Kachina Village multimodal transportation study: final report

              • Kachina
Village
Multimodal
Transportation St udy
Final Report
Prepared for ADOT
and Coconino County
Task Assignment MPD 27-09
PG TD0262
Contract # T08-49-00001
January 18, 2010
Kachina Village Multimodal
Transportation Study
Task Assignment MPD 27-09
PG TD0262
Contract # T08-49-00001
Final Report
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COCONINO COUNTY
January 18, 2010
KHA project # 091374030
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report i 01/18/2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Working Paper No. 1 – Current and Future Conditions ........................................................... 2
1.4 Working Paper No. 2 – Program of Projects............................................................................ 2
1.5 Public Involvement Summary Reports ..................................................................................... 2
1.6 Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.7 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................................. 2
1.8 Final Report Organization ........................................................................................................ 3
2.0 CURRENT STUDY AREA CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Land Use Patterns and Ownership ................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Future Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 6
2.2.1 Open Space ............................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Future Community Facilities..................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Transportation Network ............................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Summary of Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Summary of Traffic Speeds....................................................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Other Issues .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Crash Summary ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Existing and Future Transit Service ............................................................................................. 17
2.4 Existing and Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................. 18
2.4.1 Sidewalks ............................................................................................................................... 18
2.4.2 Trails ...................................................................................................................................... 19
3.0 WINTER MAINTENANCE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .............................................................................. 21
3.1 Site Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 21
3.2 Current Kachina Village Winter Storm Management Practices .................................................. 21
3.3 Common Winter Storm Management Techniques ..................................................................... 22
3.4 Best Management Practices Recommendations ........................................................................ 24
3.4.1 Snowplows and Cinders ......................................................................................................... 24
3.4.2 Roadside Cleaning .................................................................................................................. 25
3.4.3 Trap Drain and Drainage Study ............................................................................................. 25
3.4.4 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................................... 28
4.0 SUMMARY OF MULTIMODAL NEEDS ........................................................................................................... 29
4.1 Summary of Multimodal Transportation Needs and Deficiencies .............................................. 29
4.1.1 Pedestrians and Bicycles ........................................................................................................ 29
4.1.2 Public Transit .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3 Roadways ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.4 Priority Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Initial Identification of Potential Projects ................................................................................... 34
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report ii 01/18/2010
5.0 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................... 35
5.1 Shoulder Improvements ............................................................................................................. 35
5.2 Unpaved Trails ............................................................................................................................ 35
5.3 Sidewalk Improvements .............................................................................................................. 36
5.4 Parking and Pullout Improvements ............................................................................................ 36
5.5 Intersection Improvements ........................................................................................................ 36
5.6 Program of Projects .................................................................................................................... 36
6.0 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................................................................... 43
6.1 Federal Programs ........................................................................................................................ 43
6.2 State Programs ............................................................................................................................ 47
6.3 Summary of Potential Funding Sources ...................................................................................... 49
7.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 50
7.1 Summary of Needs Relating to Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Mobility ................................... 50
7.2 Summary of Winter Maintenance Best Management Practice Recommendations ................... 53
7.3 Recommended Program of Projects ........................................................................................... 55
Shoulder Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 56
Sidewalk Improvements..................................................................................................................... 56
Unpaved Trails ................................................................................................................................... 56
Parking and Pullout Improvements .................................................................................................... 56
Intersection Improvements ................................................................................................................. 57
Program of Projects ............................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES SUBMITTED ON PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE QUESTION FORM ............................. 61
APPENDIX B – ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST DATA SHEETS .................................................................................. 68
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report iii 01/18/2010
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1‐1 – Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 4
Exhibit 2‐1 – Study Area Roadways............................................................................................................... 9
Exhibit 2‐2 – Crash Data Summary: Overview and Injury Severity ............................................................. 12
Exhibit 2‐3 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003 – 2007 .................................................................................... 13
Exhibit 2‐4 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Violation Type ............................................................. 14
Exhibit 2‐5 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Month of Crash ........................................................... 14
Exhibit 2‐6 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Crash Type ................................................................... 15
Exhibit 2‐7 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Injury Severity ............................................................. 15
Exhibit 2‐8 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Collision Type .............................................................. 16
Exhibit 2‐9 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Road Surface Condition .............................................. 16
Exhibit 3‐1 – Environmental Best Management Practices .......................................................................... 27
Exhibit 4‐1 – Summary of Multimodal Transportation Opportunities and Constraints ............................. 31
Exhibit 4‐2 – Initial Identification of Projects .............................................................................................. 34
Exhibit 5‐1 – Typical 4’Shoulder with White Stripe, and 10’ Travel Lanes .................................................. 35
Exhibit 5‐2 – Program of Projects ............................................................................................................... 37
Exhibit 5‐3 – Map of Program of Projects ................................................................................................... 42
Exhibit 6‐1 – Potential Funding Sources for Kachina Village Projects ......................................................... 49
Exhibit 7‐1 – Summary of Multimodal Transportation Opportunities and Constraints ............................. 52
Exhibit 7‐2 – Winter Maintenance Environmental Best Management Practices ....................................... 55
Exhibit 7‐3 – Typical 4’Shoulder with White Stripe, and 10’ Travel Lanes .................................................. 56
Exhibit 7‐4 – Program of Projects ............................................................................................................... 58
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 1 01/18/2010
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Purpose
Kachina Village is an unincorporated community in Coconino County, Arizona. Kachina Village is located
approximately six miles south of Flagstaff, Arizona. Kachina Village includes approximately 18.3 miles of
County maintained roads, all but two miles of which are paved. Generally speaking, Kachina Village
roadways lack sidewalks and pedestrian
connections for the community’s
residents. Currently, low traffic volumes
allow for pedestrians to walk along the
sides of the roadway. However, steep
topography and discontinuity of the
pedestrian network makes pedestrian
travel difficult for many Kachina Village
residents.
The Kachina Village Multimodal
Transportation Study presents
improvement recommendations that
upon implementation will improve
bicycle, pedestrian, and public
transportation in the community. A
program of projects for short‐term (0 to 5
years), mid‐term (5 to 10 years), and long‐term
(10 to 20 years) planning horizons
was developed.
1.2 Study Objectives
Objectives of the Kachina Village
Multimodal Transportation Study
were:
􀂃 Document current and identify future
needs relating to pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit mobility.
􀂃 Summarize current winter
maintenance practices and summarize
sources of pollution that may be
contributing to the potential
degradation of the wetlands.
Recommend Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for transportation
maintenance crews and resource
managers to limit pollutants from
Pumphouse Natural Area.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
Picture of I‐17 interchange looking east.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 2 01/18/2010
entering the wetland system.
􀂃 Based upon the identified multimodal needs and deficiencies, recommend a program of projects
that will improve multimodal mobility and safety conditions in Kachina Village. Provide Coconino
County with a planning document that can be used to help secure funding for implementation of the
multimodal improvements. The program will be organized into short‐term (0 to 5 years), mid‐term
(5 to 10 years), and long‐term (10 to 20 years) projects.
The study resulted in developing two working papers, a public involvement summary report, a
final report, and an executive summary.
1.3 Working Paper No. 1 – Current and Future Conditions
Working Paper No. 1 – Current and Future Condition documented current conditions in Kachina Village
that influence the community’s multimodal transportation system. The review of existing conditions
leads to identification of multimodal transportation opportunities and constraints and to the
development of a program of projects (Working Paper No. 2), that upon implementation will enhance
multimodal transportation in Kachina Village.
1.4 Working Paper No. 2 – Program of Projects
Working Paper No. 2 – Program of Projects, proposes a program of projects that address multimodal
safety and mobility needs and environmental degradation concerns. Potential funding sources are
identified. The proposed projects, upon implementation, will improve safety and mobility between
residential areas of Kachina Village, community facilities, and potential future transit facilities. Working
Paper No. 2 – Program of Projects also includes Environmental Best Management Practices
recommendations to minimize the impact of winter roadway maintenance on wetland areas.
The proposed projects are prioritized based on their potential to improve safety and mobility,
community perspectives, and cost/funding. The projects are categorized as near‐term (0 – 5 years),
mid‐term (5 – 10 years), and long‐term (10 – 20 years) planning horizons.
1.5 Public Involvement Summary Reports
A Public Involvement Summary Report was developed that summarizes public involvement received
during two open houses that were held in May and September 2009. The Public Involvement Summary
Report is available under separate cover.
1.6 Study Area
The study area is comprised of the unincorporated community of Kachina Village, which is located south
of Flagstaff, Arizona, west of Interstate 17 (I‐17). The study area is bordered by the Kachina Village
Improvement District (KVID) wetlands to the north, Coconino National Forest to the south, I‐17 to the
east, and the Forest Highlands residential community to the west. The study area is illustrated in Exhibit
1‐1.
1.7 Technical Advisory Committee
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to participate in the study process. The
following agencies were represented on the TAC:
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 3 01/18/2010
􀂃 Arizona Department of Transportation, Multimodal Planning Division
􀂃 Arizona Department of Transportation, Communication and Community Partnerships
􀂃 Arizona Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Services
􀂃 Coconino County Community Development
􀂃 Coconino County Parks and Recreation
􀂃 Coconino County Public Works
􀂃 Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO)
􀂃 Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transit Authority (NAIPTA)
TAC Meetings were held at key milestones and/or decision points during the study. The purpose of the
meetings was to communicate study progress, provide opportunities for discussion, and present study
documents for review and comment.
1.8 Final Report Organization
This report documents findings and recommendations of the Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation
Study, as organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Current Study Area Conditions
Chapter 3 – Winter Maintenance Best Management Practices
Chapter 4 – Summary of Multimodal Needs
Chapter 5 – Program of Projects
Chapter 6 – Potential Funding Sources
Chapter 7 – Summary of Conclusions
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 4 01/18/2010
Exhibit 1‐1 – Study Area
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 5 01/18/2010
2.0 CURRENT STUDY AREA CONDITIONS
2.1 Land Use Patterns and Ownership
The Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008, describes existing land use patterns in Kachina Village. The Plan
states that existing land use patterns in Kachina Village were primarily established as a result of
subdivision activity between 1965 and 1972, when zoning classifications were established by the Board
of Supervisors as each subdivision unit was approved. As a result, Kachina Village consists of a mix of
land uses that includes residential, commercial, open space, and public facilities. Currently, the
population of Kachina Village is approximately three thousand residents.
Residential Land Uses
Residential land uses reflect the diversity of the community and include rental units, owner‐occupied
primary dwellings, and part‐time vacation homes (Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008).
Residential uses fall into several categories in Kachina Village, including agricultural residential, rural
residential, single family residential, multiple family, and manufactured homes. The quality and style of
the housing varies throughout the community, and ranges from cabins and mobile homes originally
intended for part‐time vacation use to homes designed as full‐time residences. As the community has
evolved over time, many of the older cabins that were originally built for weekend or summer
occupancy have been converted to full‐time use and upgraded accordingly. Many of the older mobile
homes have been replaced with new manufactured or modular homes (Kachina Village Area Plan,
2008).
Most of the single family residential lots are located in the southern and western portions of Kachina
Village. These single family zoned areas have a typical density of four to six dwelling units per acre
(Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008, Coconino County Zoning and Land Use Maps). Dispersed throughout
the southeastern portion of the study area are lots zoned agricultural and rural residential. The density
range on these lots is one to four dwelling units per acre. The northern and northwestern portions of
Kachina Village consist of mobile home and multiple family uses, where the density is ten units per acre.
Non‐residential land uses in the study area consist of commercial, open space, and utility property.
Commercial Land Uses
Commercial land uses include the Pic‐N‐Run convenience market and Village Land Shoppe real estate
office along with approximately 2.6 acres of undeveloped commercially‐zoned land located at the
intersection of Kachina Blvd. and Kachina Trail. The convenience market occupies 0.64 acres on the
south side of Kachina Boulevard. The approximately 2.6 acres of commercially‐zoned land on the north
side of Kachina Boulevard. adjacent to Raymond Park is vacant (Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008).
