Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study
Working Paper # 3 Scenarios and Evaluation Development
Prepared For:
Prepared By:
June, 2009 Table of Contents
3.1 SUMMARY ...... 1 3.2 MODELED REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK ...... 2 3.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS BY COUNTY ...... 7 3.4 2005 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ...... 8 3.5 PROJECTED 2030 AND 2050 BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (BASE 2030 NETWORK) ...... 8 3.6 NON-CAPACITY-RELATED ROADWAY NEEDS (2008 TO 2030) ...... 12 SATS and Corridor Definition Studies ...... 12 Other Studies and Plans ...... 12 ADOT Investment Strategy ...... 12 ADOT Preliminary Critical Needs Definition ...... 13 Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops ...... 14 Summary ...... 15 Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study ...... 25 Responses to Executive Order 2007-02; Arizona Public Transportation Program ...... 26 Recent SATS and Local or Regional Transit Studies ...... 27 ADOT Investment Strategy ...... 28 Transit Propensity Analysis ...... 30 Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops ...... 33 Summary ...... 34 3.8 CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF LONG-RANGE SCENARIOS ...... 38 Background and Approach ...... 38 Scenario A (Personal Vehicle Mobility) ...... 38 Scenario B (Transit Mobility) ...... 39 Scenario C (Focused Growth) ...... 39 3.9 ELEMENTS OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS ...... 40 Definitions of Improvement Categories ...... 40 Scenario A Improvements ...... 42 Scenario B Improvements ...... 50 Scenario C Improvements ...... 58 Summary ...... 66 Quantities for Cost Estimation by Scenario ...... 68 3.10 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS ...... 70 Planning Factors, Goals, Criteria and How Measured ...... 70 Evaluation Matrix and Results ...... 73 Conclusion ...... 82 3.11 PHASING AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALL SCENARIOS ...... 83
3-i June 2009 List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Roadway Network, Year 2005 ...... 2 Figure 3-2 Year 2030 Base Roadway Network ...... 3 Figure 3-3 Year 2005 Traffic Conditions...... 9 Figure 3-4 Year 2030 Traffic Conditions...... 10 Figure 3-5 Year 2050 Traffic Conditions...... 11 Figure 3-6 Transit Propensity Maps ...... 31 Figure 3-7 Transit Propensity Maps ...... 32 Figure 3-8 Scenario A Improvements, Statewide ...... 45 Figure 3-9 Scenario A Improvements, Eastern Arizona Study Area ...... 46 Figure 3-10 Scenario A Improvements, Mogollon Rim Focus Area ...... 47 Figure 3-11 Scenario A Improvements, Copper Country Focus Area ...... 48 Figure 3-12 Scenario A Improvements, Cochise/Santa Cruz Focus Area ...... 49 Figure 3-13 Scenario B Improvements, Statewide ...... 53 Figure 3-14 Scenario B Improvements, Eastern Arizona Study Area ...... 54 Figure 3-15 Scenario B Improvements, Mogollon Rim Focus Area ...... 55 Figure 3-16 Scenario B Improvements, Copper Country Focus Area ...... 56 Figure 3-17 Scenario B Improvements, Cochise/Santa Cruz Focus Area ...... 57 Figure 3-18 Scenario C Improvements, Statewide ...... 61 Figure 3-19 Scenario C Improvements, Eastern Arizona Study Area ...... 62 Figure 3-20 Scenario C Improvements, Mogollon Rim Focus Area ...... 63 Figure 3-21 Scenario C Improvements, Copper Country Focus Area ...... 64 Figure 3-22 Scenario C Improvements, Cochise/Santa Cruz Focus Area ...... 65
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Programmed Short-Term Roadway Improvements ...... 4 Table 3.2 Estimated Population and Employment by County ...... 7 Table 3.3 Non-Capacity-Related Roadway Needs ...... 16 Table 3.4 Transit and Passenger Rail Needs ...... 35 Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios ...... 66 Table 3.6 Quantities for Estimating Cost of Roadway and Transit/Rail Elements ...... 68 Table 3.7 Planning Factors, Goals, Evaluation Criteria and How Measured ...... 71 Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Scenarios ...... 75 Table 3.9 Proposed Phasing of Scenario A, 2010-2050 ...... 84 Table 3.10 Proposed Phasing of Scenario B, 2010-2050 ...... 85 Table 3.11 Proposed Phasing of Scenario C, 2010-2050 ...... 86
Appendices
A RTAT, Community and Stakeholder Input B Definitions Used with Evaluation Criteria
3-ii June 2009 3.1 SUMMARY
This working paper details the effort in developing and evaluating future transportation framework scenarios for the Eastern Arizona Framework study area. A number of important elements provided the basis for scenario development, including traffic modeling, existing studies and reports, the ADOT investment strategy, the ADOT critical needs definition and public input.
The modeling effort provides a benchmark to test how well current and future roadway networks are likely to perform based on growth projections. The traffic model helps identify corridors that are over capacity now or in the future. Future years, 2030 and 2050, were tested against the base network, which includes known committed projects on top of the existing roadway. The model network is comprised of the major roadways serving Eastern Arizona. The majority of these roadways are state facilities including 35 state routes or interstate facilities. Additionally the model network includes local regionally significant roadways. The modeling effort indicates that the roadway network serving Eastern Arizona is functioning well under existing conditions. However, by 2030 and 2050 the Eastern Arizona model is showing severe and extreme congestion throughout the region.
Existing studies and plans provide guidance for identifying projects in the development of the scenarios. The scenarios were developed in accordance with results or recommendations from local plans, corridor studies and regional efforts. These studies, developed through local input and effort, serve to connect the scenarios to local needs and desires. Additionally the scenarios utilized input from the ADOT critical need and investment strategy effort. These documents were built from the local level up and provide the initial framework for scenario development.
Scenario A, B and C represent potential transportation futures for Arizona. For the Eastern Arizona study area. Scenario A (Personal Vehicle Mobility) outlined an extensive investment in improving and upgrading the roadway network as well as adding new roads. Scenario A assumed an ongoing investment in transit but did not include any additional projects or transit improvements. Scenario B (Transit Mobility) shifts the investment from roadways to extensive new and improved transit systems. This includes local transit as well as intercity bus systems. Scenario B includes some new investment in roadways but focused only on the most critical corridors. Scenario C (Focus Growth) includes both extensive investment in roadway improvement balanced with new investment in transit. The transit investment is focused locally in Scenario C. Additionally, Scenario C calls for substantial investment in bicycle and pedestrian facilities to further improve the local trip experience.
The evaluation of these scenarios provided important insight to how the different approaches are likely to have varying impacts. In the end the evaluation results did not conclusively identify a scenario that best achieved all the elements within the evaluation criteria.
3-1 June 2009 3.2 MODELED REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK
The modeled regional roadway network for the Eastern Arizona study area consists of a combination of state routes and local regionally significant roadways. The study area includes portions of 35 Arizona State Routes or Interstate Highways covering approximately 2000 miles, and includes the following:
• I-10 • SR 261 • SR 473 • SR 87 • I-19 • SR 266 • SR 61 • SR 88 • SR 10B • SR 273 • SR 73 • SR 90 • SR 180A • SR 277 • SR 75 • SR 92 • SR 181 • SR 288 • SR 77 • SR 99 • SR 186 • SR 289 • SR 78 • US 180 • SR 188 • SR 366 • SR 80 • US 191 • SR 189 • SR 373 • SR 82 • US 60 • SR 260 • SR 377 • SR 83 • US 70
Local roadways included in the regional roadway network consist largely of two-lane roadways categorized as Minor Arterials or Major Collectors and provide sub-regional connections often connecting between state routes. Local roadways in the model network include:
Mogollon Rim Focus Area: Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Area • Bourdon Ranch Road • Fry Boulevard • Concho Highway • Charleston Road • Penrod Road • Buffalo Soldier Trail • 7th Street Copper Country Focus Area • Coronado Drive • 8th Avenue • Pendleton Drive • Safford-Sanchez Road • South River Road • Reay Lane, Airport Road • Ruby Road • 20th Avenue • Grand Avenue • Discovery Park Boulevard • Western Avenue • Soloman Road • Mariposa Road • Coolidge Dam Road • Naco Highway • BIA 008 • Dragoon Road • Kansas Settlement Road • Davis Road
Within the Eastern Arizona study area the model network for 2005 and 2030 are nearly the same. The difference between the two networks is that 2030 includes committed projects, which adds capacity or additional lanes to a handful of roadways. This includes roadway widening on SR 260, SR 191, SR 92 and SR 90. Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the 2005 and 2030 model network respectively.
3-2 June 2009 Figure 3-1 Roadway Network, Year 2005
3-2 June 2009 Figure 3-2 Year 2030 Base Roadway Network
3-3 June 2009 The programmed short term roadway improvements were acquired from both the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and three Council of Governments (COG). The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) identified roadway improvements for the 2008 to 2011 Fiscal Years and the COGs Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) identified the transportation improvements for the 2008 to 2012 Fiscal Years. Table 3.1 identifies the roadway improvements for the state and local areas from the STIP. This table includes the name of the project, the location, the type of work to be conducted, the year of funding, the funding sources and the total cost of the project improvement.
Table 3.1 Programmed Short-Term Roadway Improvements
Major Funding Total Cost Project Location Type of Work Year Sources ($000) ADOT Five-Year Transportation Program I-10 Luzena to Bowie (Cochise) RR 4” TL, PL & 2008 IM $4,896 ARFC/RR ARFC HES $500 STATE $104 TOTAL $5,500 I-19 JCT 19 to Palo Parado (Santa R&R, ARAC & ARFC 2008 STATE $198 Cruz) IM $14,800 TOTAL $14,998 US 60 Show Low Creek Bridge Construct Bridge 2008 GVT $1,000 #00383 (Navajo) STP $3,500 TOTAL $4,500 SR 77 MP 145 to MP 147 (Gila) Roadway 2008 STP $1,100 Construction SR 92 Carr Canyon Rd to Hunter Widen to 5 Lanes 2008 STP $16,542 Canyon (Cochise) SR 189 Mariposa Port of Entry (Santa Cyborport 2008 STP $350 Cruz) Improvements SR 189 Mariposa Port of Entry (Santa Construct New 2008 CBI $1,079 Cruz) Parking Area, Road Improvements US 191 Roper Lake State Park Construct Road, 2008 STATE $1,400 (Graham) Phase II US 191 Cochise SPRR OP #2530 Bridge Replacement 2008 STP $750 (Cochise) BR $2,500 TOTAL $3,250 US 191 Ten Ranch Owl Canyon - Construct Parallel 2008 STP $11,800 Segment III (Graham) Roadway STATE $963 STP $1,247 TOTAL $14,010 US 191 Standard Parallel – Witch Well 2” Mill & Replace 2008 BR $1,230 (Apache) with AC + ½” AR- STP $3,533 ACFC & Bridge TOTAL $4,763 Replacement US 191 Burnside Junction to North Roadway Widening 2008 STP $7,500 (Apache) SR 260 Little Green Valley (Gila) Reconstruct Roadway 2008 NH $27,125
I-10 SR 90 TI (Cochise) Reconstruct SR 90 TI 2009 STP $1,476 and Add Passing NH $21,000 Lane TOTAL $22,476 SR 77 MP 364 to MP 372 (Navajo) Construct Passing 2009 NH $2,250 Lane US 160 JCT 89 – Van’s Trading Post 2” ARAC & ARFC & 2009 STP $4,019 (Coconino) Turn lanes STATE $75
3-4 June 2009
Major Funding Total Cost Project Location Type of Work Year Sources ($000) TOTAL $4,094
US 191 Nahata’Dzil Road to Sanders TI Reconstruct 3 2009 STP $15,254 (Apache) Bridges and Roadway HES $1,528 TOTAL $16,782 SR 87 Tonto Natural Bridge (Gila) Construct New Road 2010 STATE $575
SR 87 Homolovi Ruins State Park Construct Road 2010 STATE $975 (Navajo) US 160 JCT SR 564 – TSEGI, Phase I Construct Duel 2010 NH $2,250 (Navajo) Passing Lanes US 191 Wide Ruins (Apache) Widening for 2010 STP $2,400 Passing/Climbing Lanes, Safety SR 260 Doubtful Canyon Section (Gila) Reconstruct Roadway 2010 NH $40,000
US 70 Railroad Overpass to JCT SR Construct New 2011 STP $4,250 77 (Gila) Roadway and Railroad Structure SR 90 Central Avenue to Moson Widen to 5 Lanes 2011 NH $5,000 Road, East of Sierra Vista (Cochise) US 191 Dial Wash to Ten Ranch – Construct Parallel 2011 STP $8,750 Segment II (Graham) Roadway US 191 Chinle South (Apache) Roadway Widening 2011 STP $2,375
SR 260 Herber to Show Low (MP Construct Passing 2011 NH $3,000 317.13 to MP 317.9 EB; MP Lanes 319.23 to MP 320.45 WB; MP 300.75 to MP 332 WB) (Navajo) Local TIPs/CIPs 7th South US 180 to 13th West (St. 2” Overlay, CG&S, 2008 HURF $888 Johns) Lighting Concho/Snowflake 0.6 mi East of SR 77 Reconstruction 2008 HURF $908 Hwy (Snowflake) CR-3148 & CR- Vernon (Apache County) Pave Existing Chip 2008 HURF $888 3144 Sealed Roadway Lake Mary Road MP 304 to MP 308 (Coconino Reconstruction and 2008 HURF $616 County) Widening Hart Lake Road End of Woodland Road Pave Existing Dirt 2008 HURF $528 (Pinetop-Lakeside) Facility Lone Pine Dam Lone Pine Dam Road (Navajo Construct Bridge and 2008 FEDERAL $2,000 Road Bridge County) Approaches Butler Street Maricopa Drive to Outer Loop 4” Cold Mix Overlay 2009 HURF $887 Road (Eagar) Papermill Road 600 West to Highland Road Reconstruction and 2009 HURF $1,245 (Taylor) Widening, CG&S, Lighting Obed Road Bridge Obed Road (Navajo County) Replacement 2009 FEDERAL $1,000
Scott Ranch Road Penrod Road to SR 260 (Show Construct New 2009 FEDERAL $1,000 Low) Roadway with CG&S, New Bridge Across Show Low Creek Pima Street US 60 to Maricopa Drive 3” Overlay 2010 HURF $887 (Springerville)
3-5 June 2009
Major Funding Total Cost Project Location Type of Work Year Sources ($000) Lake Mary Road MP 302 to MP 306 (Coconino Pavement Overlay, 2011 HURF $616 County) Flatten Slopes Porter Mountain Penrod Road to County Line Realign and Pave 2011 HURF $1,246 Road (Navajo County) Existing Gravel Roadway South 12th Street Fir Street to Crestview Drive Reconstruction, 2011 HURF $714 (Cottonwood) CG&S CR-3144 Vernon to County Line (Apache Pave Existing 2012 HURF $887 County) Gravel/Chip Sealed Roadway Penrod Road US 60 South to City Limits Widening and 2012 HURF $1,246 (Show Low) Shoulder Improvements Indian Route 6 San Carlos Apache Tribe Straightening and 2008 FEDERAL $500 Signage LOCAL $125 TOTAL $625 East Bonita Street SR 87 to St. Philips Street Reconstruction 2010 HURF $268 – Phase I (Payson) LOCAL $105 TOTAL $373 East Bonita Street SR 87 to St. Philips Street Reconstruction 2011 HURF $500 – Phase II (Payson) LOCAL $410 TOTAL $910 East Phoenix SR 87 to Sycamore Street Reconstruction 2012 HURF $400 Street (Payson) Moonlight Drive South of SR 260 (Star Valley) Reconstruction 2012 HURF $76
Tonto Creek Tonto Creek (Gila County) Construct Bridge 2008 FEDERAL $2,960 Bridge to LOCAL $592 2012 TOTAL $3,552 Safford Bridge Graham County Construction 2008 FEDERAL $12,037 LOCAL $1,911 TOTAL $13,948 Davis Road Cochise County Reconstruction 2008 FEDERAL $3,000
Charleston Road Sierra Vista Reconstruction and 2008 FEDERAL $2,999 Widening from 2 to 5 LOCAL $162 Lanes TOTAL $3,161 Arizona Street Bisbee Reconstruction 2011 FEDERAL $2,200 LOCAL $125 TOTAL $2,325 Octillo Avenue Benson Reconstruction and 2012 N/A N/A Widening from 2 to 3 Lanes Rio Rico West Santa Cruz County Reconstruction 2012 N/A N/A Frontage Road SOURCE: Arizona State Transportation Improvement Program 2008-2011, ADOT, 2007
3-6 June 2009
3.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DATA AND PROJECTIONS BY COUNTY
Table 3.2 shows the estimated population and employment for the Eastern Arizona study area broken down by county. Population for the entire study area is expected to nearly double by 2030 growing from 326,000 to and estimated 645,000. Between 2030 and 2050 the population is estimated to grow another 36% to 877,000. Employment growth also doubles by 2030 and more than triples by 2050.
Table 3.2 Estimated Population and Employment by County
Population % Employment % Change Change 2030- 2030- Jurisdiction 2005 2030 2050 2050 2005 2030 2050 2050 Apache Total 74,000 103,000 133,000 29% 19,000 25,000 32,000 28% Apache (portion within 21,000 41,000 65,500 60% 4,000 6,000 11,000 83% region) Cochise Total 133,000 245,000 358,000 46% 48,000 83,000 151,000 82% Cochise (portion within 133,000 245,000 358,000 46% 48,000 83,000 151,000 82% region) Coconino Total 127,000 166,000 193,500 17% 62,000 88,000 118,000 34% Coconino (portion within 1,000 2,000 2,000 0% 0 0 1,000 0% region) Gila Total 52,000 64,000 73,000 14% 12,000 24,000 28,000 17% Gila (portion 30,000 37,000 43,500 18% 9,000 11,000 13,000 18% within region) Graham Total 34,000 50,000 88,000 76% 8,000 17,000 28,000 65% Graham (portion within 34,000 50,000 88,000 76% 8,000 17,000 28,000 65% region) Greenlee Total 9,000 10,000 12,000 20% 4,000 4,000 5,000 25% Greenlee (portion within 9,000 10,000 12,000 20% 4,000 4,000 5,000 25% region) Navajo Total 104,000 252,000 289,000 15% 30,000 78,000 90,000 15% Navajo (portion 57,000 195,000 225,000 15% 21,000 68,000 78,000 15% within region) Santa Cruz 41,000 65,000 83,000 28% 13,000 24,000 35,000 46% Total Santa Cruz (portion within 41,000 65,000 83,000 28% 13,000 24,000 35,000 46% region) Eastern Regional Total 326,000 645,000 877,000 36% 107,000 213,000 322,000 51% Source: HDR
3-7 June 2009
3.4 2005 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
2005 traffic conditions in the Eastern Arizona study area are good for the region as a whole. Moderate congestion is found in Sierra Vista and Payson. Seasonal congestion has been reported in the Mogollon Rim Focus Area. Traffic increases dramatically in the summer months with visitors coming to and from Phoenix to go camping, fishing and enjoy the cooler temperatures. On holiday weekends SR 87 and SR 260, in Payson, experience substantial congestion.
Figure 3-3 shows the 2005 traffic conditions utilizing a cut-line analysis to identify capacity issues. Cut-line 4 represents traffic flow to and from the Eastern Arizona study area. Cut- line 4 is showing a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.32, indicating the cut-line is under capacity.
3.5 PROJECTED 2030 AND 2050 BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS (BASE 2030 NETWORK)
Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show 2030 and 2050 traffic conditions for the entire state, as modeled on the base roadway network. By 2030, most of the major study routes are showing congested conditions. Many of the primary east/west corridors (I-10, US 70, US 60 and SR 260) serving the Eastern Arizona study area indicate extreme congestion by 2030. Cut-line 4 indicates a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.18 showing the cut-line as over capacity.
Conditions are even more congested by 2050. Nearly all of the model network roadways are showing extreme congestion. Cut-line 4 indicates a volume-to-capacity ratio of 2.67, showing cut-line 4 as over capacity.
3-8 June 2009
Figure 3-3 Year 2005 Traffic Conditions
3-9 June 2009 Figure 3-4 Year 2030 Traffic Conditions
3-10 June 2009
Figure 3-5 Year 2050 Traffic Conditions
3-11 June 2009
3.6 NON-CAPACITY-RELATED ROADWAY NEEDS (2008 TO 2030)
The following section provides a summary of non-capacity related roadway needs within the Eastern Framework study area. Data was gathered from available transportation plans and studies, as well as comments from stakeholder and community outreach efforts.
SATS and Corridor Definition Studies
Section 2.11 in Working Paper #2, cataloged and summarized studies and reports that address transportation issues within the study area. Of those studies listed in that section, the following documents recorded specific, non-capacity roadway needs.
• ADOT Safford District Report • City of Douglas Small Area Transportation Study • Gila County Small Area Transportation Study • Unified Nogales/Santa Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan
The City of Douglas Small Area Transportation Study outlined short-term and mid to long-term proposed transportation improvements. All proposed improvements listed in the study are along the City’s principal arterials and are primarily enhancements to improve traffic flow and safety (i.e., installation of traffic signals). The needs were identified as a result of recommendations from traffic engineering studies and a crash analysis report.
Gila County developed a list of non-capacity related planned, unfunded transportation needs in their Small Area Transportation Study. There is no timeframe in which the County anticipates project completion. Most projects listed are improvements of state routes and principal roadways. Build projects include construction of bridges throughout the county.
In the Unified Nogales/Santa Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan, the planned projects were listed as well as costs and the responsible parties. The projects were separated into 5-year planning periods. From 2006 to 2010, six planned highway projects were listed – most of which are along connector arterials to I-19. The long- range planned projects (2011-2020) were all highway improvements with financial responsibility allocated between ADOT, Santa Cruz County and the City of Nogales.
Other Studies and Plans
ADOT Investment Strategy
The Preliminary Critical Needs Definition identified the immediate and short-term needs of transportation systems throughout the state. ADOT - along with regional partners – identified highest priority needs projects. All funding from this program would be distributed over a 30-year period.
When addressing mobility issues, the Investment Strategy noted that it was important for the State to improve the circulation of its residents. Examples include, improving long-distance commutes between the major metropolitan areas, intercity
3-12 June 2009 connectivity between those areas, and resources to expand or initiate rural and tribal transit, rideshare and vanpool programs.
The Investment Strategy provided funding information down to the county level. For each county, there are four funding categories:
• Strategic Highway Projects • Strategic Rail and Transits and Programs • Local Mobility Projects and Programs • Transportation Enhancement and Walkable / Bikeable Communities
This document did not identify any non-capacity related roadway improvements in the focus area under the Strategic Highway Projects category.
ADOT Preliminary Critical Needs Definition
This Preliminary Critical Needs Definition is one of the most important elements of the Statewide Framework process. It is an evolving project, and is by no means a final “shopping list” for the state. Instead, its purpose is to identify the immediate and short-term needs (2030) of transportation systems throughout the state, and to help ADOT better understand the magnitude of the transportation needs that cannot be met with currently available funding.
Three tools were developed to achieve this purpose:
1. Submittal of a Preliminary Critical Needs List, jointly from each COG, each MPO, and their respective ADOT District Engineers. In conducting this effort, it became apparent that the various COGs, MPOs, District Engineers and tribal governments have widely varying interpretations of critical needs. As a result, the submissions are probably more correctly characterized as a “2030 Identified Improvement Needs Delineation.”
2. Identification by the COGs, MPOs, and their respective District Engineers of Representative Projects and Programs that best illustrate their critical transportation needs.
3. Refinement of the 2030 Identified Improvement Needs Definition, based on the identification of Representative Projects and Programs into Preliminary Critical Needs, utilizing Statewide Transportation Planning Framework Guiding Principles and the formulation of a potential one-cent state sales tax, as well as other potential funding scenarios.1
The report itemized several non-capacity related roadway needs that ranged from repaving to widening shoulder widths. The needs from this document are listed within Table 3-3.
1 ADOT Preliminary Critical Needs Definition, April 17, 2008
3-13 June 2009
Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops
From February 2008 to April 2009, the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Team has conducted a variety of outreach efforts:
• Five Stakeholder Interviews throughout the study area: February 2008 • Presentation at the White Mountain Regional Transportation Committee meeting – February 2008 • Three Focus Group sessions (Transportation, Environmental, Business / Economic Development) held in three locations – March 2008 • Two rounds of Community Events held in four locations – March/April 2008 and November 2008 • Three rounds of Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) meetings held in three locations – March 2008, October 2008, and April 2009 • One RTAT webinar meeting – July 2008
Mogollon Rim Focus Area
A total of eight meetings were held in the Mogollon Rim Focus Area. Most were held in Show Low with the exception of one, which was conducted in Payson. The area’s Environmental/Conservation Focus Group suggested fencing be installed along the highways to control elk/deer/small animals. The Business/Development Focus Group and White Mountain Regional Transportation Committee were more concerned about traffic efficiency. One group recommended truck traffic should be limited to one lane, leaving the remaining two lanes for car traffic. The other committee noted they believe there should be improvements to the connections to I-10 and Phoenix. Stakeholders raised concerns about the impact on businesses if the main roads are widened.
Copper Country Focus Area
All six of the workshops were held in the city of Safford. Community members voiced their concerns about the safety of the roads. They recommended traffic controls be implemented to enforce the speed limits. There was also a request for turn lanes off the highway.
Santa Cruz – Cochise Focus Area
Workshops were held throughout the focus area in the communities of Sierra Vista, Nogales and Bisbee. Road safety and pedestrian access were the top concerns during the community meetings. Some specific needs include:
• Crosswalks along SR 82, • Bike routes throughout the focus area, • Bridges over the Santa Cruz River in the north Rio Rico area, and • Maximized pedestrian access and movement throughout Nogales.
The Economic Development Focus Group discussed the fact they would like wider, passable roads throughout the focus area. Stakeholders at the Nogales session discussed their concerns regarding the current condition and maintenance of the existing road network. According to the group, it is difficult enough to find funding to maintain the current roads. It will therefore be a challenge to locate funding for construction of new roads. Also, the group noted that the frontage road system
3-14 June 2009 needs to be addressed and corrected because there is no room for disabled vehicles to pull over.
Summary
Non-capacity roadway needs within the Eastern Arizona Framework study area can be generalized into two categories: policies and build projects. Examples of policy needs range from implementing Access Management policies to conducting corridor studies. Proposed build projects generally are maintenance of the existing roadway network; however, there are numerous proposed projects that address safety concerns. These projects include turn lanes, fencing along the highways to avoid wildlife crossings and traffic signals. Additionally, included in the list are projects for multi-use paths (i.e., bicycle and pedestrian pathways).
