1-40 ~ULTl~ODAL CORRIDOR PROfllt STUDY txtCUTIVI: 5U~~ARY

,;-·_,..-· ·-.. ,.., ; ·· ./ ·~...

developed in association with ADOT-Transportation Planning Division Lima & Associates & TransCore

December 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE 1-40 CORRIDOR ...... 1 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 2

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... : ...... 3 AGENCY COORDINATION ...... 3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 4

SOCIOECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 6 SUMMARY OF SOCIO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ...... 6 SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...... 6

SUMMARY OF CORRIDOR DEFICIENCIES ...... 8 HIGHWAY FACILITIES, SERVICE, AND CONDITIONS ...... 8 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, RAIL, AVIATION, AND OTHER MODES ...... 9

CORRIDOR VISION AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY ...... 10 CORRIDOR VISION ...... 10 CORRIDOR NEEDS ...... 10 INVESTMENT STRATEGY ...... 11 FINANCIAL STRATEGY ...... 12

CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 14 1-40 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS ...... 14 WINTER MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT ...... 14 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT ...... 15 OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 15 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ...... 16

PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED PROJECTS ...... 17 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...... 17 PUBLIC TRANSIT ...... 17 AVIATION ...... 18 OTHER MODES ...... 18

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED INVESTMENT OPTIONS ...... 19 1-40 MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ...... 19 SUMMARY OF PROJECTS ...... 20 RECOMMENDED MULTIMODAL PROJECTS ...... 25 ADDITIONAL STUDIES ...... 25 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. LIST OF AGENCY CONTACTS ...... 3

TABLE 2. PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE- JULY 1998 ...... 4

TABLE 3. PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE - OCTOBER 1999 ...... 5

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF REVENUE SOURCES ...... 13

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ...... 21

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ... .. 24

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ...... 24

TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED 1-40 STUDIES ...... 26

ii LIST OF FIGURES

Pa,:e

FIGURE 1. RECOMMENDED 1-40 MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS ...... 23

iii i

F; k f - ...... _(r l ...~ \ •. INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The strong growth in 's population and visitors has outpaced the capacity of the State's Transportation System. Closures of 1-40 due to accidents and inclement weather such as snow, blowing dust, and high winds have become common occurrences. The continued stress on the transportation system has come at a time when Arizona's resources are limited. Now, our state's transportation needs are high while financial resources are very low. In recognition of the need for better planning of the states' transportation systems, the Federal 1991 lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) mandated that each state prepare a multimodal statewide transportation plan (STP). The mandate for statewide transportation planning was continued by the landmark Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21).

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) published the first STP in 1994, a 20- year strategic plan for improving Arizona's multimodal transportation system. This plan also identified the need to analyze principal transportation corridors within the state and define the strategic importance of each. The method developed to analyze these corridors is known as the Corridor Profile Analysis, which identifies needs and deficiencies within a corridor and identifies investment and management options to meet those needs and deficiencies.

Fourteen of fifty corridors were designated as top pnonty multimodal transportation corridors for further study. Based upon evaluation criteria used in the STP, the ­ Flagstaff- (1-40) Corridor ranked third in importance among these fourteen corridors, just behind 1-10 and 1-17.

DESCRIPTION OF THE 1-40 CORRIDOR

The 1-40 Corridor stretches nearly 360 miles from the California border on the west to the New Mexico border on the east and passes through five of Arizona's fifteen counties. Land traversed by the corridor is divided almost equally between public and private ownership. The corridor crosses portions of the Navajo Indian Reservation, Petrified Forest National Park, Painted Desert, and the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Located only 60 miles south of the Grand Canyon, the corridor is a major access route for tourists traveling to the Canyon by both rail and highway. The corridor also connects the cities of Kingman, Williams, Flagstaff, Winslow, and Holbrook. The elevation of Interstate 40 in Arizona varies from 1,000 feet to over 7,000 feet above sea level, one of the greatest elevation ranges of any stretch of interstate highway within a single state.

The 1-40 corridor is an important multimodal corridor across the State serving as a major automobile, trucking, and rail corridor. Interstate 40 serves both intercity and intracity automobile and commercial traffic. The Interstate carries significant truck traffic-as

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile S.tudy - Executive Summary - Page 1 much as one-third of the total traffic in some areas. Recreational vehicles also account for a significant amount of traffic. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) in the corridor is a major rail freight line with over 80 trains per day. Amtrak passenger trains operating over the BNSF also provide service to Kingman, Williams, Flagstaff, and Winslow. lntermodal freight terminals along the corridor link the rail and highway modes, and intercity private bus lines provide service along the corridor. Moreover, certain communities provide transit service to both urban and rural areas in the corridor. The corridor also contains several major telecommunications lines, and petroleum, natural gas, and coal slurry pipelines traverse portions of the corridor.

STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Through the evolvement of the Multimodal Corridor Profile Study process, ADOT has developed a set of study purposes, goals, and objectives. The purposes of the Multimodal Corridor Profile Analysis are: 1) to identify major issues that relate to transportation, land development opportunities, environmental concerns, and statewide strategic investment opportunities; 2) to move toward the strategic goal of the State relative to the enhancement of mobility for people, goods, and services; 3) to address travel issues within the study area relative to performance, local concerns, environmental issues, and statewide strategic investments; and 4) to improve the selection of project priorities as limited funds are allocated.

The following goals were identified for the Multimodal Corridor Profile process:

• Major planning issues will be resolved prior to the initiation of project programming and design.

• Right-of-way needed for transportation will be preserved.

• Transportation investments will be protected.

• Environmental screening will expedite project development.

• Key elements of the Strategic Plan for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on 1-40 will be implemented.

• Consensus agreement between local governments and ADOT districts on construction and system management projects will be obtained.

• A program of projects that can easily be introduced into the ADOT Priority Programming Process will be developed.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

AGENCY COORDINATION

A major component of the 1-40 Multimodal Corridor Profile Study was the coordination of the study with federal, state, local, private agencies, and Indian Tribes. The purpose of the coordination was to obtain input on 1) plans and studies, 2) major issues, 3) transportation deficiencies, and 4) recommendations for transportation improvements. Table 1 lists the agencies that were contacted.

TABLE 1. LIST OF AGENCY CONTACTS

Agency Name Position ADOT Flagstaff District Don Dorman District Engineer ADOT Holbrook District Jeff Swan District Engineer ADOT Kingman District Debra Brisk District Engineer ADOT Motor Vehicle Division Bill Foutch Apache County Clarence Bigelow County Manager Apache Railroad Robert Teel Maintenance Supervisor Ash Fork Development Association Fay Hume Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Mike McCallister Field Engineer City of Flagstaff David Wilcox City Manager City of Holbrook Roy Hunt City Manager City of Kingman Louis Sorensen City Manager . City of Williams James Hoffman Mayor City of Winslow James Boles Mayor Coconino County Dora Harrison County Manager Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Ron Spinar Director Organization (FMPO) Robert LaCivita Vice President-Operations Mohave County David Grisez County Manager Navajo County Eddie Koury County Manager Albert Hale President Council of Governments Ken Sweet Director (NACOG) Pine Country Transit Jeff Mileback State Transportation Board Jack Husted Board Member (retired) State Transportation Board John Hudson Board Member (retired) Western Arizona Council of Governments Dave Barber Deputy Director (WACOG) Y avapai County Richard Straub Public Works Director

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 3 In addition to the agency meetings, a consensus building meeting was held with the District Engineers of the three ADOT Districts that include portions of the corridor: Kingman, Flagstaff, and Holbrook. The purpose of the meeting was to build a consensus for a specific I-40 Corridor Plan. Another consensus building meeting will be held with ADOT's upper management when local governments review the draft final report.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The first series of open house meetings were held in Kingman, Flagstaff, and Holbrook in July 1998. The purpose of the meetings was to obtain public input on the existing conditions and issues on I-40. The Flagstaff meeting was held in coordination with the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan, I-17 Corridor Profile Study, and Study. The public was presented handouts and display boards to review. In addition, comments were taken from individuals on the conditions and issues on I-40. Table 2 presents the attendance for the three public meetings held in July 1998. Another series of public meetings was held in October 1999 to present the study findings and recommendations. Table 3 presents the attendance for the three meetings held in October 1999.

TABLE 2. PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE-JULY 1998

Meeting Date/Time Attendance Holbrook July 7, 1998 11 Navajo County Complex 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 100 Cater Drive/South Highway 77 Holbrook

Flagstaff July 9, 1998 90 Flagstaff High School 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 400 West Elm A venue Flagstaff

Kingman July 16, 1998 8 Kingman City Hall Complex 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 310 North 4 th Street Kingman

Comments received at the three July 1998 public meetings covered four main areas of concern. Participants requested new or improved rest areas and truck stops, and requested improved signage at some areas. Persons attending both the Kingman and Flagstaff meetings expressed a need for new interchanges and overpasses. Flagstaff participants were concerned about speed limits and commercial traffic, as well as ice and snow buildup and removal on city streets. In addition, some Flagstaff attendees recommended railroad overpasses for city streets.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 4 TABLE 3. PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE- OCTOBER 1999

Meeting Date/Time Attendance Kingman October 5, 1999 12 Kingman City Hall Complex 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 310 North 4th Street Kingman

Holbrook October 6, 1999 11 Hunt Park Community Center 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 419 East Florida Holbrook

Flagstaff July 7, 1998 11 Coconino County Administration 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Bldg. 219 East Cherry Flagstaff

Comments received at the three October 1999 public meetings covered three main areas of concern. A number of participants agreed with the results of the study, and said it was logical and well thought out. Many participants had questions concerning particular interchanges, bridges, and other structures, and some participants raised questions concerning intelligent transportation systems devices such as variable message signs. For example, Kingman participants sought confirmation that an additional would be constructed east of the East Kingman Interchange that would facilitate access to the Kingman Airport.