Wetlands Areas
Wetlands areas are shown in Exhibit 1‐1, Study Area. Wetlands, washes, floodplains, and riparian areas
are important habitat components for a variety of plant and animal species. They also provide
recreational opportunities and attractive scenic vistas, which add aesthetic value to a community.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 6 01/18/2010
Pumphouse Meadow, the wetland system located on the east side of Kachina Village, and the
Pumphouse Wash make up the Pumphouse Natural Area (formerly known as “Pumphouse Greenway
System”). The Greenway system, along with Harrenburg Wash, located on the southwest side of
Kachina Village, is dedicated open space to preserve the natural systems and sensitive habitats that it
supports.
Other Land Uses
Public parklands include Raymond County Park and the Pumphouse Natural Area. Other public facilities
include two fire stations, various utility installations including an Arizona Public Service (APS) substation,
a Qwest telephone switching facility, and a wireless telecommunications tower (Kachina Village Area
Plan, 2008).
Kachina Village is surrounded by Coconino National Forest on the north, west, and south sides. East of
Kachina Village, and I‐17, is privately owned, unincorporated land. Beyond those parcels of private land
is the Coconino National Forest again and the unincorporated community of Mountainaire.
2.2 Future Land Use
The Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008, states that a number of land use changes occurred between 1997
and 2007, which significantly limit the opportunity for future development:
􀂃 Raymond County Park was expanded to 13 acres.
􀂃 Pumphouse Natural Area was established to preserve approximately 120 acres of public open space.
Largely as a result of these land use changes, future growth in Kachina Village is limited by the lack of
undeveloped private land that is
available for development.
Kachina Village is mostly built out
except for a few vacant lots scattered
throughout the community and a 40‐
acre vacant parcel in the northeastern
corner of the study area. Available
inventory of vacant land suitable for
development is limited to the 40 acres
located at the northeast corner of the
community, and approximately 36
vacant residential lots that remain in
Kachina Village.
The 40‐acre property is bounded by
national forest land to the north, I‐17
to the east, the mobile home park and
individual manufactured home lots to
the south, and Forest Highlands’ utility compound to the west. A plat has been submitted to Coconino
County to develop a 128 lot subdivision on the 40‐acre parcel. This parcel is currently zoned General,
which requires a 10‐acre minimum lot size. Development of a 128 lot subdivision will require a zoning
change.
Picture of Raymond County Park looking southwest.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 7 01/18/2010
The other potential development opportunity is for a 2.6‐acre vacant property that is zoned for
commercial use. The property is located on the northeast corner of Kachina Trail and Kachina Blvd.,
south of Raymond County Park.
2.2.1 Open Space
Raymond County Park
Raymond County Park in Kachina Village consists of 13.5 acres and serves Kachina Village as well as
Mountainaire on the east side of I‐17. The park is maintained by the Coconino County Parks and
Recreation Department. In the County Parks and Recreation classification system, Raymond Park is a
community park, which is defined as a facility that serves a group of neighborhoods within a five‐mile
radius. The park has expanded to 13.5 acres, and includes playground apparatus, a climbing wall, picnic
tables, basketball court, ball field, and pond. Coconino County plans to make improvements to the park,
which will include construction of a restroom, pavilions, basketball courts, and upgrades to the baseball
fields and volleyball courts. The plans also include a trail with viewing areas for people to view the
wetlands and wildlife. The trails will likely connect to the sidewalk on Kachina Trail. A connecting trail
to that roadway will allow people to walk or ride to the park, as opposed to driving, with little conflict
with motor vehicles.
Pumphouse Natural Area
Pumphouse Natural Area is a public open space system in Kachina Village owned and managed by
Coconino County. The Pumphouse Natural Area consists of approximately 129 acres. The wetland
meadow located northwest of Raymond Park provides habitat for a variety of wildlife, including bull elk
in the summer and numerous bird species throughout the year.
2.2.2 Future Community Facilities
The Highlands Fire District (HFD) serves Kachina Village for fire and medical emergencies. The HFD is
approximately 25 square miles and includes the communities of Kachina Village, Mountainaire, Forest
Highlands, Lower Lake Mary, and Pine Del. There are a total of five fire stations in the HFD service area,
and approximately seven thousand people are served by the HFD. Within Kachina Village, there is a fire
station on Kona Trail, which is the main station, and another on Tolani Trail.
Expansion needs and improvements are identified as needed in the Highlands Fire District Strategic Plan.
A new fire station has been completed in Forest Highlands, and construction is underway on a new fire
station in Mountainaire and planned for completion in 2010. Facilities in Kachina Village were
considered adequate for the Kachina Village community and improvements and expansions.
The water and wastewater systems in Kachina Village are managed by the KVID. The current system
could serve approximately three hundred more connections according to an engineering study
conducted in 2001. This would accommodate all of the undeveloped properties, if they were to be
developed according to the existing zoning designations and some at higher densities.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 8 01/18/2010
2.3 Transportation Network
The roadway system in Kachina Village includes approximately 18.3 miles of County roads, all but two
miles of which are paved. Kachina Blvd. is classified as a major collector, while Kachina Trail, Kona Trail,
Pinon Trail, and Tovar Trail are classified as minor collectors. All other roads are classified as local
streets (Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008).
The original development concept for Kachina Country Club Village in 1965 included private paved
streets to be maintained by a property owners association. However, by 1969 the plans had changed
and unpaved County‐maintained roads were approved by the Board of Supervisors. At the time,
unpaved roads were considered to be adequate for a vacation community that would be occupied
mostly by part‐time
residents. As the
community came to be
occupied by more full‐time
residents, however, there
was increased demand for
road improvements. As the
need and support for paved
roads increased, residents
petitioned for the
formation of road
improvement districts in
which property owners pay
assessments to cover the
costs of the paving.
Different portions of the
community were paved at
different times as a
majority of owners in each
area agreed to the improvement districts. In all, there were three road improvement districts beginning
with the southeast portion of the community in 1987, the central portion in 1992, and most of the
remaining areas in the north and southwest in 2001. As of 2007, there were only a few local streets that
remained unpaved, mostly in the north end of the community where residents requested to be left out
of the improvement districts because the assessments would have been a financial hardship (Kachina
Village Area Plan, 2008).
2.3.1 Summary of Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 2��1 summarizes traffic conditions on the major roadways in the study area. Traffic count data
was obtained from Coconino County. Traffic count data was collected between September 20 and
October 4, 2007. This exhibit also includes comments received from TAC members during a walk‐about
workshop that was held on March 4, 2009.
As illustrated in Exhibit 2‐1 roadways with the highest vehicular traffic in the study area are Kachina
Blvd., Kachina Trail, Kona Trail, and Tovar Trail. Kachina Blvd. near the I‐17 interchange has the highest
traffic volume at nearly 6,000 vehicles per day. Other roads with significant traffic are Kachina Trail
Kona Trail and Wakas Trail intersection looking east.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 9 01/18/2010
(1,200 to 3,500 vehicles per day), Kona Trail (1,500 vehicles per day), and Tovar Trail (1,500 vehicles per
day).
2.3.2 Summary of Traffic Speeds
Traffic safety is and continues to be of concern to Kachina Village residents. The Kachina Village Area
Plan, 2008, states that excessive speed is a concern to Kachina Village residents. The traffic volume data
collected in September and October 2007 also included the average speed traveled on major roadways
in Kachina Village. The speed limit on the majority of the roadways in the data set is 25 miles per hour
(mph) (Tovar Trail has a speed limit of 35 mph). Of the nine streets for which traffic volume and speed
data was collected, four streets experience speeds greater than the speed limit:
􀂃 Kachina Trail – Average speed of 30 mph
􀂃 Pinon Trail – Average speed of 34 mph
􀂃 Toho Trail –Average speed of 30 mph
􀂃 Tovar Trail – Average speed of 42 mph
The remaining five roadways experience speeds that are either at or below the speed limit of 25 mph.
2.3.3 Other Issues
As described above, traffic volumes and vehicular speed on Kachina Village roadways are of concern to
area residents. Another concern identified by TAC members and in the Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008
is the unofficial snow‐play area near the intersection of Kachina and Pinon Trails. The Kachina Village
Area Plan, 2008, states that vehicles parking along the roadway create an unsafe condition when
combined with winter road conditions. The Plan states that if sledding and snow‐play activities continue
to be permitted at this location, a designated parking area should be provided and roadside parking
restrictions should be enforced. A similar situation occurs at this location in the summer when residents
stop along the road to view elk in the meadow.
Exhibit 2‐1 – Study Area Roadways
Road Name Functional
Classification
2007
Daily
Traffic
Stakeholder Comments on Needs and Deficiencies
Kachina Blvd.
and I‐17
Interchange
Major
Collector
5,855 Pedestrians, bicyclists, and ATV users utilize the I‐17
interchange to cross I‐17 to access National Forest lands.
This exit provides the only crossing of I‐17 for several miles,
and provides access to National Forest lands as well as the
community of Mountainaire.
Kachina Trail –
East of Pinon
Trail
Minor
Collector
3,406 The sidewalk on Kachina Trail will link to the Raymond County
Park trail – it will be easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to
access the park.
Kachina Trail –
South of Mesa
Trail
Minor
Collector
1,210
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 10 01/18/2010
Exhibit 2‐1 – Study Area Roadways (continued)
Road Name Functional
Classification
2007
Daily
Traffic
Stakeholder Comments on Needs and Deficiencies
Kachina Trail –
South of Kachina
Blvd.
Minor
Collector
926
Kona Trail – East
of Kweo Trail
Minor
Collector
1,616 Stakeholder input is that this roadway has the most
pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts.
Speed and volume are of concern.
Many school children walk and bike along this road.
Roadway topography, with steep hills and curves are of
concern.
The sun angle in the afternoon when children are being
dropped off or walking home from school may cause visibility
concerns.
During rush hour cars move in both directions on the streets.
Mesa Trail –
South at Kachina
Trail
Local 312
Mesa Trail –
North at Kachina
Trail
Local 234
Pinon Trail –
Kachina Trail
Minor
Collector
944 Intersection of Pinon Trail and Kachina Trail is congested with
motor vehicles, pedestrians, and parked vehicles.
Pedestrian conflicts when there’s snow.
Sidewalks are not always plowed.
Pinon Trail –
Kona Trail
Minor
Collector
371 See comments for Kona Trail.
Toho Trail – at
Kachina Trail
Local 432
Toho Trail – east
of Tonalea Trail
Local 156
Toho Trail – at
Pinon Trail
Local 143
Tolani Trail – at
Kachina Trail
Local 257
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 11 01/18/2010
Exhibit 2‐1 – Study Area Roadways (continued)
Road Name Functional
Classification
2007
Daily
Traffic
Stakeholder Comments on Needs and Deficiencies
Tonalea Trail – at
Pinon Trail
Local 494 There has been discussion of constructing an urban trail along
the roadside – it hasn’t been determined if it will be on the
east or west side of the road along Pinon Trail.
This road can flood and become impassable – the last time
was in 2004.
Three‐way intersection visible to all, but if eastbound traffic
travels too fast, there may not be enough time for left‐turning
motorists.
Possible blind curve for westbound traffic.
Tovar Trail –
north of Kachina
Blvd.
Minor
Collector
1,658 Elk are seen near the Park and people stop along Tovar Trail
to view them. There are no sufficient pullouts to
accommodate elk viewers. The viewers block one side of
Tovar Trail and those who get out conflict with motor vehicles
driving past.
Tovar Trail –
south of Tolani
Trail
Minor
Collector
651
2.2 Crash Summary
Crash data was obtained from ADOT Traffic Records for a five‐year period from 2003 to 2007. An
overview of the number of crashes by mode (vehicle‐only, vehicle‐pedestrian, or vehicle‐bicycle crashes
and injury severity is shown in Exhibit 2‐2. Study area crash locations are depicted in Exhibit 2‐3.