3-15 June 2009
Table 3.3 Non-Capacity-Related Roadway Needs
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed State Highway System
Patagonia Highway Santa Cruz N/A N/A Design and construct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa (SR 82)/Kino County necessary traffic 2005 Cruz County Springs Drive intersection Transportation 2000 Plan Intersection improvements North-South City of SR-189 I-19 Perform corridor study 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Interconnector Nogales/ 2005 Cruz County Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County East-West City of SR 189 SR-82 Perform corridor study 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Interconnector Nogales/ 2005 Cruz County Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County Old Tucson Santa Cruz N/A N/A Design and construct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Highway County 2-lane section 2005 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan B-19 City of International Doe Pavement preservation 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Nogales Border Street 2005 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan SR-289 City of N/A N/A Perform corridor study 2006- Unified Nogales/Santa Interconnection via Nogales/ 2010 Cruz County Frontera to SR-82 Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County North-South City of SR-189 I-19 Reconstruction 2006- Unified Nogales/Santa Interconnector Nogales/ 2010 Cruz County Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County East-West City of N/A N/A Design, acquire right- 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Interconnector, SR Nogales/ of-way 2020 Cruz County 189 to SR-82 Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County SR 289 City of via Frontera SR-82 Design, acquire right- 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Interconnection Nogales/ of-way 2020 Cruz County Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County Old Tucson City of Grand Frontage Design and reconstruct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Highway Nogales Avenue Road 5-lane section 2020 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Bradshaw/SR 87 Pine N/A N/A Deceleration and turn N/A Gila County Small Area lanes Transportation Study SR 260 Star Valley N/A N/A Deceleration and turn N/A Gila County Small Area lanes Transportation Study SR 288 Junction SR- N/A N/A Complete Paving N/A Gila County Small Area 188- Young Transportation Study Sradshaw/SR 87 Pine N/A N/A Deceleration and turn N/A Gila County Small Area lanes Transportation Study SR 877-SR 260 Payson area N/A N/A Design and construct N/A Gila County Small Area Truck Loop roadway Transportation Study SR 92 @ Buffalo Willcox N/A N/A Widen intersection and 2010 ADOT Safford District Soldier Trail provide additional turn Report Intersection lanes I-10 WB Luzena Willcox area N/A N/A Mill and pave, replace 2009 ADOT Safford District bridge railings Report US 70 Thatcher/ N/A N/A Alternative Route N/A ADOT Safford District Safford between US 70 and US Report 191 SR 366/ US 191 Graham N/A N/A Intersection N/A ADOT Critical Needs County improvements Report
3-16 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed SR 75 Greenlee Three Way Duncan Preserve right-of-way N/A ADOT Critical Needs County for future Report improvements SR 75 York Valley Access Management N/A ADOT Critical Needs Area Implementation Plan Report SR 78 Greenlee Three Way State Line Preserve right-of-way N/A ADOT Critical Needs County Report US 191 Greenlee County Line Three Preserve right-of-way N/A ADOT Critical Needs County Way Report SR 75 York Valley MP 395.7 Construct pedestrian N/A ADOT Critical Needs Cottonwood walkway bridge Report Creek US 191 Greenlee Copper 200 Construct pedestrian N/A ADOT Critical Needs County Crystal Park Chase walkway Report Creek US 70 Greenlee MP 378 Wilson Construct pedestrian N/A ADOT Critical Needs County Street walkway Report US 70 Greenlee US 191 State Line Preserve right-of-way N/A ADOT Critical Needs County for future Report improvements B10 Safford N/A N/A Turn back Willcox B-10 2015 ADOT Critical Needs District and Benson B-10 Report following pavement preservation improvements I-10 By-Pass Safford N/A N/A In public hearing and N/A ADOT Critical Needs Needs to run from District other ways, the City of Report Willcox or just Willcox has requested west of Willcox that the so-called I-10 bypass be located at proposed route K2. Willcox is very concerned about any routing that would occur east of the city on I-10. I-10 Safford N/A N/A I-10 TI at Mescal/J- N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Six; needs to be Report reconstructed to accommodate residential growth to address sight distance issues SR 90 Safford N/A N/A SR90 Bypass / Campus 2009 ADOT Critical Needs District Signal Report US 191 Safford N/A N/A Upgrade US 191 to an 2025 ADOT Critical Needs District all weather highway by Report installing cross drainage and raising the profile as well as bypassing Elfrida SR 82 Safford N/A N/A Reconstruct SR 82 2045 ADOT Critical Needs District through the San Pedro Report Riparian & Fairbanks areas. Raise profile approximately 20 feet SR 90 Safford N/A N/A Reconstruct SR 90 2040 ADOT Critical Needs District through the San Pedro Report Basin
3-17 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed SR 181 Safford N/A N/A Reconstruct SR 181 2035 ADOT Critical Needs District SE of Willcox to add Report standard shoulders, compliant geometry and adequate drainage SR 186 Safford N/A N/A Reconstruct SR 186 SE 2035 ADOT Critical Needs District of Willcox to add Report standard shoulders, compliant geometry and adequate drainage SR 80 Safford Douglas E. NM State Reconstruct SR 80 at 2050 ADOT Critical Needs District Line Silver Creek, adding Report standard shoulders as well as other safety improvements & reconstructing bridges SR 80 Safford Tombstone Bisbee Reconstruct SR 80 with 2040 ADOT Critical Needs District a new SR 80/SR 90 Report intersection, widened Mule Creek Tunnel, extended climbing lane and a rockfall project US 191 Safford Exchange ADOT’s Pan 2020 ADOT Critical Needs District American Highway (US Report 191B) segment to the City of Douglas for Chino Rd. US 70 Safford US 191/ NM State Improve US 70 with 2020 ADOT Critical Needs District N US 70 Line standard shoulders & Report Intersection climbing lanes US 191 Safford Reconstruct US 191 2025 ADOT Critical Needs District through the FMI mine Report including replacing bridge and tunnel repairs & widening or construct mine bypass US 191 Safford Construct safety 2040 ADOT Critical Needs District measures along the Report Coronado Trail including repair of retaining walls, selective shoulder construction as well as geometric improvements SR 78 Safford SR 78/SR NM State Improve SR 78 by 2030 ADOT Critical Needs District 75/US 191 Line adding standard Report Intersection shoulders as well as spot safety improvements including realignments SR 266 Safford US 191 Ft. Grant Reconstruct SR 266 for 2020 ADOT Critical Needs District capacity & safety Report including climbing lanes & shoulder widening SR 80 Safford N/A N/A SR-80 and Davis N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Intersection, high Report accident location, some additional safety measures are warranted
3-18 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed NA Safford N/A N/A Annual Major Street Yearly ADOT Critical Needs District Reconstruction Project Report Various Streets SR 191 Safford N/A N/A SR-191 and Pearce N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Road Intersection, Report need to be reconfigured to address "Flying Y" SR 82 Safford N/A N/A SR-82 and Truman N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Road Intersection, Report needs a deceleration lane at a minimum SR 92 Safford N/A N/A Continue multi-use N/A ADOT Critical Needs District paths/enhancement Report projects along SR-92 south of Sierra Vista SR 90 Safford N/A N/A Continue multi-use N/A ADOT Critical Needs District paths/enhancement Report projects along SR-90 east of Sierra Vista SR 90 Safford N/A N/A Traffic Light @ Patton 2012 ADOT Critical Needs District Rd. (new subdivision) Report SR 90 Safford N/A N/A Traffic light @ Mustang 2017 ADOT Critical Needs District Rd. (new Subdivision) Report SR 90 Safford N/A N/A Right turn lane @ 2012 ADOT Critical Needs District Skyline Dr. Report SR 90 Safford N/A N/A Right turn lane at 2012 ADOT Critical Needs District Yuma St. Report SR 90 Safford N/A N/A Traffic Light at School N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Dr. (emergency Report vehicle) SR 80 Safford N/A N/A Continue multi-use N/A ADOT Critical Needs District paths/enhancement Report projects along SR-80 near school in St. David area SR 73 Globe N/A N/A Complete Corridor N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Study for SR73. Report US 60 Globe N/A N/A Realign intersection at 2020 ADOT Critical Needs District Jct. US 60/SR 180 Report (NACOG) SR 61 Globe N/A N/A Widen shoulders, 2020 ADOT Critical Needs District includes 3 climbing Report lanes, 3 passing lanes and 2 turn lanes (NACOG) US 180 Globe N/A N/A US 180 Reconstruct 2040 ADOT Critical Needs District and Widen Roadway to Report 40’ (NACOG) US 180 Globe N/A N/A Jct. SR 180/SR 260 2011 ADOT Critical Needs District Intersection Report Improvements H717201C (NACOG) SR 260 Globe N/A N/A Flatten vertical curve 2015 ADOT Critical Needs District east of Eagar for sight Report distance (NACOG) improvements SR 277 Globe N/A N/A Update to current 2020 ADOT Critical Needs District standards (NACOG) Report US 180A Globe US 180 SR 61 Reconstruct and widen 2025 ADOT Critical Needs District roadway to 40’ Report (NACOG)
3-19 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed US 60 / SR77 Globe N/A N/A Traffic Interchange ADOT Critical Needs District Report SR77 / Silver Lake Globe N/A N/A Traffic Interchange ADOT Critical Needs Blvd District Report CR 2311 and US Globe N/A N/A Intersection 2013 ADOT Critical Needs 180 Intersection District improvements Report SR 87 Holbrook Lake Mary SR 264 Reconstruct Roadway N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Road Report SR 99 Holbrook Forest Bdry N15 Reconstruct Roadway N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Report SR 99 Holbrook N/A N/A Clear Creek Bridge. N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Bridge Replacement Report SR 99 Holbrook N/A N/A Jacks Canyon Bridge. N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Bridge Replacement Report US 180 Holbrook N/A N/A 5-Mile Wash Bridge. N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Bridge Replacement Report US 180 Holbrook N/A N/A Little Col. River Bridge. N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Bridge Replacement Report US 180 Holbrook N/A N/A Jim Camp Wash N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Bridge. Bridge Report Replacement US 191 Holbrook Witch Wells Sanders Reconstruct Roadway N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Report SR 377 Holbrook SR 277 SR 77 Reconstruct Roadway N/A ADOT Critical Needs District Report SR 377 Holbrook SR 277 SR 77 Reconstruct and 2019 ADOT Critical Needs District widening shoulders Report SR 87 Holbrook Clints Well Forest Widen Shoulders to 8' 2021 ADOT Critical Needs District Boundary wide Report SR 87 Holbrook Blue Ridge Winslow Box Culvert Extensions 2016 ADOT Critical Needs District Ranger Report Station US 191 Holbrook N/A N/A Hardscrabble Phase II. 2013 ADOT Critical Needs District Raise profile & Report drainage, widen shoulders SR 73 Globe N/A N/A Jct. US 60/SR 73 – Fort 2018 ADOT Critical Needs District Apache. Widen Report roadway to 40’; climbing and passing lanes. Phase I (CAAG) SR 73 Globe N/A N/A Jct. US 60/SR 73 – Fort 2020 ADOT Critical Needs District Apache. Widen Report roadway to 40’; climbing and passing lanes. Phase II (CAAG) SR 473 Globe N/A N/A Update to current 2040 ADOT Critical Needs District standards and turn Report back to White Mountain Apache Tribe US 70 Globe N/A N/A US 70 Address safety N/A ADOT Critical Needs District and speeding issues. Report US 70 Increase shoulder width, add turn lanes and passing zone improvement / striping, bus stops, truck traffic, and US70 bridge widening improvements
3-20 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed State Route 260 / Mogollon N/A N/A Traffic congestion, N/A RTAT / Stakeholder Beeline Rim Focus particularly with regard Comments Area to tourist travel during summer months and weekends SR 73 Mogollon N/A N/A Complete corridor N/A US Department of Rim Focus study for Transportation. White Area improvements Mountain Apache Tribe webpage. SR 87 Mogollon BIA 101 Green Address safety issues N/A A Report on Tribal Rim Focus Valley i.e. traffic light crossing Transportation Issues Area Parkway patterns, striping, and Needs. signage, driver sight visibility and add acceleration and deceleration lanes US 70 Copper N/A N/A Increase shoulder N/A A Report on Tribal Country widths; add turn lanes, Transportation Issues Focus Area passing zone and Needs. improvements, striping, and school bus stops; address truck traffic, safety and speeding issues; and construct bridge widening improvements east of IR 6 General Hitchcock Copper N/A N/A Maintain as a scenic N/A US Forest Service. 1986. (Mt. Lemmon) Country highway Coronado National Forest Highway F H 39 Focus Area Plan. and Ski Valley Road No. 11
I-10 Eastbound Cochise- MP310 MP311 Climbing lane (Tier 2 N/A Santa Cruz priority) Focus Area I-10 Westbound Cochise- MP325 MP324 Climbing lane (Tier 3 N/A Santa Cruz priority) Focus Area I-19 North of N/A N/A Drainage issues, N/A RTAT / Stakeholder Elfrida limiting access Comments When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed Other Principal Roadways Grand City of N/A N/A Install traffic signal and 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Avenue/Western Nogales intersection 2005 Cruz County Avenue improvements Transportation 2000 Plan Intersection Bankard Street City of N/A N/A Design/reconstruct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Bridge Nogales bridge 2005 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Target Range City of N/A N/A Study, design, if 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Road/Mariposa Nogales necessary, construct as 2005 Cruz County Road Intersection needed Transportation 2000 Plan Money Avenue to City of N/A N/A Design and construct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa International Nogales streetscape and 2005 Cruz County Border pedestrian Transportation 2000 Plan improvements Patagonia Highway Santa Cruz N/A N/A Design and construct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa (SR 82)/ County necessary traffic 2005 Cruz County Dunquesne Road intersection safety Transportation 2000 Plan Intersection improvements
3-21 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed South River Road Santa Cruz Via Frontera SR 82 Pave Road 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa County 2005 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Grand Avenue City of Doe Street Baffert Design and construct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Nogales Drive sidewalk, landscaping, 2005 Cruz County and lighting Transportation 2000 Plan improvements I-19 Frontage City of Rio Rico Western Perform corridor study 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Road Nogales/ Avenue 2005 Cruz County Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County Tubac Santa Cruz N/A N/A Improvement historical 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Enhancement County path 2005 Cruz County Project Transportation 2000 Plan Main Street City of N/A N/A Design and construct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Enhancement Nogales frontage road 2005 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan East I-19 Frontage City of Rio Rico Ruby Design and construct 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Road Nogales Road frontage road 2005 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Peck Canyon Wash City of N/A N/A Scour retrofit 2001- Unified Nogales/Santa Bridges Nogales 2005 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Rio Rico Drive Santa Cruz I-19 Pendleton Reconstruction 2006- Unified Nogales/Santa County Drive 2010 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Country Club Drive City of N/A N/A Design, acquire right- 2006- Unified Nogales/Santa to Grand Avenue Nogales of-way 2010 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan New Roadway Santa Cruz North-South Ruby Design, acquire right- 2006- Unified Nogales/Santa County Interconnect Road of-way 2010 Cruz County or Transportation 2000 Plan Ruby Road Santa Cruz New I-19 Design and construct 2006- Unified Nogales/Santa County Roadway 4-lane section 2010 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan New Roadway City of North-South Grand Design, acquire right- 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Nogales Interconnect Avenue of-way 2020 Cruz County or Transportation 2000 Plan Pendleton Drive Santa Cruz Via Frontera North of Design and reconstruct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa County Rio Rico 4-lane section 2020 Cruz County Drive Transportation 2000 Plan Via Frontera Santa Cruz Pendleton South Design and reconstruct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa County Drive River 4-lane section 2020 Cruz County Road Transportation 2000 Plan Pendleton Drive Santa Cruz North Bridge Design and construct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa County terminus Road 2-lane section. 2020 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan I-19 Frontage City of Rio Rico Western Design, acquire right- 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Road Nogales/ Avenue of-way 2020 Cruz County Santa Cruz Transportation 2000 Plan County Calle Sonora City of Grand SR-82 Design and construct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Nogales Avenue 3-lane section 2020 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Frontage Road City of Ruby Road Rio Rico Design and reconstruct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Nogales frontage road. 2020 Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan Mariposa Road City of Grand Frank Design and reconstruct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Nogales Avenue Reed to a 6-lane section 2020 Cruz County Road Transportation 2000 Plan
3-22 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed Grand Avenue City of International Baffert Perform study of 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa Nogales Border Drive safety, traffic 2020 Cruz County operations, parking Transportation 2000 Plan and access to improve capacity and throughout. Palo Parado Santa Cruz I-19 Pendleton Design and construct 2011- Unified Nogales/Santa County Drive 2-lane section. 2020 Cruz County Construct new bridge Transportation 2000 Plan across Santa Cruz River. Control Road Tonto Tonto Village N/A N/A Reconstruct N/A Gila County Small Area Village intersection Transportation Study Copper Hills Rd Connect to N/A N/A Provide Connection N/A Gila County Small Area US 60 Transportation Study Gisela Road SR 87 in N/A N/A Improve Alignment and N/A Gila County Small Area Gisela Geometry Transportation Study Greenback Valley Cline Blvd. N/A N/A Paving/Geometry N/A Gila County Small Area Road SR 188 Transportation Study Pine Creek Canyon Pine N/A N/A Widen and reconstruct N/A Gila County Small Area Road Roadway Transportation Study Tonto Creek Bridge TBD-Tonto N/A N/A Select Site and design N/A Gila County Small Area I Creek bridge Transportation Study Young-Heber Road Young-SR N/A N/A Reconstruct and Pave N/A Gila County Small Area 260 Transportation Study Control Road-East Houston N/A N/A Paving Geometry N/A Gila County Small Area Mesa- SR Transportation Study 260 Control Road-West SR 87- N/A N/A Reconstruct and Pave N/A Gila County Small Area Houston Transportation Study Mesa East Verde Estates Low Water N/A N/A Construct Bridge N/A Gila County Small Area Road Crossing Transportation Study Highline Trail N. of Control N/A N/A Improve N/A Gila County Small Area Road Transportation Study Houston Mesa road Low Water N/A N/A Construct 2 bridges N/A Gila County Small Area Crossings Transportation Study Tonto Creek Bridge TBD-Tonto N/A N/A Construct Bridge N/A Gila County Small Area II Creek Transportation Study San Antonio City of N/A N/A 1. Conduct 4-way stop Short- City of Douglas Small Avenue / 15th Douglas control warrant term Area Transportation Street analysis. Study 2. Convert to 4-way stop control if warranted. Louis Avenue City of 15th Street 19th Re-stripe Louis Avenue Short- City of Douglas Small Douglas Street to provide continuous term Area Transportation two-way left-turn lane. Study 15th Street City of Florida San Provide new access to Short- City of Douglas Small Douglas Avenue Antonio charter school parking term Area Transportation Avenue lot. Study San Antonio City of N/A N/A Monitor traffic and Mid to City of Douglas Small Avenue / 15th Douglas install traffic signal Long Area Transportation Street when warranted. Term Study Florida Avenue / City of N/A N/A Monitor traffic and Mid to City of Douglas Small 10th Street Douglas install traffic signal Long Area Transportation when warranted. Term Study 9th Street / Pan City of N/A N/A Install EB and WB Mid to City of Douglas Small American Avenue Douglas channelizing islands to Long Area Transportation allow right-turn only. Term Study Roper Lake State South of N/A N/A Repaving of roads, 2009 ADOT Safford District Park Safford parking lots Report
3-23 June 2009
When Route Location From To Summary of Need Source Needed Bridge over Gila Bylas N/A N/A Replacement 2010 ADOT Safford District River Report Bridge over San Clifton N/A N/A Replacement 2010 ADOT Safford District Francisco River Report 8th Ave Safford N/A N/A Reconstruct 8th Ave. N/A Bridge South Access Safford N/A N/A Extend 20th Ave south N/A Route to provide access on the west side of US 191 8th Ave Extension Safford N/A N/A Extend 8th Ave south N/A to Discovery Park to Discovery Park 20th Ave Safford 8th St US 70 Widen and improve N/A Improvements intersections Connection of 14th Safford Relation St Discovery Extend 14th Ave N/A Ave Park Busby/Coronado Safford N/A N/A Signal 2010 ADOT Critical Needs District Report Fry Boulevard / Safford N/A N/A Traffic Signal 2012 ADOT Critical Needs 7th Street District Improvements Report Airport Runway Safford N/A N/A Reconstruction Project 2010 ADOT Critical Needs 12-30 District Report North Garden / Fry Safford N/A N/A Reconstruction Project 2012 ADOT Critical Needs Intersection District Report Coronado /Golf Safford N/A N/A Signal 2011 ADOT Critical Needs Links District Report BST / Golf Links Safford N/A N/A Signal 2012 ADOT Critical Needs District Report Seventh / BST Safford N/A N/A Signal 2010 ADOT Critical Needs District Report Seventh / Golf Safford N/A N/A Signal 2011 ADOT Critical Needs Links District Report Martin Luther Safford N/A N/A Signal 2009 ADOT Critical Needs King/Avenida District Report Escuela Busby / Seventh Safford N/A N/A Signal 2012 ADOT Critical Needs District Report Coronado Drive Safford Carmelita Las Brisas Mulit-use Path 2009 ADOT Critical Needs District Report Snyder Blvd Safford SR 92 Avenida Mulit-use path 2009 ADOT Critical Needs District Del Sol Report BST Safford Cherokee SR92 Mulit-Use Path 2009 ADOT Critical Needs District Construction Report Bridge over Manual Globe N/A N/A Construction of bridge 2015 ADOT Critical Needs Seep Draw District and appurtances Report CR 2180 Globe N/A N/A Pavement 2016 ADOT Critical Needs District Reconstruction Report CR 2108 Globe N/A N/A Reconstruction 2016 ADOT Critical Needs District Drainage Report Improvements, Grade and Pave CR 2311 Globe N/A N/A Reconstruction 2016 ADOT Critical Needs District Drainage Report Improvements, Grade, Pave and Pedestrian walkway Source: ADOT Critical Needs Report, 2007; Unified Nogales/Santa Cruz County Transportation 2000 Plan, 2000; Gila County Small Area Transportation Plan, 2006; Coronado National Forest Plan, 2005; US Department of Transportation, White Mountain Apaches Tribe webpage, April 2009; Douglas Small Area Transportation Study, 2007; 3.7 Transit and Passenger Rail Needs
3-24 June 2009
The following section provides a summary of transit needs within the Eastern Framework study area. Data was gathered from available transportation plans and studies, as well as comments from stakeholder and community outreach efforts.
Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study
The State of Arizona conducted the Rural Transit Needs Study to prepare for the future of public transportation in the rural communities of the state. This strategic plan was developed in cooperation with the Arizona’s Department of Transportation, regional planning organizations and Councils of Governments (COGs). The following are the primary tasks of the Study, which focused on a 10-year planning horizon:
• Collection and analysis of relevant data, including population, employment, income levels, automobile ownership, and travel patterns; • Identification of national trends in addressing rural transit needs; • Obtaining key stakeholder input on current gaps in transit service; • Developing projections for future transit demand; • Identification and quantification of potential solutions; and • Development of a plan for future new services and service improvements.2
First, the report provided a thorough trend analysis of various population characteristics that are likely to contribute to the future demand for rural public transportation. Based on population data provided by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) (2005) and the 2000 U.S. Census, the study team forecasted the demographic trends for rural Arizona up to the year 2015. The key findings of the future trend analysis affect areas within the Eastern Arizona study area. The findings include:
• It is anticipated that the rural communities of Lake Havasu City-Kingman and Sierra Vista-Douglas will be designated new urbanized areas following the next census in 2010. As a result, the percentage those living in the rural areas will decline from 24.8 percent to 20.2 percent between 2005 and 2015. • Cochise County is projected to grow at a rapid rate of 36.6 percent with a population of 180,000 by 2015. • The percentage of elderly persons in rural Arizona is predicted to increase from 23.2 percent in 2005 to 27.7 percent in 2015. • The report identified Cochise County as being one of the top counties with the highest projected level of rural transit demand in 2016 with a figure of almost one million (0.9 million). • If Arizona’s population continues to grow at a rapid rate, it is likely that by 2016 the current rural transit services will only meet 13 percent of the rural transit needs if no additional transit services are implemented.
After an extensive outreach process, stakeholder feedback and the findings from four previous interim reports – which detailed the methodology, findings and recommendations of the Study – identified the top locations for new or expanded transit program services under FTA Section 5311: Rural Public Transportation Program. Eight cities/town and two tribal communities within the study area were identified as top candidates for new services:
2 Cambridge Systematics, Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study, 2008
3-25 June 2009
• Santa Cruz County (Nogales); • Gila County (Payson); • Graham County (Safford/Thatcher); • Navajo County (Winslow, Holbrook); • Apache County (Eagar/Springerville); • Cochise County (Willcox, Benson); • Fort Apache Reservation (in Apache, Gila, and Navajo Counties); and • the San Carlos Reservation (in Gila, Graham, and Pinal Counties).
The following are programs that were identified as eligible recipients of FTA Section 5311 funds for service expansion:
• Catholic Community Services in Douglas (Cochise County); • City of Sierra Vista Public Transit System (Cochise County); and • City of Show Low/Pinetop (Navajo County).
The Study also identified the top potential intercity connectors for FTA Section 5311 funding for new services within the Eastern Arizona study area:
• Navajo County (Fort Apache Reservation-Show Low-Snowflake/Taylor- Holbrook); • Gila-Maricopa Counties (Payson-East Mesa); and • Graham-Greenlee Counties (Safford/Thatcher-Clifton/Morenci).
Responses to Executive Order 2007-02; Arizona Public Transportation Program
The Arizona Department of Transportation released the Arizona Public Transportation Program in response to the Governor’s Executive Order 2007-02: Expanding Arizona’s Transportation Options. The purpose of the document is to identify the new strategies and investments necessary to improve the mobility through mass transit, commuter rail, and light rail programs.
To meet the intent of the Executive Order, the response was divided into four primary areas, which were then further sub-divided into broad program categories:
• Mass transit –bus and bus related programs o Connecting Communities o Enhancing Rural Transportation Programs o Serving Elderly/Disabled and Tribal populations in Rural Areas o Enhancing Urban Regional Mobility o Increasing Capacity in Dense Urban Environments o Sharing rides and Vanpooling o Building State Infrastructure o Planning, Marketing, and Other Programs • Commuter rail –high-speed rail programs o Capacity relief in Urban Corridors o High-Speed Urban-Urban Connections • Light rail – Valley Metro’s Light Rail program o Light Rail/Fixed Guideway People Mover • Acceleration – programs that are currently included in local, regional, or State public transportation plans
3-26 June 2009
Projects within the Eastern Arizona Framework Study are likely to fall within the Mass Transit Program. The Connecting Communities program category has identified a need for more than 20 connectors statewide that would provide links between rural and urban communities statewide. The preliminary costs for this program is approximately $4.8 million. The Enhancing Rural Transportation Programs would increase the level of service for existing rural transit services, as well as implement new rural transit services through FTA Section 5311 funding. The program identified Benson and the San Carlos Indian Reservation as potential recipients for funding for new transit services. Consistent with the Rural Transit Needs Study, the program noted the great need for increased transportation options for elderly and disabled populations within the rural areas of the state through the Serving Elderly and Disabled Populations program. FTA Section 5310 would be the primary sponsor for the program, which has preliminary costs of an estimated $5 million. Additionally, projects within the study area could fall under the broader program categories of Sharing Rides and Vanpooling, Building State Infrastructure, and Planning, Marketing and Other Programs.
Recent SATS and Local or Regional Transit Studies
Several studies conducted within the focus area have addressed the transit needs within the community – from recommending improvements to the current transit services to transit feasibility studies.
Within the Mogollon Rim focus area, two planning documents identified the need for future transit services. The City of St. Johns published their most recent General Plan in 2003. The City recognized that it is essential to the future of their community to develop a long-range plan for coordinated public transportation. The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside – together with Navajo County – produced a regional transportation plan which recommended the entities within the study area increased funding for the transit program. Furthermore, the Navajo County Comprehensive Plan focused on improving transit services for the unincorporated areas of the county. Examples of strategies include supporting tribal efforts to establish and maintain intercity transit and coordinating with public and private agencies to establish transportation services for transit dependent persons.
Graham County and the City of Safford addressed the transit needs of communities within the Copper Country focus area. The Safford General Plan expressed interest in studying the feasibility of establishing a transit service to link the major trip generators within the area (i.e., Eastern Arizona College, Mt. Graham Community Hospital). Additionally, this document addressed the need to improve the condition of the railroad crossings throughout the city. To further address Graham County’s lack of public transit services, the Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Final Report was released. The study concluded it would be most efficient to, “build on the information provided in the SEAGO Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan issued March 2007 to support coordination of current transit services.3” The study also recommended monitoring any potential dedicated funding sources for the establishment of a new rural transit service for the community (i.e., LTAF II, FTA Section 5311).
3 Ostrander Consulting, Inc., RAE Consultants, Inc., Graham County Transit Feasibility Review Final Report, May 2007
3-27 June 2009
Two local plans in the Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Area referenced transit services within their community. The Bisbee General Plan stated the city should “continue to encourage affordable transit as provided in the Three Year Transit Plan for the Bisbee Bus4.” The City of Nogales prepared a Transit Feasibility Review and Implementation Plan to determine the practicality of implementing a public transit service within the city. The study identified the community’s unmet transportation needs and included a proposed implementation plan.
ADOT Investment Strategy
Under the Strategic Rail and Transit and Programs category, projects are subcategorized into:
• Connection Communities Bus Transit Program • Enhancing Public Transportation Programs • Transit Serving Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Tribal Populations in Rural Areas • Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs • Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs
Mogollon Rim Focus Area
Of the three primary counties within this focus area, Navajo County was allotted the largest amount of funds for its rail and transit projects with a budget of approximately $41 million. Apache County and Gila County were awarded approximately $30 and $24 million, respectively. In all counties, a set amount of $10 million was dedicated to Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program. The majority of funding for Navajo and Apache counties has been apportioned through Enhancing Public Transportation Programs with approximately $18 and $11 million, respectively. Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs received the least amount of dedicated funding across all counties; Gila County has allocated only $270,937 to the program.
As described in Working Paper #2, the only public transit system operating within the focus area is Four Seasons Connection. The service, which provides trips between the city of Show Low and the town of Pinetop-Lakeside, is managed by the City of Show Low. In 2005, the City cited the total operating and administrative budget for the service was $392,2805. It is assumed that a significant portion of the approximately $18 million would be utilized to enhance this public transit service and expand service into potential new connectors between the northern towns of Taylor, Snowflake, the city of Holbrook and the City of St. Johns to the east.
Other potential, transit enhancements identified within the remainder of the focus area include the establishment of additional public service providers in the following communities:
• City of St. Johns • Town of Eagar
4 The Planning Center, City of Bisbee General Plan Update, January 2005
5 RAE Consultants, Inc., Northern Arizona Regional Transportation Coordination Plan, April 2007
3-28 June 2009
• Town of Snowflake • Town of Springerville • Town of Taylor
Copper Country Focus Area
The portion of Gila County within the focus area does not include any populated areas that would meet the demands for public transportation services. Therefore, the majority of the approximately $24.5 million will be allocated for services within areas in the Mogollon Rim Focus Area or the Central Arizona study area. The remaining counties – Graham and Greenlee Counties – which are entirely incorporated into the Copper Country Focus Area were allocated more than $30 million for the counties’ public transit projects and programs.
Through the Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program over $20 million will be dedicated to funding new transit services within the only focus area without any form of public transportation available. Graham and Greenlee Counties each have been allocated $10 million. The report identifies potential for service providers in the community of Bylas and the city of Safford within Graham County.
The Investment Strategy identified a potential new connection between Miami/Globe in Gila County and the populated areas of Graham County via US 70. The proposed connection will travel through the towns of Pima and Thatcher, as well as the city of Safford where it would traverse through US 190 into Cochise County. An additional $6.6 million, over 30 years, would go to the Enhancing Public Transportation Programs for Graham and Greenlee counties.
A bulk of the remaining funds ($2.1 million) is dedicated to Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs in Graham County. Approximately $800,000 will be distributed between the Statewide Vanpool and Rideshare Programs in Greenlee County and the Transit/Rail Planning, Marketing and Other Related Programs for the two counties.
Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Area
With the projected growth in southern Arizona, over $50 million has been apportioned to public transit projects and programs in Cochise County. An additional $22 million was allocated for similar projects in Santa Cruz County. The following communities, within the focus area, were identified as potential providers of new transit services:
• City of Tombstone • City Willcox • Town of Elfrida • City of Nogales
Three potential new connectors were identified. It was proposed that a transit connection travel through US 191 from the Graham-Cochise County Line to the international boarder. A connector was proposed to link the cities of Benson and Bisbee via SR 80. The last proposed potential connector would link the city of Nogales in Santa Cruz County to Pima County via I-19. These proposed projects would be categorized under Connecting Communities Bus Transit Program which was dedicated $25 million for both counties.
3-29 June 2009
Transit Propensity Analysis
Transit propensity is a measure of potential demand for transit service based on key socioeconomic variables. The recently completed Arizona Rural Transit Needs Study used the Arkansas Public Transportation Needs Assessment method to represent the demand for transit service. The ADOT project team used a similar approach, employing methodology from the national Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP).
One purpose of transit propensity analysis is to identify needs for local transit service. At the framework planning level, it can be used as a guide to establish corridors linking areas with high transit needs.
The ADOT project team prepared year 2030 and 2050 transit propensity analyses for each State Transportation Analysis Zone using the population projections developed previously. The TCRP transit propensity analysis method uses nine variables:
1) Population density; 2) Percent of population with mobility limitations; 3) Percent of population with employment disability; 4) Percent of population that is not "White, Non-Hispanic"; 5) Percent of population that is female; 6) Percent of households with income under $20,000; 7) Percent of occupied housing units without an auto available; 8) Percent of workforce age 30 or younger; and 9) Percent of workforce age 65 or older.
These variables represent attributes that national studies identify as having a relationship to transit patronage. Research that supports the methodology includes:
• TCRP Report 28: Transit Markets of the Future • TCRP Report 3: Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation • TCRP Report 27: Building Transit Ridership
The project team obtained data for these nine variables by block group for each county in the central, eastern, northern and western regions of the state. These variables were expanded based on the 2030 and 2050 population projections. The project team assigned a weight to each variable, based primarily on findings in TCRP Report 28.
Propensity is calculated as an index that shows the relative propensity of one block group to the county as a whole. Ridership estimates can be considered as the "demand” for transit services. Variables used to estimate ridership are the same as the variables used for propensity.
Figure 3-6 to Figure 3-7 illustrate year 2050 transit propensity estimates by county in the region.
3-30 June 2009
Figure 3-6 Transit Propensity Maps (Gila County, Navajo County, Apache County)
3-31 June 2009
Figure 3-7 Transit Propensity Maps (Cochise County, Santa Cruz County, Graham County, Greenlee County)
3-32 June 2009
Input from Stakeholders and Community Workshops
The following section summarizes the feedback gathered from the various workshops held throughout the Eastern Arizona study area from February 2008 through April 2009.
Mogollon Rim Focus Area
During the Stakeholder workshop, there seemed to be differing opinions on whether or not transit would be beneficial for the Mogollon Rim; however, most other workshop participants agreed it is necessary to improve transit connections within the study area. Community members expressed the need for transit connectors between Springerville and the cities of St. Johns and Show Low. Additionally, the community noted they would like to see the following transit needs addressed:
• Payson transit expanded beyond the casino, • More medical transportation options for the elderly, and • Seasonal transit system to the ski resort for people who want to go skiing.
Copper Country Focus Area
Community and Focus Group participants believe it is essential to provide commuter transit, specifically between Safford and Phoenix for purposed of employment and medical care. Community members added it would be beneficial to provide other commuter transit services to Morenci, Duncan, and a throughout the focus area.
Participants of the Focus Area’s Regional Technical Advisory Team thoroughly discussed the future of public transportation based on FTA funding sources. A representative from Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization (SEAGO) clarified that Douglas and Sierra Vista both operate public transit services with funding assistance from FTA 5311 Rural Public Transportation Program. The City of Nogales currently has FTA 5310 Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit Program funds and can transition ambulatory passengers to FTA 5311 sponsored transit services. Currently, the towns, cities, etc. within the focus area are not in the position to apply for 5311 transit funding for rural transportation. The area does not have 5310 funding for elderly and persons with disabilities. As a step in the direction of public transit, SEAGO hopes to soon appoint a Mobility Manager. It was then suggested that when the opportunity approaches to implement transit services, Safford, Thatcher and Pima should consider contracting out the services.
The project team also looked at the relationship between land use and transit within their communities. For example, consider placing community centers and schools within a close proximity of each other to avoid having to drive all over town. A participant noted there are existing private transportation options for the minors from Safford; however, operations for the services will likely cutback or cease depending on the success of the copper industry.
3-33 June 2009
Santa Cruz – Cochise Focus Area
Rail safety in Nogales was a common concern between the participants of the Community and Stakeholder workshops. Specific concerns included:
• Liability for hazmat / emergency vehicles, • Disruption for business, and • Backlog of traffic due to rail crossing.
Participants across the board requested commuter transportation options to Tucson from Nogales and Sierra Vista. There were also various requests for transportation options for medical care due to the increase in elderly population within the Focus Area.
Unlike the other Focus Areas, many of those who participated in the workshops within the Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Area, mentioned the need for passenger rail. The community would like to see passenger rail to Hermosillo, while Stakeholders believe light rail would be beneficial for Nogales. Members of the Transportation Focus Group, however, do not believe there is demand for passenger rail in Cochise County.
Summary
Most participants agreed there is an obvious need to take action and plan for future transit services within the focus areas. The top areas selected for new transit services – to be sponsored through FTA Section 5311 funds – by relevant planning documents and participant feedback are Safford, Thatcher and Nogales. The Town of Payson and the City of Sierra Vista will likely apply for FTA 5311 funding for service expansion. The northern region of the study area (i.e., Snowflake, Taylor) is in need of additional services for seniors and persons with disabilities. The participants at the Cochise-Santa Cruz workshops requested for passenger rail services from Nogales into Tucson and Hermosillo.
3-34 June 2009
Table 3.4 Transit and Passenger Rail Needs
Location Summary of Need or When Needed Source Deficiency Benson, Willcox, Pima New Local and Tribal Section N/A Rural Transit Needs Study and Nogales (fixed route 5311 program services (new demand response local services) service) Catholic Community Expanded Section 5311 N/A Rural Transit Needs Study Services in Douglas, program services Pima County Rural Transit and the City of Sierra Vista Public Transit System Catholic Community Expanded Local and Tribal N/A Rural Transit Needs Study Services in Douglas, Section 5311 program Sierra Vista Public services (expanded local Transit System services): increased service frequency of Catholic Community Services in Douglas, Sierra Vista Public Transit System by implement restructuring, longer span of service in Sierra Vista City of Bisbee Continue to encourage N/A City of Bisbee General Plan affordable transit as provided Update in the Three Year Transit Plan for the Bisbee Bus City of Nogales Need to look at some sort of N/A Cochise – Santa Cruz reliable public transportation Stakeholders Meeting – Bisbee, 29 February 2008 OR Cochise – Santa Cruz Stakeholders Meeting Large commuter travel from Tucson – likely use for light rail. – Bus service in Nogales is privately owned. – Light rail would be beneficial. Nogales community is getting older – need affordable public transportation to take care of their needs (doctor appointments, etc.) City of Nogales Establish fixed route transit Nogales Transit Feasibility service that operate on an Review and established schedule, route, Implementation Plan and fare structure City of Safford Study feasibility of N/A Safford General Plan establishing regular transit service linking downtown Safford Eastern Arizona College, Mt. Graham Community Hospital and Mountain View Terrace
Systematically improve the condition of railroad crossings throughout the city
3-35 June 2009
Location Summary of Need or When Needed Source Deficiency City of Show Expanded Section 5311 N/A Rural Transit Needs Study Low/Pinetop program services
Expanded Local and Tribal Section 5311 program services (expanded local services); Expand geographic coverage for integration with new service in Fort Apache Reservation City of St. Johns Begin long-range planning N/A St. John's General Plan for future transit system 2003 through coordination of school, charity, and City vehicles Graham County Build on the information N/A Graham County Transit provided in the SEAGO Feasibility Review Final Human Services Report Transportation Coordination Plan issued March 2007 to support coordination of current transit services
Monitor statewide legislative efforts to secure a dedicated source of funding for rural transit through the LTAF II or a similar program Navajo County Improve transit service N/A Navajo County opportunities in Comprehensive Plan unincorporated portions of Navajo County Nogales, Wilcox and New Section 5311 program N/A Rural Transit Needs Study Benson. services
Payson and Fort-Apache New Local and Tribal Section N/A Rural Transit Needs Study Reservation 5311 program services (local, fixed-route service)
Payson and the Fort New Section 5311 program N/A Rural Transit Needs Study Apache Reservation services
Pinetop-Lakeside & Continue and increase N/A Pinetop-Lakeside & Navajo Navajo County funding for the Transit County Regional Plan Program Rio Rico NE, Rio Rico New Section 5310 program N/A Rural Transit Needs Study NW, and Rio Rico SW services
Safford District Bus Canopies 2012 ADOT Critical Needs Report New Transit Buses 2011 ADOT Critical Needs Report Safford, Thatcher and New Section 5311 program N/A Rural Transit Needs Study San Carlos Reservation services
New Local and Tribal Section 5311 program services (new local services)
Santa Cruz-Cochise Rail, specifically related to N/A Cochise – Santa Cruz Focus Area rail located in very congested Stakeholders Meeting – areas and rail interacting Bisbee, 29 February 2008 with traffic (i.e., Nogales) OR Cochise – Santa Cruz both City and County issue Stakeholders Meeting also
3-36 June 2009
Location Summary of Need or When Needed Source Deficiency – Hazmat/emergency vehicles – liability
– Disruption for business – Backlog of traffic due to rail passing
Town of Snowflake New Section 5310 program N/A Rural Transit Needs Study services Town of Taylor New Section 5310 program N/A Rural Transit Needs Study services Town of Thatcher New Section 5310 program N/A Rural Transit Needs Study services Sources: Rural Transit Needs Study, 2008; City of Bisbee General Plan Update, 2004; Cochise-Santa Cruz Stakeholders Meeting, 2008; Nogales Transit Feasibility Review and Implementation Plan, 2006; Safford General Plan, 2004; Graham County Transit Feasibility Review, 2007; St. Johns General Plan, 2003; Navajo County Comprehensive Plan, 2004; Pinetop-Lakeside & Navajo County Regional Plan; ADOT Critical Needs Report, 2008.
