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level for the years 2010, 2015, and 2030 to support this study.
A subarea for the Bisbee study area was defined and extracted from the county model for the years
2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. The subarea model for each year was iteratively adjusted to match
projected volumes at each of the newly-defined external stations. While the TAZ-level demographics
and external station volumes were grown for each analysis year, no changes were made to the 2007
Cochise County network; it was used as a no-build network for each of the analysis years.
Level of service is a measure of the average service level of a roadway based on its 24-hour volume and
saturation flow capacity. A simple ratio of the assigned model volume to the link capacity was used to
define the LOS. On a previous PARA study (Unified Nogales/Santa Cruz County Transportation Plan
2010), WSA worked closely with Reza Karimvand and Greg Wisecaver from ADOT Southern Regional
Traffic Engineering to develop a reasonable V/C Ratio table for various functional classifications for use
on PARA type planning studies for rural and small urban areas.
The customary standard planning level determination for LOS is typically done using such a table. In
this case, the Functional Class categories and daily capacities for the network were pre-defined based
on the tables in Appendix 4. Southern Regional Traffic Engineering approved this table for use in such
studies and we were directed to use this accordingly. The intent was that this table could be
consistently applied for all PARA studies in the state, so that results are comparable across all studies.
This previous exercise to determine the V/C Ratio calculations that were used for this study is included
as Appendix 4.
Daily capacities and the ranges of the volume to capacity ratio which were used to define LOS for each
functional class are shown in Table 13.
Final Report Page 54
Table 13 Ranges of the V/C Ratio Used to Define LOS
Assigned volumes from the 2015 Bisbee subarea travel demand model were used to calculate LOS,
using the 2007 no-build network. LOS for 2015 is shown in Figure 22. An inset of the Bisbee / Warren
area is shown in Figure 23. Compared to 2010, the forecast volumes for 2015 generally show a
moderate increase. However, while volumes on links have increased, the increase is generally within
the range of the same defined LOS category. The LOS map for 2015 is virtually identical to that for
2010. The summary table shows that just 0.2 miles of roadway have moved from operating at LOS A to
LOS B.
Forecasting demographic conditions five years further to the year 2020, while still using the no-build
network, some LOS degradation can be seen. LOS for 2020 for the study area is shown in Figure 24,
with the inset area shown in Figure 25. Overall, the length of roadways operating at LOS D is forecast
to remain the same for 2020. However, the amount of roadway at LOS A decreases, with a
corresponding increase in roadways at LOS B and LOS C.
For the 2030 forecast of twenty year’s worth of demographic growth on the no-build network,
decreased levels of service can be seen more extensively throughout the study area. The study area
LOS for 2030 is shown in Figure 26, and the inset area LOS is in Figure 27. The trend of degradation of
performance on SR 92 as it approaches the traffic circle continues in 2030. A two-lane section
immediately south of School Terrace Rd is forecast to drop to LOS E. This is severe congestion. SR 80
to the east of Warren is forecast to drop to LOS D, as is a part of the northern section of the Naco
Highway as it approaches SR 92. Some sections of the Highway 80 ramps on the east side of Bisbee are
also projected to drop to LOS D.
Final Report Page 55
Figure 22 Forecast LOS for 2015
Final Report Page 56
Figure 23 Old Bisbee/Warren Inset Area Forecast LOS for 2015
Final Report Page 57
Figure 24 Forecast LOS for 2020
Final Report Page 58
Figure 25 Old Bisbee/Warren Inset Area Forecast LOS for 2020
Final Report Page 59
Figure 26 Forecast 2030 LOS
Final Report Page 60
Figure 27 Old Bisbee/Warren Inset Area Forecast 2030 LOS
In general, the local roads serving the urban areas of Old Bisbee, Warren, and San Jose that are at LOS
A under existing conditions in 2010 are forecast to have sufficient capacity to maintain their
performance through the year 2030. In contrast, the higher-level facilities such as SR 80 and SR 92 are
forecast to show declines in their levels of service. Some explanation is in order here. The modeling
done was based on a no-build network. The local street system between the various neighborhoods is
not well connected. As a result most inter-neighborhood trips must use the state facilities. This lack of
local neighborhood connections, paired with a lack of excess capacity on these local roads likely sheds
trips onto the state system. Some of the more urban sections of regionally significant arterials like
Naco Highway, Main Street, and ramps are forecast to show some noticeable but less dramatic
declines in their levels of service. Table 14 shows the percentage of the total mileage within the study
area which is at each defined LOS category for the existing conditions and the three forecast years.
Final Report Page 61
Table 14 Percent of Study Area Mileage by LOS Category
Table 14 shows that the roadways at LOS A show a slow and steady decline throughout the twenty-year
forecast period. Much of the LOS A decrease is taken to LOS B through the year 2020. By that
year, a trend of dropping from LOS B to LOS C is also seen. The amount of roadways at LOS D is steady
until the year 2030, when volume increases sufficiently to drive it into the LOS D range. It should be
noted that LOS is defined by ranges, so a road’s volume can increase by a fairly significant amount
without tripping into the next category.
Additionally, average volumes over a stretch of roadway vary with the traffic loading points and with
turning movements at intersections. As Table 15 shows, the average volumes over the larger stretches
of road segments increase for the twenty-year forecast period, with an average increase of 24%. This
compares to forecast population growth of approximately 22%, indicating the vast majority of the
traffic growth is coming from local population growth while increased trip making per household and
increased regional transportation growth likely account for the additional 2% traffic growth.