Exhibit 2‐4 through Exhibit 2‐8 graphically depicts percentages for crash types, injury severity, collision
type, and road surface condition.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 12 01/18/2010
Exhibit 2‐2 – Crash Data Summary: Overview and Injury Severity
Year
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Percentage
Number of Crashes
Vehicle Only Crashes 15 16 16 13 10 70 99%
Pedestrian Crashes 0 0 1 0 0 1 1%
Bicycle Crashes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
All Crashes 15 16 17 13 10 71 100%
Injury Severity
No Injury 13 13 15 10 6 57 80%
Possible Injury 2 3 0 1 0 6 8%
Non‐incapacitating Injury 0 0 1 2 2 5 7%
Incapacitating Injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Fatal Injury 0 0 1 0 0 1 1%
Unreported 0 0 0 0 2 2 3%
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 13 01/18/2010
Exhibit 2‐3 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003 – 2007
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 14 01/18/2010
Exhibit 2‐4 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Violation Type
Exhibit 2‐5 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Month of Crash
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 15 01/18/2010
Exhibit 2‐6 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Crash Type
Exhibit 2‐7 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Injury Severity
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 16 01/18/2010
Exhibit 2‐8 – Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Collision Type
Exhibit 2‐9 �� Kachina Village Crashes, 2003‐2007, Road Surface Condition
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 17 01/18/2010
2.3 Existing and Future Transit Service
Transit service and facilities in Kachina Village are limited. NAIPTA is the regional transit authority.
Transit service available to residents of Kachina Village is limited to paratransit/special needs service
that is provided to persons with disabilities. The paratransit service is called Mountain Lift and operates
on a demand‐response basis by appointment providing curb‐to‐curb service in the greater Flagstaff area
including Kachina Village. The transit services do not require an eligibility process, which normally
includes an application to verify the condition of disability. The services are generally available at
6:30am, 9am, 12pm, 2pm, and 6pm only.
The Flagstaff Five‐Year Transit Plan adopted in 2005 by the FMPO concluded that some communities
outside the city, including Kachina Village, may warrant future transit service. In year three of the plan
(2008), the transit plan proposed to implement a demonstration commuter express service to Kachina
Village, dependent upon funding by Coconino County or other grant sources. Funding has not been
identified for the demonstration program. The demonstration program was proposed to operate for an
18‐month period after which it would be re‐evaluated to see if it met projected ridership and
performance measures.
NAIPTA is currently updating the Five‐Year Transit Plan. Draft versions of the plan include two potential
scenarios for bringing regular public transit services to Kachina Village, with connections to Flagstaff and
Mountainaire.
The first scenario is a fixed loop around Kachina Village. The loop would reallocate the Mountain Lift
resources and provide good levels of accessibility to the residents. The draft concepts states that
approximately 75 percent of people living in Kachina Village would be within 1/5 of a mile of the route,
making it easy for residents to walk to the bus stops. While the loop is convenient for residents, it is
costly for the transit provider. Because of Kachina Village’s dispersed and disconnected street network,
and challenging topography, the loop would take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The long
route gives this scenario a much longer travel time to Flagstaff than driving in a personal vehicle, which
would diminish the ability of the public transit system to capture riders.
The second scenario is an express route to Flagstaff, with only one stop at a park and ride location in
Kachina Village. A potential park and ride location is the parking lot for Raymond County Park. This
parking lot is close to the I‐17 interchange and gas station, which also has a convenience store. In
addition, Coconino County plans to construct a path to connect Raymond Park with the sidewalk on
Kachina Trail. Having only one stop in Kachina Village eliminates the problem of having to maneuver
around the streets, costing valuable time; however, it also eliminates the accessibility component in the
first scenario. Most residents in Kachina Village live at least a half mile from the Raymond Park parking
lot. This means that most residents will have to drive or ride their bikes to the bus stop. Once a person
is in their personal vehicle, it becomes a challenge to attract them to public transit, especially since the
drive to Flagstaff is only 15‐20 minutes by car. To make public transit an attractive alternative to driving
personal vehicles, the time on the bus must be about the same as with a personal vehicle. Attracting
bicyclists might also prove to be challenging. There is currently limited room on the bus for bicycles,
only two bicycles allowed on the bus’ bike rack, and there are currently no bike lockers at the Raymond
Park parking lot or at other locations around Kachina Village.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 18 01/18/2010
There are several school bus stops in Kachina Village. Many of the school bus stops in Kachina Village
have pedestrian shelters where people can wait for the bus. Locations of bus stops are shown in Exhibit
1‐1.
2.4 Existing and Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Kachina Village was originally developed without sidewalks, pedestrian pathways, trails, bike paths, or
other infrastructure designed specifically for non‐motorized circulation. As a result, a considerable
amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic occurs directly on the streets.
As the community has transitioned to a year‐round residential community, walking and bicycling has
became a more frequent occurrence, especially by school age children walking to and from bus stops.
The lack of sidewalks and shoulders along the roadways combined with challenging topography is
perceived to be unsafe by Kachina Village residents (Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008).
Stakeholders have identified that the
roads with the highest amount of
bicycle and pedestrian traffic are the
major and minor collectors, where
pedestrians must walk along the
roadside. These roads include:
􀂃 Kachina Blvd.
􀂃 Kachina Trail
􀂃 Kona Trail
􀂃 Tovar Trail
2.4.1 Sidewalks
As shown in Exhibit 1‐1, currently,
the only roadway segment with
sidewalks is a portion of Kachina Trail
and Kona Trail. In 2006, the Public
Works Department constructed
approximately 1,200 feet of sidewalk
along a portion of Kachina Trail and
the lower part of Kona Trail. Additional sidewalk improvements have been proposed for the upper
portion of Kona hill and portions of Kachina and Pinon Trails. There are no other pedestrian or bicycle
facilities in Kachina Village (Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008). Funding for the sidewalk improvements
has not been identified.
The Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008, identifies a concept to extend the sidewalk on Kachina Trail / Kona
Trail an additional 865 feet of sidewalk along the upper part of Kona Trail. The Plan also identifies a
concept to construct approximately one half mile of pedestrian trail along Pinon from Kachina Trail to
Tonalea Trail. Other concepts include trails for the Pumphouse Natural Area that are primarily
recreation‐oriented. Recreational trails are discussed in more detail in the ‘Parks and Recreation’
element of the plan (Kachina Village Area Plan, 2008).
Sidewalk on Kachina Trail at the intersection with Pinon Trail, looking
north.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 19 01/18/2010
Inclement winter weather exacerbates bicycling and pedestrian conditions in Kachina Village. As
previously described in Chapter Two, the current practice of Coconino County is to plow the snow to the
side of the roadway, creating snow berms that often encroach on shoulder areas and in walking areas.
In addition, once the snow melts, the fine cinders left on the pavement result in slick conditions for
pedestrians and bicyclists. An area of particular concern for pedestrians is the hill on Kona Trail, because
of steep grade and relatively high traffic volumes. During a walkabout workshop with TAC members in
March 2009, TAC members stated that the setting sun during the winter blinds westbound vehicles on
Kachina Trail and Kona Trail, which creates a dangerous condition for all roadway users. A TAC member
concern is that this increases likelihood of pedestrian‐vehicle crashes, particularly when snow berms
cover the sidewalk.
2.4.2 Trails
Trails in Kachina Village are shown on Exhibit 1‐1. Trails and access to surrounding forest lands are an
important part of Kachina Village.
Forest Service lands can be accessed from two points on the west side of the community: Toho Trail, at
Buffalo Trail, and Pumphouse Wash at Jadito Trail. There is also a Forest Service access point on the
south side of the study area off of Toho Trail.
Trails represent an important element of the transportation network for both recreational and non‐recreational
uses.
Existing authorized trails in Kachina Village include approximately a half mile of improved trail along the
east side of Pumphouse Wash, along Pinon Trail. The trail is on Coconino County property and is
maintained by the County Parks and Recreation Department. The trail connects the school bus stop at
Pinon Trail and Tonalea Trail to Kachina Trail.
The Highland Trail is a brand new trail that connects Fort Tuthill County Park with Kachina Village
wetlands, terminating at the entrance to the KVID wetlands. This is shown in Exhibit 1‐1 as “Pedestrian
Access to KVID Wetlands”. The county plans to extend the trail through the wetlands in 2009 with
support from the KVID.
In addition to the above‐named authorized trails, pedestrian activity in forest lands in and surrounding
Kachina Village has resulted in several unauthorized social trails or user‐created trails in and around
Kachina Village. Social trails often evolve into an unplanned and poorly located route that can
contribute to erosion and other environmental impacts. Social trails in Kachina Village include:
􀂃 An unauthorized social trail located west of the Highlands Fire Station. The trail starts on the utility
corridor and then passes along the borders of 11 private properties, and then terminates at
Harrenburg Wash.
􀂃 Another unauthorized trail is located east of Mesa Trail on Coconino County owned lands. It is
situated between private parcels and the wetlands.
Stakeholder input suggests that both of these unauthorized trails are used by the residents living
adjacent to them and do not attract people who have to drive and park at the trailhead.
Potential new trails in Kachina Village include:
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 20 01/18/2010
􀂃 Additional trails for other parts of the Pumphouse Natural Area. Coconino County has an agreement
in place with the KVID to develop public parking and trailhead access to the Pumphouse Wash Trail
and to the future trail above the Harrenburg Wash.
􀂃 Establish a connection of Kachina Village to the Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS). Potential
alternatives include establishing a connection between the terminus of the Highlands Trail located
on the north side of the study area to Raymond County Park. Upon completion, the Highlands
Regional Trail will start at the KVID wetlands entrance and continue north of State Route 89A just
south of Pine Del.
􀂃 Stakeholders and TAC members suggested connecting the authorized trail and the unauthorized trail
west of the fire station located on Kona Trail to create a one mile loop for recreational use. The loop
would follow the authorized trail south and then follow Pumphouse Wash and Harrenburg Wash. At
Harrenburg Wash the loop trail would connect with the unauthorized trail (which would become
authorized) west of the fire station. The loop would then continue southeast on Kona Trail until it
meets up again at the trailhead east of the intersection at Pinon and Kachina Trails. This loop trail
would access one of the three National Forest trails access points. Easements through the private
parcels would be required to establish a connection between the current unauthorized trail and the
authorized trail along Harrenburg Wash.
􀂃 Another potential regional trail connection is on Tovar Trail where there are three large culverts
located at Schoolhouse Draw and I‐17, which is adjacent to Tovar Trail. The culverts are currently
tall enough for pedestrians to pass through comfortably; however, the bottom of two of the culverts
is filled with water. The
third culvert has a thick
muddy bottom, but could
be dried and used as a
passage. Currently,
pedestrians and bicyclists
use the interchange at I‐17
and Kachina Blvd. to access
the trails east of
I‐17. A trail connection
under I‐17, using the
culvert, would allow
pedestrians and bicyclists
to cross I‐17 safely without
requiring them to use the
interchange. The property
immediately adjacent and
east of I‐17 is privately
owned, but further east is
the National Forest. The
KVID utility easement
passes through the private property east of I‐17 and there may be a possibility for using that
easement as a trail as well.
Culvert under I‐17, adjacent to Tovar Trail. The left culvert could potentially
be used as a pedestrian crossing to the east side of I‐17.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 21 01/18/2010
3.0 WINTER MAINTENANCE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
3.1 Site Conditions
Kachina Village is located at an elevation of approximately 6,700 feet above mean sea level and contains
both areas of steep terrain and low lands containing drainages and wetlands. The mean air
temperatures in winter months remain near freezing and precipitation typically occurs in the form of
snow. More than half of the precipitation in Kachina Village occurs between the months of November
and March. It is not uncommon to have a storm system deposit two feet of snow. Winter temperatures
and precipitation have been known to last into June in Coconino County, Arizona. Cold temperatures
during winter months and the potential for heavy snowfall often result in inclement driving conditions
within Kachina Village.
Drainage in Kachina Village flows into the Pumphouse Natural Area, the Pumphouse Wash, and the
Harrenburg Wash. These drainage systems are dedicated open space set aside to preserve the natural
systems and sensitive habitats that it supports. Guiding water to these systems are roadside drainages
that consist of roadside ditches with culverts at intersections that guide the runoff toward low points.
3.2 Current Kachina Village Winter Storm Management Practices
The Maintenance Division of the Coconino County Public Works Department is responsible for
maintaining roadway conditions within Kachina Village. A combination of snowplows and cinders are
used as the standard approach to address snow and icy roadway conditions in Kachina Village. Clearing
snow from roads in Kachina Village is prioritized based on roadway functional classification: arterials,
collectors, and residential streets. Once the main routes are cleared, side streets and cul‐de‐sacs are
plowed. The priority system is intended to restore limited mobility within the community while keeping
emergency service access as open as possible. The County’s stated goal is to have every road open
within a 24‐hour period, but
sometimes due to heavy snowfall,
clearing of the main roads takes
longer, and clearing of the side
streets and cul‐de‐sacs is delayed
accordingly (Kachina Village Area
Plan, 2008).