3-37 June 2009
3.8 CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW OF LONG-RANGE SCENARIOS
Background and Approach In the fall of 2008, the Statewide Framework study team identified three scenarios for the long-term evolution of Arizona and its transportation system. The scenarios were further developed after thirteen community workshops held in November 2008 throughout the four Arizona regions (Central, Eastern, Northern and Western) that collectively encompass the entire state except Maricopa County, Pima County and western Pinal County. Each scenario reflects a different transportation future for Arizona. The following characteristics apply to all three scenarios:
• All look ahead to 2050 and beyond. • All assume that the future of transportation will be substantially different from present conditions. • All are multimodal, incorporating both roadways and public transportation. • They include the principal locally controlled transportation facilities and services, as well as those for which ADOT is responsible. • Each has its own set of proposed improvement projects and programs within each region. • Each Regional Consultant team identified the improvements for all scenarios within its framework region. • Each regional team made extensive use of community input—especially from the stakeholder interviews and the two sets of public workshops held in 2008—to select the proposed improvements. • In each region, some projects are common to two or more scenarios, while others are unique to one scenario. • Proposed projects in each regional scenario include selected improvements from the Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy developed for ADOT and the Governor’s Office in 2008. • All scenarios involve phased implementation of the transportation improvements over several decades. • To show a seamless transportation system, the statewide Management Consultant and the four Regional Consultants coordinated the elements of each scenario across regional boundaries.
Scenario A (Personal Vehicle Mobility)
This scenario is the closest to the status quo, insofar as it assumes that personal vehicles will continue to be used for most trips in 2050 and beyond. It assumes that alternative vehicle technologies (i.e., fuels and engines other than traditional gasoline and diesel) will be further developed and will gradually become pervasive in the fleet. This technological progress will enable people to continue driving their own vehicles affordably, with minimal harm to the environment and without excessive emission of greenhouse gases. However, recognizing that existing public services are inadequate, especially in rural areas of the state, the scenario calls for significant transit investments beyond existing levels. Scenario A also assumes that long-range land use and development patterns will be consistent with adopted local plans, such as city and town general plans and county comprehensive plans.
3-38 June 2009
Scenario B (Transit Mobility)
In contrast with Scenario A, this scenario assumes that automobiles and trucks will continue to rely on fuels whose prices will continue to increase in the long run, making personal vehicle use less affordable for many. While some technological progress will occur, it will not counterbalance the rising cost of vehicle use and ownership. As a result, demand for public transportation will increase dramatically, so this scenario emphasizes extensive transit improvements to meet the growing demand. Local, regional, and intercity services and facilities are included. It is recognized; however, than under any scenario private vehicles will remain the predominant form of transportation, especially in rural and small urban areas. Like Scenario A, Scenario B assumes future consistency with existing local and community plans. Unlike Scenario A, Scenario B envisions a notable reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
Scenario C (Focused Growth)
Like Scenario B, this third scenario assumes a mix of increased public transit use and technological progress. Scenario C differs from the others in assuming that, where appropriate, existing long-range plans will be modified to encourage and support more intense land use in urban areas, with more compact development patterns and greater emphasis on mixing compatible land uses. Current land use plans would not change in many smaller and more rural communities.
These land use changes in some communities will cause not only a reduction in the number of vehicle trips, but also a decline in average trip length. Some trips that otherwise would have been made by motor vehicle will instead be accomplished by walking or bicycling. This scenario envisions that cities, towns and counties will gradually embrace Smart Growth principles. According to “This Is Smart Growth,” published by the Smart Growth Network, these principles are:
• Mixed land uses. • Take advantage of compact building design. • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. • Create walkable neighborhoods. • Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. • Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities. • Provide a variety of transportation choices. • Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective. • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.
3-39 June 2009
3.9 ELEMENTS OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS
Definitions of Improvement Categories
Freeway: A multilane highway with full access control and grade separations at all crossing streets, designed to provide the highest possible capacity per lane mile.
State Highway: An existing Arizona state highway other than a freeway.
Arizona Parkway: A multilane highway with capacity (per lane mile) less than a freeway but more than a principal arterial. An Arizona parkway prohibits left turns at signalized intersections, but instead accommodates these movements through a combination of right turns and U-turns at strategically located median breaks. A wide median (typically 60 feet) is designed to allow ample storage capacity for turns by large trucks. The typical right-of-way requirement for a six-lane parkway is 200 feet, substantially less than the 300-foot freeway right-of-way.
Principal Arterial: The highest roadway functional classification other than a freeway or Arizona parkway, designed to carry substantial volumes of through traffic at an acceptable level of service. In urban areas, principal arterials typically have four or more lanes and varying degrees of access management. Rural principal arterials may be two-lane undivided highways.
Widen/Upgrade Roadway: A roadway project that involves a substantial increase in capacity to carry through traffic, usually by adding lanes over substantial distances.
Improved Roadway: A project that increases the safety and operational efficiency of a roadway without adding through lanes over long distances. Examples include drainage improvements, passing or climbing lanes, shoulder widening and sight distance enhancements.
Definitions of Transit Modes
Local Transit Service: Public transportation designed to accommodate relatively short trips within a community or urbanized area. The most familiar type of fixed route service typically operates linear routes on arterial or major collector streets, with closely spaced bus stops. The community circulator is a specialized type of fixed route that typically connects neighborhoods to nearby activity centers, where riders may transfer to other routes. Community circulators often use small to medium buses that operate in a loop; some will stop at any safe location. Demand responsive service, often called dial-a-ride or reserve-a-ride, is a shared-ride service that operates door to door on demand, with some advance notice required. In large cities, this mode (also called paratransit) usually serves seniors and those who are unable to use the fixed route bus system, meeting requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In smaller communities, demand responsive service may be the only type of public transportation available to the general public.
Light Rail: This mode is a form of local transit in which lightweight passenger rail cars—operating one to three trains, and usually powered by overhead electric current—provide urban transit service along city streets, on aerial structures, underground or in exclusive ground-level rights-of-way. Stops are typically spaced from one-half mile to two miles apart.
3-40 June 2009
Modern Streetcar: This is a “lighter” version of light rail offering lower speed and capacity. It usually consists of single cars operating on city streets, often in mixed traffic.
Arterial Bus Rapid Transit: Conceived as a more economical substitute for light rail, offering relatively high capacities and travel speeds with specially designed buses instead of rail cars.
Express Bus: Bus service designed to transport commuters between their suburban communities and a central business district (or other large activity center) rapidly and with a minimum number of stops. This is typically a peak-period service, although some large cities have express routes that operate throughout the day. Express buses usually serve park-and-ride lots in the suburbs and use freeway high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for as much of the trip as possible. This type of service currently exists in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas.
Intercity Bus: Bus service that connects cities on a fixed route and schedule, usually traveling through rural areas and often making several stops along the way. Greyhound Lines, a private firm, is the largest provider of intercity bus service in the U.S., but some public transit agencies also operate this service. Examples include the Navajo and Hopi Senom transit systems in northeastern Arizona, and the Wickenburg and Gila Bend regional connectors in Maricopa County. Buses often stop at one central location in each community, where connections to local transit may be available.
Passenger Rail: Passenger-carrying trains that use conventional rail propulsion technologies, such as diesel-electric locomotives. Tracks may or may not be shared with freight operations.
Commuter Rail: Often used to refer to relatively short-haul service (less than one hundred miles from one terminus to the other), with trains stopping roughly every three to eight miles. Commuter rail service is sometimes, but not always, limited to peak travel periods.
Intercity Rail: (provided by Amtrak in the U.S.) This mode typically operates over distances of one hundred miles or more, with station stops every twenty to fifty miles. Intercity and commuter services often share the same track.
Definitions of Transit Facilities
A Transit Center is a stop or station at the junction of several routes or lines, or of different modes of transportation. It may be located on- or off-street, and is designed to handle the movement of transit vehicles and the boarding, alighting and transfer of passengers between routes or modes. A variety of passenger amenities may be available, including parking at some locations.
A Park-and-Ride is a facility where transit riders (and sometimes carpoolers) may park their private vehicles and transfer to mass transit, especially commuter rail, light rail or express bus. The park-and-ride lot may also serve as a transit center, and it usually contains a designated passenger drop-off/pick-up or “kiss-and-ride” area.
3-41 June 2009
A Bus Pullout (sometimes called a bus bay) is a specially constructed roadside area that permits buses to stop, without obstructing traffic, while laying over or while passengers board or alight. It is designed to allow easy re-entry of the bus into the traffic stream; hence an urban pullout is most often located at the far side of an intersection.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes are lanes on freeways (and sometimes arterial streets) that are reserved for the exclusive use of multi-occupant vehicles, including transit buses, either all day or during designated peak hours. In metropolitan Phoenix and elsewhere, motorcycles and alternative-fuel vehicles are also permitted to use the lanes.
Scenario A Improvements
Scenario A assumes that the transportation infrastructure in the future will need to continue to support the use of personal vehicles as the primary mode of transportation. The improvements identified under this scenario for the Eastern Arizona study area support this vision with a significant focus on roadway improvements.
Under Scenario A, the major regional corridors linking the numerous rural communities in Eastern Arizona are targeted for improvement, specifically adding capacity. The state routes serving the study are the primary corridors targeted for capacity improvements. In most cases adding capacity indicates improving a two lane facility to a four lane facility. In a few cases, such as SR 87, and segments of state highways within communities, the facilities are already four lanes and the suggested improvement would take the facility to six lanes.
Scenario A also includes investment in new corridors. This includes three specific corridors for the Eastern Arizona study area, including:
• Alternate route in the Payson area to connect SR 87 to SR 260 to relieve traffic conditions in Payson. • Developing the Rim Road south of Show Low to connect between US 60 and SR 260. • Creating an alternative route around Safford to provide connections between US 70 and US 191.
Scenario A also includes significant investment in improving safety and operations on important corridors. These improvements are intended to improve traffic conditions by eliminating safety hazards and improving operations through techniques such as access management.
Transit, bicycling and walking are important elements within Scenario A. The assumption however is there would be no new investment beyond what is already committed and planned. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be improved in conjunction with roadway improvements as an integral part of the projects.
The following list provides the detailed improvements identified for Eastern Arizona under Scenario A, as divided by focus area.
3-42 June 2009
Mogollon Rim Focus Area
Widen Roadway • SR 87: 6 lanes Phoenix to Payson • SR 260: 6 lanes Payson to Star Valley • SR 260: 4 lanes Star Valley to Show Low • SR 260: 6 lanes Show Low to Pinetop-Lksd • US 60: 4 lanes Globe to Show Low • US 60: 6 lanes SR 260 to SR 77 • US 60: 4 lanes SR 77 to US 191 • SR 77: 4 lanes Show Low to Holbrook • SR 277: 4 lanes SR 260 to Snowflake • SR 377: 4 lanes SR 260 to I-40 • Bourdon Ranch Rd: 4 lanes SR 77 to US 60 • Penrod Rd: 4 lanes US 60 to SR 260
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • US 191: Springerville to St. Johns • SR 260: Pinetop-Springerville • SR 73: US 60 to SR 260 • Burton Road: SR 260 to Bourdon Ranch Rd • Concho Hwy: SR 77 to US 180
New Roadway • Payson Alternate Route: New 4-lane roadway SR 87 to SR 260 • Rim Road: New 4 lane US 60 to SR 260
Transit Projects • Existing Systems and Service
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects • Existing facilities and elements of roadway projects
Copper Country Focus Area
Widen Roadway • US 70: 4 lanes Globe to Safford • US 70: 4 lanes Safford east to US 191 • US 191: 4 lanes I-10 to Safford
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • US 191: Safford to Clifton • US 70: Safford to Duncan
New Roadway • Safford Alternative Route US 191 to US 70
Transit Projects • Existing Systems and Service
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects • Existing facilities and elements of roadway projects
3-43 June 2009
Cochise/Santa Cruz Focus Area
Widen Roadway • I-10: 6 lanes US 191 to Tucson • I-19: 6 lanes Nogales to Tucson • SR 90: 6 lanes I-10 to SR 92 • SR 92 Bypass: 6 lanes • SR 80: 4 lanes Douglas to I-10 • SR 92: 4 lanes Sierra Vista to Bisbee • Charleston Road: 4 lanes
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • SR 82: Nogales to SR 90 • SR 191: Douglas to I-10 • SR 80: Douglas to New Mexico • Davis Road: SR 191 to SR 80
New Roadway • None Identified
Transit Projects • Existing Systems and Service
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects • Existing facilities and elements of roadway projects
Figures 3-8 through 3-12 show the improvements identified under Scenario A, at the Statewide, study area and focus area level.
3-44 June 2009
Figure 3-8 Scenario A Improvements, Statewide
3-45 June 2009
Figure 3-9 Scenario A Improvements, Eastern Arizona Study Area
3-46 June 2009
Figure 3-10 Scenario A Improvements, Mogollon Rim Focus Area
3-47 June 2009
Figure 3-11 Scenario A Improvements, Copper Country Focus Area
3-48 June 2009
Figure 3-12 Scenario A Improvements, Cochise/Santa Cruz Focus Area
3-49 June 2009
Scenario B Improvements
Improvements identified under Scenario B support the vision that the use of personal vehicles will decline and the use of, and demand for, transit will increase.
Investment in key roadway corridors is included in Scenario B for those critical roadways providing connections to major activity areas in the study area. This includes a combination of added capacity as well as safety and access improvements. No new roadways are identified for Scenario B.
The main investment under Scenario B is in transit. This includes investing in local transit systems, creating regional transit or intercity service and improvements in rail.
For communities with established local transit systems there would be a major investment in expanding and improving their services. For communities with no local transit, new systems would be created to serve these areas.
Regional or intercity bus systems would be implemented to serve those desired travel corridors between communities and connecting throughout the state. These regional systems would connect communities to each other and provide connections to major destinations like Phoenix and Tucson.
Scenario B also includes investment in rail, both passenger and freight. In the Copper Country and Cochise-Santa Cruz focus areas existing rail lines that connect throughout the regions could be revitalized for passenger service. Improvements in freight rail are seen as a way to provide economic development as well as removing freight traffic from the roadways.
Under Scenario B there is no specific investment identified for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Improvements for bicyclist and pedestrians are assumed to be integrated with roadway and transit improvement projects.
The following list, divided by focus area, show the list of improvements identified for Scenario B.
Mogollon Rim Focus Area
Widen Roadway • SR 260: 4 lanes Star Valley to Show Low • SR 77: 4 lanes Show Low to Snowflake
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • SR 77: Snowflake to I-40 • SR 260: Pinetop to Springerville • SR 73: US 60 to SR 260 • US 60: Show Low to Springerville • SR 377: SR 260- I-40 • US 60: Show Low south to Globe
New Roadway • None Identified
3-50 June 2009
Transit Projects • Enhance existing freight lines
Provide Regional Bus Service • Show Low to Payson (Payson to Phoenix) • Show Low to Globe • Show Low to Holbrook • Snowflake/Taylor to St. Johns • Show Low to Springerville • Show Low to St Johns
Provide Enhanced Local Transit in: • Payson to Star Valley • Show Low • Pinetop-Lakeside • Whiteriver • Springerville to Eager • Snowflake to Taylor
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects • Existing facilities and elements of roadway projects
Copper Country Focus Area
Widen Roadway • US 191: 4 lanes I-10 to US 70
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • US 191: Safford to Clifton • US 70: Safford to Globe
New Roadway • None Identified
Transit Projects • Intercity rail: Safford to Globe • Intercity rail: Safford to Tucson • Enhanced freight rail service
Provide Commuter Transit: • Safford to Clifton and mines
Provide Regional Bus Service • Safford to Phoenix via Globe • Safford to Tucson • Safford to Clifton and Duncan
Provide Enhanced Local Transit in: • Safford/Pima/Thatcher • San Carlos • Duncan • Clifton/Morenci
3-51 June 2009
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects • Existing facilities and elements of roadway projects
Cochise- Santa Cruz Focus Area
Widen Roadway • SR 90: 4 lanes Sierra Vista to SR 80 • SR 80: 4 lanes SR 90 to Douglas • SR 92: 4 lanes south of Sierra Vista
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • SR 82: Nogales to SR 90 • SR 191: Douglas to I-10 • SR 80: Davis Road to I-10 • Davis Road: SR 191 to SR 80 • SR 92: Bisbee to Sierra Vista • Charleston Road: Sierra Vista to Tombstone • Davis Road: SR 191 to SR 80
New Roadway • None Identified
Intercity Rail • Nogales to Tucson • Douglas to Tucson via Bisbee and Sierra Vista
Enhanced freight rail service
Provide Regional Bus Service • Benson to Tucson • Sierra Vista to Benson • Sierra Vista to Tombstone • Sierra Vista to Bisbee and Douglas • Nogales to Tucson • Nogales to Patagonia
Provide Enhanced Local Transit in: • Sierra Vista • Nogales • Bisbee • Benson • Douglas • Wilcox
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Existing facilities and elements of roadway projects
Figures 3-13 through 3-17 show the improvements identified under Scenario B, at the Statewide, study area and focus area level.
3-52 June 2009
Figure 3-13 Scenario B Improvements, Statewide
3-53 June 2009
Figure 3-14 Scenario B Improvements, Eastern Arizona Study Area
3-54 June 2009
Figure 3-15 Scenario B Improvements, Mogollon Rim Focus Area
3-55 June 2009
Figure 3-16 Scenario B Improvements, Copper Country Focus Area
3-56 June 2009
Figure 3-17 Scenario B Improvements, Cochise/Santa Cruz Focus Area
3-57 June 2009
Scenario C Improvements
Improvements for Scenario C include a balance between roadway, transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The vision behind Scenario C is a focus on smart growth. Rural communities, like those found in the Eastern Arizona study area, are in many ways already compact in their size and are not likely to become denser. The approach for improvements for the Eastern Arizona study area for Scenario C was developed to improve the local trip experience as much as possible, balanced with regional connections.
Scenario C includes many of the same roadway widening and improvement projects as Scenario A, to serve the high demand corridors. This is balanced with intercity bus service also providing regional connectivity.
The main focus for Scenario C is investment in local transit systems and bicycle and pedestrian projects. Each of the study area communities would improve or create local transit systems to serve for local trip making. Additionally substantial investment in sidewalks, bike lanes, bike paths, trails, crosswalks and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be included. These improvements are envisioned to improve the local trip experience, support the use of local transit and reduce the reliance on the automobile for local trips.
The list below provides the detail, divided by focus area, of improvements for Scenario C.
Mogollon Rim Focus Area
Widen Roadway • SR 87: 6 lanes Phoenix to Payson • SR 260: 6 lanes Payson to Star Valley • SR 260: 4 lanes Star Valley to Show Low • SR 260: 6 lanes Show Low to Pinetop-Lakeside • US 60: 6 lanes SR 260 to SR 77 • SR 77: 4 lanes Show Low to Holbrook • SR 277: 4 lanes SR 260 to Snowflake • Bourdon Ranch Rd: 4 lane SR 77 to US 60 • Penrod Rd: 4 lanes US 60 to SR 260 • SR 377: 4 lanes SR 260 to I-40
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • US 191: Springerville to St. Johns • US 180: St. Johns to Holbrook • SR 260: Pinetop to Springerville • SR 73: US 60 to SR 260 • US 60: Show Low to Springerville • US 60: Show Low south to SR 73
New Roadway • None Identified
Regional Bus Service • Show Low to White River • Show Low to Holbrook
3-58 June 2009
• Show Low to St. Johns and Springerville • St. Johns to Snowflake/Taylor
Provide Enhanced Local Transit in: • Payson to Star Valley • Show Low to Pinetop-Lakeside • Whiteriver • Springerville to Eager • Snowflake to Taylor
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Provide Complete Streets/ Main Street in: • Payson / Star Valley • Show Low/Pinetop-Lakeside • Taylor/ Snowflake • Whiteriver • St. Johns • Springerville / Eager
Additional Transportation Enhancements and Walkable/Bikeable Communities
Copper Country Focus Area
Widen Roadway • US 70: 4 lanes US 191 to Globe • US 191: 4 lanes I-10 to US 70
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • US 191: Safford-Morenci • Local Roadway Investment (Various)
New Roadway • None Identified
Regional Bus Service • Safford to Phoenix via Globe • Safford to Clifton and Duncan
Provide Enhanced Local Transit in: • Safford/Pima/Thatcher • Sub-regional service between Safford, Morenci, Duncan
Provide Commuter Transit between: • Safford to Clifton and mines
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects • Provide Complete Streets/ Main Street in: • Safford/Pima/ Thatcher (US 70) • Duncan (US 70) • Morenci (US 191)
Additional Transportation Enhancements and Walkable/Bikeable Communities
3-59 June 2009
Cochise / Santa Cruz Focus Area
Widen Roadway • I-10: 6 lanes Benson to Tucson • I-19: 6 lanes Nogales to Tucson • SR 90: 6 lanes I-10-SR 92 • SR 92 Bypass: 6 lanes • SR 80: 4 lanes Douglas to SR 90 • SR 92: 4 lanes Sierra Vista to Bisbee • Charleston Road: 4 lanes
Improve Roadway (safety, access) • SR 82: Nogales to SR 90 • SR 191: Douglas to I-10 • Davis Road: SR 191 to SR 80 • SR 80: Benson to SR 90
New Roadway • None Identified
Regional Bus Service • Nogales to Tucson • Nogales to Patagonia • Douglas to Tucson via Sierra Vista and Benson • Sierra Vista to Tombstone
Provide Enhanced Local Transit in: • Sierra Vista • Nogales • Bisbee • Benson • Douglas • Willcox
Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Provide Complete Streets/ Main Street in: • Sierra Vista (SR 90/92) • Nogales (SR 198) • Bisbee (SR 92, 80) • Douglas (SR 80) • Benson (SR 80)
Additional Transportation Enhancements and Walkable/Bikeable Communities
Figures 3-18 through 3-22 show the improvements identified under Scenario C, at the Statewide, study area and focus area level.
3-60 June 2009
Figure 3-18 Scenario C Improvements, Statewide
3-61 June 2009
Figure 3-19 Scenario C Improvements, Eastern Arizona Study Area
3-62 June 2009
Figure 3-20 Scenario C Improvements, Mogollon Rim Focus Area
3-63 June 2009
Figure 3-21 Scenario C Improvements, Copper Country Focus Area
3-64 June 2009
Figure 3-22 Scenario C Improvements, Cochise/Santa Cruz Focus Area
3-65 June 2009
Summary
Improvements identified for Scenarios A, B and C, while different in each scenario, are all aimed at improving future travel conditions in the Eastern Arizona study area. Scenarios A and C both include substantial investment in roadway widening and roadway upgrades. Scenario B shifts the investment to intercity bus and local transit. Scenario C also includes investment in local transit and provides improvements for bicyclist and pedestrians.
Table 3.5 provides a summary of the improvements and which scenario each improvement is associated with.
Table 3.5 Improvements in Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
Scenarios that Include Location or Length Improvement Description this Improvement Corridor (mi.) A B C Widen 6 lanes Study Boundary SR 87 27 x x Roadway to Payson Widen 6 lanes Payson to Star SR 260 11 x x Roadway Valley Widen 4 lanes Star Valley to SR 260 61 x x x Roadway Show Low Widen 6 lanes Show Low to SR 260 8 x x Roadway Pinetop-Lakeside Widen 4 lanes Study Boundary US 60 54 x x Roadway to Show Low Widen US 60 6 lanes SR 260 to SR 77 2.5 x x Roadway Widen US 60 4 lanes SR 77 to US 191 42 x Roadway Widen 4 lanes Show Low to SR 77 38 x x Roadway Holbrook Widen 4 lanes Show Low to SR 77 14 x Roadway Snowflake/Taylor Widen 4 lanes SR 260 to SR 277 30 x x Roadway Snowflake Widen 4 lanes SR 260 to SR 377 40 x x Roadway Holbrook Widen Bourdon 4 lanes SR 77 to US 60 17 x x Roadway Ranch Rd: Widen Penrod Rd 4 lanes US 60 to SR 260 8 x x Roadway Widen 4 lanes Study Boundary US 70 63 x x Roadway to Safford Widen 4 lanes Safford east to US 70 7 x x Roadway US 191 Widen US 191 4 lanes I-10 to Safford 27 x x x Roadway Widen 6 lanes NM/AZ Border to I-10 95 x Roadway Cochise Cnty Line Widen 6 lanes Cochise Cnty I-10 10 x x Roadway Line to Benson Widen 6 lanes Nogales to Santa I-19 29 x x Roadway Cruz Cnty Line
3-66 June 2009 Scenarios that Include Location or Length Improvement Description this Improvement Corridor (mi.) A B C Widen SR 90 6 lanes I-10 to SR 92 30 x x Roadway Widen SR 92 6 lanes 7 x x Roadway Bypass Widen 4 lanes Douglas to SR 80 60 x Roadway Benson Widen SR 80 4 lanes Douglas to SR 90 22 x x Roadway Widen 4 lanes Sierra Vista to SR 92 26 x x Roadway Bisbee Widen 4 lanes South of Sierra SR 92 6 x Roadway Vista Widen Charleston 4 lanes 4.5 x x Roadway Road Payson New 4-lane roadway SR New Roadway Alternate 4 x 87 to SR 260 Route New 4-lane US 60 to SR New Roadway Rim Road 17 x 260 Safford Alt New 4 lane Road US New Roadway 18 x Route 191 to US 70 Improve US 191 Springerville to St. Johns 24 x x Roadway Improve SR 260 Pinetop to Springerville 37 x x x Roadway Improve SR 73 US 60 to SR 260 46 x x x Roadway Improve SR 260 to Bourdon Burton Road 16 x Roadway Ranch Rd Improve Concho Hwy SR 77 to US 180 28 x Roadway Improve SR 377 SR 260 to Holbrook 40 x Roadway Improve US 191 Safford to Clifton 40 x x x Roadway Improve US 70 US 191 to Duncan 30 x Roadway Improve SR 82 Nogales to SR 90 49 x x x Roadway Improve SR 191 Douglas to I-10 65 x x x Roadway Improve SR 80 Douglas to New Mexico 47 x Roadway Improve Davis Road SR 191 to SR 80 24 x x x Roadway Improve SR 92 Bisbee to Sierra Vista 20 x Roadway Improve Charleston Sierra Vista to 11 x x Roadway Road Tombstone
3-67 June 2009 Quantities for Cost Estimation by Scenario
Table 3.6 provides details on improvements by the type of improvement or ultimate facility type. These are quantified for each scenario. This table shows the difference in the roadway investments versus transit investment between scenarios. A good example is the number of centerline miles for improving a 2-lane state highway to a 4 lane state highway. Under Scenario A there are 412 miles, Scenario B includes 149 miles and Scenario C includes 294 miles. These quantities will be used to estimate cost in a subsequent task at the statewide level.
Table 3.6 Quantities for Estimating Cost of Roadway and Transit/Rail Elements
Quantity by Facility Improvement Unit Scenario Type A B C New construction w/ 8’ paved shoulders Centerline State hwy: 0 0 0 mile 2-lane rural Improve existing corridor* 392 541 475 New construction (Interstate) 0 0 0 New construction (divided) 39 0 0 New construction (no median) State hwy: 0 0 0 4-lane rural Improve 2-lane to 4-lane divided 412 149 294 Add 2 lanes to existing 2-lane 0 0 0 Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0 New construction (Interstate) 0 0 0 Improve 4-lane State Hwy to 6-lanes State hwy: 88 0 92 6-lane rural Improve 4-lane Interstate to 6 lanes (inside widening) 89 35 35 Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0 New construction (Interstate) 0 0 0 State hwy: Improve 6-lane Interstate to 8 lanes (inside widening) 0 0 0 8-lane rural Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0 Urban New construction 0 0 0 freeway: Improve existing corridor* 4-lane 0 0 0 New construction 0 0 0 Urban Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0 freeway: Add 2 lanes (to existing 4-lane) 0 0 0 6-lane Add 2 lanes (to existing 4-lane, no bridge widening or R/W 0 0 0 needed) New construction 0 0 0 Urban Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0 freeway: Add 2 lanes (to existing 6-lane) 0 0 0 8-lane Add 2 lanes (to existing 6-lane, no bridge widening or R/W 0 0 0 needed) New construction 0 0 0 Urban freeway: Improve existing corridor* 0 0 0 10-lane Add 2 lanes (to existing 8-lane) 0 0 0
3-68 June 2009 Quantity by Facility Improvement Unit Scenario Type A B C Add 2 lanes (to existing 8-lane, no bridge widening or R/W 0 0 0 needed) New 3-leg Each 0 0 0 system TI 4-leg (rural) 0 0 0 New 3-leg 0 0 0 system TI 4-leg (urban) 0 0 0 Arizona New construction (6-lane divided) Centerline 0 0 0 Parkway mile New construction (8-lane divided) (urban) 0 0 0 New construction (5 lanes) 0 0 0 New construction (4 lanes w/ MSCG) 0 0 0 Principal New construction (6 lanes w/ MSCG) 0 0 0 arterial Improve 2-lane to 4-lane w/ MSCG (urban) 30 1 30 Add 2 lanes (to existing 2-lane w/ no median) 0 0 0 Improve existing corridor* 83 40 27 Intercity bus Length 0 632 504 (miles) by Express bus route 0 0 0 Passenger rail (intercity/commuter) 0 375 0 Transit Urban park-and-ride lot Each 0 0 0 Rural park-and-ride lot 0 1 0 Transit center 0 0 0 MSCG = median, sidewalk, curb and gutter. *Examples of “Improve existing corridor” include: passing lanes, shoulder widening (possibly including bus pullouts), drainage improvements, bus pullouts/shelters, safety improvements, signals and lighting.
3-69 June 2009 3.10 EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS
Planning Factors, Goals, Criteria and How Measured
Table 3.7 shows the planning factors, goals, criteria and measurements that the regional framework consultant teams used to evaluate the three scenarios. The first column, Planning Factors, lists five elements that a multimodal transportation system should provide or promote: Mobility and Access, Transportation/Land Use Integration, Environmental and Conservation, Economic Benefit, and Safety. The second column succinctly states the goal associated with each planning factor. The third column lists one or more evaluation criteria used to specify objectives that can help meet each goal. Finally, the last column describes how the performance of each scenario was measured with respect to the criteria.
The ADOT Management Consultant was responsible for the portion of the evaluation that applied criteria based on model output. These were IC, ID, IIIA, IIIB and VA. Each regional consultant took responsibility for the remainder of the criteria, whether quantitative (criteria IA1 and IA2) or non-quantitative (all the rest). On all criteria, whether numerically based or not, each scenario was given a rating of ● (best rating), ◒ (intermediate), or ○ (worst rating). The ratings are relative; i.e., they reflect how the three scenarios fare against one another, so a rating of ○ (worst) does not necessarily mean that a scenario performs badly on some absolute scale.
3-70 June 2009 Table 3.7 Planning Factors, Goals, Evaluation Criteria and How Measured
Evaluation Planning Factors Goals How Measured Criteria
I. Mobility and Access Develop functional, A. Improve 1. Number of passenger terminals served flexible mobility for multimodal by two or more modes (including air Arizona. network carrier) other than private vehicle access connectivity. 2. Number of additional free-flow junctions (e.g., system or directional TIs) compared with the Baseline condition
B. Increase modal Amount of transit and rail passenger choice and service compared with Baseline condition improve mobility ● Many new services and extensive options. improvements compared with Baseline condition ◒ Moderate improvements including some new services ○ Incremental improvements only C. Protect personal Daily vehicle hours of delay (thousands) on mobility from the regionally significant roadway system, endemic (including from model output seasonal) congestion. D. Protect freight Daily hours of commercial vehicle delay transport from (thousands) on the regionally significant endemic (including roadway system, from model output seasonal) roadway congestion. II. Transportation/Land Plan transportation A. Be consistent ● Nearly all improvements are highly Use Integration facilities to with county consistent with most pertinent plans promote land comprehensive ◒ The majority of improvements are development plans, city/town consistent with most pertinent plans patterns that general plans, Some projects are markedly inconsistent maximize modal tribal plans, federal ○ with some plans choice, minimize land management trip length and plans (BLM, USFS) enable multi- and other adopted purpose trips. land use plans, including development master plans. B. Be consistent ● Nearly all improvements are highly with adopted long- consistent with most pertinent plans range ◒ The majority of improvements are transportation consistent with most pertinent plans plans, including Some projects are markedly inconsistent tribal plans. ○ with some plans C. Support existing ● Transportation improvements provide and approved (in strong support for mixed use districts and local plans) mixed activity centers use development. ◒ Improvements provide some support ○ Improvements provide little or no support D. Support infill ● Transportation improvements provide development in strong support for infill development cities, towns and ◒ Improvements provide some support for built-up infill development unincorporated Improvements provide little or no areas that are well ○ support for infill development served by existing
3-71 June 2009 Evaluation Planning Factors Goals How Measured Criteria
infrastructure.