Table 15 Average Volumes for Selected Road Segments
Final Report Page 62
7.5 Future Condition of Roadways
The Current Conditions section reported that over half of the local street segments were rated poor to
failed condition; meaning they have deteriorated to the point that major rehabilitation or complete
reconstruction of the street would be the best remedy. To paraphrase the remarks made by several
stakeholders, “the streets are in bad condition, but the residents are used to it and drive more slowly
over the roughest areas”. The San Jose/Don Luis neighborhood streets are overall in better condition
than the Warren area streets. This is logical since these neighborhoods are newer. Also as expected,
the streets in Old Bisbee, as a whole, are in the poorest condition of the three major neighborhoods
since this is the original, and the oldest part of town with the steepest terrain. From the Current
Conditions section of this report, Table 16 summarizes the current (2011) conditions of local roadways.
Without active rehabilitation steps, the conditions will certainly deteriorate further in the future. A
priority should be to maintain the roadways that are in good condition so that they do not deteriorate
as well, and secondarily to improve the condition of those facilities in poor condition.
Table 16 Current Street Condition Summary by Street Segment
Neighborhood →
Condition Rating
↓
San Jose &
Don Luis
Warren, Briggs,
Bakerville, Galena,
Lowell, Tin Town &
Saginaw
Old Bisbee Totals
Excellent 1 2 0 3 1%
Good 18 26 2 46 17%
Fair 17 33 23 73 27%
Poor 23 18 28 69 25%
Failed 7 50 24 81 30%
Totals 66 129 77 272 100%
Note: The table does not include SR 80 or SR 92
7.5.1 Roadway Operational Issues
A field review was conducted in April 2011 focusing on both high accident locations, and segments
where Level of Service is forecast to worsen in the future. Priority concerns are SR 80 in Old Bisbee,
and SR 92 from Melody Lane to the traffic circle at that roadway’s intersection with SR 80. Following
are summary comments on these two segments and Naco Highway:
• SR 80 has limited problems. The Current Conditions
section reported and listed a number of crashes in
this segment, however. Accidents may be due to
driver inattention or impairment. Stakeholder
interviews raised the issues of access to the Copper
Queen mine tour and the scenic pullout at the
Lavender Pit, as well as prior signage informing
drivers of those locations.
Driveways in Traffic Circle
Final Report Page 63
• There are eight driveway openings within or immediately adjacent to the traffic circle. While
businesses depend on access, there may be opportunities to close some of these access points.
• SR 92 has an excessive number of driveway access points in the vicinity of the Naco Highway
intersection. Twelve of these are within 700 feet of the intersection and seven are within 100
feet, including one at the direct north side of this “T” intersection.
• Naco Highway has fourteen driveway access points within 700 feet of the intersection. Two of
these are for a small parcel with a masonry sign that poses sight distance problems.
• The lack of turn lanes on SR 92 exacerbates this high
number of conflict points. There appears to be
adequate physical space (although additional right of
way may be required) to add a center turn lane or a
four lane cross section with a median and turn lanes in
the segment from Melody Lane to School Terrace Road.
• At the southwest corner of Taylor Lane and SR 92, there
are four driveway openings in a space of less than 100
feet.
• A connection to the Safeway Center from Collins Road to the south would help alleviate
conflicts at the entrance on SR 92.
Figure 28 below provides the locations of access points in close proximity to the intersection of SR 92
and Naco Highway. The Evaluation Criteria and Improvements section will include more detail on
access management options and projects for this area.
7.5.2 New Roadways
In the next section, Evaluation Criteria and Improvements Plan, attention will be given to potential
locations for new roadway facilities or extensions that might help to depressurize the segments of
Naco Highway and SR 92 near their intersection.
7.6 Future Condition of Bridges, Culverts and Walls
A comprehensive review of the condition of bridges, culverts and walls was conducted as part of this
study. These conditions will not improve, and will continue to deteriorate if repairs are not
undertaken. Some of the bridges and culverts are part of the state highway system and are the
responsibility of ADOT. Others are part of the local roadway network, and are the responsibility of the
City of Bisbee. A priority should be to maintain the infrastructure that is in good condition so that it
does not deteriorate as well, and secondarily to improve the condition of those facilities in poor
condition.
Multiple Adjacent Driveways
Final Report Page 64
Figure 28 SR 92 and Naco Highway Access Points
7.7 Naco Port of Entry
Plans are underway for capacity expansions for the Douglas Port of Entry and the three ports of entry
in Nogales. Predicted traffic volumes on SR 80 at the eastern edge of the study area (growing from
5,690 ADT today to 7,450 ADT in 2030) suggest the increased traffic from the Douglas POE is not a
concern in this area. In discussions with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials in Tucson, they
indicated that there are no plans under consideration for capacity improvements to the Naco Port of
Entry. There are, however, plans to increase the number of Border Patrol agents based at the Naco
station. This will marginally increase traffic further on Naco Highway and SR 92. The planned
improvement of Davis Road from SR 191 to SR 80 will provide an enhanced alternative for westbound
I-10 destined traffic than traveling through Bisbee on SR 80.
7.8 Future Transit Service
The Bisbee Bus is an important component of the Bisbee transportation network.
Under the current economic conditions, state funding used to support public
transit operations (the Local Transportation Assistance Fund) has been curtailed.
The Cochise Commuter program, which extended intercity connector service
between Bisbee, Douglas, and Sierra Vista was discontinued. In the future,
Final Report Page 65
resumption of this service should be re-evaluated, along with service expansion within the Bisbee area.
The Cochise College Campus on SR 80 east of Bisbee and regional medical services in Sierra Vista are
both destinations warranting service both now and in the future. The 2008 Rural Transit Needs Study
prepared for ADOT stated that Cochise County in general had the fourth highest rural transit demand
of all Arizona counties. The report also noted that the Bisbee Bus had the second highest ridership per
service hour (8.94 per hour) of all fourteen rural public transit operations in Arizona. That