Cinders are used on the roads to
provide traction for vehicles in icy
conditions. When the snow and ice
melt, however, the runoff from the
surrounding higher points of
Kachina Village carry the cinders
into the washes. There is a drainage
outfall structure where the runoff
enters Pumphouse Wash. The
cinders are allowed to enter the
wash and have accumulated several
feet deep near this structure and
Cinder buildup on Kona Trail.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 22 01/18/2010
have altered the drainage patterns. There are currently no standard practices in place to limit cinders
from entering local waterways. The County does not currently use anti‐icing and de‐icing agents in
Kachina Village.
3.3 Common Winter Storm Management Techniques
The following sections briefly describe the various winter storm management techniques that could be
employed by the County as viable winter storm management techniques within Kachina Village. During
open houses held in May and September 2009, residents were asked to fill out a survey, which included
questions asking residents to provide input on the current winter management practices. There was a
near unanimous response that residents preferred to continue the use of cinders, and opposed the
introduction of other techniques described below in this section. Residents were concerned that winter
storm management techniques that utilize chemicals will result in greater impacts on the wetlands.
Residents stated that if the County were to change its practices from using cinders to a chemical that
they be notified and given an opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter. A summary of the
survey is available in Appendix A and complete documentation of public input and involvement is
available in the Public Involvement Summary Report, which is under a separate cover.
Abrasives
Abrasives are applied to roadways during winter storms to improve vehicle traction but are not used to
melt ice and snow. Abrasives application is most effective when pavement temperatures are below
15 Fahrenheit (oF) (AASHTO, 2004). In Arizona, abrasives generally consist of volcanic cinders or sand.
Cinders are most often used in the northern half of the state, whereas sand occurs and is most often
used in the southern half of the state. A limitation of volcanic cinders is that they break down into fine
particles that provide less traction. In contrast, sand grains do not break down into finer particles as
easily. Cinders applied to roadways often end up in streams and lakes contributing to turbidity and
sedimentation and resulting in impacts to fish and aquatic resources. Vehicles may grind abrasives into
fine particles that can become airborne when dry, resulting in increased air pollution (AASHTO, 2004).
The cinders are also considered ‘fill materials’ into ‘Waters of the United States’ and are regulated under
the Federal Clean Water Act.
De‐icing
De‐icing chemicals are an alternative to cinders and could potentially reduce or eliminate the use of
cinders. De‐icing agents are used to create a brine solution that disrupts the bond that ice has already
made with the pavement surface (AASHTO, 2004). Once the ice/pavement bond is broken, it is easier for
equipment to remove the ice. De‐icing agents are applied during and/or after the start of a winter storm
once snow and ice have accumulated on the road (AASHTO, 2004).
De‐icing chemicals have the potential to affect the water composition of rivers, streams, and lakes,
especially slow‐flowing streams and small ponds. The accumulation and persistence of salts in
watersheds pose risks to aquatic ecosystems, and attracts wildlife to roadways contributing to increased
accidents between vehicles and animals (AASHTO, 2004).
Roadside trees and other vegetation may be affected by increased concentrations of salt on soil and
water leading to greater root absorption, and salt accumulation by foliage and branches due to vehicle
splash and windblown dry salt. Trees closest to the road (generally those within 20 feet) are the most
affected, and there is frequently a distinct injury gradient with distance from the road (AASHTO, 2004).
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 23 01/18/2010
Several State Highway Maintenance Divisions in the northern U.S. are beginning to experiment with
sugar‐based de‐icing products. Sugar, like salt enhances melting values. Any substance that dissolves in
water has this effect, but each substance will have varying outcomes. Most winter storm test
applications have added beet sugar or molasses to the standard brine solution. Initial studies show that
use of this mixture (sugar and salt) as a winter storm management is less corrosive on metal structures
and less destructive to vegetation than salt alone. The effects of this new de‐icing product on wildlife
have not been fully researched. Salt, such as sodium chloride (NaCl), may attract wildlife to roadways
and contribute to roadkill.
Anti‐icing
Anti‐icing chemicals are used to lower the freezing point of water on a highway surface to prevent snow
and ice from initially bonding to the pavement (AASHTO, 2004). Anti‐icing chemicals should be applied
prior to, or very shortly after, the start of a winter storm to prevent snow and ice from bonding to the
pavement. Liquid magnesium chloride (MgCl2) is typically used for anti‐icing operations. NaCl is an
effective de‐icer for pavement temperatures above 22 °F. Calcium chloride (CaCl2) and MgCl2 are very
effective de‐icing chemicals when pavement temperatures are between ‐5 and 22 °F (AASHTO, 2004).
Anti‐icing chemicals are best applied on shady areas, grades that historically have caused difficulties for
motorists during storms, roadway curves, approaches at the bottom of hills, and bridge decks.
Unfortunately, anti‐icing chemicals, like de‐icing, have the potential to affect the water chemistry of
slow‐flowing streams, rivers, streams, small ponds, and lakes. The accumulation and persistence of salts
in watersheds pose risks to aquatic ecosystems, and the presence of NaCl attracts wildlife to roadways
and contributes to roadkill (AASHTO, 2004).
Pre‐wetting
Pre‐wetting is a technique used to enhance the capabilities of abrasives, de‐icing, and anti‐icing
applications by ensuring that more material stays on the roadway surface. Pre‐wetting is accomplished
by adding liquid chemicals to granular chemicals or abrasives before they are applied to the road. The
technique increases the rate at which chemical additives penetrate snow and ice layers on the
pavement (ADOT, 2004).
Snowplow
The primary function and purpose of a snowplow is to physically remove snow and loose ice from a
roadway without damaging the integrity of the pavement (AASHTO, 2004). Plowing typically is
performed when snow or ice inhibits functional traffic flow or when a sufficient amount of snow or ice
has accumulated on the pavement (generally agreed to be approximately one inch thick). In addition to
plowing snow away from the roadway, snowpack or ice can be fractured and subsequently removed
with a blade.
Brooming
Brooming is a technique that can be used for removing snow that is loose or not bonded to the
pavement surface. This technique can clear the surface fairly well; however, it will not remove
compacted snow and ice and it is most effective in areas that receive little traffic.
Snow Blowers
In areas with significant snow accumulations, snow blowers can be used to remove deep snow
accumulations, usually following a heavy storm (TAC, 2003). Snow blowers typically are mounted on
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 24 01/18/2010
dedicated trucks and blowers can be used in conjunction with snowplows to relocate snow banks and
make room for subsequent snowplow piles.
Snow Fences
Depending on the quantity of snow, the use of snow fences to control windblown snow or snowdrift
may be utilized at site specific locations. Snow fences are long, fixed, standing structures that are
strategically placed within the right‐of‐way to control drifting snow and improve motorist visibility. Snow
fences can minimize the amount of chemical additives or abrasives required and/or the amount of snow
to plow.
Vegetation Trimming and Natural Sunlight
Sunlight is a natural method of accelerating snow and ice melt and can be enhanced by reducing shade
and trimming canopies that overhang the roadway (ADOT, 2004). Shade reduction may entail thinning
trees and/or flattening slopes to increase the amount or duration of sunlight that reaches the road.
Thinning trees also has the benefit of reducing fire fuel loads and increasing visibility. However, the
potential for a decrease in roadway aesthetics should be a consideration before deciding to thin trees.
Tree removal should be targeted for those sections of roadway that have a history of developing
patches of ice or being the last sections of road where ice melts.
3.4 Best Management Practices Recommendations
An element of the Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study is to recommend BMPs for winter
roadway maintenance operations that minimize impacts to wetlands. The recommended BMPs are a
result of the analysis conducted in Working Paper No. 1 and from stakeholder and public input received
at public open house meetings held in May and September 2009.
Input received at the public open house meetings expressed preference for the continued use of
snowplowing and cinders, as compared to the use of chemical additives. Public input and perspectives
is that chemical additives may pose a greater threat to the local wetland system than the naturally
occurring cinders. However, many at the public meeting expressed concerned that the cinders threaten
the wetland system as they are washed from the roadside and enter the washes through runoff.
Another concern expressed is that cinders left on the side of the road and/or on sidewalks contribute to
pedestrians walking in the roadway.
Considering stakeholder, TAC, and public input and perspectives, the following management practices
are recommended for consideration.
3.4.1 Snowplows and Cinders
Snowplows are an efficient means to remove snow from the roads. Although the community has
expressed input about property damage resulting from snowplows, it is anticipated that use of
snowplowing will continue in Kachina Village.
Naturally occurring cinders are also currently used in Kachina Village to provide traction on slippery
roads. A major concern of Kachina Village stakeholders and the public is that significant cinder
accumulation and roadside deposition results throughout the course of the winter, and cinders remain
along the roadside after winter maintenance practices have ceased for the season. Deposition of
cinders in drainage channels and wetlands was evident during the June 2009 field reconnaissance at the
intersection of Kachina Trail and Pinon Trail. This intersection is not only where two of the Kachina
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 25 01/18/2010
Village’s main roads intersect, but also where Pumphouse Wash wetlands narrows down considerably as
it flows southwest through Kachina Village. Roadway runoff from the surrounding higher points of
Kachina Village carry with it cinders used during winter storms. The deposition of cinders into
Pumphouse Wash appears to be altering the drainage pattern near the existing roadway crossing.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to employ snowplows and cinders as acceptable winter storm
management techniques. The use of chemical additives to road surfaces is not desired by the local
residents. Additional maintenance practices are recommended below to mitigate cinders deposition.
3.4.2 Roadside Cleaning
As mentioned above, a major concern of Kachina Village stakeholders and the public is that significant
cinder accumulation results throughout the course of the winter, and remain along the roadside after
winter maintenance practices have ceased for the season.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Coconino County identify feasible techniques to remove
roadside cinders each spring. Removal of roadside cinders will help to prevent cinders from entering the
wetlands. This can potentially be completed through use of suction trucks, street sweepers, or graders.
In addition, the existing box culvert system associated with Kachina Trail and Pumphouse Wash should
be routinely cleaned so that all box ‘cells’ are functioning. This may require coordination with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to determine the need for a Clean Water Act permit. Depending on the
magnitude of work within waters of the U.S., these activities may qualify under a Nationwide Permit
Number 3. Maintenance.
3.4.3 Trap Drain and Drainage Study
Kachina Village is surrounded by washes and wetlands that attract a variety of wildlife to the area.
Maintaining the wildlife and the health of the wetlands and washes was noted by the public and
stakeholders as a priority. Stakeholders had a number of concerns in regards to what factors were
impacting the wetland and washes,
including cinders carried by runoff
and culverts that are blocked by
debris. It is recommended that a
drainage study be conducted to
examine the drainage patterns in
Kachina Village and to determine the
extent of the impacts created by
cinder buildup in the wetlands and
washes.
A possible concept to evaluate in the
study is the use of a sediment trap or
basin. A sediment trap is a filter at
the end of a drainage channel where
runoff is guided. The trap filters the
sediment from the runoff water and
Conceptual Trap Drain System. allows the water to pass into the
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 26 01/18/2010
wetlands and retains the sediment. The filter would have to be cleaned annually or whenever excessive
buildup occurs to ensure that the system maintains its function. A sediment basin works in a similar
fashion, but instead of using a filter, a basin is constructed where the drainage channel enters the
wetland or wash. The basin acts as a barrier to slow runoff and naturally separate sediment before the
water enters the wetland or wash.
The drainage study should also include an evaluation of the existing box culverts that connect to the
wetlands and washes, particularly the bridge on Kachina Trail, just before the intersection with Pinon
Trail. Stakeholders observed that a few of the culvert cells were blocked by debris and that the other
cells were inundated with water. Stakeholders expressed concern that the blocked cells may potentially
alter drainage patterns. A drainage study would be required to determine the cause of the blocked cells,
as well as any mitigation required.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a drainage study to evaluate the cause of blocked cells as well as any
mitigation required. The drainage study should evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a sediment
basin.