E. Support ● Transportation improvements provide designated strong support for such areas redevelopment and ◒ Improvements provide some support revitalization Improvements provide little or no areas. ○ support III. Environmental and Protect and A. Promote and Daily vehicle hours of travel (thousands), Conservation enhance the increase energy as a proxy for fuel consumption natural and human security. environment.
B. Reduce Reduction in daily metric tons of CO2 vehicular emissions compared with Baseline greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions. C. Minimize effects ● Minimal effects on environmentally ◒ Moderate effects sensitive areas Substantial effects (e.g., biological, ○ cultural, scenic). D. Minimize effects ● Minimal effects on natural ◒ Moderate effects corridors for Substantial effects wildlife movement ○ (as identified by AZ Game & Fish and other resource management organizations). IV. Economic Benefit Increase economic A. Support regional ● Includes many projects that strongly opportunities in and local (including support economic development priorities Arizona. tribal) economic throughout the region development ◒ Contains projects that support plans, priorities, development priorities in some locations goals and The proposed improvements offer little objectives. ○ or no support at the state or local level B. Support ● Numerous new or improved facilities and industries services directly serving key industries or considered vital to destinations the region or its ◒ Some such improvements communities (e.g., Few or no such improvements tourism, mining, ○ agriculture, timber, international trade). C. Modernize and No. of infrastructure projects that directly expand support freight movement and delivery infrastructure that supports freight movement and delivery. V. Safety Maintain and A. Strengthen and ● Numerous additional centerline miles enhance the safety expand roadway with a high level of access management of the access (such as freeways and Arizona parkways), transportation management. compared with Baseline condition system for all ◒ A modest number of additional users. centerline miles with a high level of access
3-72 June 2009 Evaluation Planning Factors Goals How Measured Criteria
management ○ Few or no additional centerline miles with a high level of access management
B. Provide parallel ● Substantial alternative routing added or alternative (from Baseline condition) transportation ◒ Some alternative routing added routes or services Little or no alternative routing added to facilitate ○ emergency access, including evacuation. Ratings: ● Highest rating ◒ Intermediate rating ○ Lowest rating
Source: ADOT Management Consultant Team
Evaluation Matrix and Results
The Eastern Arizona Framework Study consultant team evaluated each proposed scenario and its affects on the focus area.
Mobility and Access
Based on the proposed scenarios, there will be no improvements in multimodal network connectivity because there are no proposed multimodal passenger terminal facilities or traffic interchanges within the study area. With respect to mobility options, Scenario B proposes an extensive increase in local and regional transit and rail. Scenario C proposes an increase in local transit services and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Finally, Scenario A does not propose for any additional transit services beyond existing public transportation options.
Transportation/Land Use Integration
This planning factor rates the proposed scenarios against the existing or planned land uses and relevant state, regional and local transportation plans. By design, all scenarios were developed to be consistent with any relevant planning documents. With respect to long-range transportation plans, proposed Scenario A was most consistent with these planning documents because they typically address roadways. The other proposed scenarios provide additional multimodal options beyond what is found in the relevant long-range transportation plans.
The remaining criteria under this planning factor focus on existing or planned land uses. Proposed Scenarios B and C rate in the middle for all three criteria because they provide some transit or bicycle/pedestrian support for mixed-use, infill development and redeveloped/revitalized areas. There are no proposed projects under Scenario A that would support those land use types.
3-73 June 2009 Environmental and Conservation
Based on the proposed projects, the criteria focused on the effects on environmentally sensitive areas and the natural corridors for wildlife movement. The proposed extensive roadway expansion projects under proposed Scenarios A and C are predicted to have substantial effects on the environment. Proposed Scenario B is projected to have moderate effects because there is less roadway expansion, which would reduce the chances for effects.
Economic Benefit
This planning factor evaluates the level in which the proposed scenarios would benefit the study area based on its support for relevant economic development plans, support for the study area’s industries and number of projects that are assumed to directly support the movement of goods. Proposed Scenario C has the highest ratings under the first two criteria based on its comprehensive transportation options promoting connectivity and the proposed roadway expansions to the Ports of Entries in Nogales and Douglas. Scenario A, however, has the most proposed infrastructure projects (38) that would promote the movement of good throughout the study area.
Safety
The only criteria that the consulting team could evaluate rates the amount of proposed alternative routings for emergency access; only proposed Scenario A recommended alternative bypasses in Payson and Safford to improve circulation in congested areas.
3-74 June 2009
Table 3.8 Evaluation of Regional, Multimodal Transportation Scenarios
Planning Evaluation and Explanation Factor Criteria Measure Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C A. Improve 1. Number of passenger terminals ○ ○ ○ multimodal network served by two or more modes (including No new facilities No new facilities No new facilities connectivity. air carrier) other than private vehicle proposed. proposed. proposed. access
2. Number of additional free-flow ○ ○ ○ junctions (e.g., system or directional No new TI No new TI No new TI TIs) compared with the Baseline proposed. proposed. proposed. condition
B. Increase modal Amount of transit and rail passenger ○ ● ◒ choice and improve service compared with Baseline condition No new transit Extensive Extensive mobility options. ● Many new services and extensive services increase in local increase in local improvements compared with Baseline proposed. and regional transit service, condition Focused primarily transit and rail and bicycle and ◒ Moderate improvements including on auto mode. service. pedestrian some new services facilities. Incremental improvements only
I. Mobility and I. Access ○
C. Protect personal Change (from Baseline) in daily person mobility from hours of delay on the regionally endemic (including significant roadway system, from model seasonal) output congestion.
3-75 June 2009
Planning Evaluation and Explanation Factor Criteria Measure Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C D. Protect freight Change (from Baseline) in daily hours of transport from commercial vehicle delay on the endemic (including regionally significant roadways, from seasonal) roadway model output congestion.
3-76 June 2009
Planning Evaluation and Explanation Factor Criteria Measure Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C A. Be consistent ● Nearly all improvements are highly ◒ ◒ ◒ with county consistent with most pertinent plans By design, all By design, all By design, all comprehensive ◒ The majority of improvements are scenarios are as scenarios are as scenarios are as
plans, city/town consistent with most pertinent plans consistent with consistent with consistent with general plans, tribal Some projects are markedly plans as plans as plans as plans, federal land ○ inconsistent with some plans possible. possible. possible. management plans (BLM, USFS) and other adopted land use plans.
B. Be consistent ● Nearly all improvements are highly ● ◒ ● with adopted long- consistent with most pertinent plans Consistent with Includes more Consistent with range ◒ The majority of improvements are long-range transit typical long transportation consistent with most pertinent plans transportation improvements range plans, including Some projects are markedly plans that than typically transportation tribal plans. ○ inconsistent with some plans typically address found in long- plans and roadways. range provides more transportation multimodal plans. options. II.Transportation/Land Use Integration
3-77 June 2009
Planning Evaluation and Explanation Factor Criteria Measure Scenario A Planning Factor Criteria C. Support existing ● Transportation improvements provide ○ ◒ ◒ and approved (in strong support for mixed use districts Primarily Increased transit Increase transit local plans) mixed and activity centers roadway service supports service and use development. Improvements provide some support ◒ expansion that mixed use bicycle and ○ Improvements provide little or no supports development. pedestrian support standard facilities support development mixed use. patterns.
D. Support infill ● Transportation improvements provide ○ ◒ ◒ development in strong support for infill development Roadways Promotes infill Promotes infill cities, towns and ◒ Improvements provide some support promote with support with support built-up for infill development continued new from proposed from proposed unincorporated Improvements provide little or no growth in local bus local bus services areas that are well ○ support for infill development outlying areas. services. and expanded served by existing bicycle and infrastructure. pedestrian facilities.
E. Support ● Transportation improvements provide ○ ◒ ◒ designated strong support for such areas Roadways Promotes Investment in redevelopment and ◒ Improvements provide some support promote redevelopment transit and revitalization areas. ○ Improvements provide little or no continued new with support bicycle and II.Transportation/Land Use Integration (cont.) support growth in from proposed pedestrian outlying areas. local bus facilities supports services. redevelopment.
3-78 June 2009
Planning Evaluation and Explanation Factor Criteria Measure Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C A. Promote and Reduction in fuel consumption increase energy compared with Baseline security.
B. Reduce vehicular Reduction in CO2 emissions compared greenhouse gas with Baseline
(CO2) emissions.
C. Minimize effects ● Minimal effects ○ ◒ ○ on environmentally ◒ Moderate effects Extensive Less roadway Extensive sensitive areas Substantial effects roadway expansion, roadway (e.g., biological, ○ expansion, reducing the expansion, cultural, scenic). increasing effects chances for increasing effects to sensitive effects. to sensitive areas. areas.
D. Minimize effects ● Minimal effects ○ ◒ ○ on natural corridors ◒ Moderate effects Extensive Less roadway Extensive for wildlife III. Environmental and Conservation ○ Substantial effects roadway expansion, roadway movement (as expansion, reducing the expansion, identified by AZ increasing effects chances for increasing effects Game & Fish and to sensitive effects. to sensitive other resource areas. areas. management organizations).
3-79 June 2009
Planning Evaluation and Explanation Factor Criteria Measure Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C A. Support regional ● Includes many projects that strongly ● and local (including support economic development ◒ ◒ tribal) economic priorities throughout the region Promotes Supports Comprehensive development plans, regional regional and transportation ◒ Contains projects that support connectivity and local connectivity options priorities, goals and development priorities in some locations objectives. activity through through the promoting ○ The proposed improvements offer roadway proposed transit connectivity and
little or no support at the state or local enhancements. improvements. activity. level B. Support ● Numerous new or improved facilities ● ● ● industries and services directly serving key considered vital to industries or destinations Proposed Industrial rail Proposed the region or its roadway improvements, roadway ◒ Some such improvements communities (e.g., expansions to near Snowflake, expansions to Few or no such improvements tourism, mining, ○ Ports of Entries Sierra Vista, Ports of Entries agriculture, timber, in Nogales and Douglas, in Nogales and international trade). Douglas. Nogales. Douglas. IV.Economic Benefit
C. Modernize and No. of infrastructure projects that expand directly support freight movement and infrastructure that delivery 38 27 30 supports freight movement and delivery.
3-80 June 2009
Planning Evaluation and Explanation Factor Criteria Measure Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C A. Strengthen and ● Numerous additional centerline miles expand roadway with a high level of access management access (such as freeways and “Arizona management. parkways”), compared with Baseline condition ◒ A modest number of additional centerline miles with a high level of access management ○ Few or no additional centerline miles with a high level of access management
B. Provide parallel ● Substantial alternative routing added ◒ ○ ○ or alternative (from Baseline condition)
V. Safety Recommend No proposed No proposed transportation ◒ Some alternative routing added alternative alternative alternative routes or services Little or no alternative routing added bypasses in routing. routing. to facilitate ○ Payson and emergency access, Safford to including improve evacuation. circulation in congested areas.
● = highest rating (2 points) ◒ = intermediate rating (1 point) ○ = lowest rating (0 points)
3-81 June 2009
Conclusion
The evaluation process identified positive and negative aspects for each Scenario. Scenario A provides increased mobility through the addition of more roadway capacity and new roadway links. However the additional automobile traffic expected under Scenario A leads to greater fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The additional roadways and traffic lanes also have the potential for greater potential impact on environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife corridors.
Scenario B expands travel choice greatly by providing an extensive increase in transit services. Scenario B also has a lesser environmental impact with less fuel consumption and CO2 emission, and less potential impact on sensitive areas and wildlife corridors. However, Scenario B limits new roadway capacity with potential impacts on mobility and safety.
Scenario C expands travel choice and invests in adding capacity to the roadway system. Additionally, Scenario C provides investment to improve bicycling and walking conditions. Local trip making by car, transit, bike or on foot is improved under Scenario C. Scenario C, however, has similar potential impact on the environment as Scenario A with higher fuel consumption, CO2 emissions and impact to wildlife corridors and sensitive areas. Additionally, Scenario C may not be in line with current adopted local plans, particularly in rural communities like those throughout the Eastern Arizona study area.
The evaluation of these scenarios provided important insight to how the different approaches are likely to have varying impacts. In the end the evaluation results did not conclusively identify a scenario that best achieved all the elements within the evaluation criteria.
3-82 June 2009
3.11 PHASING AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALL SCENARIOS
Tables 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 show the conceptual phasing for improvements by scenario. The short term projects are those where demand is currently high and expected to grow in the near term. The medium projects are key projects where demand is likely to be handled by the existing facility in the near term but will need improved by 2020. The long range improvements are those projects needed in the long term to handle the predicted growth, if growth patterns change or growth happens at a different pace these long term project may need to be reevaluated.
The types of projects vary by scenario, as each scenario contains a different mix of improvements. For instance the roadway projects under Scenario B are all short term projects, representing critical road needs. Scenario B also includes substantial transit improvements not included in Scenario A.
3-83 June 2009
Table 3.9 Proposed Phasing of Scenario A, 2010-2050
Potential Location or Improvement Description Timeframe (Short, Corridor Medium or Long)* Widen Roadway SR 260 4 lanes Star Valley to Show Low Short Widen Roadway SR 77 4 lanes Show Low-Holbrook Short Widen Roadway US 70 4 lanes Study Boundary to Safford Short Widen Roadway US 191 4 lanes I-10 to Safford Short Widen Roadway I-19 6 lanes Nogales-Santa Cruz Cnty Line Short Widen Roadway Charleston Road 4 lanes Short Payson Alternate New Roadway New 4 lane roadway SR 87 to SR 260 Short Route New Roadway Safford Alt Route New 4 lane Road US 191 to US 70 Short Improve Roadway SR 73 US 60 to SR 260 Short Improve Roadway Burton Road SR 260 to Bourdon Ranch Rd Short Widen Roadway SR 377 4 lanes SR 260 to I-40 Short Improve Roadway SR 191 Douglas to I-10 Short Improve Roadway Davis Road SR 191 to SR 80 Short Widen Roadway SR 260 6 lanes Payson to Star Valley Medium Widen Roadway SR 260 6 lanes Show Low to Pinetop-Lakeside Medium Widen Roadway US 60 4 lanes Study Boundary to Show Low Medium Widen Roadway US 60 4 lanes SR 77 to US 191 Medium Widen Roadway SR 277 4 lanes SR 260-Snowflake Medium Bourdon Ranch Widen Roadway 4 lane SR 77-US 60 Medium Rd Widen Roadway Penrod Rd 4 lane US 60-SR 260 Medium Widen Roadway US 70 4 lanes Safford east to US 191 Medium 6 lanes New Mexico/Arizona State Line to Widen Roadway I-10 Medium Cochise Cnty Line Widen Roadway SR 90 6 lanes I-10 to SR 92 Medium Widen Roadway SR 92 Bypass 6 lanes Medium New Roadway Rim Road New 4 lane US 60- SR 260 Medium Improve Roadway SR 260 Pinetop-Springerville Medium Improve Roadway Concho Hwy SR 77 to US 180 Medium Improve Roadway US 191 Safford to Clifton Medium Improve Roadway US 70 US 191 to Duncan Medium Improve Roadway SR 80 Douglas to New Mexico Medium Widen Roadway US 60 6 lanes SR 260 to SR 77 Long Widen Roadway SR 80 4 lanes Douglas to Benson Long Widen Roadway SR 92 4 lanes Sierra Vista to Bisbee Long Improve Roadway US 191 Springerville to St. Johns Long Improve Roadway SR 82 Nogales to SR 90 Long *Approximate timeframes: Short = 2010-2020; Medium = 2021-2030; Long = 2031-2050
3-84 June 2009
Table 3.10 Proposed Phasing of Scenario B, 2010-2050
Potential Location or Improvement Description Timeframe (Short, Corridor Medium or Long)* Widen Roadway SR 77 4 lanes Show Low-Snowflake/Taylor Short Widen Roadway US 191 4 lanes I-10 to Safford Short Widen Roadway SR 80 4 lanes Douglas to SR 90 Short Widen Roadway SR 92 4 lanes South of Sierra Vista Short Improve Roadway SR 260 Pinetop-Springerville Short Improve Roadway SR 73 US 60 to SR 260 Short Improve Roadway SR 377 SR 260 to I-40 Short Improve Roadway SR 191 Douglas to I-10 Short Improve Roadway Davis Road SR 191 to SR 80 Short Improve Roadway Charleston Rd Sierra Vista to Tombstone Short Regional Bus Service Show Low to Holbrook Short Regional Bus Service Snowflake/Taylor to St Johns Short Regional Bus Service Show Low to Springerville Short Regional Bus Service Show Low to St Johns Short Regional Bus Service Safford to Clifton and Duncan Short Regional Bus Service Benson to Tucson Short Regional Bus Service Sierra Vista to Bisbee and Douglas Short Regional Bus Service Nogales to Tucson Short Local Transit Payson/ Star Valley Short Local Transit Show Low Short Local Transit Pinetop-Lakeside Short Local Transit Whiteriver Short Local Transit Snowflake/ Taylor Short Local Transit Safford/Pima/Thatcher Short Local Transit Sierra Vista Short Local Transit Nogales Short Widen Roadway I-10 6 lanes Cochise Cnty Line to Benson Medium Improve Roadway US 191 Safford to Clifton Medium Improve Roadway SR 82 Nogales to SR 90 Medium Regional Bus Service Show Low to Payson Medium Regional Bus Service Show Low to Globe Medium Regional Bus Service Safford to Phoenix via Globe Medium Regional Bus Service Safford to Tucson Medium Regional Bus Service Sierra Vista to Benson Medium Regional Bus Service Sierra Vista to Tombstone Medium Regional Bus Service Nogales to Patagonia Medium Local Transit Springerville/ Eager Medium Local Transit San Carlos Medium Local Transit Bisbee Medium Local Transit Douglas Medium Local Transit Benson Medium Local Transit Willcox Medium Local Transit Duncan Long Local Transit Clifton/Morenci Long *Approximate timeframes: Short = 2010-2020; Medium = 2021-2030; Long = 2031-2050
3-85 June 2009
Table 3.11 Proposed Phasing of Scenario C, 2010-2050 Potential Timeframe Location or Improvement Description (Short, Medium or Corridor Long)* Widen Roadway SR 260 4 lanes Star Valley to Show Low Short Widen Roadway SR 77 4 lanes Show Low-Holbrook Short Widen Roadway Bourdon Rn Rd 4 lane SR 77-US 60 Short Widen Roadway Penrod Rd 4 lane US 60-SR 260 Short Widen Roadway US 70 4 lanes Study Boundary to Safford Short Widen Roadway US 191 4 lanes I-10 to Safford Short Widen Roadway I-19 6 lanes Nogales-Santa Cruz Cnty Line Short Widen Roadway Charleston Road 4 lanes Short Improve Roadway SR 73 US 60 to SR 260 Short Widen Roadway SR 377 4 lanes SR 260 to I-40 Short Improve Roadway SR 191 Douglas to I-10 Short Improve Roadway Davis Road SR 191 to SR 80 Short Improve Roadway Charleston Road Sierra Vista to Tombstone Short Regional Bus Service Show Low to Holbrook Short Regional Bus Service Snowflake/Taylor to St Johns Short Regional Bus Service Show Low to Springerville Short Regional Bus Service Show Low to St Johns Short Regional Bus Service Safford to Clifton and Duncan Short Regional Bus Service Benson to Tucson Short Regional Bus Service Sierra Vista to Bisbee and Douglas Short Regional Bus Service Nogales to Tucson Short Local Transit Payson/ Star Valley Short Local Transit Show Low Short Local Transit Pinetop-Lakeside Short Local Transit Whiteriver Short Local Transit Snowflake/ Taylor Short Local Transit Safford/Pima/Thatcher Short Local Transit Sierra Vista Short Local Transit Nogales Short Widen Roadway SR 260 6 lanes Payson to Star Valley Medium Widen Roadway SR 260 6 lanes Show Low to Pinetop-Lakeside Medium Widen Roadway US 60 4 lanes Study Boundary to Show Low Medium Widen Roadway US 70 4 lanes Safford east to US 191 Medium Widen Roadway I-10 6 lanes NM / AZ Line to Cochise Cnty Line Medium Widen Roadway SR 80 4 lanes Douglas to SR 90 Medium Widen Roadway SR 92 4 lanes Sierra Vista to Bisbee Medium Improve Roadway SR 260 Pinetop-Springerville Medium Improve Roadway US 191 Safford to Clifton Medium Improve Roadway SR 82 Nogales to SR 90 Medium Improve Roadway SR 92 Bisbee to Sierra Vista Medium Regional Bus Service Safford to Phoenix via Globe Medium Regional Bus Service Sierra Vista to Benson Medium Regional Bus Service Sierra Vista to Tombstone Medium Regional Bus Service Nogales to Patagonia Medium Local Transit Springerville/ Eager Medium Local Transit San Carlos Medium Local Transit Bisbee Medium Local Transit Douglas Medium Local Transit Benson Medium Local Transit Willcox Medium Widen Roadway US 60 6 lanes SR 260 to SR 77 Long Widen Roadway SR 277 4 lanes SR 260-Snowflake Long Widen Roadway SR 90 6 lanes I-10 to SR 92 Long Widen Roadway SR 92 Bypass 6 lanes Long Improve Roadway US 191 Springerville to St. Johns Long Local Transit Duncan Long Local Transit Clifton/Morenci Long *Approximate timeframes: Short = 2010-2020; Medium = 2021-2030; Long = 2031-2050
3-86 June 2009
Appendix A
RTAT, Community and Stakeholder Input
June 2009
Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Regional Technical Advisory Summary Report
- PAGE 1 -
Executive Summary
The Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study team held a total of four rounds of Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT). The meetings are summarized below.
May 2008 Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:00-3:00 pm Graham County Health Department 820 West Main Street Safford, AZ 85546
Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:00-3:00 pm Cochise County Board of Supervisors Building Executive Conference Room 1415 Melody Lane, Building G Bisbee, AZ 856036
Tuesday, May 20 1:00-3:00 pm Navajo County Show Low Yard 1100 E. Thornton Road Show Low, AZ 85901
July 2008 Webinar July 31, 2008
October 2008 Thursday, October 16, 2008 Navajo County Show Low Yard 1100 E. Thornton Road Show Low, AZ 85901
Tuesday, October 21, 2008 Graham County General Services Building 921 West Thatcher Boulevard Safford, AZ 85546
Thursday, October 23, 2008 City of Sierra Vista Public Works Department Pete Castro Training Center 401 Giulio Cesare Avenue Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
- PAGE 2 -
March/April 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 Navajo County Road Yard 1100 E. Thornton Show Low, AZ 85901 928-532-6080 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 Graham County General Services Building 921 W. Thatcher Blvd. Safford, AZ 85546 928-428-3250 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Wednesday, April 8, 2009 Sierra Vista Public Works Department Pete Castro Training Center 401 Giulio Cesare Avenue Sierra Vista, AZ 85635 520-417-4846 1:00 – 4:00 pm
- PAGE 3 -
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Copper Country Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting Safford, Arizona
Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1:00 pm
Location: Graham County Health Department 820 West Main Street Safford, AZ 85546
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders who comprise the Regional Transportation Advisory Team to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from the meetings will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: Sharon Mitchell, SEAGO Steven D. Puzas, Graham County Highways Mikey Allen, Town of Clifton Heath Brown, Town of Thatcher Paul R. David, ADOT Safford District James Zumpf, ADOT Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris Aaron Iverson, URS Sunny Bush, URS (RTAT attendee sign-in sheet attached)
1. Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 PM by Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made.
Laurel Parker began by explaining the difference between the Critical Needs Study and the Framework Study currently underway. The Critical Needs Study focuses on projects over the next 20-year timeframe and is essentially a dialogue to get the funding initiative proposed by the T.I.M.E. Coalition on the November ballot. The Framework Study considers transportation projects that will be needed farther in the future, from 2030 to 2050. Laurel asked the group whether they thought the needs identified in the T.I.M.E. Coalition
- PAGE 4 -
Critical Needs List was equitably distributed between rural and metro. Paul David, ADOT Development Engineer, stated that he though the distribution was fairly equitable.
2. Review of Stakeholder and Focus Group/Community Meetings
The community input report documenting prior meetings (Stakeholder, Focus Groups, and Community Workshops) will be issued shortly.
3. Current Work Effort
Working Paper #2 Working Paper #2 discusses existing and future conditions in the study area. Laurel explained that the Framework Study team is interested in the Regional Technical Advisory Team’s (RTAT) technical input on Working Paper #2. She also explained that there is a short turn- around on comments, and the team would like to have comments on Working Paper #2 within the next two weeks.
One RTAT member asked if information for Working Paper #2 included data gathered from existing studies. Laurel stated that these studies were used as a primary building point. She also indicated that information from studies in progress was also considered.
Paul David asked if Working Paper #1, Work Plan, was distributed. Aaron Iverson indicated that this working paper was not generally distributed, but agreed to forward a copy of the document to Mr. David.
• Aaron will provide a copy of Working Paper #1 via email to Paul David.
Transportation Forecasting Model URS is currently working on the forecasting model for the Eastern Arizona Region. HDR will be collecting efforts from the various regions and incorporating the information into a statewide model. The goal of the statewide model is to develop a planning tool (Travel Demand Model) that will provide consistency of travel information. The model network will consider the roadway network, including state roadways and major local roadways. Also considered will be population and employment estimates to determine areas where people work and where future roadways will be needed.
- PAGE 5 -
Review of Population and Employment Distribution Assumptions for population growth were based upon data obtained from the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES). Woods and Poole economic data was also used. In viewing the population distribution, RTAT members indicated that the model numbers may not be reflective of actual growth. The team noted that the Safford population numbers are quite low, while Thatcher numbers could be somewhat high. Morenci numbers are closer to 2000 numbers, though occupancy is increased. Duncan’s population is currently declining, and there is little housing or infrastructure, but the population may double by 2050 with the opening of the mines in the area. It was noted that most of the communities listed are already at the projected level listed for 2050. Finally, it was stated that if apportioning is based on population projections, this is a critical point.
It was suggested that the utility companies (Graham County Electric Company, Safford Utility Company) be consulted to see how many new and existing hookups have occurred. This could provide information on population estimates.
The subject of the unincorporated populations was discussed. One RTAT member, Sharon Mitchell, asked what the “unincorporated” area included. She indicated that this number could be quite large and are not represented in the analysis. Aaron Iverson stated that he would check on this figure.
• Aaron will check on the criteria used for the unincorporated areas and will send Sharon the assumptions. Sharon will then distribute this information to her County associates for review and send comments to Aaron.
It was noted that it is important to be careful with changing some of the numbers in certain areas while not changing them in others. Selective changes could result in skewed results.
Employment data used for the model input was obtained from the Counties. Data from Woods and Poole was also considered in the analysis. Generally, employment and population data should correlate.
- PAGE 6 -
It was asked how undocumented individuals are accounted for in the analysis. Aaron Iverson stated that DES is the best source for that information.
One RTAT member stated that population projections are often variable. For example, in 2005, prior to the Safford mine opening, population numbers were static in the area, but have since increased dramatically. These kinds of factors could make a significant difference in the projections. Aaron Iverson stated that the biggest effort will be to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the model results. He also stated that input and feedback from the RTAT members will be of assistance in determining these results.
4. Next Meeting/Additional Information
Laurel Parker requested that comments be submitted by the end of May 2008. She also indicated that RTAT meetings will continue over the summer on a monthly basis. The next meeting will discuss the regional transportation model output. Future meetings will consider development of alternatives.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
- PAGE 7 -
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Cochise/Santa Cruz Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting Bisbee, Arizona
Date: Thursday, May 15, 1:00 pm
Location: Cochise County Board of Supervisors Building 1415 W. Melody Lane, Building G Bisbee, AZ 85603
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders who comprise the Regional Transportation Advisory Team to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from the meetings will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: Scott W. Dooley, City Engineer, City of Sierra Vista Jeff Pregler, City Planner, City of Sierra Vista Sharon Mitchell, SEAGO Scott Altherr, Santa Cruz County Karen Lamberton, Cochise County James Zumpf, ADOT Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris Ron Ross, URS Sunny Bush, URS (RTAT attendee sign-in sheet attached)
1. Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 1:15 PM by Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made. Laurel then gave a brief presentation on the project.
- PAGE 8 -
2. Review of Stakeholder and Focus Group/Community Meetings
The Critical Needs Study was briefly discussed. Laurel Parker stated that Highway 92 was not originally included on the list, but has been added. 3. Current Work Effort
Preliminary results of population and employment data gathering were presented by Ron Ross, URS. The following observations were made by members of the RTAT:
• Benson population numbers appear smaller but are actually larger • Sierra Vista population growth generally runs at about 2%-2.5% annually • Rio Rico number appear to be low, especially for the timeframe 2030 and 2050 • Tubac is missing. This area is growing bigger than Patagonia and Tombstone, which are included • Possibly some of the missing date is included in the unincorporated area numbers
Laurel Parker stated that the numbers will be reevaluated and will be emailed to the RTAT for their review. Scott Altherr, Santa Cruz County, stated that he would like other county representatives to provide their input.
Ron Ross stated that Woods and Poole data was used to provide the numbers presented. It was suggested by one RTAT member that data from the University of Arizona Eller School of Business be consulted. Marshall Vest of the UofA has done quite a bit of work with regard to population estimates in Santa Cruz County and in other smaller local areas.
Ron stated that the model goes beyond the ADOT network and extends to what is referred to as regionally significant roadways.
It was asked if this planning effort is incorporating the State Lands Study, which is a transportation/land use model used in Pinal County. Ron Ross stated that the State Lands Study was not used in this study.
- PAGE 9 -
Assumptions for population growth were based upon data obtained from the Arizona Department
4. Next Meeting/Additional Information
Laurel Parker requested that comments be submitted by the end of May 2008. She also indicated that there will be a project webinar on May 29, 2008.
RTAT meetings will continue over the summer on a monthly basis. The next meeting will discuss the regional transportation model output. Future meetings will consider development of alternatives.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
- PAGE 10 -
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Mogollon Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting Show Low, Arizona
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 1:00 pm
Location: Navajo County Show Low Road Yard 1100 E. Thornton Road Show Low, AZ 85901
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders who comprise the Regional Transportation Advisory Team to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from the meetings will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: James H. Matteson, Engineer, Navajo County Kenneth Patterson, Public Works Director, City of Show Low Ferrin Crosby, Engineer, Apache County Lynn Johnson, Holbrook District Engineer, ADOT Ed Stillings, Engineering Development Coordinator, FHWA Thomas Malone, Public Works director, Town of Springerville LaRon Garrett, Town Engineer, Town of Payson Audrey Holt, Administrator, City of St. Johns Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris Ron Ross, URS Sunny Bush, URS (RTAT attendee sign-in sheet attached)
1. Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 1:10 PM by Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made. Laurel then gave a brief presentation on the project.
- PAGE 11 -
2. Review of Stakeholder and Focus Group/Community Meetings
The T.I.M.E. Coalition Critical Needs list was discussed. Laurel Parker stated that this list has been revised to offer more distribution to rural areas. Laurel stated that more information is located on their website at: www.azdot.gov/Statewide_Transportation_Investment_Strategy/Index .asp.
A presentation outlining the current status of the Framework Study was presented by Laurel Parker and Ron Ross, URS.
3. Current Work Effort
One RTAT member stated that a local traffic planning model has already been done for the area and wondered if this information will be used in the model. Laurel stated that this information will be used in the larger model. She added that this is also true for exist/future conditions data previously gathered for Apache and Navajo County. This information is currently being updated to include the remainder of the region.
Ron Ross explained that the extrapolation rate used in the model effort will be based on population and employment, but that the growth rate will remain basically constant for the region. The study will use population data gathered within the region rather than data from the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
It was asked how seasonal population will be factored into the model calculations, as this information is not considered in local models. It was suggested that data could be gathered from water or electric bills in the area. One RTAT member stated that seasonal visitors from New Mexico are not considered when gathering demographic information for the town of Springerville. It was also mentioned that the summer visitor problem in Payson occurs as visitors pass through the downtown area. It was stated that beginning in June, the traffic counts will be gathered in the area every three months. Navajo County has very accurate counts over the past ten years. It was suggested that Aaron Iverson contact Jim Matteson for input on the model effort.
Transit in the area is needed to respond to special populations. Navajo County is working with Sam Chavez regarding transit issues. The
- PAGE 12 -
County prepared a survey internally to assess traffic counts. Transit users include County employees and students/faculty at Northern Pioneer College.
It was mentioned that the 4-lane highway to Globe is heavily travelled by trucks. Access control is creating problems, and bypasses are needed to avoid access issues.
4. Next Meeting/Additional Information
Laurel Parker stated that the next meeting will likely be held in early August. She also indicated that there will be a project webinar on May 29, 2008. It was suggested that attendees view the webinar together and test the software prior to the webinar.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
- PAGE 13 -
Meeting: Easter Arizona Regional Framework Study Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting
Date: July 31, 2008
Webinar: http://fhwa.na3.acrobat.com/p86402219/
Purpose: The purpose of this webinar is to • Acquire feedback on the updated population and employment projections • Gain input on the proposed evaluation criteria • Review and clarify the goals, objectives and needs identified through local area plans and public input • Review the overall project approach
Participants: Paul David, ADOT – Safford District Kenny Patterson, City of Show Low Jim Matteson, Navajo County LaRon Garrett, Town of Payson Rich Gaar, SEAGO Sharon Mitchell, SEAGO Ed Stillings, FHWA (Phoenix) James Zumpf, ADOT Teri Kennedy, ADOT Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris Ron Ross, URS Aaron Iverson, URS Amanda Rutherford, URS Sunny Bush, URS Angela Enriquez, URS
1. Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 9:35 by James Zumpf, ADOT. Teri Kennedy, ADOT, presented the house rules for the Webinar. Attendees were encouraged to participate via telephone or through the web chat box and were notified that all necessary documents were available for download on the Webinar site. Self introductions of the presenters and attendees followed.
Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris, then went over the agenda for the presentation. Laurel detailed the revised project timeline and deliverables for the attendees. Attendees were informed the project is now expected to conclude in June 2009, instead of March 2009. In addition, the deliverables which were essentially three working papers – Long-Range Travel Demand and Future Deficiencies, Transportation Network Alternatives, Evaluation of Alternatives – are now combined into one working paper which will be delivered on
- PAGE 14 -
November 10, 2009. Other important dates include the evaluation of alternatives in late October/early November 2009 and the selection of the preferred alternative in January/February 2009.
Paul David, ADOT – Safford District, asked the presenters if the development of the alternatives will be affected by the outcome of the T.I.M.E Coalition that is included in the November ballot. Laurel informed Paul that these are separate projects; this is a long-term study/planning document and is to provide a framework for the entire state.
2. Update on the Population and Employment Distribution
Aaron Iverson, URS, presented the updated population and employment projections to the participating RTAT members. Since numerous project stakeholders voiced their concerns with the initial Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) projections, it seemed necessary to revise the numbers to more accurately reflect growth.
Base population numbers were taken from the 2005 U.S. Census Community Survey and base employment data is from DES. All 2050 estimates were derived from 2030 figures. Aaron detailed the methodology and assumptions for the new 2030 figures by county – some were only for portions of the county (i.e., Apache, Coconino, Gila, and Navajo). New data sources included County Small Area Transportation Studies (SATS), other transportation plans and Woods & Poole estimates.
Paul noted in the web chat box the “Graham County SATS is using a growth rate of 2.3%.” Jim Matteson, Navajo County, mentioned that Navajo County has recently completed a draft SATS report that would be beneficial for review and may help to fill in the holes for the reminder of the county. Jim referred Charlene Fitzgerald of ADOT as a point of contact. Rich Gaar, SEAGO, then pointed out that there may be opposition with the 2005 US Census Community Survey figures.
Aaron proceeded to note the updated figures are much higher than the initial DES estimates. Paul David questioned the population and employment figures for Greenlee County, and made a comment that the employment figures were alarmingly high for the area. Then a participant stated the figures could reflect those employed in the numerous mines within the county but lived outside of the county. Sharon Mitchell, SEAGO, also pointed out in the web chat box that “[t]here is a reduction in 2030 [employment numbers] from previous and updated in Greenlee County.” Aaron assured RTAT members that he would review the data again.
3. Alternative Development
- PAGE 15 -
Aaron Iverson briefly summarized the process for the development of alternatives. At the conclusion of his presentation, Jim Matteson requested clarification concerning the build out of the alternatives and to what level of detail. Aaron explained that alternatives would address roads using a two-tier process. The first tier of modeling would include State Routes, local roads of regional significance and alternative modes of transportation to address regional travel demand. The second tier would address local travel issues; the team may evaluate ways to improve regional and sub regional travel at the community nodes level. Paul David raised the question of whether or not the alternatives would be financially constrained. Laurel Parker indicated that that the models would not be financially constrained and it will look at all modes of transportation.
4. Evaluation Criteria
Amanda Rutherford, URS, outlined the process of developing “locally context- sensitive evaluation criteria,” which is based on a model developed by the Managing Consultant (MC). Amanda explained the two-tier evaluation process. First, the fatal flaw criteria would determine if the proposed alternatives would be pass/fail; if the proposed alternatives do not meet goals, they will most likely fail further consideration. Tier two is the Multiple Criteria Evaluation, which Amanda proposed be revised to meet the locally context-sensitive needs of the focus areas within the study area. There were no comments on the proposed changes.
5. Goals and Needs
Amanda Rutherford emphasized the importance of the identifying goals and needs for each focus area. All goals and objectives were identified in available locally adopted plans. The needs were categorized from those found in locally adopted plans and those cited by RTAT members and stakeholders.
The Goals, Objectives and Needs document was brought up onto the screen and Amanda requested clarification on some elements previously identified in RTAT and/or stakeholder meetings. The first element mentioned was about toll roads. Laurel Parker suggested that she thought this comment related to the bypass route proposed for the Payson area. LaRon Garrett, Town of Payson, asked “How are the toll roads related to Payson?” LaRon further explained that the Town of Payson is only considering the development of the bypass as a toll-road; it is more important that a bypass be constructed to alleviate traffic within the town.
6. Next Meeting/Additional Information
James Zumpf encouraged the attendees to provide questions or comments on the documents provided.
- PAGE 16 -
Upon concluding the meeting, a quick poll was taken to determine if participants favored Webinar meetings as an efficient alternative to in-person meetings. Of those who participated in the poll, 100 percent cited preference for Webinar meetings. Jim Matteson stated that this is a good way to go, as everyone is cutting back on travel costs. He also said that getting the information out via the internet prior to the meeting is important.
Paul David referred to a question asked at a previous meeting regarding the DCR being done on the extension of US 60 between Superior and Globe regarding consideration of railroad grades in deciding on a preferred alternative. He stated that this could be a great advantage to multi-modal (i.e., light rail, passenger heavy-rail) uses for Northern Arizona.
Jim responded that railroad construction is quite expensive, and the areas along the BSNF lines have no room to add additional lines for passenger travel. Development of these areas is not economically feasible.
Attendees were informed the next RTAT meeting will introduce proposed alternatives. The meeting will be in-person and scheduled toward the end of August/beginning of September.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:35 a.m.
- PAGE 17 -
Meeting: Mogollon Rim Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting
Date: October 16, 2008
Location: Navajo County Show Low Yard 1100 E. Thornton Road Show Low, AZ 85901
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders who comprise the Regional Transportation Advisory Team to present the project’s proposed alternative scenarios. Input from the meeting will assist with defining a preferred alternative scenario for the Mogollon Rim focus area.
Participants: Laurel Parker, AECOM Justen Tregrskes, COSL Ken Patterson, COSL Laron Garrett, Payson Richard Pinkerton, Star Valley James Zumpf, ADOT Amanda Rutherford, URS Angela Enriquez, URS
1. Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 1 p.m. by Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris. Self introductions of the presenters and attendees followed.
Laurel explained that we are preparing a long range transportation scenario for when money becomes available.
2. Aaron reviewed the agenda and explained that the maps he brought of the three draft scenarios will be reviewed at the end of today.
3. Aaron discussed the needs and issues on the slide as well as the sources of information used in identifying the needs and issues within the region.
• Question asked by RTAT member: Were these weighted? • Answer provided by Aaron: No - they were treated the same. • Concern raised by RTAT member about using the critical needs study as a basis.
4. Aaron explained the model results. These are not reflecting seasonal changes, which is why the model is only one piece of the puzzle.
- PAGE 18 -
• Question asked by RTAT member: About colors and V/C ratios and their relationship to the black numbers on the map displays • Answer provided by Aaron: Aaron explained the coloring schemes and V/C ratios. • Question asked by RTAT member: About connectivity of lines near Show Low Answer provided by Aaron: We’ll look at the model results and refine them
• It was noted by an RTAT member that White Mountain Road, south of Show Low, has more than 10,000 vehicles. (Is 20,000 vehicles more reasonable?) They have other traffic count data that is better reflective of the true conditions. Justen Tregaskes mentioned he has GIS data of the numbers that he will share with the group. (Current volumes are in the Southern Navajo County Transportation Study.)
• Aaron explained that 2005 model does not reflect congestion even though there is known congestion in some areas. The model is used to verify data; model is verified by ADOT’s recent traffic counts.
5. Scenarios Discussion
Aaron reviewed the planning goals built into the scenarios. Aaron explained that we are looking for a preferred scenario. He reviewed the scenario assumptions all scenarios and detailed the Baseline conditions, selected projects from the Investment Strategy and explained that land use and development consistent with community plans since our area is primarily rural.
Scenario A assumptions explained – roadway Scenario B assumptions explained – transit Scenario C assumptions explained – smart mobility
• Question asked by RTAT member: Is the rest of the State using same scenarios? • Answer provided by Aaron: Yes, but application of the scenarios will be context-sensitive. • Comment raised by RTAT member: Make changes: SR 260, 6 lanes from Payson to Star Valley.
6. Comments received from the RTAT Members on the Draft Scenario maps
• Comments from majority of RTAT members – Scenarios B and C should show bypass routes. • Transit will be implemented as soon as the buses arrive between Show Low and Holbrook.
- PAGE 19 -
• Add an east/west connection north of Show Low, south of Taylor. This might work best as a county/state partnership. • East of Show Low (road not showing on map) road should be added to network. Navajo County will pave to county line, Apache County will be slower to the pave road. • SR 60 – (4 lanes?) Aaron made note on map • SR 60 southwest of Show Low should be “yellow” category • SR 377 – Has high truck traffic – maybe make it yellow. They are going to Payson. Needs more passing lanes and better design (and road maintenance) for truck traffic.
• Traffic around Payson is not all going on SR 260, some are going north.
• Southeast of Mormon Lake, add existing road to network that connects to SR 87.
• Payson Transit could be expanded beyond casino.
• General agreement for all transit projects proposed under Scenario B.
• SR 260 will have a separate grant project for sidewalks
• General consensus on Scenario C, with bypass and the other 2 routes added to the maps.
• Payson may have more bikes/pedestrians in next 5 years.
7. Next steps
• 2 more RTATs meetings to follow in Safford and Sierra Vista • Public Workshops will be held in November • Explanation of PR and other Public Involvement work
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:30 p.m.
- PAGE 20 -
Meeting: Easter Arizona Regional Framework Study Copper Country Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting
Date: October 21, 2008
Location: Graham County General Services Building 921 West Thatcher Boulevard Safford, AZ 85546
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders who comprise the Regional Transportation Advisory Team to present the project’s proposed alternative scenarios. Input from the meeting will assist with defining a preferred alternative scenario for the Copper Country focus area.
Participants: Paul R. David, ADOT Safford District Sharon Mitchell, SEAGO Randy Petty, City of Safford Lee Hurtston, Graham County Steven D. Puzas, Graham County Terry Cooper, Graham County Philip Runnerud, Greenlee County Heath Brown Thatcher, Graham County Michael Bryce, Graham County James Zumpf, ADOT Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris Aaron Iverson, URS Angela Enriquez, URS
1. Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris. Self introductions of the presenters and attendees followed.
Laurel then provided attendees with a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting and an update of the project. Laurel emphasized on the importance of the framework study since the T.I.M.E Coalition did not make the November 2009 ballot. The State will now look to these studies to determine the state’s future transportation needs and to establish an action plan for moving forward. The floor was then handed over to Aaron Iverson of URS. Aaron began the PowerPoint by going through the agenda for the presentation.
2. Comments on the Transportation Model
- PAGE 21 -
Aaron Iverson presented the RTAT members with two maps that displayed the projected volume-to-capacity ratio of the interstates and highways within the Cooper Country study area.
When presented with the 2030 results, Paul David, ADOT – Safford District noted that the section of the US 191 between Safford and Clifton should be added to the list of segments with projected heavy congestion.
Philip Ronnerud, Greenlee County, then posed some questions regarding all data. First, Philip asked what underlying assumptions were built into the model. Aaron explained all existing and committed improvements were built into the model. The proposed improvements were part of the next step of the project. Next, Philip wanted to address the freight traffic through I-10, which would be heavily impacted with freight traffic if nothing is done to improve rail. Aaron and Laurel agreed that the traffic between California and Texas will only increase, especially because during the winter season I-10 is the only open route. Jim Zumpf, ADOT, noted that the ADOT Freight Study is close to adoption. The team will then integrate findings and proposed alternatives into the study.
Terry Cooper, Graham County, questioned why SR 266 was categorized as being near congestion/congested. Aaron stated it would depend on where the traffic was feeding from; he would review the model results to get a better idea.
Paul asked if the assumptions for the model incorporated the continuation of I-10 as a divided highway. Aaron affirmed and added that the model also assumed US 191 would have the capacity of a four-lane highway from I-10 to Safford.
3. Scenario Assumptions
Aaron Iverson briefly summarized the key assumptions for all scenarios then proceeded to give an explanation of the three scenarios: • Scenario A: Enhanced technology Mobility Emphasis – Focus on personal vehicles as primary mode of transportation. Will spend most funds on improving roads. • Scenario B: Multimodal Mobility Emphasis – Public would increase use of transit for regular trips. • Scenario C: Smart Mobility Emphasis – Hybrid of Scenarios A and B. Personal vehicles remain important; however, the use of transit grows significantly.
With respect to the State’s Smart Growth principles, Philip Rommerod requested for clarification on how this would affect the rural areas of Arizona.
- PAGE 22 -
In response, Aaron explained the rural areas must focus on more compact development – adjust land uses to complement transportation. Also, it is recommended the rural areas invest heavily on local circulators.
The team continued to discuss the concept of compact development. Paul David noted if they were to increase density then they would need to enhance the zoning density policies. Philip explained the process would be counterproductive because in the past the land use patterns were that of small towns (i.e., local shopping). However, big box retailers have negatively affected the local economy, compact development and growth. Laurel Parker noted that since the transportation sector does not have control of land use development patterns; therefore, it may not be viable to consider compact growth for Copper Country. Philip disclosed that legislatively, the components necessary to support social and economic changes will need to commence at the federal and local levels. Aaron advised the group to encourage the economic development of local industries. The appropriate agency can apply Smart Growth principles by promoting local businesses, improving local circulation, and providing more transportation options for the community. James Zumpf emphasizes on the fact that land-use planners and transportation planners must work together to create more efficient communities.
Under the 2050 scenarios, Paul David and Michael Bryce recommended that rail be integrated into the recommendations. Paul suggested that rail service be introduced to Globe. Michael noted that a corridor for rail would be competitive for the community. Paul also proposed that the plan should include enough for rail when right-of-way is purchased. Laurel stated it may be beneficial to have rail service from Safford to the mines in Clifton.
Michael noted that US 70, because it is a continuation of US 191, is becoming congested.
With respect to the proposed scenarios, Paul mentioned that he favors the status quo scenario (Scenario A); but, does have concerns about the future of fuel prices.
Sharon commented that if there were safe pedestrian paths implemented, the communities can try to compete for various other funds.
Paul asked the team how the stakeholders in Show Low the scenarios. Laurel and Jim discussed the various issues identified by the Mogollon Rim stakeholder group. For example, they mentioned that they would like to expand their public transit services and build a bypass in Payson.
The stakeholders were then asked to comment on the maps that displayed the different alternatives with proposed recommendations.
- PAGE 23 -
4. Local Transit Systems
Aaron Iverson opened up the floor for the stakeholders’ thoughts on implementing local transit systems in the focus area.
Paul David inquired if the primary funding for the implementation of the system would come from state or local funding sources. Laurel Parker explained that state, town, cities, developers, etc. must work in collaboration to identify all possible funding sources.
Michael Bryce stated that the area would make more use of the rail that comes through the town, rather than buses.
Jim Zumpf asked stakeholders if transit would be beneficial for the miners. Paul replied that there are existing private transportation options for the miners from Safford; however, operations for the services will likely cutback or cease depending on the success of the copper industry.
Sharon Mitchell conveyed information that was discussed at a recent SEAGO transit meeting. She informed the group that presently the towns, cities, etc. within the focus area are not in the position to apply for 5311 transit funding for rural transportation. The area does have 5310 funding for elderly and persons with disabilities. As a step in the direction of public transit, SEAGO hopes to soon appoint a Mobility Manager. Sharon then suggested when the opportunity approaches to implement transit services, Safford, Thatcher and Pima should consider contracting out the services.
5. Public Workshops
Aaron Iverson requested for input from the stakeholders on what they would recommend integrating into the public workshops scheduled for November 2008.
Michael Bryce suggested that a proposed bypass around Safford be integrated into the proposed projects.
Paul David proposed for an express bus service between Safford and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport be added to the recommendations. Currently, the closet bus service to Phoenix is a 45-minute drive in Willcox where riders can take the Greyhound into Phoenix. This is not an efficient option for residents within the Copper Country focus area.
6. Next Meeting/Additional Information
- PAGE 24 -
James Zumpf encouraged the attendees to provide questions or comments on the documents provided.
Attendees were encouraged to attend the Community Workshops scheduled for November.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00 p.m.
- PAGE 25 -
Meeting: Easter Arizona Regional Framework Study Santa Cruz-Cochise Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting
Date: October 23, 2008
Location: City of Sierra Vista Public Works Department Pete Castro Training Center 401 Giulio Cesare Avenue Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders who comprise the Regional Transportation Advisory Team to present the project’s proposed alternative scenarios. Input from the meeting will assist with defining a preferred alternative scenario for the Santa Cruz-Cochise focus area.
Participants: Arnold M. Arvizu, City of Willcox Bill Harmon, ADOT Safford District Carlos A. De La Torre, City of Douglas Karen Lamberton, Cochise County Patricia Morris, Cochise County Jesus Valdez, Santa Cruz County Sharon Mitchell, SEAGO James Zumpf, ADOT Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris Aaron Iverson, URS Angela Enriquez, URS
1. Introduction
The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris. Self introductions of the presenters and attendees followed.
Laurel then provided attendees with a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting and an update of the project. Laurel emphasized on the importance of the framework study since the T.I.M.E Coalition did not make the November 2009 ballot. The State will now look to these studies to determine the state’s future transportation needs and to establish an action plan for moving forward. The floor was then handed over to Aaron Iverson of URS. Aaron began the PowerPoint by going through the agenda for the presentation.
2. Comments on the Transportation Model
- PAGE 26 -
Aaron Iverson presented the RTAT members with two maps that displayed the projected volume-to-capacity ratio of the interstates and highways within the Cooper Country study area.
3. Scenario Assumptions
Aaron Iverson briefly summarized the key assumptions for all scenarios then proceeded to give an explanation of the three scenarios: • Scenario A: Enhanced technology Mobility Emphasis – Focus on personal vehicles as primary mode of transportation. Will spend most funds on improving roads. • Scenario B: Multimodal Mobility Emphasis – Public would increase use of transit for regular trips. • Scenario C: Smart Mobility Emphasis – Hybrid of Scenarios A and B. Personal vehicles remain important; however, the use of transit grows significantly.
Bill Harmon, ADOT Safford District, and Karen Lamberton, Cochise County asked the project team to cite the sources from which the proposed alternative recommendations were derived. Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris, noted that the primary sources were the Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy, the critical needs list, local plans/studies, and comments from stakeholders and the public. In addition, Laurel clarified that the recommendations included in the scenarios are existing plus committed projects.
4. Streets
Karen Lamberton believes there is limited guidance and limited flexibility from the Federal government and ADOT with respect to funding.
Bill Harmon identified that all parties must work together to approach concerns regarding the area’s funding needs, growth projections, and future conditions.
Carlos De La Torre, City of Douglas, stated that although ADOT funds the construction of roads, the smaller cities do not have the money to maintain them. In reply, Laurel Parker recommended that they must establish partnerships to secure project funding sources.
Carlos recommended a type of “turn back” project where ADOT provides the cities, towns, etc. with authority and funding to build and maintain their own roads. Currently, the process of applying for transportation funds is too cumbersome because the costs of preparing an application are costly.
- PAGE 27 -
Bill added it is possible for local entities to apply for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and other transportation enhancement grants. He stated it is too hard to receive funding through the State’s Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Arnold Arvizu noted that under a CDBG, the applying entity must provide their own engineer. He proposed ADOT assist with engineering for the projects.
Aaron Iverson assured the group that their comments regarding these key issues concerning funding and partnerships will be integrated into the development of alternatives.
5. Douglas Port of Entry
Karen Lamberton discussed the proposed future of the international port of entry in Douglas. Currently, it is anticipated that there will be an expansion of the international port of entry in Douglas to relieve some traffic in Nogales. Truck drivers are making the two-hour detour to avoid the wait in Nogales. Carlos De La Torre believes the Sonoran Government is working on a bypass between Nogales and Douglas.
Bill Harmon proposed the area’s abandoned railroad alignment be reconstructed to allow for freight capabilities to deliver more goods. Arnold Arvizu, City of Willcox, added it would be reasonable to integrate freight rail into the scenarios because there is plenty of land to build loading docks. Carlos added there are currently issues with the railroads in Nogales. There are proposals for Naco to serve as a distribution center.
6. Freight Truck Traffic
Bill Harmon noted that Cochise County has two times more freight traffic than Pima County. The main issue is getting the freight traffic off of the county roads.
Karen Lamberton suggested a recommendation for a dedicated truck lane to add capacity. Presently, freight trucks heavily utilize US 191, Davis Road and SR 80. Bill then brought attention to closure of I-10 during sandstorms. If I- 10 is closed, traffic is rerouted to US 70 first. Then if US 70 is not safe, traffic would be redirected to US 60 or US 191. Carlos De La Torre pointed out that it is necessary to make US 191 an all weather road because it is prone to closures due to flooding. State Route 80 will also need improvements because it is the most direct route to I-10 east from the Douglas point of entry through New Mexico.
Laurel Parker confirmed the group would like to see improvements to SR 80 and US 191 in order to improve traffic flow.
- PAGE 28 -
James Zumpf informed the group that the ADOT Freight Study is almost complete and may provide additional insight on the future of freight traffic in the area.
7. Transit Systems
Bill Harmon posed a question for the project team; he asked how public transit would thrive in rural Arizona.
Aaron Iverson responded, pointing out that the rural areas would need a different type of system that would accommodate to the compact districts and improve circulation of the rural areas.
In order for a transit system to be efficient, Bill stated that agencies must work together to shift where people need to go – bring the goods back into town. Aaron indicated that Scenario C centers on the concept of “local options”. In addition, land decisions are local decisions; therefore, the community must work together to create a system that is suitable for the local land uses. Transportation and land use must work jointly to create an efficient transit system.
Laurel explained that the RTAT group in Safford recommended there be more coordination between transportation and land use planning. Laurel then asked the group if they believed there should be more regional transit options to Nogales and Tucson.
Sharon Mitchell clarified that Douglas and Sierra Vista both operate public transit services with funding assistance from the FTA 5311 Rural Formula Program. The City of Nogales currently has FTA 5310 Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit Program funds and can transition ambulatory passengers to FTA 5311 sponsored transit services.
Karen Lamberton mentioned that there should be a focus on providing the elderly with more mobility options. She also recommended taking into consideration those providing private transportation for those unable to drive. For example, consider placing community centers and schools within a close proximity of each other to avoid having to drive all over town.
Carlos affirmed his support for integrating public transit into the recommended scenario, primarily because of the raising price of gas. Arnold added they consider alternative fuel options.
When addressing funding for public transit options, Laurel Parker recommended the group look at funding at a conceptual level. Bill suggested considering implementing toll roads.
- PAGE 29 -
8. Bicycle and Pedestrian
Aaron Iverson asked the RTAT team on their opinions concerning bicycle and pedestrian facilities and/or policies.
Bill Harmon replied that he deems it necessary for the focus area to look at the big picture when addressing bicycle and pedestrian issues. It would be more beneficial for them to implement a regional policy.
9. Aviation
Karen Lamberton informed the project team that she feels it is necessary to stress the importance of aviation in rural areas.
Aaron Iverson sees the importance of stressing mode balance into the recommended scenario for this focus area.
10. Other Comments
Karen Lamberton believes it would be beneficial to the State if they were to hire a grant writer. Sharon Mitchell has experienced incidences where the designated recipient is the State; however, they do not have the manpower to complete the application before its deadline.
Patricia Morris added it is sometimes impossible to complete applications for road improvements because the process of functionally classifying roads is difficult. Sharon Mitchell acknowledges that the process is confusing and assures the team SEAGO is working on improving it.
11. Next Meeting/Additional Information
Aaron Iverson in conclusion identified the key areas for investments are to improve conditions of major freight corridors and to begin integrating public transit options into the communities.
James Zumpf encouraged the attendees to provide questions or comments on the documents provided.
Attendees were encouraged to attend the Community Workshops scheduled for November.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00 p.m.
- PAGE 30 -
Meeting: Mogollon Rim Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting
Date: March 31, 2008
Location: Navajo County Show Low Yard 1100 E. Thornton Road Show Low, AZ 85901 1 – 3 PM
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to review the Draft Statewide Scenarios (A,B,C), review results of scenario evaluation, and to discuss next steps and transition to the Statewide Long Range Plan.
Participants: Laurel Parker, AECOM Aaron Iverson, URS Ken Patterson, COSL Justen Tregrskes, COSL Lynn Johnson, ADOT
1. Laurel Parker provided and overview powerpoint presentation as introduction to the status of the project.
2. Aaron Iverson presented the three statewide scenarios and how the fit together between regions.
3. It was noted that Honda and Whiteriver were mislabeled.
4. Comment was given that they would like to see a bus line from Show Low to Heber, no matter which scenario.
5. There was discussion on the importance of connectivity and that the maps currently have several disconnects, particularly in the MAG and PAG region. Laurel Parker addressed this by describing that ADOT is continuing to work with MAG and PAG to ensure there is connectivity across the state.
6. There was a comment that transit connections between Phoenix and Flagstaff.
7. It was noted that 377 needs to be widened no matter which scenario is chosen, and all member agreed. This route is being used as a truck route connecting I-40 to SR 260 and further into Phoenix. The current
- PAGE 31 -
road design and construction is not adequate to handle the traffic or heavy trucks. 8. The team agreed that there is a need to add capacity for more freight rail and to start establishing passenger service.
9. There was a question if there was any consideration for improvements to existing TI’s on I-40. Laurel Parker responded that we will check with the northern framework team as I-40 was within their study area. It was pointed out that there needs to be a better set of alternative routes when something shuts down I-40.
10.Comment that the airports need to be shown on the maps. Need an additional crossing of the Little Colorado River, and perhaps a bypass in the Holbrook area.
11.Comment made that the Show Low bypass be shown in the final scenario when a preferred is chosen at the state level.
12.Suggestion was made that the federal government should maintain the interstate system, thereby freeing up state agencies to focus on state level systems.
13.Suggestion was made that rest areas be privatized to re-open those that have been shut down across the state.
- PAGE 32 -
Meeting: Easter Arizona Regional Framework Study Copper Country Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting
Date: April 7, 2009
Location: Graham County General Services Building 921 West Thatcher Boulevard Safford, AZ 85546
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to review the Draft Statewide Scenarios (A,B,C), review results of scenario evaluation, and to discuss next steps and transition to the Statewide Long Range Plan.
Participants: Tom Engel, ADOT Safford District Bill Harmon, ADOT Safford District Michael Bryce, Graham County Philip Runnerud, Greenlee County Laurel Parker, DMJM Harris Aaron Iverson, URS
1. Laurel Parker provided an overview presentation describing the current status of the project.
2. Aaron Iverson discussed in detail the draft statewide scenarios and how they fit together across the state.
3. Bill Harmon provided comments concerning the need to have better connections to Douglas. He also mentioned the need for improvements to I-10 through the eastern part of Arizona, and that ADOT is working towards fixing knows issues.
4. It was pointed out that the San Carlos Indian Community view improvements to US 70 as their priority. They want US 70 to be a 4 lane divided facility to accommodate traffic, specifically freight as a potential economic benefit to the community.
5. Aaron Iverson walked the group through the evaluation results describing the fact that there were no definitive results favoring one scenario over the other.
6. Laurel Parker provide a summary wrap-up and described the next steps in the process which moves from the regional planning efforts into the statewide effort and ultimately into the long range plan.
- PAGE 33 -
Meeting: Easter Arizona Regional Framework Study Cochise/Santa Cruz Regional Technical Advisory Team (RTAT) Meeting
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Location: Sierra Vista Public Works Department Pete Castro Training Center 401 Giulio Cesare Avenue Sierra Vista, AZ 85635 1-4 pm
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to review the Draft Statewide Scenarios (A,B,C), review results of scenario evaluation, and to discuss next steps and transition to the Statewide Long Range Plan.
Participants: No members were present, meeting was not held.
- PAGE 34 -
Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Event Summary Report
- PAGE 1 -
Table of Contents
Executive Summary page 3
Summary Notes for March 24 Community Workshop in Show Low page 6
Summary Notes for March 27 Community Workshop in Safford page 8
Summary Notes for March 31 Community Workshop in Sierra Vista page 12
Summary Notes for April 8 Community Workshop in Nogales page 16
- PAGE 2 -
Executive Summary
The Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study team held four community events as part of the first round of public outreach for this project. Each event was held from 5:30 – 7 p.m. at each location noted below.
The meeting format combined a brief presentation to give a history and overview of the project with time to break out into small groups to discuss two questions:
1. What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? 2. Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region?
Each small group chose a scribe from their table and worked through each question for the pre-determined amount of time. At the end of the meeting, each small group reported back to everyone. Team members acted as roving facilitators.
Common themes and divergent viewpoints across all geographic areas included: • There are not enough maintenance dollars to maintain the current roadway system; improve the existing system • The current transportation funding formula favors Maricopa and Pima Counties because it is based on population; any new funding source needs to be distributed differently • Rail for passenger and commercial development needs to be a major component in future transportation systems; expanding and investing in rail/freight is vital to economic development • When improving the transportation system, protect environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife corridors and wildlife habitats • There is high level of interest in developing more public transit (in various forms) • The growth of Phoenix and Tucson will put increased pressure on the already poorly maintained over-capacity state and interstate systems that provide access to the rural tourist attractions • The interstate and state highway system needs improvement; new north-south and east-west corridors are needed • The need for alternate routes/bypasses around population centers to alleviate congestion • The need to deal with increased levels of truck traffic causing congestion, safety issues, and wear and tear on roadways • Accommodating and developing alternatives for truck traffic resulting from increased mining in the Mogollon Rim and Copper Country focus areas, along with increased truck traffic from Mexico in the Cochise-
- PAGE 3 -
Santa Cruz focus area • Water will be a limiting factor in the growth of much of the eastern region • Improve safety through access management and better bike and pedestrian facilities
March 24, 2008 Torreon Golf Clubhouse Pavilion 651 S. Torreon Loop Show Low, AZ 85901
Total attendees: 7 Summary of comments received: • Funding will continue to be a critical issue • Planning efforts will be critical to success • Maintenance is a critical need.
March 27, 2008 Graham County General Services Building Assembly Room 921 Thatcher Blvd. Safford, AZ 85546
Total attendees: 25 Summary of comments received: • Growth is coming but we want to stay rural • The existing system needs to be improved • Funding will be a challenge; legislative support is needed • Bypasses may be helpful, although they may take business away from local businesses.
March 31, 2008 St. Andrew Catholic Parish Kino Hall 800 N. Taylor Drive Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Total attendees: 18 Summary of comments received: • A desire for better connection to Mexico, more funding, expanded mass transit/intermodal transit (especially by rail), bypass routes and use of solar power as an energy source.
April 8, 2008
- PAGE 4 -
Americana Motor Hotel 639 N. Grand Ave. Nogales, AZ 85621
Total attendees: 17 Summary of comments received: • A desire for bypasses, rail improvements and intermodal connectivity.
- PAGE 5 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Date Produced: April 10, 2008
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Mogollon Rim Focus Area
Date: Monday, March 24, 2008
Location: Torreon Golf Clubhouse Pavillion 651 S. Torreon Loop Show Low, AZ 85901
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Event is to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to receive input on existing regional conditions and identification of issues; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations.
Participants: • LaRon Garrett, Town of Payson • Karen Warhill, Pioneer News • Wayne Grainger, Arizona Department of Transportation Globe District • Ken Patterson, City of Show Low • Jamie Winterstein, PB • Jack Husted, WMRTC • Ed Muder, City of Show Low
Team: • ADOT: Bill Pederson, Jim Zumpf • DMJM Harris: Laurel Parker • URS Corporation: Aaron Iverson, Sunny Bush • PDG: Andy Jacobs
The following meeting notes are intended to be a summary of the discussions at the meeting. Any changes or corrections to the meeting summary notes must be received by the author within ten days. After that date, they will be final.
The community workshop was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Laurel Parker.
Overview of Presentation Laurel Parker with DMJM Harris gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study, community input received to date and schedule of
- PAGE 6 -
community participation and the overall study. After the presentation, a general discussion was held regarding the following questions:
1. What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? 2. Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region?
Summary of Community Workshop Input What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? • Increased population growth • Technologies and trends will change, which will change community needs
Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region? • Maintenance − critical need. Lack of adequate maintenance creates an adverse economic impact • Relief from congestion needed – there’s no way to exit from congested freeways during holiday weekend backups; creates a safety issue • Distribution of funding should be re-evaluated and rural Arizona should be able to benefit more • Increased tourism • New funding alternatives for maintenance and new facilities will need to be developed. Consider toll roads, impact fees, development fees on developers, new car fees, new sales taxes • Funding will continue to be a critical issue • Planning efforts will be critical to success • Environmental mitigation costs will need to be evaluated
Adjourn Laurel Parker thanked everyone for coming and giving their input. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.
Meeting summary notes produced by Sunny Bush, URS Corporation Public Involvement Specialist (602) 861-7440 [email protected]
- PAGE 7 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Date Produced: April 10, 2008
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Copper Country Focus Area
Date: Thursday, March 27, 2008
Location: Graham County General Services Building 921 Thatcher Blvd. Safford, AZ 85546
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Event was to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to receive input on existing regional conditions and identification of issues; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations.