The drainage study should consider constructing a trap drain system at all major roadside drainage
locations to capture cinders before entering local drainages. These traps should be cleaned out yearly to
remove cinders.
A summary of Environmental Best Management Practices is included in Exhibit 3‐1.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 27 01/18/2010
Exhibit 3‐1 – Environmental Best Management Practices
Environmental BMPs
Type of BMP Recommendation Comments
Winter Maintenance Improvements Continue the use of snowplows to
clear the snow and cinders to create
traction.
The community desired the
continued use current maintenance
practices, including the use of
cinders since as they perceive it to
be the least harmful to the washes
and natural environment.
Winter Maintenance Improvements Clean the roadsides after other
winter maintenance practices have
ceased for the season to remove
cinders before they enter the wash
system.
The community has expressed
concerns about snowmelt in the
spring, which carries and deposits
cinders into the surrounding
washes. Removing the cinders once
snow has ceased for the season
would prevent cinders from
entering the washes.
Drainage Study Conduct a drainage study to
determine how the drainage system
is impacted by cinders, runoff, snow
play, and development.
Consideration of a trap drain system
should be a major element of the
study.
The community has expressed
concerns about snowmelt in the
spring, which carries and deposits
cinders into the surrounding
washes.
Bridge on Kachina Trail over the
Pumphouse Natural Area and the
Pumphouse Wash.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
Sediment Basin.
Source: Kentucky Construction Site BMP
Planning and Technical Specification Manual
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 28 01/18/2010
3.4.4 Literature Cited
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2004, Snow
and Ice Control: Guidelines for Materials and Methods, prepared by Blackburn, R.R., Bauer, K.,
Amsler, D.E., Boselly, S.E., and McElroy, A.D., NCHRP Report 526.
2. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), 2008, Winter Storm Management of Arizona State
Highways, Operations Manual. 290 pp.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 29 01/18/2010
4.0 SUMMARY OF MULTIMODAL NEEDS
Chapter 4 discusses the process to identify multimodal needs in Kachina Village that served as input to
the development of a program of projects. Identification of multimodal needs was based on the
following:
􀂃 Review of existing conditions, including land uses, and traffic data and crashes, as documented in
Working Paper No. 1 – Current and Future Conditions.
􀂃 Multiple site visits with stakeholders where multimodal transportation opportunities and
constraints were discussed and identified.
􀂃 Review of stakeholder and public input summarized in Working Paper No. 1 – Current and Future
Conditions.
􀂃 Review of input received at Public Open House Meeting No. 1 (May 2009) and Public Open House
Meeting No. 2 (September 2009).
4.1 Summary of Multimodal Transportation Needs and Deficiencies
Working Paper No. 1 – Current and Future Conditions, reviewed Kachina Village land uses and
multimodal transportation conditions within the study area. A review of previous studies and plans was
conducted, along with a crash data analysis and two site visits to Kachina Village where members of the
TAC were present.
The public played a vital role in identifying needs. Two open houses were held, one in May 2009 and a
second in September 2009. During the first open house the public viewed boards displaying Kachina
Village current conditions and maps of the study area. The public was then asked to write on the maps
to indicate where problems exist and what improvements they would like to see. The public was also
provided a questionnaire that asked them to identify problems in the area and what could be improved.
A detailed record of the comments and questions from the public are included in the Public Involvement
Summary Report, prepared by URS, which is under a separate cover. A summary of responses submitted
from the public open house questionnaire form can be found in Appendix A. The second open house
focused on obtaining feedback on potential projects for recommendation.
The following sections summarize the needs identified in Working Paper No. 1 – Current and Future
Conditions.
4.1.1 Pedestrians and Bicycles
Analysis of responses from the public open house question form shows that the majority of pedestrians
in Kachina Village walk for recreational purposes.
The roads that were most commonly identified by residents as those that they walk or bicycle on are:
Kachina Trail, Toho Trail, and Pinon Trail. Other roads identified include Tovar Trail, Beaver Trail, Tolani
Trail, Tishepi Trail, Naahtee Trail, and Kona Trail.
􀂃 A general need to improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodation on Kachina Village roadways was
identified. This may be achieved through improved shoulders, and/or addition of striping in
appropriate areas. A need for improved shoulders was identified by the public on the question
form.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 30 01/18/2010
􀂃 Sidewalks, with exception in limited areas, are generally not desired by the community because they
want to maintain the rural character of the community.
􀂃 Steep grades and topography have created a few locations where it is difficult to see pedestrians on
the road.
􀂃 There are several informal “unauthorized” trails in the community. These are of concern because
they have not been properly designed or located, and may contribute to erosion and ecological
damage.
􀂃 A general need exists to improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the community. This may
include proper construction of authorized trails, and improved pedestrian accommodation on the
roads.
􀂃 There is a need to identify connections to the FUTS. This was commonly identified as a need by
members of the public on the public question form.
4.1.2 Public Transit
􀂃 Members of the public identified a need for transit service to Flagstaff from Kachina Village. Park
and ride lots were identified as the most viable option, considering the circuitous layout of the
community makes regular transit inefficient, leading to long trip times.
􀂃 If funding is identified for public transit to Flagstaff, park and ride lots should be identified.
4.1.3 Roadways
􀂃 TAC input is that a lack of pullouts creates congestion on Tovar Trail and Kachina Trail when drivers
stop on those roads to view the elk. No comments were received about this issue from members of
the public.
􀂃 TAC input is that congestion is experienced at the intersection of Kachina Trail and Pinon Trail due to
the parked cars, motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic during peak hours.
􀂃 According to data collected by Coconino County, speeding occurs on several roads within the
community; speeding was a contributing factor for a significant percentage of traffic crashes.
􀂃 A need to improve training of snowplow operators was identified by multiple members of the
public. Several comments were submitted regarding snow berms across driveways and damage to
personal property caused by the snowplows.
Exhibit 4‐1 summarizes multimodal opportunities and constraints in Kachina Village.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 31 01/18/2010
Exhibit 4‐1 – Summary of Multimodal Transportation Opportunities and Constraints
Multimodal
Element
Opportunities Constraints
Multi‐use
paths and
trails
Existing trails can be connected to create a
community‐wide trail network.
“Unauthorized trails” can be formalized and
properly sited and designed.
Activity nodes in the community (Raymond
County Park, wetlands, Pic‐n‐Run, and
Pumphouse Wash) can be connected with trail
extensions.
Consideration may be given to modifying the
culvert that crosses under I‐17, adjacent to
Tovar Trail, for use as a pedestrian crossing to
the east side of I‐17 and a connection to
Mountainaire.
Raymond County Park expansion plans include
trails that connect to the sidewalk on Kachina
Trail and to the proposed urban trail on Pinon
Trail.
An urban trail on Pinon Trail could potentially
connect to Harrenburg Wash.
Trail easements would need to be acquired to
create a connecting trail system in Kachina
Village.
Any pedestrian crossings off of I‐17 would
require coordination and approval from ADOT.
Roadways Most roads in Kachina Village experience
relatively low traffic volumes, which is
conducive to safety and comfortable use of
roads by bicycles.
Shoulder widening may be considered to
provide bicycle lanes, and would provide wider
roads in which snow can be stored during
winter roadway maintenance operations.
Traffic calming techniques may be considered
to reduce vehicle speeds. TAC input is that
raised elements (e.g. speed tables) should not
be considered due to winter maintenance
concerns.
During snowplowing, berms are created along
streets in areas used by pedestrians because
there is no other place to put the snow due to
lack of shoulders.
Most roads in Kachina Village range from 24’ to
28’ wide. With exception in limited locations,
roads in Kachina Village are too narrow to
install a dedicated bicycle lane without
accompanying shoulder widening.
Shoulder widening may contribute to increased
vehicle speeds, which is counter‐productive to
improving conditions for bicycles and
pedestrians.
Traffic calming techniques must consider snow
removal techniques. Unseen sharp edges could
damage a plow.
Cinders that remain on the road after snowmelt
create slippery conditions for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 32 01/18/2010
Exhibit 4‐1 – Summary of Multimodal Transportation Opportunities and Constraints (continued)
Multimodal
Element
Opportunities Constraints
Public
Transit
There are a few parking areas located in
Kachina Village that could be converted to park
and ride lots that would support public transit
service to/from Kachina Village and Flagstaff.
Lack of bike lockers in the Raymond County
Park parking lot.
Using the Raymond County Park parking lot as a
park and ride lot may not attract drivers since
most residents would have to drive to reach the
parking lot. It is difficult to entice drivers to get
out of their cars and wait for a bus when they
are already in their cars.
Sidewalks The existing sidewalk on Kona Trail could be
extended.
Sidewalks may detract from the community’s
rural character.
4.1.4 Priority Lanes
As identified above, roadways in Kachina Village are generally too narrow to install dedicated bicycle
lanes without widening the existing shoulders. An alternative concept to traditional bicycle lanes for low
volume roadways is that of “Priority Lanes”. “Priority Lanes” consist of a dashed bicycle lane that is
approximately five feet wide on each side of local roadways that are too narrow for traditional bicycle
lanes. “Priority Lanes” are different from typical bicycle lanes in that drivers are permitted to cross the
lane line markings with care in a “Priority Lane”, as long as they yield to bicycles and pedestrians within
the “Priority Lane”. “Priority Lanes” should only be considered for low volume roads.
When a bicyclist or pedestrian is not present in the “Priority Lane”, a vehicle may drive within the
“Priority Lane”. When a bicyclist or pedestrian is present in the “Priority Lane”, the vehicle must move
completely out of the “Priority Lane”, pass the bicyclist or pedestrian with care, and then move back into
the “Priority Lane”.
The “Priority Lane” is a flexible tool with
potential for developing bicycle networks.
They can be used to reduce the confusion
and conflict between vehicles and bicycles or
pedestrians by allowing bicycles, pedestrians,
and vehicles to share the road in a
predictable manner. Exhibit 4‐2 illustrates
how vehicles and bicyclists maneuver on a
road with a “Priority Lane”. The photo on the
left is a simulation of a “Priority Lane”.
Although the “Priority Lanes” have been
implemented in Europe on low volume rural
roadways, this concept is not approved in the
current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). For this reason,
Photo simulation of “Priority Lanes.”
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 33 01/18/2010
Coconino County staff and ADOT have not endorsed the concept for recommendation in
Kachina Village. However, it is recommended that the concept be considered in the future by County
staff as a lower cost alternative to improve conditions of bicycles and pedestrians on rural roadways. If
“Priority Lanes” are considered in the future, Coconino County may desire to utilize the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)/MUTCD experimentation process. Information on the experimentation process
can be found on the MUTCD website (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm).
Exhibit 4‐2 – Priority Lane
Example of “Priority Lanes” in Switzerland.
Source: Google Maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps?source=earth&layer=c&cbll=46.736227,7.604412&cbp=13,112.09,,0,5&ie=UTF
8&ll=46.736175,7.604524&spn=0,359.99716&z=19&panoid=1AYkKmmow61nzNzkAfYXsQ
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 34 01/18/2010
4.2 Initial Identification of Potential Projects
Based on the inputs described previously in this chapter, a list of potential projects is summarized in
Exhibit 4‐2. The projects are presented in more detail in Chapter 5 – Program of Projects.
Exhibit 4‐2 – Initial Identification of Projects
Improvement Project
Type
Potential Projects
Shoulder Improvements Widen to 4’ shoulder on Tolani Trail – Tovar Trail to Kachina Trail
Shoulder Improvements Widen to 4’ shoulder on Kachina Trail – Tolani Trail to Kona Trail
Shoulder Improvements Widen to 4’ shoulder on Pinon Trail – Kona Trail to Kachina Trail
Shoulder Improvements Widen to 4’ shoulder on Kachina Trail – Kachina Blvd. to Pinon Trail
Shoulder Improvements Widen to 4’ shoulder on Toho Trail – Pinon Trail to Kachina Trail
Unpaved Trail Construct an unpaved trail along Tovar Trail – Tishepi Trail to Harrenburg
Wash
Unpaved Trail Construct an unpaved trail along the unauthorized social trail – Kona Trail to
Harrenburg Wash
Unpaved Trail Construct an unpaved trail around Harrenburg Wash – off of Pinon Trail
Unpaved Trail Construct an unpaved trail from Kachina Village to Highlands Regional Trail
Unpaved Trail Construct an unpaved trail along Pinon Trail – Kachina Trail to Tonalea Trail
Pathway / Sidewalk
Improvements
Construct a pathway or sidewalk along Kachina Trail, Kachina Blvd to Pinon
Trail
Sidewalk Construction Construct a sidewalk along Kona Trail – Pinon Trail to Wakas Trail
Parking and Pullout
Improvements
Improve the existing space south of the Village Land Shoppe into a parking
or pullout area
Parking and Pullout
Improvements
Improve the existing space north of the Village Land Shoppe into a parking or
pullout area
Parking and Pullout
Improvements
Construct pullouts for motor vehicles along Tovar Trail to view wildlife
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at intersection of Kachina Trail and Kachina Blvd; the
roundabout may serve as an entry monument into Kachina Village
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 35 01/18/2010
5.0 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
Fifteen improvement projects were identified for Kachina Village through the needs analysis,
stakeholder input, and public involvement activities, as presented in Chapter 4. A public open house
was held on September 17, 2009, to present and obtain feedback on the projects. Based on the input
from that meeting and stakeholders, a program of projects was established for recommendation.
The 15 projects, with associated justifications, are summarized in Exhibit 5‐1. The projects are divided
into short, mid, and long term based on their complexity, community perspectives, and cost/funding.
The projects are presented in the following categories: shoulder improvements, unpaved trails,
sidewalks, parking and pullout improvements, and intersection improvements.
5.1 Shoulder Improvements
The roadways in Kachina Village are often traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists, but there is a lack of
designated space for these users on the roadway. The program of projects includes recommendations
for shoulder improvements to four‐foot shoulders on both sides of the street, delineated by a solid
white stripe, as depicted in Exhibit 5��1 below. Pedestrians and bicyclists will be able to use this space
without conflicting with vehicular traffic. It is important to emphasize that overall street width should
generally not exceed 28 feet, unless otherwise required. In addition, it is recommended that travel
lanes be generally limited to ten feet.
Exhibit 5‐1 – Typical 4’Shoulder with White Stripe, and 10’ Travel Lanes
5.2 Unpaved Trails
The program of projects includes recommendations for a network of unpaved trails. Through the public
involvement process, people were able to identify trails and areas they frequently walked. In these
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 36 01/18/2010
locations, an unpaved trail is appropriate to accommodate users while maintaining the characteristic of
the natural surroundings. For cost‐estimating purposes, it is assumed that the unpaved trails will be
unpaved and six‐feet wide. As trail projects are implemented, specifications may change as appropriate
for local conditions.
5.3 Sidewalk Improvements
While the community generally does not support an extensive network of sidewalks in Kachina Village,
the program of projects recommends extension of existing sidewalks in selected locations to improve
pedestrian safety in areas of steep grades and higher traffic volumes.
5.4 Parking and Pullout Improvements
Kachina Village has numerous areas that are ideal for viewing wildlife. Many of these areas are along
major roads or at major intersections in the community, which leads to potential conflicts for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. During the public involvement process, areas were identified
where pullouts or parking areas were needed to allow people to pull off of the road and view wildlife
safely.
In addition, the public identified a need for park and ride lots if public transit is initiated in Kachina
Village.
5.5 Intersection Improvements
The program of projects includes consideration of a roundabout at the intersection of Kachina Boulevard
and Kachina Trail. The roundabout would improve conditions for pedestrians at this wide intersection.
5.6 Program of Projects
The locations of these projects are shown in Exhibit 5‐2, and are mapped in Exhibit 5‐3. Estimates of
probable cost were developed for each project. Supporting detail for the estimates of probable cost is
included in Appendix B.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 37 01/18/2010
Exhibit 5‐2 – Program of Projects
Project
No.
Road Name Location
Type of
Work
Estimate of
Probable
Cost
Project Purpose Length Comments
Short‐Term Projects (0–5 years)
1 Harrenburg
Wash
Off of Pinon
Trail
6’ Unpaved
Trail
$14,689 Trail improvements to
create a trail around the
Harrenburg Wash,
beginning and ending at
existing KVID parking
area at Oraibi Ovi /
Pinon Trail.
0.2 miles Coconino County identified this trail to allow
people to view the wildlife along Harrenburg
Wash with little disturbance.
Mid‐Term Projects (5–10 years)
2 Tovar Trail Tishepi Trail
to Kachina
Blvd.
6’ Unpaved
Trail
$80,788 Easement acquisition to
create an unpaved
multi‐use pathway
separated from the
roadway.
1.1 miles Tovar Trail experiences higher vehicular speeds;
improvements to Tovar Trail will serve to
connect to the proposed Highlands Regional
Trail. A path separated from the road serves to
create a designated area for pedestrians and
bicyclists to travel to the Highlands Regional
Trail. Cost estimate does not include any
required easement or land acquisition costs.
3 Unauthorized
social trail
Kona Trail
to the
Harrenburg
Wash
6’ Unpaved
Trail
$29,377 Trail improvements and
easement acquisition to
formalize existing
unauthorized social trail
and connect trail to
proposed trail along
Harrenburg Wash
(Improvement #1).
0.4 miles Coconino County identified this trail as a
connector trail between the Harrenburg Wash
and Kona Trail. The trail is already frequently
used by those living near the trailhead. Cost
estimate does not include any required
easement or land acquisition costs.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 38 01/18/2010
Exhibit 5‐2 – Program of Projects (continued)
Project
No.
Road
Name
Location
Type of
Work
Estimate of
Probable
Cost
Project Purpose Length Comments
Mid‐Term Projects (5–10 years) (continued)
4 Connection
to (FUTS)
Kachina
Village to
FUTS
6’ Unpaved
Trail
$110,166 Trail improvements to
connect Kachina Village
to the FUTS. Requires
coordination with land
owners as plans are
developed for existing
40‐acre parcel located
east of KVID Wetlands.
~1.5
miles
(path is
undeter‐mined)
The public and Coconino County identified this
trail as an appropriate location to connect the
community to the FUTS. Cost estimate does
not include any required easement or land
acquisition costs.
5 Pinon Trail Kachina
Trail to
Tonalea
Trail
6’ Unpaved
Trail
$36,722 Trail improvements to
construct an unpaved
path north of the
Pumphouse Wash, along
Pinon Trail.
0.5 miles Coconino County identified this section of Pinon
Trail as heavily used by bicyclists and
pedestrians. Additional grading/fill may be
required, which are not reflected in estimate of
probable cost.
6 Kona Trail Pinon Trail
to Wakas
Trail
Construct 6’
Sidewalk
$45,449 Extend the existing
sidewalk up Kona Trail to
Pinon Trail.
0.2 miles Kona Trail was identified by the public as a
roadway frequently used by pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motor vehicles. The Kachina
Village Area Plan, 2008 and the public identified
Kona Trail as an acceptable location for a
sidewalk to create a safer environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Cost estimate does
not include any required easement or land
acquisition costs. Additional slope work
(grading, fill, cut) may be required, which are
not reflected in estimate of probable cost.
Estimate of probable cost does not include
storm drain extensions that may be required.
Additional engineering analysis is required.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 39 01/18/2010
Exhibit 5‐2 – Program of Projects (continued)
Project
No.
Road
Name
Location Type of Work
Estimate of
Probable
Cost
Project Purpose Length Comments
Long‐Term Projects (10–20 years)
7 Kachina
Trail
North of
the Village
Land
Shoppe
Parking
Improvements
(20‐space
paved parking
lot)
$54,863 Improve the existing
space into a paved
parking area to view
wildlife in the
Pumphouse Natural
Area and to access
Raymond County Park.
Undetermined During the spring, wildlife enters the
Pumphouse Natural Area and many motorists
stop on the road to view them. Since there are
no pullouts to accommodate those who stop,
congestion along Kachina Trail becomes an
issue. This parking area would provide access
to Raymond County Park.
8 Tovar
Trail
East of
Pumphouse
Wash
Natural
Area
Pullout
Improvements
(10‐space
unpaved
parking lot)
$34,145 Construct pullouts for
motor vehicles to pull
out of travel lanes to
view wildlife in the
Pumphouse Natural
Area.
Undetermined During the spring, wildlife enters the
Pumphouse Natural Area and many motorists
stop on the road to view them. Since there are
no pullouts to accommodate those who stop,
congestion along Tovar Trail becomes an issue.
Pullouts along this road with views of the
Natural Area would alleviate that congestion.
Estimate of probable cost does not include land
acquisition costs.
9 Kachina
Trail
South of
the Village
Land
Shoppe
Parking
Improvements
(10‐space
unpaved
parking lot)
$34,145 Improve the existing
space into a parking
area. Cost estimate
assumes that the
unpaved parking lot will
consist of approximately
10 spaces.
2.46 acres This parking lot was identified by the public as
an acceptable location for a parking area to
view the wildlife. This location might also be
suitable for carpooling and transit services if
provided. Estimate of probable cost does not
include land acquisition costs.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 40 01/18/2010
Exhibit 5‐2 – Program of Projects (continued)
Project
No.
Road Name Location
Type of
Work
Estimate of
Probable
Cost
Project Purpose Length Comments
Long‐Term Projects (10–20 years) (continued)
10 Tolani Trail Tovar
Trail to
Kachina
Trail
Construct 4’
Shoulders
$106,747 Improve the roadway
to a total of 28’ wide to
accommodate 10’
travel lanes and a 4’
white striped shoulder.
0.4 miles Tolani Trail was identified by the public as a
roadway frequently used by pedestrians. There
are also three school bus stops along this route
that children walk to. Shoulder improvements
may reduce conflicts between pedestrians,
bicyclists and motor vehicles.
11 Kachina Trail Tolani
Trail to
Kona Trail
Construct 4’
Shoulders
$133,434 Improve the roadway
to a total of 28’ wide to
accommodate 10’
travel lanes and a 4’
white striped shoulder.
0.5 miles Kachina Trail is a major road in Kachina Village,
frequently traveled by vehicles, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. Since this section of roadway is
steep, shoulder improvements, as opposed to
priority lanes, are a preferred way to designate
an area for bicyclists and pedestrians to ride or
walk safely. Shoulder improvements may
require widening the roadway.
12 Pinon Trail Kona Trail
to
Kachina
Trail
Construct 4’
Shoulders
$400,302 Improve the roadway
to a total of 28’ wide to
accommodate 10’
travel lanes and a 4’
white striped shoulder.
1.5 miles Pinon Trail was identified by the public as a
roadway frequently used by pedestrians.
There is one National Forest access point and
access to two walking paths off of the roadway.
Shoulder improvements will allow pedestrians
to access trails within the National Forest and to
connect to other trails in the community.
Shoulder improvements will also reduce
conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists and
motor vehicles.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 41 01/18/2010
Exhibit 5‐2 – Program of Projects (continued)
Project
No.
Road Name Location
Type of
Work
Estimate of
Probable
Cost
Project Purpose Length Comments
Long‐Term Projects (10–20 years) (continued)
13 Toho Trail
Pinon
Trail to
Kachina
Trail
Construct 4’
Shoulders
$373,615
Improve the roadway
to a total of 28’ wide to
accommodate 10’
travel lanes and a 4’
white striped shoulder.
1.4 miles
Toho Trail was identified by the public as a
roadway frequently used by pedestrians.
There are two National Forest access points off
Toho Trail. Shoulder improvements will allow
pedestrians to access trails within the National
Forest and would reduce conflicts between
pedestrians/bicyclists and motor vehicles.
14
Kachina Trail
at Kachina
Blvd.
Intersecti
on of
Kachina
Trail and
Kachina
Blvd.
Construct a
single lane
roundabout
with
pedestrian
refuges
$250,000
Construct a single lane
roundabout at the
intersection of Kachina
Blvd. and Kachina Trail.
‐
The roundabout would serve to replace the
current stop controlled intersection. The
roundabout would include pedestrian
accommodations (crosswalks, pedestrian
refuges). The roundabout may be designed to
serve as an entry monument into Kachina
Village. Additional analysis is required to
determine the size and geometry of the
roundabout.