Participants: • Larry Nielsen, Community Member • Gwen DeMott, Community Member • Roberta Lopez, BLM • Bill Harmon, ADOT Safford • Jason Korts, City of Safford • Ron Green, City of Safford • Bill Brandan, University of Arizona Cooperative Extension • Tom Engel, ADOT • Keith Alexander, Staff for Congressman Renzi • Eric F. Merriman, Town of Thatcher • Nancy-Jean Welker, Bowie • Larry W. Hancock, City of Safford • Melvin Rustin, Jr., Bylas • Lorena Rustin, Bylas • Devin Skinner, Arizona Game and Fish Department • Marilyn Farr, Ft. Thomas • Phillip Rommerud, Greenlee County • Richard Lunt, Community Member • Crystal Lilly, Community Member • Dale & Ruth Luce, Community Member • Doug Syfert, Community Member • Paul R. David, ADOT Safford District • Jim Palmer, Graham County
- PAGE 8 -
• Chuck Parnell, Community Member • Rich Gaar, Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization
Team: • ADOT: Linda Ritter • DMJM Harris: Laurel Parker • URS Corporation: Aaron Iverson, Sunny Bush • SIMG: Joe Carter, Kelly Hawke
The following meeting notes are intended to be a summary of the discussions at the meeting. Any changes or corrections to the meeting summary notes must be received by the author within ten days. After that date, they will be final.
The community workshop was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Laurel Parker.
Overview of Presentation Laurel Parker with DMJM Harris gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study, community input received to date and schedule of community participation and the overall study. After the presentation, she instructed each small group of approximately six people to choose a scribe, discuss the following questions and record their answers:
1. What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? 2. Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region?
About 45 minutes later, she asked each small group to report back to the entire group. Following is a summary of what each group discussed and recorded.
Summary of Community Workshop Input What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region?
• Growth will get here – we are going to grow • We do not want to look like Phoenix and Scottsdale. We like the rural, small town atmosphere. Small rural towns are part of Arizona • Legislative support is needed for rural areas • Rail and mass transit will be important for the future • Alternative routes will be needed for Highway 191 • A good road system will be needed to promote economic development • Infrastructure should be put into place to support growth • Safety should be improved – funding will be necessary • Wide roads for access control will be needed • The existing system should be improved
- PAGE 9 -
• Land use similar to today’s but greater in magnitude: AG, mining, federal/tribal interests and bands of residential and commercial use. • Manage transportation system to provide needed capacity in a safe, efficient manner • Accommodate regional/retail/service hubs as development occurs in Safford area. Provide for growing industrial base
Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region? • Funding will be a challenge. Legislative support is needed • Local needs include public transportation for seniors who can’t drive, bus service, and taxi service • Keep funding in place for rural Arizona. Do not take H.U.R.F funds to finance other areas • Other methods must be developed for rerouting I-10 traffic during emergency and dust times • Provide avenues for wildlife to cross major freeways and roadways without being on the roadways • There is congestion in Safford, Thatcher and Pima, and road improvements are needed • A bypass would be beneficial for Graham County, but could be bad for local businesses • Better mass transit is needed – bus service, shuttle service • Rest areas on interstates have been closed but should be re-opened. Perhaps the could be privatized • Traffic controls are needed to slow people down • Turn lanes and center turn lanes are needed off the highway • There should be an increase in highway patrol/law enforcement • Truck traffic issues should be resolved • Improve Swift Trail (S.R. 366), Frye Mesa Road • Improve U.S. 60, U.S. 70 and U.S. 191 corridors; realign as necessary, • Develop high-speed freeway-style highways: Phoenix-Globe-Safford- Duncan and Bowie • Consider new alignment along San Simon River to connect I-10 and U.S. 70 (Bowie/San Simon-Safford) • Consider route from Bonita to Willcox to connect S.R. 266 to S.R. 186. • Develop public transportation facilities • Develop airport and railroad facilities • Identify corridors now • Appropriate economic development
- PAGE 10 -
Adjourn After each small group reported back to the entire group, Laurel Parker thanked everyone for coming and giving their input. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.
Meeting summary notes produced by Sunny Bush, URS Corporation Public Involvement Specialist (602) 861-7440 [email protected]
- PAGE 11 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Date Produced: April 4, 2008
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Santa Cruz/Cochise Focus Area
Date: Monday, March 31, 2008
Location: 800 N. Taylor Drive Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Event was to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to receive input on existing regional conditions and identification of issues; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations.
Participants: • Dave Bonner, City of Willcox • Tom Dabbs, BLM Tucson Field Office • Mike Devine, Motor Vehicle Division • Roger Devrie, Community Member • Carol Dockter, City of Sierra Vista • Tia Faulconer, Sierra Vista Public Schools • David Gilcreest, Community Member • Michael Gomez, City of Douglas • Dave and Pamela Harlan • Michael Hemesath, City of Sierra Vista • Craig Johnson, City of Sierra Vista • Karen Lamberta, Community Member • Rick Mueller, City of Sierra Vista • Tom Reardon, City of Sierra Vista • Scott Richardson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Curtis A. Shook, City of Douglas • Jeff Stoddard, City of Willcox
Team: • ADOT: Teresa Welborn, Jim Zumpf • DMJM Harris: Laurel Parker • URS: Aaron Iverson • Gordley Design Group: Melissa Benton, Angie Brown
- PAGE 12 -
The following meeting notes are intended to be a summary of the discussions at the meeting. Any changes or corrections to the meeting summary notes must be received by the author within ten days. After that date, they will be final.
The community workshop was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Laurel Parker.
Overview of Presentation Laurel Parker with DMJM Harris gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study, community input received to date and schedule of community participation and the overall study. After the presentation, she instructed each small group of approximately six people to choose a scribe, discuss the following questions and record their answers:
1. What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? 2. Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region?
About 45 minutes later, she asked each small group to report back to the entire group. Following is a transcription of what each group recorded.
Summary of Community Workshop Input What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? • High growth, although water may limit that • 2030 – population will be expanding • 2050 – not so much growth • Need to be able to get between growth areas • Pollution • Congestion • Benson needs to be a focal point • Benson and Willcox to be distribution centers • Possible water limits in Sierra Vista and Benson or “bedroom communities” for Tucson • Better connection to Mexico, with better border crossings (better support and funding) • Visions for the whole state (not just the two urban areas) • Due to a fear of hazardous materials – we may not want commercial port • Need to balance development pressures with environmental constraints and water limits
Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region? • Reduced pollution • Reduced congestion • Expanded mass transit
- PAGE 13 -
• Bypass routes around urban centers to redirect trucks away from cities • Special conditions for semi-truck transportation • Plan to facilitate commerce in the rural areas • Corridors with higher number of lanes • Improved Highways 191, 92 and 80 • Straightened roads • Alleviated congested intersections • Increased intermodal transportation – rail, air, bus, other transit systems • Utilize rail more for lower pollution – the infrastructure is already in place • Need air and rail support – reduce pollution and environmental impacts • Convert to rail for goods and people transport for statewide network • Commute/shuttle via air service (take care to not interfere with unmanned flights from Fort Huachuca) • Upgrade regional airports • High-speed trains and city network • Mass transit between communities and a transit highway lane • People-movers that aren’t just cars – mass transit, busses, vans • Education to help change people’s mindset and culture toward the use of private autos instead of mass transit • Identify and acquire or re-acquire railroad right of way • Connect communities via bus • Conservation of trips – one person shops for neighbors, car-share • Solar/electric transport • Need more than one way in or out • Smooth traffic flow through urban areas using bridges, overpasses or bypasses • Connection to Mexico – better border crossings, improved ports of entry • Expanded partnerships with Mexico for improved transportation at border • State needs to take lead with municipalities and Mexico, and work with Port Authority • Take advantage of free trade zone • Efficient movement of local products • Video network conference • Tele-commuting (using fiber-optic transmission so as to not interfere with Fort Huachuca) • Build before they come • Use revenue from sale of state land to pay for transportation network
Adjourn
- PAGE 14 -
After each small group reported back to the entire group, Laurel Parker thanked everyone for coming and giving their input. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.
Meeting summary notes produced by Angie Brown, Gordley Design Group Public Involvement Specialist (520) 327-6077 [email protected]
- PAGE 15 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Date Produced: April 10, 2008
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Santa Cruz/Cochise Focus Area
Date: Monday, March 31, 2008
Location: 639 N. Grand Avenue Nogales, AZ 85621
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Event was to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to receive input on existing regional conditions and identification of issues; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations.
Participants: • Olivia Ainza-Kramer, Nogales Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce • Scott Altherr, Santa Cruz County • Alfredo Alvarez, Mc Donald's • Ron C, Community Member • Nancy and Chris Fleming • Mike Foster, Rio Rico Fire District • Rich Gaar, SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization • Marina C. Galhouse, Santa Cruz County • Gary H. Gay, Town of Patagonia • Norm Land, BAC • Quentin Lewton, Friends of Scenic Highway 82/83 • Bobbie Lundstrom, Community Member • Marshall Magruder, Community Member • Annie McGreevy, Friends of Scenic Highway 82/83 • Guy Moussalli, City of Nogales • Dave Naugle, Community Member • John Pilger, SCVBAC • Roy Schoonover, Tucson Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee • Joan Scott, Arizona Game and Fish Department • Nils Urman, City of Nogales
Team: • ADOT: Linda Ritter, Jim Zumpf
- PAGE 16 -
• DMJM Harris: Laurel Parker • URS: Aaron Iverson, Sunny Bush • Gordley Design Group: Melissa Benton, Paki Rico
The following meeting notes are intended to be a summary of the discussions at the meeting. Any changes or corrections to the meeting summary notes must be received by the author within ten days. After that date, they will be final.
The community workshop was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Laurel Parker.
Overview of Presentation Laurel Parker with DMJM Harris gave a presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study, community input received to date and schedule of community participation and the overall study. After the presentation, she instructed each small group of approximately six people to choose a scribe, discuss the following questions and record their answers:
1. What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? 2. Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region?
About 45 minutes later, she asked each small group to report back to the entire group. Following is a transcription of what each group recorded.
Summary of Community Workshop Input What is your vision of the future of Arizona and your region? • Ports of entry (three in Nogales) expansions • Automatic “check point” passes at border, border check points, etc. for locals • Passenger air service at Nogales International Airport (individual commerce) • Commuter plane between Phoenix and Nogales airports • Growth limited by water availability • Concern about increased mine traffic along state Highway 83 • Increasing densities of population centers in order to reduce sprawl and make public, inter-city transit a feasible option (train or high speed buses) – concentrate growth • Problems associated with truck traffic through Patagonia and Sonoita, especially with safety at intersections
Based on what you think the future holds, what are the transportation needs for your region? • I-10 cut-off (Sahuarita) to relieve traffic on S.R. 82, Patagonia at least to I-19 • Peck Canyon + Palo Parado + others to match growth (plan together)
- PAGE 17 -
• Major corridors – I-19/S.R. 82 trans-border • Commercial vehicle bypass trans-border of population center • Commercial vehicle bypass of S.R. 82 (alternate to I-10 east), eg: Mexico east to Douglas, S.R. 80 north to I-10 • Freeway proactively widened to accommodate growth • Complete frontage roads on I-19 Nogales to Tucson • Bridges over Santa Cruz River in north Rio Rico area • Study the feasibility of a bypass or loop • Study the intersection of Highways 82 and 83 • Safe and sustainable pavement in southeast area to remedy substandard existing infrastructure • No interconnecting traffic on S.R. 82 (local only) • S.R. 83 – build I-10 bridge ASAP • Grand Avenue/Trolley Avenue to expedite traffic • Consider expanding River Road (Gargo airport access) • Segments – air, rail, road, off-road individual/public/commercial/emergency (frontage roads) • Bridges over Southeast River and Union Pacific Railroad in Nogales, Rio Rico, Tubac and Amado – all segments • Need county-wide transit system • Interconnect on transit systems (bus, train, air) • Park and Ride, series of multi-level Nogales terminals (parking area) • Access to “para” transit for handicapped/ICC throughout county • Non-motorized safety pathways benefits routes • Public transportation alternatives needed • I-19 bus/shuttle: countrywide vs. light rail (Hermosillo to Phoenix) “capital to capital” • Need multi-use (bike, hike, horse) trails (Sonoita to Nogales), complete Anza Trail and Arizona Trail (parking trail head and toilet) • Commuter services between Tucson and Nogales – bus, light rail • Need crosswalks S.R. 82 (Patagonia, Birders) • Maximize pedestrian access and movement throughout Nogales • Pedestrian overpasses; truck overpasses • Bike routes everywhere • Funding for local transit • Circulatory buses between communities • Grand Avenue transformed from a high-speed corridor for cars to a livable, complete street • Increase efficiency of trans-border crosses (all segments) • Commuter rail from Flagstaff to Nogales, through Phoenix and Tucson or bus rapid transit with links to local transit • Passenger rail to Hermosillo (bus exits) • Railroad – two pedestrian and three overpasses in Nogales and Pendleton • Need railroad sitings (for Border Patrol)
- PAGE 18 -
• Need detailed railroad crossing study • Explore potential to relocate Union Pacific Railroad out of city (short term) • Rail traffic through town poses hazards, so is rerouting tracks a possibility? • Respect “low growth” land use areas (smart) in northeast and northwest Santa Cruz County • Preserve wildlife corridors everywhere along S.R. 82/I-19 (high underpasses) • Wildlife connectivity: underpasses/overpasses • Maintaining large open space areas as buffers and corridors • Commercial freight (railroad + road) – expedite • Use technology to improve speed, security, accuracy • Enforce laws with modern technology (lamedas, etc.) • Signage program – safety, way-finding, human-factored
Adjourn After each small group reported back to the entire group, Laurel Parker thanked everyone for coming and giving their input. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.
Meeting summary notes produced by Angie Brown, Gordley Design Group Public Involvement Specialist (520) 327-6077 [email protected]
- PAGE 19 -
Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Stakeholder Interviews Summary Report DRAFT
- PAGE 1 -
Executive Summary
The Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study team held a total of five stakeholder interviews as part of the first round of public outreach for this project at times and locations noted below. The meeting format combined a brief presentation to give a history and overview of the project with time for discussion on a series of questions.
February 22, 10:00 am Graham County General Services Building 921 W. Thatcher Blvd Safford, AZ 85546
February 22, 3:30 pm Santa Cruz County Board Room 2150 N. Congress Drive Nogales, AZ 85621
February 25, 1:30 pm Council Chambers 303 N. Beeline Highway Payson, AZ 85541
February 26, 10:00 am Navajo County Show Low Road Yard 1100 E. Thornton Road Show Low, AZ 85901
February 29, 2008, 11:00 a.m. Cochise County Board of Supervisors Office 1415 W. Melody Lane, Building G Bisbee, AZ 85603
Common themes and divergent viewpoints across all geographic areas included: • There are not enough maintenance dollars to maintain the current roadway system; improve the existing system. • The current transportation funding formula favors Maricopa and Pima Counties because it is based on population; any new funding source needs to be distributed differently. • Rail for passenger and commercial development needs to be a major component in future transportation systems; expanding and investing in rail/freight is vital to economic development. • When improving the transportation system, protect environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife corridors and wildlife habitats.
- PAGE 2 -
• There is high level of interest in developing more public transit (in various forms). • The growth of Phoenix and Tucson will put increased pressure on the already poorly maintained over-capacity state and interstate systems that provide access to the rural tourist attractions. • The interstate and state highway system needs improvement; new north-south and east-west corridors are needed. • The need for alternate routes/bypasses around population centers to alleviate congestion. • The need to deal with increased levels of truck traffic causing congestion, safety issues, and wear and tear on roadways. • Accommodating and developing alternatives for truck traffic resulting from increased mining in the Mogollon Rim and Copper Country focus areas, along with increased truck traffic from Mexico in the Cochise- Santa Cruz focus area. • Water will be a limiting factor in the growth of much of the eastern region. • Improve safety through access management and better bike and pedestrian facilities.
- PAGE 3 -
Date Produced: February 25, 2008 (Revised March 17, 2008)
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Copper Country Stakeholders Meeting - Safford
Date: Friday, February 22, 10:00 am
Location: 921 W. Thatcher Blvd Safford, AZ 85546
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from this meeting will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: Stakeholder attendee sign-in sheet summary attached URS Rick Ensdorff Aaron Iverson Nicholas Karcz
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM by Rick Ensdorff. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made.
Rick Ensdorff presented a power point presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study. Discussion considering the following questions was conducted after the presentation:
1. What are some of the regional issues this project must address in your opinion?
• Funding for projects in rural areas. Funding priority seems to occur in the Phoenix area (MAG). • Road network is undersized in the area. • Road efficiency needs to be improved. • Several planned developments will create a need for additional capacity. • Copper mining operations will create population growth, need for additional road capacity. • Additional river crossings are necessary due to mining development. • Additional truck traffic due to increased mining, supply needs, movement of copper from Safford to other destinations
- PAGE 4 -
• Development of Eastern Arizona College into a 4-year institution in the next few years will require additional roadway capacity • Improved connections to I-10 and Phoenix are needed. • Difficulty meshing an agricultural community with an urban community
2. What can the transportation facilities under discussion mean to the area other than improved mobility (e.g. urban growth, economic development)?
• Improved mobility and capacity • Economic growth and development • Urban growth due to copper industry
3. What urban growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region?
• Business growth – mining industry • Population growth
4. Are there any “fatal flaws” such as economic, physical, environmental constraints or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of the transportation facilities under discussion?
• Increased truck traffic with heavy loads will require pavement with greater load capacity • Pavement design will need to be modified to accommodate heavy truck traffic • Difficulty of obtaining right of way
5. Are there environmental concerns you would like to express?
• Gila River • Archaeological sites
6. How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?
• Not discussed.
7. Are there others that should be involved in this study?
• Not discussed.
8. Are there any other issues you would like to express?
- PAGE 5 -
• It was suggested that this study was being initiated so that it can be placed on the 2008 ballot for funding • A question was asked whether there is enough staff to take on this statewide effort. • Concern was expressed as to the possibility of planning out to such a long range (2050) as issues would likely be different in that timeframe. • It was asked how the other studies in the area currently being conducted would be used in the framework study. • Airports should be considered in the study.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
- PAGE 6 -
Date Produced: February 25, 2008 (Revised March 17, 2008)
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Santa Cruz/Cochise Stakeholders Meeting - Nogales
Date: Friday, February 22, 3:30 pm
Location: Santa Cruz County Board Room 2150 N. Congress Drive Nogales, AZ 85621
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from this meeting will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: Stakeholder attendees: sign-in sheet summary attached DMJM/Harris: Laurel Parker URS: Dave French Sunny Bush
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm by Laurel Parker. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made.
Laurel Parker presented a power point presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study. Discussion considering the following questions was conducted after the presentation:
1. What are some of the regional issues this project must address in your opinion?
• Rail, specifically related to rail located in very congested areas and rail interacting with traffic (i.e., Nogales) both City and County issue also – Hazmat/emergency vehicles – liability – Disruption for business – Backlog of traffic due to rail passing • Vehicle and pedestrian bridges are needed – 4-6 now, more in 2050 • Truck traffic – Most of traffic going out of Santa Cruz County goes north, not east. – 1,300 trucks per day passing at Mariposa Port of Entry creates backup
- PAGE 7 -
– Study says by 2030 there will be a 1,300-3,000/day truck traffic increase • General traffic – DeConcini Port – Creates bottleneck (downtown) – Traffic from other ports of entry – Need way to channel traffic throughput from Mexico out of Nogales area efficiently • Would like to keep business here but it would need to be convenient. • Floating population: 80,000 people/day come in as a floating population (current population of Nogales = 40,000). • Income from Safety Enforcement & Transportation Infrastructure Fund (SETIF) charges put on trucks coming into United States goes into general fund. Nogales currently does not see funding based on this economic impact for the whole state. • Nogales as port of entry impacts the whole State and Mexico – Congestion creates an economic impact.
2. What can the transportation facilities under discussion mean to the area other than improved mobility (e.g. urban growth, economic development)?
• Economic development would occur with better transportation • The only growth potential in area is along I-19 • There is a need for the railroads to coordinate with and be more negotiable with communities. • Need safety with regard to railroad (spills/accidents) • Need to look at some sort of reliable public transportation – Large commuter travel from Tucson – likely use for light rail. – Bus service in Nogales is privately owned. – Light rail would be beneficial. – Nogales community is getting older – need affordable public transportation to take care of their needs (doctor appointments, etc.). • Must look at river crossings whenever you look at rail crossings/routes.
3. What urban growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region?
• 38% of land in Santa Cruz County is privately owned – Growth will occur and development will be exponential. • Santa Cruz County likely will become a bedroom community for Tucson. • A Santa Cruz County Land Use Plan (LUP) was done 3 years ago (the 1992 Land Use Plan (Growing Smarter Program) was the previous estimate
- PAGE 8 -
4. Are there any “fatal flaws” such as economic, physical, environmental constraints or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of the transportation facilities under discussion?
• There are some physical constraints – Nogales is generally a mountain pass resulting in some limitation of growth possibilities. • Flood plains – New ones are being identified in current study (due next fall). • Just maintaining current roads with available funding is an economic issue – let alone new roads. • The economic benefit generated within Santa Cruz County should be equated with the amount of money allocated to the area. • Putting in new roads will require maintenance and there needs to be money to accomplish this.
5. Are there environmental concerns you would like to express?
• None discussed.
6. How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?
• The Port Authority should be used as point of contact. ADOT should tell them who/how many are needed and the Port Authority will find them.
7. Are there others that should be involved in this study?
• Maquiladora Association
8. Are there any other issues you would like to express?
• Frontage road system needs to be addressed and corrected; if there is an accident, there’s nowhere to get off. • Need to gather data from all sources • The criteria for deciding where arterials are built are currently based on population – this should be revisited to consider other factors. There is a need to diversify funding to other areas besides the larger metropolitan areas.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
- PAGE 9 -
Date Produced: February 27, 2008 (Revised March 17, 2008)
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Mogollon Rim Stakeholders Meeting - Payson
Date: Monday, February 25, 1:30 pm
Location: Council Chambers 303 N. Beeline Highway Payson, AZ 85541
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from this meeting will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: Stakeholder attendees: sign-in sheet summary attached DMJM/Harris: Laurel Parker URS: Aaron Iverson Sunny Bush
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 pm by Laurel Parker. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made.
Laurel Parker presented a power point presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study. Discussion considering the following questions was conducted after the presentation:
1. What are some of the regional issues this project must address in your opinion?
• Transit, but there are differing opinions as to whether it would be beneficial • Traffic congestion, particularly with regard to tourist travel during summer months and weekends. The corner of State Route 260 and Beeline experiences particular congestion. • Development of a bypass • Development of toll roads • Loss of local business revenue if a bypass is developed • Funding - who will pay for new construction and maintenance • Placement of banners over the freeway to advertise events • Safety near the Casino for pedestrian and local crossings
- PAGE 10 -
2. What can the transportation facilities under discussion mean to the area other than improved mobility (e.g. urban growth, economic development)?
• Traffic congestion relief • Ability for local residents to navigate their community without traffic backups, i.e. use the town an additional 2 days a week (Sat/Sun due to tourist travel) • Relief to businesses suffering from traffic backups and congestion • Increased tourist travel at local airport would create economic benefit – create need for additional goods to be needed • Infrastructure to support the airport would help businesses • Possible increase in public transit opportunities, but questionable whether there would be sufficient volume to justify development • Increased safety at MP 328 – too curvy, many accidents • Tunnel under the roadway near the Casino would relieve traffic congestion, increase safety to pedestrians
3. What urban growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region?
• Payson has a growth plan but they are re-evaluating it. Current population is now about 27,000-30,000 but will probably be about 50,000 in 2050. • Growth is limited by water availability and the amount of private land available • Payson is primarily a tourist area and retirees are not going to be a high-growth population • Roadway use/growth will be determined by growth in Phoenix • Industry growth is also a question. To secure growth in this area, there must be higher-paying jobs, perhaps internet-type jobs.
4. Are there any “fatal flaws” such as economic, physical, environmental constraints or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of the transportation facilities under discussion?
• Forests • Water • Lack of private land (vs. publicly held and managed lands) • Impact to viable businesses if the main roads are widened • Retiree/seasonal population
5. Are there environmental concerns you would like to express?
- PAGE 11 -
• Water limitations • Safety issues • Keeping neighborhood and environmental integrity • Fuel loss/environmental impact while traffic is in gridlock
6. How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?
• LeRon Garrett will serve as a point of contact for additional stakeholders that should be included • Shannon Boyer will serve as the Gila County point of contact
7. Are there others that should be involved in this study?
• Star Valley • Pine/Strawberry • Game and Fish (part of the environmental study) • Distribution and trucking companies • Schools
8. Are there any other issues you would like to express?
• Peak periods are an important factor for Payson. The model will need to evaluate peak hours and peak seasons – an average count is not effective for this area’s needs • Urgent traffic relief is needed
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm.
- PAGE 12 -
Date Produced: February 27, 2008 (Revised March 17, 2008)
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Mogollon Rim Stakeholders Meeting – Show Low
Date: Tuesday, February 26, 10:00 am
Location: Navajo County Show Low Road Yard 1100 E. Thornton Road Show Low, AZ 85901
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from this meeting will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: Stakeholder attendees: sign-in sheet summary attached DMJM/Harris: Laurel Parker URS: Rick Ensdorff Aaron Iverson Sunny Bush
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 am by Laurel Parker. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made.
Laurel Parker presented a power point presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study. Discussion considering the following questions was conducted after the presentation:
1. What are some of the regional issues this project must address in your opinion?
• Lack of funding for maintenance, let alone new projects (many projects identified in the recently completed Navajo and Apache County comprehensive plans • Population growth will put a strain on funding • Roadways are already overburdened by tourist travel (weekends/summer) • Population/demand varies by season – large population surge is experienced in the summer
- PAGE 13 -
• Growth in the region will be largely determined by growth in other areas, i.e. Maricopa County and especially Pinal County • Goods and services will be needed to support future growth • Increased truck traffic puts a strain on roadways – increased truck traffic is especially notable from Safford area and New Mexico
2. What can the transportation facilities under discussion mean to the area other than improved mobility (e.g. urban growth, economic development)?
• Reduced strain on existing roadways • Enhanced business opportunity from tourist/seasonal population • More seasonal use by Pinal County visitors • Support for area economic development (power, paper production, pig farming) • Increased visitor and seasonal growth will create a need for more goods to support it
3. What urban growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region?
• Population growth - expected to be about 300,000 – 400,000 by 2030 • More second homes, summer homes, dual residences/commuting • Increased construction costs for maintenance of current roadways coupled with need for more new roadways • Growth in Maricopa and Pinal Counties will directly affect White Mountain areas • Growth of the retirement element in the region, potential year-round living • Growth from influx of California population
4. Are there any “fatal flaws” such as economic, physical, environmental constraints or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of the transportation facilities under discussion?
• There is a lot of privately held land in Show Low region – creates opportunity for development • Water availability, to a point • Land swaps will likely decrease or stop. Buildout will be with existing private lands.
5. Are there environmental concerns you would like to express?
• Water – a problem, but not as much as in other areas of the State. • Water and wastewater systems – conversion from septic to sewer
- PAGE 14 -
6. How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?
• Not discussed.
7. Are there others that should be involved in this study?
• Summer residents should be included in study group. • Developers, economic groups, other area groups to bring their perspectives.
8. Are there any other issues you would like to express?
• Growth is being observed in Snowflake/Taylor, White Mountain Lakes, Heber/Overgaard, Apache City, Holbrook, and around Pinetop and Show Low. Developers are moving out from the towns and cities to the County areas. • Developers are sometimes constructing roads for access to outlying developed areas, but they are often not constructed to County standards. • Homeowner associations have been seen to control the construction and maintenance of the roads in the newly developed areas, but sometimes do not meet requirements or sufficiently maintain. • Sometimes it’s difficult to coordinate local requirements with ADOT requirements.
The meeting was adjourned at noon.
- PAGE 15 -
Date Produced: March 3, 2008 (Revised March 17, 2008)
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Santa Cruz/Cochise Stakeholders Meeting - Bisbee
Date: Friday, February 29, 11:00 am
Location: Cochise County Board of Supervisors Office 1415 W. Melody Lane, Building G Bisbee, AZ 85603
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to meet with area stakeholders to identify transportation, land use and environmental issues deemed important to the identified communities. Input from this meeting will assist with the process of exploring long-range multimodal transportation needs in the 2030-2050 timeframe.
Participants: Stakeholder attendees: sign-in sheet summary attached DMJM/Harris: Laurel Parker URS: Rick Ensdorff Sunny Bush
The meeting was called to order at 11:00 am by Laurel Parker. Self introductions of all attendees and presenters were made.
Laurel Parker presented a power point presentation outlining the goals and objectives of the Statewide and Regional Transportation Planning Framework Study. Discussion considering the following questions was conducted after the presentation:
1. What are some of the regional issues this project must address in your opinion?
• Highway 80 only a two-lane road and presents a safety issue • Cross-border traffic that links to the local transportation system. • I-91 north of Elfrida has drainage issues, limiting access • Growth in Sierra Vista will affect the rest of the region • Patagonia and Sonoita growth (Highway 82) will also affect the area • HAZMAT and cargo concerns particularly related to the Douglas port- of-entry • Evacuation concerns – reliable roadways needed • Frontage roads/parallel roads needed instead of bypasses
- PAGE 16 -
2. What can the transportation facilities under discussion mean to the area other than improved mobility (e.g. urban growth, economic development)?
• Economic development would likely occur with better access and mobility • Improved safety/access in the event of a state-wide evacuation • Enforcement of access management rules and legislative controls over issues like lot-splitting would improve safety • Right-of-way of the major corridors should be preserved or roadway bypasses should be developed. The economies of the local communities would be adversely affected if this does not occur.
3. What urban growth/developments and socio-economic changes do you see occurring over the next 20 years in your particular locality or region?
• Growth in Bisbee will be affected by population growth occurring in Sierra Vista • Patagonia and Sonoita growth will affect the Bisbee area
4. Are there any “fatal flaws” such as economic, physical, environmental constraints or community concerns that would be an obstacle to the development of the transportation facilities under discussion?
• Funding, both for maintenance and new facilities
5. Are there environmental concerns you would like to express?
• Drainage issues along I-91 • Water scarcity • Environmental group protests – concern for lack of resources in the event of a spill at the port of entry
6. How would you like to be involved as this study unfolds?
• The point of contact would be Jim Vlahovich, Cochise County.
7. Are there others that should be involved in this study?
• None mentioned
- PAGE 17 -
8. Are there any other issues you would like to express?
• If there is a gas task planned to provide funding for new projects, Cochise County may not see the benefits needed compared to other, larger areas. Meeting attendees expressed that they would like their needs considered when the plan is developed • Naco Highway is not on the state route, there is concern for lack of resources in the event of a spill from a port of entry • Access management issues must be enforced • There is not enough capacity to provide an evacuation route in the event of an emergency
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 pm.
- PAGE 18 -
Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Event Summary Report
- PAGE 1 -
Table of Contents
Executive Summary page 3
Promotional Event Recap page 5
Summary Notes for Nov. 10 Community Workshop in Safford page 13
Summary Notes for Nov. 13 Community Workshop in Safford page 21
Summary Notes for Nov. 18 Community Workshop in Sierra Vista page 29
Summary Notes for Nov. 19 Community Workshop in Nogales page 40
- PAGE 2 -
Executive Summary
The Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study team held four community events as part of the second round of public outreach for this project. Each event was two hours long and held twice – once in the afternoon and once in the evening – at each location noted below.
The meeting format combined a brief presentation to give a history and overview of the project along with an overview of three scenarios with time to break out into small groups to discuss two questions for each of three scenarios:
1. What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft this scenario? 2. What is your reaction to the projects identified in the scenario presented?
Each small group chose a scribe from their table and worked through each question for the pre-determined amount of time. At the end of the meeting, each small group reported back to everyone. Team members acted as roving facilitators.
Overall comment summary: • Consistent support across study area for investing in more local and regional transit service (Scenario B). • Transit service needs to be convenient and interconnected to be feasible. • Copper Country and Cochise/Santa Cruz areas expressed interest in passenger rail; freight rail was identified in the Mogollon Rim area (Scenario B). • Identified need to add capacity in major regional roadway corridors (Scenario A and C). • Supported concept of creating additional local alternatives (bypass) to state routes to relieve local congestion issues (Scenario A). • General desire for improved safety on major roadways (Scenario A and C). • Supported the concept of investing in bicycle and pedestrian facilities for local trips (Scenario C).
- PAGE 3 -
Monday, Nov. 10 Graham County General Services Building Assembly Room 921 Thatcher Blvd. Safford, AZ 85546
Total attendees 2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.: 29 Total attendees 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.: 19 Summary of comments received: • Prefer Scenario A • Like the idea of a bypass that circles around the Safford area both to the north and to the south • Top concern is safety • Transit from the Copper Country area to Phoenix and Tucson would be ideal; local transit not as necessary
Thursday, Nov. 13 Days Inn 480 West Deuce Of Clubs Show Low, AZ 85901
Total attendees 10 a.m. - 12 p.m.: 25 Total attendees 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.: 3 Summary of comments received: • Scenario C is preferable in heavily populated areas • Scenario B is preferable in rural areas • Roads between St. Johns and surrounding cities, including Show Low, Springerville and Holbrook, need improvement • Funding is a major concern • Bike lanes need to be constructed or improved • It will be difficult to convince the residents to use public transportation, although it is needed
Tuesday, Nov. 18 Windemere Hotel 2047 S Hwy 92 Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Total attendees 2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.: 36 Total attendees 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.: 17 Summary of comments received: • Funding is a major concern • Light rail from Sierra Vista to Tucson is desired • Widening roads brings development; like the rural area
- PAGE 4 -
Wednesday, Nov. 19 Holiday Inn 850 W. Shell Road Nogales, Arizona 85621
Total attendees 2:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.: 12 Total attendees 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.: 14 Summary of comments received: • Funding is a major concern • Transit is needed, but needs to be convenient
Promotional Event Recap Region-Wide
In addition to specific outreach outlined below by each focus area, a news release was sent out region-wide, and at least eight articles ran in regional newspapers.