15 Kachina Trail
Kachina
Blvd. to
Pinon
Trail
Construct 4’
Shoulders
Construct 6’
Sidewalk
$163,058
Improve the roadway
to include a 4’ white‐striped
shoulder, a
possible two‐way
center left turn lane,
and a side pathway or
sidewalk along Kachina
Trail.
0.33
miles
Kachina Trail, between Kachina Blvd. and Pinon
Trail, currently consists of bifurcated roadway
segments. Shoulder and sidewalk
improvements may be achieved in this segment
by eliminating the bifurcated segment, and
constructing a two‐way center left turn lane
and shoulder improvements.
Total Cost $1,876,543
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 42 01/18/2010
Exhibit 5�����3 – Map of Program of Projects
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 43 01/18/2010
6.0 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Funding for multimodal improvements and/or new facilities, including those recommended for
construction in Kachina Village, can be identified from a variety of sources, including Federal, State, and
private resources.
6.1 Federal Programs
Section 6.1 identifies potential federal funding sources for pedestrian improvement projects, which
include the following and are discussed in detail below:
􀂃 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU)
􀂃 Surface Transportation Program (STP)
􀂃 Transportation Enhancement Activity (TE) Funds
􀂃 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
􀂃 Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)
􀂃 State and Community Traffic Safety Program (Section 402)
􀂃 Section 5311 Non‐urbanized Area Formula Program
􀂃 Metropolitan Planning Funds
􀂃 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP)
􀂃 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)
􀂃 Federal Transit Capital, Urban, and Rural Funds
􀂃 Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
􀂃 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
SAFETEA‐LU
On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law SAFETEA‐LU. The legislation updated Titles 23 and 49
of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and built upon the significant changes made to the Federal
transportation policy and programs by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
and the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA‐21). SAFETEA‐LU is the largest surface
transportation investment in our Nation's history; totaling $244.1 billion over a five year period (2005‐
2009).
There is available funding for pedestrian facility improvements from the following Federal programs
under SAFETEA‐LU.
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
The STP provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on any Federal‐aid
highway, including the National Highway System (NHS), bridge projects on public roads, transit
capital projects, and public bus terminals and facilities. The program ensures the consideration of
bicyclists and pedestrians in the planning process and facility design by requiring ten percent of STP
funding to be set aside for Transportation Enhancements (discussed on the following page), which can
be spent on pedestrian‐related improvements. The STP funds can be used for on‐road facilities, off‐road
trails, construction of sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic calming projects, modification of sidewalks to comply
with Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements, bicycle and pedestrian signals, parking, and other
supplementary facilities. The STP is funded by 80 percent Federal matching funds and 20 percent state
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 44 01/18/2010
matching funds. The STP has the broadest eligibility requirements, and therefore is considered by states
and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) as a primary source of funds for pedestrian projects.
The STP is funded nationally at $32.5 billion through 2009 and is distributed based on lane‐miles of
Federal‐aid highways, total vehicle miles traveled on those Federal‐aid highways, and estimated
contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).
Transportation Enhancement Activity (TE) Funds
TE funds are apportioned to the states by formulas, based on amounts made available from the STP
under Title 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3). TE funds for the years 2006‐2009 are ten percent of the sum of STP
funds plus Equity Bonus funds apportioned through the STP, but cannot be less than the amount
apportioned in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. There are 12 eligible activities for TE funds, and of those 12 there
are three that apply directly to pedestrian improvements:
􀂃 Provision of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians
􀂃 Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists
􀂃 Preservation of abandoned railroad corridors (including conversion and use for pedestrian and
bicycle trails)
Within these three eligible activities the TE funds can be used for a broad range of projects, including,
but not limited to, paved shoulders, sidewalks, and both paved and unpaved pathways that primarily
serve transportation uses. Projects using TE funds do not have to be located on Federal‐aid highways,
nor do they have to be construction activities. TE funds should be used on projects that relate to surface
transportation and have typically been limited by states to construction projects, planning activities, and
related publications rather than salaries and administrative costs. TE funds should not be used to fund
projects that are part of the routine design of streets and highways. Instead, they should be used to
retrofit poorly designed facilities and for projects that go above and beyond traditional highway designs
and projects.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
HSIP is a Federal‐aid funding program authorized by SAFETEA‐LU to achieve a significant reduction in
traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The HSIP emphasizes a data‐driven, strategic
approach to improving highway safety that focuses on results. HSIP funds may be obligated for
pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements on any public road or publicly owned pedestrian or bicycle
pathway.
To obligate funds, a state must develop and implement a strategic highway safety plan, produce a
program of projects or strategies to reduce safety problems, evaluate the plan on a regular basis. States
with a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that meet the requirements of Title 23 U.S.C. 148 may
obligate HSIP funds for projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle and pedestrian pathway or
trail. The term “highway safety improvement project” means a project described in the State strategic
highway safety plan that corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature, or addresses a
highway safety problem. The term includes a project for one or more of the following:
􀂃 An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist safety or safety of the disabled
􀂃 Construction of a traffic calming feature
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 45 01/18/2010
􀂃 Installation and maintenance of signs (including fluorescent, yellow‐green signs) at pedestrian‐bicycle
crossings and in school zones.
Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)
The FLHP provides funding for a coordinated program of public roads and transit facilities serving
Federal and Indian lands. Pedestrian facilities are considered eligible projects if they are in conjunction
with projects on Federal Lands Highways (Forest Highways, Indian Reservation Roads, Park Roads and
Parkways, Refuge Roads, and Public Lands Highways). A total of $4.5 billion in funds is available through
2009. These funds can be used towards transportation planning, research, engineering, and
construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities. FLHP Funds are typically earmarked.
State and Community Traffic Safety Program (Section 402)
The purpose of the Section 402 program is to assist states and communities with development and
implementation of highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, injuries, and
property damage. Authorized funds for 2009 are $235 million. The funds are allocated based
75 percent on road miles and 25 percent on population. The funds may be used for highway safety
projects and programs including those that improve pedestrian safety. Some of these programs include
training courses for traffic engineers, safety‐related events, enforcement, and education materials.
Section 5311 Non‐urbanized Area Formula Program
This program (Title 49 U.S.C. 5311) provides formula funding to states for the purpose of supporting
public transportation in areas with populations less than 50,000 people. Eighty percent of the statutory
formula is based on the non‐urbanized population of the States. Twenty percent of the formula is based
on land area. No State may receive more than five percent of the amount apportioned for land area. In
addition, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) adds amounts apportioned based on non‐urbanized
population according to the growing States formula factors of 49 U.S.C. 5340 to the amounts
apportioned to the States under the Section 5311 program.
Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative assistance to state agencies, local public
bodies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transportation services. The
state must use 15 percent of its annual apportionment to support intercity bus service, unless the
Governor certifies, after consultation with affected intercity bus providers, that these needs of the state
are adequately met. Projects to meet the requirements of the ADA, the Clean Air Act, or bicycle access
projects, may be funded at 90 percent Federal match. The maximum FTA share for operating assistance
is 50 percent of the net operating costs.
Metropolitan Planning Funds
The purpose of the Metropolitan Planning Funds is to encourage planning, research, and technology
transfer for transportation planning and improvements. The funds can be used for pedestrian‐related
plans and improvements that are part of the metropolitan transportation planning process. The
improvements should be included in the Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan and the
Transportation Improvement Program. The funds are one percent of the funds States receive for the
Interstate Maintenance, NHS, STP, Congestion, Management Air Quality (CMAQ), and Bridge programs.
The funds are allocated based on the population of urbanized areas in each state.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 46 01/18/2010
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP)
The TCSP is a competitive grant program designed to support exemplary or innovative projects that
show how transportation projects and plans, community development, and preservation activities can
be integrated to create communities with a higher quality of life. The annual grant program is
administered by the FHWA, in partnership with the FTA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
may be used to fund State, MPO, or local government agencies. Eligible projects that relate to
pedestrian improvements include traffic calming, and a broad range of pedestrian facility projects.
These projects can act as a feature in other projects that address larger land use and transportation
issues. A total of $270 million is funded through 2009. These funds must be equitably distributed to a
diversity of populations and geographic regions. A local match is required in accordance with Title 23
U.S.C. 120(b).
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)
The JARC program provides grants to local governments and nonprofit organizations to develop
transportation services to connect welfare recipients and low‐income persons to employment and
support services. Job Access projects are targeted at developing new or expanded transportation
services such as shuttles, vanpools, new bus routes, connector services to mass transit, and guaranteed
ride home programs for welfare recipients and low‐income persons. Reverse Commute projects provide
transportation services to suburban employment centers from urban, rural and other suburban
locations for all populations. Eligible applicants include private nonprofit organizations, State or local
governmental authority, and operators of public transportation services including private operators of
public transportation services. The JARC program may include activities that support pedestrian and
bicycle‐related facilities as long as they are related to transit and commuting as opposed to recreation
purposes. Available statewide funding for FY 2009 for rural areas (populations less than 50,000 people)
is $658,896. Available statewide funding for FY 2009 for small urbanized areas (populations between
50,000 and 199,999 people) is $369,378. All projects funded under this program must be derived from a
locally developed, coordinated public transit‐human services transportation planning process.
Federal Transit Capital, Urban, and Rural Funds
Federal Transit Capital, Urban, and Rural Funds (Title 49 U.S.C. 5311) provides formula funding to states
for the purpose of supporting public transportation in areas with a population less than 50,000 people.
The statutory formula is 80 percent based on the non‐urbanized population of the states, and
20 percent is based on land area. No state may receive more than five percent of the amount
apportioned for land area. In addition, the FTA adds amounts apportioned based on non‐urbanized
population according to the growing states formula factors of Title 49 U.S.C. 5340 to the amounts
apportioned to the states under the Section 5311 program.
Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative assistance to state agencies, local public
bodies, Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transportation services. The state
must use 15 percent of its annual apportionment to support intercity bus service, unless the Governor
certifies, after consultation with affected intercity bus providers, that these needs of the state are
adequately met.
The maximum Federal share for capital and project administration is 80 percent (except for projects to
meet the requirement of the ADA, the Clean Air Act, or bicycle access projects, which may be funded at
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 47 01/18/2010
90 percent). The maximum Federal share for operating assistance is 50 percent of the net operating
costs. The local share is 50 percent, which shall come from an undistributed cash surplus, a replacement
or depreciation cash fund or reserve, or new capital.
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
The RTP provides funds to states to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail‐related facilities
for both non‐motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. Each state administers its own program.
States must use 30 percent of their funds for motorized trail uses, 30 percent for non‐motorized trail
uses, and 40 percent for diverse trail uses. The RTP is intended to fund recreational trails and may not
be used to improve roads for general passenger vehicle use or to provide shoulders or sidewalks along
roads. A total of $370 million is funded through 2009. The funds can be used for pedestrian,
equestrian, bicycling, and non‐motorized activities.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The CDBG program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
to assist low‐ to moderate‐income neighborhoods. Residents of the neighborhood work closely with city
staff to develop a plan for their awarded funds. A neighborhood can choose to spend CDBG monies on
installation and repair of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and installation of streetlights.
6.2 State Programs
The following section discusses Arizona State funding sources for pedestrian improvement projects,
which include the following:
􀂃 State Sales Tax
􀂃 Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF)
􀂃 Heritage Fund Grants
􀂃 Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF)
The funds are generated from the Arizona Lottery, state taxes, and a percentage of monies from other
state funding sources that do not typically fund pedestrian projects. Each state resource is discussed in
detail below.
State Sales Tax
The state sales tax revenues, as with local jurisdiction sales tax revenues, are generally budgeted to high
priority programs and needs that generally have not included bicycle and pedestrian improvements;
however, these revenues are available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs.
Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF)
LTAF funds are generated by the Arizona Lottery and must be used for transit purposes in all
jurisdictions. These funds may be available for the construction of sidewalks, bicycle racks, and other
facilities that directly relate to transit use. Each county, city, or town in Arizona may apply for and
receive a portion of the $23 million the Lottery annually contributes to the LTAF. The monies are used
for a variety of transportation‐related purposes, many of which improve pedestrian facilities, including
street maintenance and improvements, street lighting, transportation service for the elderly and
disabled, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 48 01/18/2010
Annually, each municipality may use up to ten percent of its LTAF monies, if matched with private
monies for cultural, educational, historical, or recreational programs.
Heritage Fund Grants
Arizona voters created the Heritage Fund in 1990, designating up to $20 million a year from Lottery
ticket sales for the conservation and protection of the state’s wildlife and natural areas. The allocation
each year is split equally between Arizona State Parks and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
Grants from the Heritage Fund support a variety of projects in each of Arizona’s 15 counties.
The following are pedestrian‐related projects that the Arizona Game and Fish Department use Heritage
Funds toward:
􀂃 New or enhanced wildlife‐oriented recreational access (motorized or non‐motorized) onto public or
State Trust lands previously inaccessible to the public.
􀂃 Obtaining perpetual or other long‐term rights‐of‐way to secure public access for wildlife‐oriented
recreation where it may be jeopardized by potential land development or other land status changes.
􀂃 Public works projects providing new or enhanced recreational access opportunities on or to public
lands for persons with disabilities.
􀂃 Public works projects providing new or enhanced recreational access opportunities on or to public
lands through improved design and construction methods.
􀂃 Education and information outreach pertaining to public access in Arizona, including ethical and
responsible use of private and public lands, and opportunities for volunteerism.
􀂃 Realignments of existing access routes to protect sensitive habitat areas.
􀂃 Projects that address fugitive dust issues to maintain or enhance motorized vehicular access.
The following are pedestrian‐related projects that the Arizona State Parks use Heritage Funds toward:
􀂃 Hiking trails
􀂃 Picnic ramadas
􀂃 Landscaping of community parks
􀂃 Historic preservation
Research projects are not applicable for this funding source.
Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF)
The State of Arizona taxes motor fuels and collects a variety of fees relating to the registration and
operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of the state. These collections include gasoline and
use fuel taxes, motor carrier taxes, vehicle license taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, and other
miscellaneous fees. These revenues are deposited in the Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF)
and are then distributed to the cities, towns and counties and to the State Highway Fund. These taxes
represent the primary source of revenues available to the state for highway construction and
improvements and other related expenses.
HURF funds contribute to a jurisdictions’ general funding source for highway improvements. Highway
improvement projects vary, but many include provisions for pedestrians. Although the HURF is not
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 49 01/18/2010
specific to pedestrian improvements, jurisdictions can use the money on highway projects to improve
pedestrian safety.
6.3 Summary of Potential Funding Sources
Exhibit 6‐1 lists each proposed project, and correlates them with potential funding sources described in
sections 6.1 and 6.2. It should be noted that this is not an exhaustive list of potential funding sources.
As projects are developed, additional funding sources should be investigated and applicability and
availability of funding sources listed below must be verified.
Exhibit 6‐1 – Potential Funding Sources for Kachina Village Projects
Project
No.
Project Type Potential Funding Sources
1‐5 Unpaved Trails
• STP
• TE
• RTP
• Heritage Fund
Grant
6 Construct Sidewalk
• STP
• TE
• CDBG
• LTAF
7‐9 Parking and Pullout Improvements
• STP
• FTA
• TCSP
• JARC
• Federal Transit
Capital, Urban,
and Rural Funds
• LTAF
10‐13 Construct 4’ Shoulders
• STP
• TE
• TCSP
• LTAF
14 Construct a Single Lane Roundabout
• STP
• HSIP
• TCSP
• CDBG
• LTAF
15 Construct 4’ Shoulders
• STP
• TE
• TCSP
• CDBG
• LTAF
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 50 01/18/2010
7.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Coconino County, Arizona, submitted a funding application to the ADOT PARA (Planning Assistance for
Rural Areas) Program to conduct the Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study. ADOT
subsequently selected the application for funding.
Objectives of the Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study were:
􀂃 Document current and identify needs
relating to pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit mobility.
􀂃 Summarize current winter
maintenance practices and
summarize sources of pollution that
may be contributing to the potential
degradation of the wetlands.
Recommend BMPs for transportation
maintenance crews and resource
managers to limit pollutants from
entering the wetland system.
􀂃 Recommend a program of projects
that addresses identified multimodal
needs and deficiencies and improves
multimodal mobility and safety
conditions in Kachina Village. Provide
Coconino County with a planning
document that can be used to help secure funding for implementation of the multimodal
improvements. The program will be organized into short‐term (0 to 5 years), mid‐term (5 to 10
years), and long‐term (10 to 20 years) projects.
Summary recommendations for each of the above objectives are summarized below.
7.1 Summary of Needs Relating to Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Mobility
Pedestrians and Bicycles
Analysis of responses from the public open house question form shows that the majority of pedestrians
in Kachina Village walk for recreational purposes.
The roads that were most commonly identified by residents as those that they walk or bicycle on are:
Kachina Trail, Toho Trail, and Pinon Trail. Other roads identified include Tovar Trail, Beaver Trail, Tolani
Trail, Tishepi Trail, Naahtee Trail, and Kona Trail.
􀂃 A general need to improve pedestrian and bicycle accommodation on Kachina Village roadways was
identified. This may be achieved through improved shoulders, and/or addition of striping in
appropriate areas. A need for improved shoulders was identified by the public on the question
form.
Picture of I‐17 interchange looking east.
Source: Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 51 01/18/2010
􀂃 Sidewalks, with exception in limited areas, are generally not desired by the community because they
want to maintain the rural character of the community.
􀂃 Steep grades and topography have created a few locations where it is difficult to see pedestrians on
the road.
􀂃 There are several informal “unauthorized” trails in the community. These are of concern because
they have not been properly designed or located, and may contribute to erosion and ecological
damage.
􀂃 A general need exists to improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the community. This may
include proper construction of authorized trails, and improved pedestrian accommodation on the
roads.
􀂃 There is a need to identify connections to the FUTS. This was commonly identified as a need by
members of the public on the public question form.
Public Transit
􀂃 Members of the public identified a need for transit service to Flagstaff from Kachina Village. Park
and ride lots were identified as the most viable option, considering the circuitous layout of the
community makes regular transit inefficient, leading to long trip times.
􀂃 If funding is identified for public transit to Flagstaff, park and ride lots should be identified.
Roadways
􀂃 TAC input is that a lack of pullouts creates congestion on Tovar Trail and Kachina Trail when drivers
stop on those roads to view the elk. No comments were received about this issue from members of
the public.
􀂃 TAC input is that congestion is experienced at the intersection of Kachina Trail and Pinon Trail due to
the parked cars, motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic during peak hours.
􀂃 According to data collected by Coconino County, speeding occurs on several roads within the
community; speeding was a contributing factor for a significant percentage of traffic crashes.
􀂃 A need to improve training of snowplow operators was identified by multiple members of the
public. Several comments were submitted regarding snow berms across driveways and damage to
personal property caused by the snowplows.
A summary of Multimodal Transportation Opportunities and Constraints is included in Exhibit 7‐1.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 52 01/18/2010
Exhibit 7‐1 – Summary of Multimodal Transportation Opportunities and Constraints
Multimodal
Element
Opportunities Constraints
Pedestrians
and Bicycles
Existing trails can be connected to create a
community‐wide trail network.
“Unauthorized trails” can be formalized and
properly sited and designed.
Activity nodes in the community (Raymond
County Park, wetlands, Pic‐n‐Run, and
Pumphouse Wash) can be connected with trail
extensions.
Consideration may be given to modifying the
culvert that crosses under I‐17, adjacent to
Tovar Trail, for use as a pedestrian crossing to
the east side of I‐17 and a connection to
Mountainaire.
Raymond County Park expansion plans include
trails that connect to the sidewalk on Kachina
Trail and to the proposed urban trail on Pinon
Trail.
An urban trail on Pinon Trail could potentially
connect to Harrenburg Wash.
The existing sidewalk on Kona Trail could be
extended.
Trail easements would need to be acquired to
create a connecting trail system in Kachina
Village.
Any pedestrian crossings off of I‐17 would
require coordination and approval from ADOT.
Sidewalks may detract from the community’s
rural character.
Roadways Most roads in Kachina Village experience
relatively low traffic volumes, which is
conducive to safety and comfortable use of
roads by bicycles.
Shoulder widening may be considered to
provide bicycle lanes, and would provide wider
roads in which snow can be stored during
winter roadway maintenance operations.
Traffic calming techniques may be considered
to reduce vehicle speeds. TAC input is that
raised elements (e.g. speed tables) should not
be considered due to winter maintenance
concerns.
During snowplowing, berms are created along
streets in areas used by pedestrians because
there is no other place to put the snow due to
lack of shoulders.
Most roads in Kachina Village range from 24’ to
28’ wide. With exception in limited locations,
roads in Kachina Village are too narrow to
install a dedicated bicycle lane without
accompanying shoulder widening.
Shoulder widening may contribute to increased
vehicle speeds, which is counterproductive to
improving conditions for bicycles and
pedestrians.
Traffic calming techniques must consider snow
removal techniques. Unseen sharp edges could
damage a plow.
Cinders that remain on the road after snowmelt
create slippery conditions for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 53 01/18/2010
Exhibit 7‐1 – Summary of Multimodal Transportation Opportunities and Constraints
(continued)
Multimodal
Element
Opportunities Constraints
Public
Transit
There are a few parking areas located in
Kachina Village that could be converted to park
and ride lots that would support public transit
service to/from Kachina Village and Flagstaff.
Lack of bike lockers in the Raymond County
Park parking lot.
Using the Raymond County Park parking lot as a
park and ride lot may not attract drivers since
most residents would have to drive to reach the
parking lot. It is difficult to entice drivers to get
out of their cars and wait for a bus when they
are already in their cars.
7.2 Summary of Winter Maintenance Best Management Practice Recommendations
An objective of the study is to recommend BMP recommendations for winter roadway maintenance
operations that minimize impacts to wetlands. The recommended BMPs are a result of the analysis
conducted during the course of the study and from stakeholder and public input received at public open
house meetings held in May and September 2009.
Input received at the public open house meetings expressed preference for the continued use of
snowplowing and cinders, as compared to the use of chemical additives. Public input and perspectives
are that chemical additives may pose a greater threat to the local wetland system than the naturally
occurring cinders. However, many at the public meeting expressed concern that the cinders threaten
the wetland system as they are washed from the roadside and enter the washes through runoff.
Another expressed concern is that cinders left on the side of the road and/or on sidewalks contribute to
pedestrians walking in the roadway.
Considering stakeholder, TAC, and public input and perspectives, the following management practices
are recommended for consideration.
Snowplows and Cinders
Snowplows are an efficient means to remove snow from the roads. Although the community has
expressed input about property damage resulting from snowplows, it is anticipated that use of
snowplowing will continue in Kachina Village.
Naturally occurring cinders are also currently used in Kachina Village to provide traction on slippery
roads. A major concern of Kachina Village stakeholders and the public is that significant cinder
accumulation and roadside deposition results throughout the course of the winter, and cinders remain
along the roadside after winter maintenance practices have ceased for the season. Deposition of
cinders in drainage channels and wetlands was evident during the June 2009 field reconnaissance at the
intersection of Kachina Trail and Pinon Trail. This intersection is not only where two of the Kachina
Village’s main roads intersect, but also where Pumphouse Wash wetlands narrows down considerably as
it flows southwest through Kachina Village. Roadway runoff from the surrounding higher points of
Kachina Village carry with it cinders used during winter storms. The deposition of cinders into
Pumphouse Wash appears to be altering the drainage pattern near the existing roadway crossing.
091374030 Kachina Village Multimodal Transportation Study
Final Report 54 01/18/2010
RECOMMENDATION: Continue to employ snowplows and cinders as acceptable winter storm
management techniques. The use of chemical additives to road surfaces is not desired by the local
residents. Additional maintenance practices are recommended below to mitigate cinders deposition.
Roadside Cleaning
As mentioned above, a major concern of Kachina Village stakeholders and the public is that significant
cinder accumulation results throughout the course of the winter, and remain along the roadside after
winter maintenance practices have ceased for the season.
RECOMMENDATION: Identify feasible techniques to