Mogollon Rim Focus Area
COMMUNITY GROUPS: • WMRTC – Regional transportation group. Peggy Saunders sent an email notification to the entire WMRTC group and piggybacked their regular Nov. meeting with BqAZ’s. WMRTC has approximately 60 members. • Elk’s Clubs – Mailed 10 copies of promotional flier to 4 area clubs. Emailed to available email addresses as well. • Lion’s Clubs – Mailed 10 copies of promotional flier to 10 area clubs. Emailed to available email addresses as well. • Show Low Chamber of Commerce – Bill Pederson and Andy Jacobs met with Chamber President Jules Clark. Jules emailed promotional flier to her members.
PRINT MEDIA: • Advertising taken out in all area publications. • Bill Pederson and Andy Jacobs gave personal briefings to the White Mountain Independent and Mogollon Connection on Oct. 21 and Oct. 22. • Articles printed in White Mountain Independent, Mogollon Connection. • Promotional flier emailed to all area publications.
- PAGE 5 -
RADIO: • KVWM/KDJI, KVSL o 10, 30-second ads a day for a week prior to the meeting, 5 ads in the morning drive time, 5 ads in the evening drive time • KRFM, KSNX, KZUA o 10, 30-second ads a day for a week prior to the meeting, 5 ads in the morning drive time, 5 ads in the evening drive time’ • KNAA o 10, 30-second ads a day for a week prior to the meeting, 5 ads in the morning drive time, 5 ads in the evening drive time
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS: o Andy Jacobs and Bill Pederson met with 6 Navajo County officials on Oct. 21 for a briefing. o Andy Jacobs presented to the Navajo County Board of Supervisors meeting on Oct. 21. All 5 supervisors were in attendance, as well as about 20 people from the public. o Andy Jacobs and Bill Pederson met with Show Low City Manager Ed Muder and Public Works Director Ken Patterson for a briefing on Oct. 21. o Bill Pederson presented to the Show Low City Council meeting on Oct. 21. All city council members were in attendance, as well as about 30 people from the public. o Promotional flier emailed to city and county officials in the database. Counties include East Gila County, Navajo County and Apache County, as well as all cities and towns in the region. o Navajo County Public Information Officer Laurie Stradling coordinated with Andy Jacobs to issue a press release on behalf of the county to her contacts countywide. o Information screen ran on Show Low city government TV channel.
Copper County Focus Area
EVENTS Graham County Fair When: Oct. 10 – 11 Time: 9 hours Friday; 8 hours Saturday Presenter: Linda Ritter, Joe Carter, George Sloan, Valynda Sloan Number of fliers distributed: 1,000 (some will post fliers in their place of business) Number of hard hats distributed: 942
- PAGE 6 -
Safford City Council When: Oct. 13 Presenter: Joe Carter Number of fliers distributed: 30
Safford Rotary Club When: Oct. 16 Presenter: Joe Carter Number of fliers distributed: 12
Graham County Board of Supervisors When: Oct. 20 Presenter: Joe Carter Number of fliers distributed: 50
Globe City Council When: Oct. 20 Presenter: Joe Carter Number of fliers distributed: 40
Graham County Chamber of Commerce When: Oct 21 Presenter: Paul David Total number in attendance: 10
Greenlee County Board of Supervisors When: Oct. 21 Presenter: Joe Carter Number of fliers distributed: 40
Safford Lions Club When: Oct. 29 Presenter: Joe Carter Number of fliers distributed: 25
FLIER DISTRIBUTION • San Carlos Apache Tribe – 50 fliers to Council, Transportation Committee and others • Town of Clifton – 25 fliers to the City Manager • Graham County Schools – 50 fliers to the Superintendent • Graham County Chamber of Commerce – 500 fliers in member newsletter • Stakeholder Mailing – e-mail/mail flier to 259 invitees on Oct. 27 and Nov. 3
- PAGE 7 -
• Eastern Arizona Courier – announcement ran in Community Calendar on Nov. 5 • Ft. Thomas Unified School District – 550 fliers for students on Nov. 5 • Thatcher Unified School District – 400 fliers for offices/school events on Nov. 5 • Safford Unified School District – 350 fliers for bulletins/school events on Nov. 5 • Bonita Unified School District – 115 fliers for students on Nov. 5 • Solomon Unified School District – 180 fliers for students on Nov. 5 • Dan Hinton School – 32 fliers for students on Nov. 5 • Discovery Plus Academy – 130 fliers for students and staff on Nov. 5
RADIO KATO/KXKQ, Graham and Greenlee Counties Run dates: Nov. 5 to Nov. 10 Spots: 8 Spot length: 60 seconds Run times: daytime Formats: news talk and sports, country
KFMM/KCUZ-AM, Thatcher Run dates: Nov. 5 to Nov. 10 Spots: 8 Spot length: 60 seconds Run times: daytime
Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Area
EVENTS SEAGO Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Date/Time: Oct. 16 Presenter: Bill Harmon Total in attendance: 11 non-ADOT people Fliers distributed: 25
Willcox City Council Meeting Date/Time: Oct. 20, 7 p.m. Presenter: Bill Harmon Total in attendance: 25 Fliers distributed: 25
Bisbee City Council Meeting Date/Time: Oct. 21, 7 p.m. Presenter: Paul David Total in attendance: 7 Council Members, 20 citizens
- PAGE 8 -
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Date/Time: Oct. 22, 10:30 a.m. Presenter: Linda Ritter Total in attendance: 5 Supervisors, 29 citizens Fliers distributed: 50
Nogales Chamber of Commerce Date/Time: Oct. 30, 9 a.m. Presenter: Greg Gentsch Total in attendance: 12 Fliers distributed: 25
Greater Nogales and Santa Cruz County Port Authority Date/Time: Oct. 30, 10 a.m. Presenter: Greg Gentsch Total in attendance: 31 Fliers distributed: 50
Sierra Vista City Council Date/Time: Nov. 10, 3 p.m. Presenter: Teresa Welborn Total in attendance: 15 Fliers distributed: 70
Nogales City Council Date/Time: Nov. 12, 11 a.m. Presenter: Greg Gentsch Total in attendance: 12 Fliers distributed: 25
Willcox Rotary Luncheon Date/Time: Nov. 12 Presenter: Bill Harmon Total in attendance: 20
Douglas City Council Date/Time: Nov. 12, 6 p.m. Presenter: Bill Harmon
Patagonia City Council Meeting Date/Time: Nov. 12, 7 p.m. Presenter: Linda Ritter Total in attendance: 20 Fliers distributed: 45
- PAGE 9 -
FLIER DISTRIBUTION 366 mailed and e-mailed to contact list on Nov. 4
SCHOOL CONTACT Name of School Qty Sent Apache Middle School 700 Bella Vista Elementary School 425 Benson Middle School 325 Benson Primary School 425 Bisbee Middle School 200 Buena High School 2600 Carmichael Elementary School 950 Cochise Elementary School 100 Colin L. Powell Learning Center 75
Colonel Johnston Elementary, General Myer Elementary and Colonel Smith Middle Schools 1200 Coronado Elementary School 450 CTD – Bowie High School 25 Double Adobe Elementary School 75 Douglas Unified School District #27 4350 Elgin Elementary School 50 Eugene Lopez Learning Center 25 Greenway Primary School 250 Huachuca City School 350 Huachuca Mountain Elementary School 575 Imagine Charter School 450
Joyce Clark Middle School 650 Manuel Bojorquez Learning Center 50 Montessori De Santa Cruz 75
Mountain View, Pena Blanca, Rico Rico, San Cayetano Schools 3500 Nogales Unified District 6000 Palominas Elementary School 425
Patagonia Elementary and Union High Schools 200 Pearce Elementary School 100 Pomerene Elementary School 150 Pueblo Del Sol Elementary School 550 Raul H. Castro Learning Center 100 San Pedro Valley High School 50 San Simon School 100 St David Elementary & High Schools 500 Tombstone High School 325
- PAGE 10 -
Town & Country Elementary School 475 Valley Union High School 175 Valley View Elementary School 225 Village Meadows Elementary School 450 Walter J Meyer School 125 Willcox Elementary School 400 Willcox High School 450 Willcox Middle School 450
Total 29125
ONLINE PUBLICITY CONTACT – FLIERS POSTED City of Benson City of Sierra Vista (video placed on government access TV stations) City of Tubac Cochise County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz County Community Calendar Town of Patagonia Willcox Chamber of Commerce
PHONE CALLS ABF Freight System Aegis Communications Group AGE Construction Bureau of Land Management Carondelet Holy Cross Hospital Citizen Express Lines Cochise Private Industry Council Douglas Chamber of Commerce Fresh Produce Association of the Americas Fry Fire District Greyhound Bus Lines Huachuca Audubon Society International Assemblers L-3 Communications Ilex Systs Maquila International Medina's Trucking Nogales Community Development Corporation Nogales Suburban Fire District
- PAGE 11 -
Northrop Grumman Integrated Parque Industrial de Nogales Roadway Express Santa Cruz County Community Networking Team Sierra Vista Area Chamber of Commerce Sierra Vista Economic Development Foundation Sierra Vista Fire Department Sierra Vista Police Department Sierra Vista Public School District Sierra Vista Regional Health Center Sierra Vista Regional Transit System Southeast Arizona Association of Realtors Southeast Arizona Contractor's Association Starbucks U.S. Customs and Border Protection University of Arizona Wilson-Batiz, L.L.C.
RADIO KTAN-AM/KWCD-FM/KZMK-FM, Sierra Vista Run dates: Nov. 6 to Nov. 16 Spots: 50 Spot length: 60 seconds Run times: Monday to Sunday, 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Formats: News/talk and sports, country Demo: Adults 30-60; 25-54; and 18-49
KOFH-FM 99, Nogales Run dates: Nov. 6 to Nov. 16 Spots: 35, plus 28 live mentions Spot length: 60 seconds Run times: Monday to Friday, 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday to Sunday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Format: Hispanic Demo: Adults 30-45
- PAGE 12 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Copper Country Focus Area
Date: Monday, Nov. 10, 2008
Location: Graham County General Services Building 921 Thatcher Blvd. Safford, AZ 85546
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Workshop is to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to provide three possible future transportation scenarios for the region and receive comments and critique of each scenario; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations.
Team: • ADOT: Jim Zumpf, Linda Ritter • DMJM Harris: Laurel Parker • URS Corporation: Aaron Iverson • SIMG: Joe Carter, Kelly Hawke
Participants – 2:30 p.m. • Dustin Welker, City of Safford • Diane Saunders, Eastern Arizona Courier • Ken Lakie • Gene Fower • John Franzone, Town of Klondyke • Devin Skinner, Arizona Game and Fish • Steve Holmes • Rich Gaar, SEAGO • Larry Nielson • Dottie Rhea • Phil Rhea, AARP DSP • Steve Grau • Randy Petty, City of Safford • Paul David, ADOT Safford District • McCoy Hawkins, Ft. Thomas Fire/Rescue • Tammy Milligan, Freeport-McMoRan • JP Lietar
- PAGE 13 -
• Ivan Pearson • Reva Pearson • Jenny Howard, City of Safford • Michael Bryce, Graham County • Ed Hunter • Kathy Packer • David Packer • Susan Yadon • Toni Strauss, USDA Forest Service • Ginny Schnell, Klondyke • Jay Schnell • Bonnie Garwood
Participants – 5:30 p.m. • Philip Ronnerud • Ken Raines • Taylor Raines • Gerald Bishop • Allen Matthews • Susan Bernstein • Bob Rivera • Brent Morris • John Rains • Barbara Rains • Duane Mumford • Bill Harmon, ADOT • Dale Luce • George Sloan • Valynda Sloan • Maxine Layton • Rick Lines, Safford Public Schools • John Ratje, University of Arizona • Jim Martin, Willcox
The community workshop was called to order at 2:35 pm and at 5:35 pm by Jim Zumpf.
Overview of Presentation Jim Zumpf introduced the project team and asked Rich Gaar with SEAGO to say a few words about the project. Laurel Parker with DMJM Harris gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the need for a framework study, summarizing the process of the entire study, and highlighting why it is important to receive community input. Aaron Iverson with URS Corporation went over the technical details of all three scenarios. After the presentation, groups were instructed to discuss each scenario and write down what they
- PAGE 14 -
liked, what they did not like, what does and does not work for their community, as well as any additional comments they have. The prompts participants were given include:
1. What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft this scenario? 2. What is your reaction to the projects identified in the scenario presented?
About 45 minutes later, Laurel Parker asked each small group to report back to the entire group. Following is a summary of what each group discussed and recorded.
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Group Discussions • Still need short-term improvements that positively affect seniors • Widen 191 at least to 366, and eventually all of the way to I-10; closer to city for congestion purposes • Like the beltway suggestion – bypass; specific size of the bypass to be determined later • Transit would need a greater demand than what is currently needed, but by 2050 it is possible we would need • Like Scenario A the best • Likes the idea of widening the roads to four lanes • Transit to Phoenix and Tucson helpful because Safford does not have a rental car drop-off; round trip • Four lanes encourage more traffic but results in fewer accidents than a two-lane road • Having a frontage road is ideal, especially in agricultural areas • Because of the location, people need individual vehicles • Need additional bicycle lanes and walking paths, especially to Eastern Arizona College • Want a bus service at least one day a week to Morenci and Duncan • Expand airport • With Scenario B likes: commuter transit (Safford to Clifton/Morenci), regional bus service, enhanced local transit in Safford, Pima, and Thatcher • For Scenario A, need four lanes regardless of what you do with transit, or at least lots of passing lanes • Wants a bypass to the north as well as to the south • Need funding for local road and bridge work • More bike and walkways with safe distances from roadway • Wants freeway access only on bypass, no business access • For Scenario B, want regional transit to airports and local transit if convenient and reasonably priced • Wants new route to Morenci • Need to cooperate with mines to help prepare roadbeds.
- PAGE 15 -
• For Scenario A: don’t need a Safford bypass because most traffic is local; need road upgrades to make local travel better; use railroad for Freeport mine to relieve Highway 70 of truck traffic; concern about what will happen to businesses • For Scenario B: won’t support the area because it’s rural with farms and ranches; there are lots of dirt roads; the area is not bicycle friendly; need more local shared-use paths • For Scenario C: works best for metro areas, not Graham County; doesn’t have density to support public; would have to be more predictable • Money needs to be invested in the “core corridor” • Against a bypass through the area • Wants Safford Alternative Route – North side of the Gila River where there is less density and closer to mine entrances; better eases congestion in populated areas; less of a negative impact on residences but alignment may not be feasible; move rail to the north as well along with the alternate route • Commuter transit should be 2-3 times a day for the community to utilize from east to west ends of the county; will help to alleviate local traffic • The four lanes proposed are all very important; US 70 Globe to Safford should be high priority • Wants mass transit to and from Tucson and Phoenix for those who travel to medical appointments and airports • Wants a bike route from Daley Estates to Safford for bikes and walking • Wants railways to Phoenix or Tucson from Safford area and busses to meet needs with arrival • Shorter route from Safford to open pit mines in Morenci • More transit, busses or something else for around our local area • By 2050, Scenario A does not show anything more than what we have now but a bypass at intersection of 70/191 • I-10 bypass needs to be decided and located before any further plans are made • Getting rid of bottlenecks is paramount under any scenario • School bus pullouts should be a high priority • Some type of bus transit is needed • Four lanes are needed between Swift Trail and Highway 70 on Highway 191 • Four lanes are needed on Highway 70 from Safford to San Jose • Four-lane highways should be divided for safety reasons • Frontage roads might help for farm traffic on US 70 • Transit buses may be practical by 2060 • Strongly support Scenario A with slight intrusion of Scenario B • Cars will never be outdated, the fuel may change but we’ll still use cars
- PAGE 16 -
• Safety is of great importance • Don’t need those big busses but the small ones would work best
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Individual Comment Forms What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario A? What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario A? • This makes the most sense for rural areas. Populations are scattered and roads are not organized in a way that will support public transit • Good ideas – roads need widening, but depends on roads and personal cars too much • Scenario A makes the most sense; we need to alleviate the bottlenecks that we have now and increase to four-lane roads because of the heavy use; a bypass would take a tremendous load off the in- town infrastructure • I think you are right; people like using their own vehicle • The roads need to be four lanes from Globe to Safford, 70 to I-10 on 191, 70 to the New Mexico line • Agree with assumptions • Liked the outer loop concept; like to move rail out of town • New four lanes priority – south from Safford • Must have our autos – rural area; love the four lanes; need bypass • Right on target; people won’t give up their cars for busing or light rail; in SE Arizona cars/trucks will become more energy efficient, roads will continue to by expanded in the major corridors with minimal amounts in rural Arizona; smaller communities will not have the population density to support advanced alternative fuels • AZ Eastern railroad passenger rail will not be utilized – no demand – too slow; re-established bus service is possible but low demand makes this a subsidized requirement • I believe with the future transportation the focus will be on less personal vehicles; and more of a focus on commuter transit and bike/foot paths • Very positive; all four highways should be four lanes for traffic capacities and safety; we need an alternative route due to the industry in this community – it will bring more safety, less commercial through traffic while still retaining business traffic • Bypass around populated area to ease traffic in town and cities • Made 191 and 70 four-lane roads • Four lanes upgrade north and south, east and west, very good idea for safety and congestion on Highways 191 and 70; the bypass circling the cities, not just south of town; like north and south beltway • These projects are good for all; let’s start • I agree with the assumptions because we are so rural the personal vehicle is not going away
- PAGE 17 -
• Mixed • Beltway around Safford; priority to have 4 lanes from Safford south to Artesia, HWY 191 • Bus transit for public use Duncan/Safford • Safford/Thatcher area needs to address future needs now! • The bypass would reduce congestion on local streets making it safer for student travel; it also cuts down on the backup of vehicles at bus loading areas and increases time and fuel efficiency for out-of-town trips • Finish 191 from I-10 to Safford at same time as bypass; well-identified bus pullouts; wide bicycle lanes • Luke warm; made up by dreamers without thought
What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario B? What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario B? • Not viable for rural areas without education and incentives • I like the mass transit support; we’re landlocked right now and it’s just not cool; we need transportation to major cities • I think with a huge explosion of growth that it might be a helpful thing but the practicality of it doesn’t seem economical • A bus system would make the most logical sense when the population will sustain it • Public transit will not work in this area, nor bikes or walking • Bike paths need to be far off the road so the driver doesn’t have to dodge the biker; a north bypass of Safford would eliminate mine truck traffic, south would eliminate need to go through Safford to get to 191 • Reasonable to a limited extent • Mass transit later; we will need it later • Like Scenario A better • Like the expanded commuter projects • Not true; oil costs will push more to public transport but individual vehicles, although more efficient, will stay the primary form of transport • Like the bike paths but not on state highways • Make it reasonable; convenient for use • It will take some re-education on the people in the area • Mass transit will be important as well as personal vehicles; bicycling is really doubtful • Need to get trucks to and from mine off Highway 70; pail spur sounds real good; bypass may be a good option • Bike path to EAC • Seniors have to drive as there is very little alternatives • Need to complete short term goals • The trend over the past 25 years is less and less students walking or riding bikes to schools; more parents are bringing their children to
- PAGE 18 -
school and there is little evidence of car pooling for employees or parents • Ideas only – no ground work even thought of concerning railroads, Indian involvement; research/history a must • Luke – ideas only on paper in office; no thoughts given to effects on people; this committee made up only to make governor look good; consult with Boards of Supervisors on projected plans
What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario C? What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario C? • It will work in larger areas and big cities but not in small cities and rural areas • I like the development of bike trails and small bus routes • Seems a little extreme; we will always want our private transportation • Not for this valley except for work maybe • Just don’t think it will work • Like Scenario A best • Like the commuter traffic to Clifton and mines; like regional bus service • I like this but it will occur only in major developed metro city environments like Phoenix and Tucson, but not in rural Arizona • Right idea but not for small rural Arizona • Lack of support • The growth rate in the area has been highest south of town, in the rural areas; the city has not become denser • Bus going to Phoenix over Route 70 and 60 is no picnic; it is better in a car, but not much better; a good rail line would be great but probably cost prohibitive; try building some bike paths and see how they are accepted • The area leaders should focus on growth ASAP • My reaction is cold – you know about growth but projects are not in five years or ten years plans • Sounds good but only noise
What future issues do you foresee affecting future transportation planning in the state? • We need Greyhound service ASAP; We’re like the black sheep of Arizona • For big cities, mass transit is a good idea • Funding – very limited • Growth – fast, now slow, soon (2010+) fast – baby boomers • Need to optimize what we have; not enough money for grand projects • This will take some training and education
- PAGE 19 -
• The economy; things can change so fast as we are seeing now; if the copper industry dries up, this will become a ghost town; there is only cotton after that • Lack of realistic funding – not one of the representatives at meeting knew what state tax on gallon of gas; if you can project why not be in talks with railroad now and Indians now; see if they can foresee cooperation; purchase land now for projected projects while land is cheap; prevent new construction in pathways
Comments Received After the Meeting • The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) is charged with managing wildlife resources, which are held in public trust by the State for the benefit of all citizens. A large part of our mission is dedicated to the aggressive conservation, enhancement, and restoration of these resources for the enjoyment, appreciation, and use by present and future generations. Department staff attended the public outreach meetings and provided you comments on the various alternatives for the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework. This letter follows up these meetings as an addendum and clarification of our comments. This letter addresses only the Copper Country and Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Areas as the Mogollon Rim Area is covered our of our Pinetop office. The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the alternatives at a public workshop but would prefer closer coordination with ADOT, our sister agency. We ask that ADOT meet with us on each framework individually to discuss the extensive impacts each framework may have on wildlife. Strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate losses to wildlife resources should be discussed at the earliest stage possible. The Arizona Game and Fish Department supports a Focused Growth philosophy in conjunction with an increased focus on transit mobility. ADOT should plan for an increase in both public transit and personal mobility options. This increase in capacity should occur within the footprint and existing infrastructure. It appears that none of the scenarios outlined in the Eastern Arizona Framework Study within the Copper County and Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Areas will add significant amounts of infrastructure outside of the existing footprint. The Department therefore does not have major objections to any of the three alternatives. However, all new construction should incorporate wildlife friendly design to facilitate wildlife movement across infrastructure to reduce habitat fragmentation. Roadways and rail lines create barriers to wildlife, increase direct mortality to wildlife, and act as a catalyst for urban sprawl, which results in habitat loss and degradation. By building in the existing footprint and focusing growth in previously disturbed areas, impacts to wildlife are minimized. New construction within the existing footprint can even benefit wildlife when accompanied by wildlife friendly crossing structures and fencing to
- PAGE 20 -
prevent animal/vehicle collisions. The Department has identified over seventy threats to wildlife and habitat in the Arizona Wildlife Action Plan. Habitat loss and fragmentation associated with urban sprawl and transportation infrastructure present the greatest threat to the continued viability of many of Arizona’s wildlife populations. ADOT is in a unique position to direct growth in Arizona and should take a leadership role in this respect. Where transportation infrastructure goes, urban development is likely to follow. As a state with an economy that is heavily dependent on recreation and tourism dollars, and with over two thirds of Arizona’s citizens ranking outdoor experiences, scenic beauty, and wildlife as very important to their quality of life, active planning for smart, focused growth is therefore of utmost importance to the people of this state.
- PAGE 21 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Copper Country Focus Area
Date: Monday, Nov. 13, 2008
Location: Days Inn/JB’s Restaurant Meeting Room 480 W. Deuce of Clubs Show Low, AZ 85901
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Workshop is to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to provide three possible future transportation scenarios for the region and receive comments and critique of each scenario; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations. Team: • ADOT: Jim Zumpf • AECOM: Laurel Parker • URS: Aaron Iverson • PDG: Andy Jacobs, C. Murphy Hebert
Participants – 10 a.m. • Thomas Malone • Doug Muell • Gary Fenstermaker • Chris Fetzor • Don Anderson Cosgrove • Tom Hansen • Jesse Horn • Jules Clark • Bob Saner • Sean Dieterich • Michael Lomayaktewa • Laurie Stradling • Kenneth Patterson • Greg Martin • Jerry Brownlow • Rick Fernau • Veronica Dale • Peggy Saunders • Clyde Holyoak
- PAGE 22 -
• Byron Smith • Ferrin Crosby • Ed Wilson • Jack Husted • Jerry Barnes • Jane Stoke
Participants – 5:30 p.m. • Dorothy Tyler • Rich Monroe • Ed Muder
The community workshop was called to order at 10:30 a.m. and at 5:45 p.m.
Overview of Presentation Laurel Parker introduced the project and the team. She presented parts of the PowerPoint that gave a description of the corridor studies. She explained that the goal was to get an overview of statewide transportation needs and introduced the scenarios. Aaron Iverson provided a more detailed description of the scenario. After the presentation, groups were instructed to discuss each scenario and write down what they liked, what they did not like, what does and does not work for their community, as well as any additional comments they have. The prompts participants were given include:
1. What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft this scenario? 2. What is your reaction to the projects identified in the scenario presented?
During the first meeting, Laurel Parker asked each small group to report back to the entire group at about 11am. As fewer people attended the second meeting a group discussion format was utilized. Following is a summary of the public comments from both sessions.
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Group Discussions • Springerville to St. Johns needs public transportation more than St. Johns to Holbrook. • What are the price tags for the scenarios? • Scenario C gives improvements that are necessary. • Change the priorities to St. John’s and Show Low and Springerville and Show Low. • The improvements on bike paths in St Johns are not needed. Don’t improve paths in rural areas. Spend that money on highway improvements. • Scenario B is more logical, including the shuttle bus, in rural areas. • In areas that are denser in population, scenario C is more logical.
- PAGE 23 -
• No bike paths in St. Johns but Show Low needs a safe way for bikes to go along White Mountain Road to Pinetop/Lakeside. • Extend the sidewalks from the Deuce of Clubs to Pinetop Lakeside. • We need to (extend sidewalks) here in Show Low. • Any 10-mile stretch should be bikeable and made safe. • This study is 42 years in the future. It might be entirely different from what we need today. It’s important to note that we are looking toward the future. • I moved to St. Johns in 1976 and the roads, commutes are better, faster, and safer. Whoever is planning this did a good job. • We need a transit system for our elderly so they can get to the doctors, pick up medicine and groceries. Area Agency on Aging representative mentioned this should be included in Scenario B. • The two new roadways are not addressing the public need to commute between Heber and Springerville. • Regional transportation in this area needs to make sure there are enough busses so that bikers don’t have to wait for empty racks. • It’s hard to compare all three scenarios. The scope is too broad. Some things are needed today and some not until later. It’s hard to forecast. • Better modeling numbers would be helpful for local transportation planners. • There are good points in all scenarios. • Bus systems should meet the needs of people in the area • Bus and rail is not going to happen. • We need the roads today maintained and some shoulders put on them • By the time ADOT can fund one percent of this project, the fixes will be outdated • What do you hope to accomplish? • I am concerned about the model’s high numbers. Today is will be high numbers. Ten years from now – the model would have helped if we saw some numbers. • All three scenarios are addressing statewide issues. • The 60 is pathetic. • Is this state looking to tie in with New Mexico, other states? East-West connectivity. • Options for truckers in case of bad weather like New Mexico. Better access to interstate systems and better shoulders. • This is asking us to extrapolate so for in the future. We should limit our forecasting to 10 years down the road. • Scenario B would be the best one to consider for this area and scenario c for areas with a lot of population density. • Let the federal government take care of the roads and let the states focus on their roads. • The feds should step up. • How soon would we see something come into this community?
- PAGE 24 -
• I’m surprised to see that there is nothing about improving the route between St. John’s and Show Low. • Congestion on the road from Globe to Show Low and going to Phoenix you see a steady stream of traffic there. • Are the maps on the website? • We need a bike only land on SR77 up US 60 to Why intersection. Could we designate shoulders as bike lanes? • Are these scenarios equitable? • How are you going to pay for it? • These are concepts without dollars. This way you can choose the best one and then find the money somehow. • It’s very fluid. • What kind of participation have you gotten from the tribe? • Have you had specific input from towns? • Stress bikes, we live in such a vast area. I don’t think people would bike out of town. • There is a lot of talk about energy and alternative fuels. Encourage those types of things more. Everything depends on price of fuel. • There will be no immediate weaning of American public from their cars. • There’s nothing in here about scooters. We should have a scooter lane it would nice and safer. • I don’t know if I would feel safe driving through Show Low, Pinetop and Lakeside. There’s barely enough room on the sidewalks to walk. • When they redid the highway to Pinetop there was a plan for a bike lane. • The 73 is dangers for bikes. • It would be nice to have a plan for the reservation. • It’s hard to know anything. Is Show Low expanding the bus system? • Other than I-40 – it’s very hard to get across the state. The east/west connection deserves comment. • It’s expensive to improve highways. • What are you going to do here? • I go east on the 60 a lot. It’s a heck of a road … but then it peters out. • Once blasting (for new routes) is done, I don’t see any environmental impact. • You’re looking for some guidelines? • We need bike paths. • The road (191) is the reason for the volume of traffic. • When we evacuated (from the forest fires) we went to Tucson through New Mexico because the roads need to be improved. • Are you going to build up any of Route 66, as a historical point? It’s a good bike ride. • We need a seasonal transit system to the ski resort for people who want to go skiing.
- PAGE 25 -
• The roundabouts in Sedona – I think they are effective. • Did you work with the City of Show Low to get their transit? • You’re looking for ideas and suggestions for the long term. • Presentations to the residents are a good idea.
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Individual Comment Forms What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario A? • Good. It will be hard for rural Arizona to accept public transit. • Least progressive of all given dependence on current travel modes. If growth is anticipated, I feel it is wise to plan for more diverse and responsible transportation. Responsible in the sense of preserving the area’s attributes. • For congestion and mitigation and future routes, I think this is the best alternative. • Needed for existing communities. Need to link existing communities with mass transit. • Probably true – hard to get people out of their cars. • Too simplistic, there are so many variables that drive the uses, it can’t be narrowed down to either/or, it is logical to conclude a combination is necessary. It seems to me, whatever scenario you choose depends on the needs for each region. The Mogollon Rim region (out) of necessity will continue to depend on personal vehicle mobility. (General statements about all scenarios) • I believe these assumptions are right on. People are going to continue to use personal vehicles as primary transportation. I believe there will be new and affordable fuels developed. • Don’t completely agree. If the economy continues to struggle, more and more people will use mass transit.
What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario A? • Good. • Concerned with fragmentation of open lands that will result from new roadways. Important values tied to wildlife corridors/habitats will serve to compromise area’s natural values and attributes through time. Rim road corridor, in particular, would be a shame. • Projects seem to address vital needs, particularly the addition of the bypass route in Payson, the Rim Road and the improvement of the Concho-Snowflake Highway. • Hard to visualize six lanes from Show Low to Star Valley but projected growth must justify. • Need better east-west route (P-L to Sedona/Prescott). Improvements good so far, but more are needed. • We need four lanes from St. Johns to Show Low, more than four lanes from Concho to Snowflake, although both would be nice. Four lanes
- PAGE 26 -
from Springerville to St. Johns is not as critical as just adding passing lanes at given places. The section from Sanders to St. Johns needs improvement, can be promoted as shorter, more scenic route from Phoenix to Albuquerque. • All projects are either needed now or within the next ten years. I don’t see any funding source that is going to make that happen. • Shift focus from personal vehicles to transit infrastructure development.
What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario B? • Don’t believe public transit will work. If so, it will be a very small percent. • Fine. Emphasis on public transit is good, while accommodating economic development. • The transit idea while becoming more and more needed for a smaller group of citizens does not address other needs that are needed sooner than later. • Better scenario than A – for existing facilities need mass transportation. • To encourage bicycling will require many good (separate) bike lanes. • Add St. Johns and Springerville • Somewhat on a limited bases mostly used in urban areas • No question that bikes and walking should be increases in various cities, but cars and transit are required between cities. Cars, I think, will still dominate. • Really, really focus on public transit with development of dial-a-ride for elderly and handicapped residents.
What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario B? • Need public transit between Springerville and St. Johns. St. Johns is our county seat. • Local communities would be critical to evaluating public transit options and networks. Use of existing roadways, and minimizing incremental impact/consumption of additional lands is favorable, compared to Scenario A. More options for public transit are also favorable. • Transit routes on 180 between St. Johns and Springerville are more needed than St. Johns to Holbrook. • Hard to believe all those bus routes. (Will people support – or stay in their cars?) • Same as above • Need improvements from St. Johns to Show Low • Critical to the continued development of our communities.
What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario C? • Public transit will be a hard sell.
- PAGE 27 -
• Implies a major shift in behavior for folks that are used to current travel modes/practices – but appreciate the vision. • By splitting the two scenarios A&B into a C dilutes the overall effectiveness of the other two scenarios. • “Form” planning is required to force denser planning. • Probably best scenario because transportation problems need to be attacked from all sides – not just wider roads. • Very logical for overall planning statewide. I think transit is the only real necessary addition to what we have now or need in the future. • Don’t believe that this will ever happen in rural Arizona. Busses and trains don’t work in rural Arizona – waste of money, except on limited basis. • Shift away from personal vehicles as primary travel choice, to ensure equal access of community resources for all.
What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario C? • Need transit between Springerville and St. Johns, Springerville and Show Low. • Emphasis on town/city walking and bicycle trails is good – and will hopefully generate use and interest. Area’s inclement weather during winter may create engineering and utilization issues over long term. • Need state initiative that requires form-based planning for communities larger than (x) 20 homes. • Positive – bike lane along Penrod Road P-L to SL would be good. Also, bike lane (Honda to P-L) is needed. (Is this in immediate future?) • Need improvements from St. Johns to Show Low. • Same as above. • All projects sound good, but not all are necessary (biking and walking only possible part of our year. We’re a four-season community!)
What future issues do you foresee affecting future transportation planning in the state? • Are there any case studies for public transit in a rural area like Eastern Arizona? • Ongoing transportation planning will hopefully give due consideration to maintaining area’s natural values that attract the growth. Wildlife corridors and linkages, in particular, will hopefully be considered along with public convenience – we have too much public land (e.g. USFS) along many transportation corridors for these issues to be overlooked or short-sided. • Past, present and future – maintenance of what we already have. • Money – lack thereof. Reduced funding to less hydrocarbon fuel consumption. Need different revenue source – vehicle tax.
- PAGE 28 -
• More cars need better roads – alternatives are: smaller better cars, mass transit (bullet trains???) fast buses??? Bike lanes – especially on 10-20 mile routes maybe by 2050 hover craft, moving sidewalks. • Emphasis on PPPs. Funding availability, what is the source? Don’t require smart growth as prerequisite for funding. • The models, in most areas for 2005, are off by over 400 percent now compared to ADOT actual traffic counts. The state must fund maintenance of the existing system before building new roads or systems. Before one percent of the projects in these scenarios are funded this study will be out of date. If ADOT is concerned- big contractor having work and the economy (gets) worse then let out more maintenance contracts. One last comment, the federal government built the interstate system. They need to maintain it, not the individual states. • Uncertainty in federal funding, energy prices affecting gas prices. • Providing reliable, safe and dependable transportation for the growing elderly population. Transportation for our aging increases proper healthcare, nourishment and decreases costs to Medicare and AHCCCS. • Thank you.
Event Evaluation Form Summary Three forms were submitted rating the event. Below is a summary of the ratings on a scale between 1 and 4, 4 being the highest rating.
Topic 3, 4, 3 Understandability of Materials 3, 2, 2.5 Understandability of Presentations 3, 2, 2.5 Group Size 3, 2, 3 Meeting Facilities 3, 3, 3 Length of Meeting 3, 3, 3 Facilitators 3, 3, 2.5
Comments • Some screens colors hard to see • Wish there were more present
What did you like most about your participation in this event? • Chance for input • All scenarios need pieces from each
What did you dislike or what would you change? • All
- PAGE 29 -
Should this type of event continue to be used in the future to educate the public and receive input from the community? Why? • Yes, any opportunity to get buy in and feedback is helpful • Yes, wish more people would attend to see how bad funds are to fix the ADOT road system.
Please provide us any other comments to assist in improving this process or project. • I guess when Arizona citizens are driving on dirt roads again, they will care more about funding ADOT maintenance.
- PAGE 30 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Area
Date: Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008
Location: Windemere Hotel 2047 S. Hwy. 92 Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Workshop is to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to provide three possible future transportation scenarios for the region and receive comments and critique of each scenario; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations.
Team: • ADOT: Jim Zumpf, Linda Ritter • AECOM: Laurel Parker • URS Corporation: Aaron Iverson • Gordley Design Group: Angie Brown, Melissa Benton
Participants – 2:30 p.m. • Benny Young, Cochise County • Richard Cayer, City of Sierra Vista • Tim Quarto • Diane Quarto • Tom Alinen, Sierra Vista Police Department • David Hulme, TAC (Bisbee) • Gilberto Fuentes Jr., Sierra Vista Police Department • Bill Harmon, ADOT Safford District • Rich Gaar, SEAGO • Nacho Blanco, City of Sierra Vista • Rick Mueller, City of Sierra Vista • E. Hassel • Karen Ferguson, Cochise Liberty Alliance • Ed Honda, Sierra Vista Herald • D.R. Brofer • Sandy Cabral • Sandy Kunzer • Jacquenline O’Connor
- PAGE 31 -
• Tricia Gerrodette • Joan Murphy • Laura Ory, Sierra Vista Herald • Rose Mandell • RB Garden • John Faust • Don Brush, City of Sierra Vista • Nancy-Jean Welker, Bowie Chamber of Commerce • Joe Krups, First West Prop. • John Sawyer • Gene Fenstermacher, Greater Sierra Vista Area Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee • Tom Reardon, Sierra Vista City Council • Mike Guest, Huachuca Audubon • D. Holyoak • Jeff Pregler, City of Sierra Vista • Lourdes Mendez, Governor’s Council on Dev. Disabilities (Region 6) • John Millran, Arizona Game & Fish • F. Moro, First West
Participants – 5:30 p.m. • David Gilcreest • Dianna Dimick • Wayne Lavindev • Rich Gaar • Joe Black • Jeff Stoddard, City of Willcox • Robert Weissler, Huachuca Audubon • Steve Scheumann • Alice & John Dehaam • Tia Faulconey, Sierra Vista School District • Karen Lamberton, Cochise County • Dave Bonner, City of Willcox • J. Smith-Tingle • Joe Flynn • Beverly Wilson • Beth Dechant
The community workshops were called to order at 2:35 p.m. and at 5:35 p.m. by Jim Zumpf.
Overview of Presentation Jim Zumpf introduced the project team and asked Rich Gaar with SEAGO to say a few words about the project. Laurel Parker with AECOM gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the need for a framework study,
- PAGE 32 -
summarizing the process of the entire study, and highlighting why it is important to receive community input. Aaron Iverson with URS Corporation went over the technical details of all three scenarios. After the presentation, groups were instructed to discuss each scenario and write down what they liked, what they did not like, what does and does not work for their community, as well as any additional comments they have. The prompts participants were given include:
1. What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft this scenario? 2. What is your reaction to the projects identified in the scenario presented?
About 45 minutes later, Laurel Parker asked each small group to report back to the entire group. Following is a summary of what each group discussed and recorded.
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Group Discussions • Do any assumptions consider a network of low-speed roads that a federally defined, low-speed vehicle could legally use? • Are you looking at heavy rail to take truck traffic across Arizona? • Do your projects fall into the $500 million strategic plan for Cochise County? Who will pay for your projects? • Scenario A: o Four lanes Sierra Vista to Bisbee o Four lanes on Charleston, add traffic due to proposed residential and industrial growth in 40 years o Infill development/higher densities priority facilitate infill development, focus transportation needs, access o Access – less access points on highway system, focus on existing access o Too heavily oriented toward vehicular traffic (traditional vehicles) o Promotes sprawl • Scenario B: o Move more people into inner-cities o Passenger railroad route difficult, some easements gone, rails gone and riparian area difficulties – oppose project o Highway 90 bus route (inter-city) is a good idea to Safford, Benson o Enhanced freight rail is a good thing o Bicycle/pedestrian routes not on plan • Scenario C: o Bicycle/pedestrian routes not on plan
- PAGE 33 -
o Complete streets is a great concept – including multi-use paths and connection to businesses – striped path for low-speed vehicles • Light rail from Sierra Vista to Tucson and Phoenix • Planned community with shopping, etc., within walking distance • Limit unplanned growth, preserve open space • No interest in Scenario A • Scenario B supports bus lines and rail lines, and widens and upgrade roadways • Two for Scenario C, two for Scenario B • Use same route for rail/bus – same corridor • Provide electric car rental and bus/rail terminals • Convert I-10/U.S.191 traffic interchange at exit 331 to a diamond configuration to accommodate over-height loads and remove oversize loads from County routes • For Scenario A, southern California is a perfect example: widening lanes, but once the roadways are finished, they are crowded and congested • Walking or riding bikes in 100-degree weather • Scenarios A and C are the same, except for bike and pedestrian projects • Scenario B would mean going against the environmentalists • Maintain the roads we have now • Not having to wait two to three hours for transportation system that is there consistently when passenger needs it (speed and accessibility needs); need high-speed rail system, costs • Charging outsiders more, but that keep people from coming here • Focus growth around a rail system • Need to teach younger generation on using a transit system • Majority believe car still primary with fuel improvements • Scenario C: o Loops around I-10 o Concerned about financing o 191 needed improved rail • Scenario B: o Feel is more diversified – diversification is the key to not over- loading one system o Financing? Use local o Keep bypass option open • Don’t forget about Sierra Vista growth to the south • Land use should be overlaid on your maps to make sense of it • These are all focused on major roadways; will there be a parallel path east of Highway 92 to help support growth instead of widening Highway 92?
- PAGE 34 -
• I’d rather see small buses than larger buses, similar to the jitneys in Hawaii and Korea • If development occurs on the east side of Sierra Vista, it would bring the attention of national environmental groups, due to the San Pedro River; housing can be no closer than two miles to the river • Roads cause development • A bypass would make things worse • We drive our own cars because it’s a dispersed area • Public transportation is for a dense population, which we don’t and won’t have • Wider roads guarantee more cars, which will make things worse • The aging population will need public transportation • I use a golf cart to get around • I have to travel to the Tucson International Airport, and I weigh cost and convenience when I think about public vs. private transportation • Public transit needs to be convenient and cost-efficient • You need to take into consideration what personal vehicles will look like in 2050 • I obtained a 70,000-mile degree commuting between Sierra Vista and Tucson; public transit would have helped • There are already vanpools to the post • A lot of people are not aware of transit options currently in place • Sierra Vista and Cochise County should not be helping development; they should be controlling it • Federal and State law make it hard for cities and counties to control what people do with their land (lot-splitting/selling) • Exponential growth is here and will continue • You need to get a better handle on transit needs • Cochise County is doing a model on transit out to 2040 • Because growth and development is not controlled, you need to hedge your bets and prioritize • Do we want our area to look like Phoenix or like Portland? • There’s a safety issue for sharing equestian/bicycle/pedestrian trails with electric vehicles • Crystal City in Georgia has golf cart paths • Electric cars are allowed on post, at some hospitals in Tucson and at the UA • I teach in Elgin and we need road improvements, because a lot of semi-trucks and other wide loads come through and it’s very unsafe • Davis Road needs improvement • Willcox doesn’t have much distance to cover; not much of a need for transit, but perhaps a small taxi system • Willcox is interested in what’s coming on I-10 and whether or not Douglas gets a port of entry, which could be good for warehousing and putting freight on trains
- PAGE 35 -
• Some people in Willcox work in Tucson • Willcox is trying to improve their hospital, but people still go to Tucson • Have you gotten input from Union Pacific Railroad on this? • Rail use is increasing • Chicago uses a freight line for passenger use • Transit in rural areas will not work without heavy subsidies • Scenario A is the best • This is a big area – Cochise County alone is bigger than some states back east • People vote with their checkbook • The more people take transit, the cheaper it will be; the more it grows, the more people will take it • Road-building should not follow bad planning • Vehicles have hidden subsidies • Does the City of Sierra Vista feel the responsibility to inform us of pros and cons of different types of growth? • 60 percent of the local economy is due to Fort Huachuca • Whatever traffic plan you come up with should think about the post and making things safer • Facility flow facilitates sprawl
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Individual Comment Forms What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario A? What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario A? • Would lead to more pollution and the continued use of the auto to the detriment of us. It would only lead to increased growth, increased use of autos, increased pollution, more highway deaths and a call for further widenings. In other words, a continuing sprawl. • Would like more of a balance with more modern. • Don’t see need for four lanes on Charleston east of Buena. • Last-century mistake. Will be full right after completion. • No adequately factoring in peak oil cost of fuel, or future regulations to deal with global warming and carbon emissions. • I like the idea of maintaining the roads, and the thought of using personal vehicles for means of transportation. Infrastructure stays the same, could use more support for affordable clean vehicles to support cost and availability. • Need bypass around Tucson and Phoenix. Rail system would also do. • Unacceptable: not valid if public transportation augmented. More of the same old-same old. Bike and pedestrian facilities are of little consequence. • Price of fuel in today’s range not realistic. Okay in the sense that it represents more of the same assuming fossil fuel supplies. Hard to access because the most likely transportation requirements out to
- PAGE 36 -
2050 were never started. Hense, there is no way to evaluate listed activities since requirements are unknown. • (1-assumptions) My reactions to this scenario are that it is an already questionable, and outdated, approach to future transportation. While we will still retain individual modes of getting about, they will be more varied, smaller and, if automated, more fuel efficient of necessity. So how will roads need to be re-designed for safety of walkers, bikers, and these new smaller, slower vehicles. Also when you shrink the roadways for these new small vehicles, how will trucks be accommodated (will we need separate, wider roadways for trucks? Personally that makes sense to me and I’ll even agree to help pay for their separate, larger lanes, to have them off my road). (2-projects) Given the above, why would I want to see I-10 and S.R. 90/92, etc. widened? Transit systems should be expanded while roadway projects cut way back. Bike/pedestrian projects should be expanded independent of roadway projects. Our current roadway system design is not the model for the future.
What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario B? What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario B? • The public would need time to adjust to the weaning away from their cars. There would have to be acceptance of initial losses due to low ridership. Train lines should be slated to high-density cities – Tucson and Phoenix – so that those in Cochise County would arrive at hubs (airport and train centers) and where medical centers are located. Space lanes – parking – whatever – should be available at termination points for connecting buses, trains or cars to make train/bus-user friendly. • As we study the scenarios, we need to realize the diversity of Cochise County. I believe Scenario B addresses this diversity. I am definitely impressed with the railway improvements north and south. This needs to be done for passengers and goods. • Most appropriate to this area. We feel most will want to maintain personal vehicle use. • Looks good. • 60 percent transit, pedestrian, bicycle and slow vehicles. 40 percent highways. • Rail line through San Pedro riparian area unlikely to happen/shouldn’t happen. Good focus on inter-city bus. • The assumption of maintaining the transportation modes as they are with improving the public transit system. I like this system, especially if the availability for structured, dependable system offers more diversity. • Walking/cycling unlikely to ever be a prominent choice. Distance from housing and stores/shops too far. Six-miles plus high summer
- PAGE 37 -
temperatures and monsoon rains are other factors. Transit except with Sierra Vista is non-excessive. Transit bus to Tucson great idea. Railroad by San Pedro – no. Improved 92 – yes. 90 questionable. • Could be improved by adding lanes for low-speed vehicles (golf carts, etc.) Like the rail system. • Best scenario. • (1-assumptions) My reaction is that this is a more likely, but still not fully developed, scenario by car-enthusiasts. Personal vehicles will remain, but their look will be drastically different and availability expanded. I hope options like neighborhood rentals for small, fuel- efficient motorized vehicles will make purchasing a car unnecessary. Let me walk, bike, scoot around and rent a car occasionally for longer trips. With public transit available to work or longer distances, why do I need a car sitting in my garage all day absorbing such a chunk of my budget? (2-projects) Ditto A – I do like the intercity rail from Tucson to Phoenix (not only Tucson) but not via Bisbee and Sierra Vista. Not cost (or ecologically) effective. Have a transfer station somewhere to connect to the rail lines and bus service to the transfer station. I’d like lots of bike/pedestrian emphasis, but again, independent of roadway projects. Who says I have to have vehicles if I want bike lanes and walkways?
What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft Scenario C? What is your reaction to the projects identified in Scenario C? • A little late for this, but a good idea for future growth with the addition of public transport between cities and towns or enclaves. Would take a great deal of compliance and a resetting of mind sets of both builders and potential buyers, plus it would not address the needs of the many people already in the area, plus the growth, while this idea takes hold. • Would be fine probably in Phoenix or Tucson. • Don’t see need to widen Charleston to four lanes beyond Buena. • Get rid of the highway extensions and it’s a pretty good plan. • Like Scenario A, not adequately dealing with global warming, carbon emissions or peak oil. Don’t like the roadway widenings. Like the inter- city bus ideas. • I don’t think that people are ready to change the shift from personal vehicles to other modes, like non-auto-dependent modes. Even if this would happen, there would still be issues with pedestrian/bicycling traffic. Agree: Transportation improvements encourage more growth patterns in towns and cities, and increasing local travel using transit, bicycling and walking. • Never in this area. Okay for new towns possible in future. Improvements in roads would not be required.
- PAGE 38 -
• Like the addition of walk/bike lanes and like areas. Also need to be considerate of wildlife and nature areas. Need to consider lanes and roads for electric cars and/or golf carts. • Second best scenario. • (1-assumptions) My reaction is this is the goal to strive for in the future: transit, bikes, walking and clustered housing leaving open space between towns. Current development of 4du/1ac should be minimized (and will be when full development impact fees are universal). All developers should be charged for any new development through impact fees including land for school sites. (2-assumptions) Regional bus service and enhanced local transit is very desirable as is bike/pedestrian projects. No widening of existing roads period. No installation of new state roads unless developers want to pay for it and it meets an obvious need other than just serving a new bit of humanity. Certainly homeland security needs to be part of any evaluation of the need and a cost/benefit should be calculated on all new roads or road expansions.
What future issues do you foresee affecting future transportation planning in the state? • Price of fuel, aging population of state, “green” issues, health issues due to auto use. • I see the “cookie-cutter approach” affecting EVERYTHING in this state. We need diversity to improve life for each area. I believe we need to keep the I-10 Phoenix-Tucson Bypass an option also! • Competitive contracts, keep the work locally, we’re tired of having our money wasted! • Water, water, water! • Pay much more attention to global warming, carbon emissions, WCI. Always questions the assumptions feeding into your models. • Trying to keep rural Arizona and wildlife/nature areas a top consideration. • I was called out of town and I regret not being able to attend. My point in discussion is please explore how we can start changing over our cars to LNG. That holds precedent over wind power, which economically is a joke. At least 90% of conventional now generated power has to be available at all times when there is no wind. More highways will wait. Thank you for listening. • On Nov 18th, I attended your workshop in Sierra Vista. I left early simply because my small group went into the ozone layer arguing about funding dollars and “how they did things” in California. I really thought your scenarios were well thought out and the assumptions were excellent. Unfortunately, I agree with you that personal vehicles will be the primary mode of transportation in rural areas of Arizona. The only thing I have to offer is reference to Scenario A, I would like to
- PAGE 39 -
see State Route 82 between State Routes 90 and 80 widen to four lanes. When State Route 90 gets shutdown anywhere between Sierra Vista and Interstate 10, 82 becomes a very busy highway. Otherwise, excellent job on the workshops. • Where may I view the Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy and Critical Needs Study? Could you send a copy to my library in Sierra Vista to view? • On page 2-131 of your Statewide Transportation Planning Framework for Eastern Arizona under Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus area you have Cochise County and Santa Cruz cities backwards: “Major cities within Cochise County include the City of Nogales, and the Town of Patagonia.” Nope. That’s Santa Cruz. Cochise County has Benson, Bisbee, etc. You’ve probably already caught this, but just in case. • When will state transportation agencies include a cost/benefit analysis of all proposed projects (number of people to cost per mile). Laying new roads in rural areas, especially, only encourages rapid unplanned growth. Communal is the new transit strategy, not individual drivers in their own “bubble.” Isolation is passé.
Comments Received Online • On Nov 18th, I attended your workshop in SV. I left early simply because my small group went into the ozone layer arguing about funding dollars and "how they did things" in California. I really thought your scenarios were very well thought out and the assumptions were excellent. Unfortunately, I agree with you that personal vehicles will be the primary mode of transportation in rural areas of Arizona. The only thing I have to offer is reference Scenario A, I would like to see State Route 82 between State Routes 90 and 80 widen to four lanes. When State Route 90 gets shutdown anywhere between Sierra Vista and Interstate 10, 82 becomes a very busy highway. Otherwise, excellent job on the workshops. • Scenario A: Assumptions: Climate change and peak oil make the car an impractical choice or the future of transportation. The era of cheap oil is over. Besides, Southern California demonstrates the consequences of shaping our cities and transportation around the automobile. Any assumptions about growth to 14 million are just not possible. Climate change and its predicted water stress will make that a very bad assumption. We need to stop pretending we can circumvent a depleted planet. Projects: pointless and counter productive. Scenario B: Assumptions: About the same as A. Those are global factors and to ignore them is folly. You can't solve problems meaningfully in the wrong context. Projects: Inadequate mass transit. Scenario C: Assumptions: See Scenario A. Compact growth is essential. Sprawl is what got us into this mess and won't get us out of it. Projects: Don't go far enough with public transportation. We simply
- PAGE 40 -
can't continue on the current path.
- PAGE 41 -
Community Workshop Summary Notes
Meeting: Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study Community Workshop – Cochise-Santa Cruz Focus Area
Date: Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2008
Location: Holiday Inn 850 W. Shell Road Nogales, AZ 85621
Purpose: The purpose of the Community Workshop is to inform the public and interested parties about the Eastern Arizona Regional Framework Study process and activities; to provide three possible future transportation scenarios for the region and receive comments and critique of each scenario; and to encourage participants to provide additional ideas and recommendations.
Team: • ADOT: Jim Zumpf, Linda Ritter • AECOM: Laurel Parker • URS Corporation: Aaron Iverson • Gordley Design Group: Angie Brown, Melissa Benton, Arizeder Urreiztieta
Participants – 2:30 p.m. • Kurt Bahti, Arizona Game and Fish • Jim Barr, Mariposa Properties • Joe Barr, Mariposa Properties • Armida Diaz • Richard Gaar, SEAGO • Nohe Garcia • Juan Gonzalez • Cornelia O’Connor, META • Sergio Rosas, Nogales Police Department • Rene Salazar • Jesus Valdez, Santa Cruz County
Participants – 5:30 p.m. • Chris Fleming • Nancy Fleming • Richard Gaar • Denise Holley
- PAGE 42 -
• Bobbie Lundstrom, AZ Transportation Board • Marshall Magruder • David Mendez • Lourdes Mendez, AZ Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities • Carmen Noriega, Santa Cruz Council on Aging • Alfonso Varela
The community workshops were called to order at 2:35 p.m. and at 5:35 p.m. by Jim Zumpf.
Overview of Presentation Jim Zumpf introduced the project team and asked Rich Gaar with SEAGO to say a few words about the project. Laurel Parker with AECOM gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the need for a framework study, summarizing the process of the entire study, and highlighting why it is important to receive community input. Aaron Iverson with URS Corporation went over the technical details of all three scenarios. After the presentation, groups were instructed to discuss each scenario and write down what they liked, what they did not like, what does and does not work for their community, as well as any additional comments they have. The prompts participants were given include:
3. What is your reaction to the assumptions used to craft this scenario? 4. What is your reaction to the projects identified in the scenario presented?
About 45 minutes later, Laurel Parker asked each small group to report back to the entire group. Following is a summary of what each group discussed and recorded.
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Group Discussions • Consumers – bus transportation terrible. Expensive and not doing job. Need better transportation, especially for Seniors and disabled folks • Concern – live near hospital and high school – Mariposa/Target Ranch Road. No streetlights or traffic lights; a lot of fatal accidents. Need for safety improvements for entire community. • Transit needs to be convenient. • Golf cart friendly in compact areas • Need additional truck route to access I-10 East. Protect SR 82 • Need to deal with truck traffic freight convoy from the port • Multimodal facility in Nogales • Utilize rail system for freight • I-19 corridor investment • Need to know who is using I-19 and why • Transit needs to be connected.
- PAGE 43 -
• Personal vehicles will remain important (as in technology) • Need investment in transit by 2050 • Scenario B: o Interested in public transit o Expand Nogales rides o Safety • Scenario C does not use passenger rail? • The chosen plan needs to be community-specific. • An individual study was taken of the buses in Nogales by Community Networking Team: o There are thirteen privately owned buses in Nogales. Of these thirteen, two were available to answer questions. o Each bus had the same rate and same route. o Some buses were specific to ages 65 and over. o Bus stop benches were not used for bus purposes. o No route existed to the hospital, Rio Rico, etc. o Bus service currently ends at 7pm o The timing of buses from Mexico to Tucson are not regular o There is a need for established buses, such as in plan B or C. • Is air transportation included? There is a need for air transportation. • Is this study integrated into state planning? State planning might find plan B most plausible. • 50% of adults in Nogales have diabetes. This shows a need for transit. • There needs to be one or two established transit systems in place. • The local government needs to be addressed with the transit issue. • People need reliability to take the bus to and from work. • Safety of buses is also a concern. Current buses are not ADA compliant. • Shuttles currently exist on I-19. • Shuttles are not required to have seatbelts. Seatbelts are only required for carseats. • In current shuttles, heaters and seatbelts are broken. • There is no set time for shuttle departure. • ADOT has sponsored lights intended to let buses know when to stop. • There was an article in the Tucson paper about the cost of infrastructure. • Rail from Nogales to Phoenix can be negotiated with Union Pacific. • Does either plan contain more rail than the other? • Rails and buses need to be coordinated and work out of the same terminal. • The communities that people want to relocate to are those with transit. • Santa Cruz is set up to be more urban in the south and more rural to the north.
- PAGE 44 -
• Route to the airport connecting two highways so that people do not have to go through the city. • The port is in terrible shape. There was a plan to improve the port. • Nogales is the drug traffic route to the United States. There need to be x-rays for trucks at checkpoints. • Checkpoint will become eight lanes. • The port authority has been working to get funding to upgrade the port. • A direct route from Ruby to the border is needed. • The topography of Nogales is hard to work with. • What is the time frame of the goals of this study? • A high-speed rail line is needed to connect Flagstaff to Nogales. • A train station should never be built without a bus terminal in the same location. • Land use should drive transportation, not the other way around. • When light rail is put into place, land use is changed. • What agency put in the bus benches? • Are demographics carefully considered in this study? • Green Valley is in need of labor from Nogales. How do you connect the two cities? • Transportation is the outcome of demographics. • Does ADOT have a permanent liaison with State planning? The State planning board is generating information from municipalities. • Warehouse locations are not planned with the transportation system. • 18-wheelers are blocking Grande Avenue. There is a need for large enough turning circles for these trucks. • Developments come into place when ranchers decide to sell their land at random. This is not adequate land planning. • Power plants need to be built in Nogales. • A 100 million dollar power plant would positively change the whole city of Nogales. • Transportation to and from schools needs to be coordinated. • There is a need for frontage roads all along I-19. The border patrol will be against this. • There is a concern for the length of school bus routes in Rio Rico. • We are hurting our kids by making them spend two hours a day in a bus. This is part of Smart growth. • Bike lanes are needed on S.R. 83. Railroad tracks should not be abandoned. They should be converted to bike lanes. • How immediately can small improvements, such as bike lanes, be put into affect? • Some communities are better at getting funding than others. For example, Tucson is ranked 3rd in the nation for its bicycle lanes. • The City of Nogales needs to provide forum for transportation discussions. This is not happening.
- PAGE 45 -
• Information isn’t disseminated into the community by the government. • There is a need for a transportation commission. • A joint task commission is going to be reinstated. There needs to be a transportation committee. • The Community Networking Team was trying to form a citizen transportation advisory committee, but there was no follow-through. • Could you send us an email with all of the attendees of this meeting? • What is the next step of action for this transportation study? • Could we also be sent the meeting notes from this evening? • It is important to get multiple groups of people involved, such as the police, EMT, etc. • Frontage Road and Country Club Road are bad for emergencies. • There is a wait for signs on two local scenic routes. • There is a possibility for Rosemont Mine, and three additional mines, to be built on a scenic route. This could pose major transportation problems. • There are not enough local paved roads in existence.
Summary of Community Workshop Input from Individual Comment Forms None were received for the Nogales meetings.
- PAGE 46 -
Appendix B
Definitions Used with Evaluation Criteria
June 2009
Definitions for Statewide (Regional) Frameworks Evaluation Criteria Revised August 19, 2008
Access Management—Refers to an array of measures to improve the safety and efficiency of roadway operations by regulating or physically controlling vehicular access to the road and its adjacent land uses. The preferred level of access management depends on the function of the roadway, local land use plans, and the zoning and character of lands adjoining the road. The higher the access classification, the more priority is given to mobility as opposed to local access. In the statewide frameworks, “a high level of access management” means a greater degree of access management than typically exists on an urban or rural arterial. A facility that meets this condition would generally have one or more of the following:
• Grade separations at major roadway crossings • Intersections at one-half mile and one- or two-mile spacing (in the ultimate condition) • A continuous physical median separating opposing traffic streams • Restricted left turns to and especially from adjacent properties • Limitations on driveway frequency and spacing beyond those normally found on an arterial street • No private or direct access
Freeways have the highest level of access management of any roadway facility type.
Activity Center—An important regional destination attracting a large number of daily trips, whether for employment, education, medical services, retail shopping or other purposes. An activity center may be devoted to a single use or to mixed uses.
Arizona Parkway—A roadway classification modeled on the so-called Michigan boulevard, designed to achieve capacity substantially greater than that of a conventional arterial, at a fraction of the cost of a freeway. It is a six- to eight-lane facility, with a landscaped median wide enough (approximately 60 feet) to enable even the largest trucks to execute U-turns at designated median breaks. Left turns are prohibited at signalized intersections with arterials, resulting in a simple and efficient two-phase operation. Motorists wishing to proceed left on intersecting arterials can either (a) make a U-turn at a designated downstream location or (b) make a series of right turns. Direct left turns are permitted at selected median breaks (signalized or unsignalized) away from the major intersections. Right turns to and from the parkway may be unrestricted. A properly designed Arizona parkway can provide virtually uninterrupted flow for through traffic traveling several miles along the mainline, even during peak travel periods. ADOT does not use this designation for the state highway system.
Baseline Condition—A future transportation system that consists of existing facilities and services, plus any others that are programmed (with an identified funding source) for implementation by 2030.
Built-up Unincorporated Areas—Unincorporated areas with population and employment densities approximating those of urbanized portions of cities and towns in the region.
Centerline Miles—The length (in miles) of a roadway, without regard to its width or number of lanes.
Congestion—On roadways, a condition in which traffic speed is substantially lower and delay substantially greater than that which would occur with a high level of service (A, B or C, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual). “Endemic” refers to congestion that recurs regularly at predictable times and places (e.g., in urban centers during peak travel periods), as opposed to congestion due to infrequent and unpredictable events such as crashes. “Seasonal” means congestion that occurs repeatedly and persistently during one or more months of the year, for reasons such an influx of tourists or visitors.
Conservation—Measures to avoid overuse or wasteful use of scarce, unique or valuable resources so that they will remain available to future generations.
Cost per Person Mile of Travel—Person miles of travel for the regional roadway system will be based on model output. The MC will develop a generalized ridership estimation method for public transportation. The MC will also develop procedures to estimate planning-level costs for capital facilities and equipment, operations/maintenance and right-of-way. These procedures will apply the techniques used to calculate costs for the roadway, transit and rail improvements in the current ADOT Investment Strategy.
Delay—The amount of added travel time due to traffic signals, other traffic control devices, congestion, and incidents such as crashes. Total vehicle hours of delay is the hours of delay for each vehicle, summed over all vehicles on regionally significant roadways in the system. Total person hours of delay equals total vehicle hours of delay times the average vehicle occupancy rate. Roadway traffic delay is a model-generated output.
Emergency Access—Transportation routes usable by emergency vehicles (fire, medical, police, etc.); also, routes available during emergencies requiring evacuation of residents and visitors.
Energy Security—The ability of the United States to meet its domestic energy needs regardless of interruptions to the flow of foreign fuel supplies.
Environmentally Sensitive Area—As designated by an appropriate land or resource management agency (federal, state or local), an area containing unique or significant environmental resources (e.g., biological, cultural, geological, aquatic) that require protection or monitoring.
Free-flow Junction—A location where vehicles move between transportation routes or facilities with no need to stop for conflicting traffic movements. The fully directional system TI (traffic interchange) is a type of free-flow junction.
Freight Terminal—A facility where large amounts of freight are transferred between modes, shippers/carriers, or vehicles.
Greenhouse Gases—Gases that trap heat from the sun’s rays within the earth’s atmosphere—acting like the glass in a greenhouse—thereby contributing to global warming. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by motor vehicles.
Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)—A national highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition, performance, use and operating characteristics of the nation’s highways. It contains administrative and extent of system information on all public roads, while information on other characteristics is represented as a mix of universe and sample data for arterial and
collector functional systems. Limited information on travel and paved miles is included in summary form for the lowest functional systems. (Source: FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information.)
Infill Development—Urban land use that focuses on development or redevelopment of vacant or underutilized parcels in an existing built-up area already served by urban infrastructure, such as roadways, public transit, water, sewer, gas, electricity and telecommunications.
Infrastructure—Fixed facilities that are used to provide transportation or utility service.
Intermodal—Refers to facilities where people or goods transfer from one mode of transportation to another.
Mixed Use Development—A form of land development in which several compatible types of uses are located next to or near each other. A cluster of such uses might include residential (both single and multiple occupancy housing), retail, office, live/work space (home office), entertainment, and open space. Some jurisdictions have adopted mixed use as a zoning classification.
Modal Choice—The selection of one mode of transportation over an alternative; also refers to opportunities to choose between modes.
Model Output—Data on the condition and performance of regionally significant roadways generated by the statewide travel demand model currently nearing completion.
Multimodal—Refers to the existence or use of more than one mode of personal travel or freight transportation within a community or region. Modes of travel include the private motor vehicle (using roads and streets), public transit (by van, bus, train or other conveyance, operating in mixed traffic or in an exclusive right-of-way), bicycle and pedestrian. The primary modes of freight transport in Arizona are truck and rail.
Passenger Terminal—A location where passengers congregate to board public or common carrier transportation services such as local or intercity bus service, rail or airlines. A terminal typically includes a dedicated waiting room or area, often with amenities such as arrival/departure information, ticket purchasing, restrooms, vending machines and parking. Simple roadside bus stops are not considered terminals.
Redevelopment or Revitalization Area—A vacant, blighted or decaying area that a public jurisdiction has officially targeted for more economically productive and socially beneficial uses. Such designation typically involves some form of incentive or governmental assistance for the desired redevelopment to occur.
Regionally Significant Roadway System—Consists of the state highways plus all other roadways in the network modeled for the statewide frameworks.
Wildlife Corridors—The connections that facilitate movement of wildlife between relatively large areas of unfragmented landscapes or habitats. These unfragmented landscapes support habitat for a diverse array of species and are dominated by natural vegetation, with low to moderate levels of urbanization and agriculture. (Source: Logan Simpson Design, based on Arizona Game & Fish definition.)
Wildlife Crossing—A specially designed roadway (or other transportation facility) grade separation, allowing free movement of wildlife along a corridor that crosses the facility.