Holbrook participants expressed concern with respect to limited access between those parts of the community north of the interstate and those south of it. Water flows into city streets caused by the interstate cross-drainage in Holbrook at three locations: the 8th A venue drainage at MP 286. 3, the La Jolla Wash at MP 286. 7, and the Navajo Boulevard Interchange (TI) at MP 286. 9. Holbrook attendees also urged the speedy construction of additional rest areas to provide alternative overnight parking for truckers using off-ramps such as the entrance to the Petrified Forest National Park for overnight parking. Flagstaff attendees asked about intelligent transportation systems devices and reiterated the need to replace the Rio de Flag bridges.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 5 SOCIOECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The study analyzed the socioeconomic environment of the communities along 1-40, including major land ownership, current and future populations, and characteristics of population segments. In addition, Title VI and Environmental Justice discrimination issues regarding race, color, national origin, age, sex, and disability were analyzed.

SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The 1-40 corridor has been and will continue to be an area of significant population growth. The Counties of Mohave, Yavapai, and Coconino, and the cities of Kingman and Flagstaff have had growth rates higher than the state average. These three counties are projected to reach a combined population of 625,695 by 2018. Flagstaff will remain the largest city over the next 20 years, and is projected to reach a population of 80,036 by 2018. Both Winslow and Holbrook are expected to have modest future growth.

Increased population growth in the corridor will generate higher intraurban travel, and recreational areas within the corridor will continue to attract large numbers of visitors, thereby generating more interregional travel.

The corridor crosses areas with large minority populations. Consequently, special care must be taken in the development of any transportation project to avoid disproportionately impacting these minority groups. Furthermore, opportunities in providing transportation should be sought to benefit these minority populations. Some areas in the corridor have large proportions of persons with disabilities who have special transportation needs.

SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

An inventory was made of the physical and environmental conditions within the 1-40 corridor. The inventory describes the general character, natural resources, major environmental characteristics of the area, and describes areas of environmental concern.

The 1-40 corridor traverses a variety of biotic communities and species habitats, and potential locations of Special Status and Endangered Species occur throughout the length of the corridor. Specific Sensitive Habitats in the corridor include Havasu National Wildlife Refuge, various sites along the , riparian locations in the Hualapai and Black Mountains, and dirt water tanks which are sources of water for wildlife.

A need exists for wildlife crossings across 1-40. Two specific migration corridors for connecting the Black and Hualapai Mountains have been identified: one in the vicinity of Walnut Creek/Haviland and the other at Buck Mountain Wash. Another potential wildlife corridor links the Hualapai and Cerbat Mountains near the southern city limits of Kingman.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 6 Important riparian areas are located in the study area. Between the SR 93 South Traffic TI and the SR 89 TI near Ash Fork, riparian areas can be found at Willow Creek, Knight Creek, and Fort Rock Creek. Along the Little Colorado River and its tributaries, Clear Creek and Chevelon Creek, riparian areas cross or are adjacent to 1-40 between the cities of Winslow and Holbrook

Improvements to 1-40 must be closely coordinated with both the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests, and must be analyzed with respect to any potential impact on 4(f) properties. In addition, future transportation improvements in the 1-40 corridor could impact visual resources in the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests.

The Petrified Forest National Park, which I-40 traverses east of Holbrook, is a 4(f) site, and the Arizona Trail, which will cross 1-40 in the Flagstaff area, is also a potential 4(f) site. No Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) exist in the BLM Kingman District. The Tanner Wash in the BLM Phoenix District is located north of I-40 between Exits 277 and 285 is an area of environmental concern. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) have been identified throughout the corridor and the implementation of improvements in the corridor must consider these tanks.

The urbanized areas along 1-40 are areas of potential noise impacts. In particular, residences and schools have been identified in Flagstaff and Kingman as areas of potential noise impacts.

Interstate 40 also provides access to wilderness areas at Needles, Warm Springs, Wabayuma Peak, Kachina Peaks, Kendrick Mountains, Strawberry Crater, and Petrified Forest.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 7 SUMMARY OF CORRIDOR DEFICIENCIES

INTERSTATE 40 HIGHWAY FACILITIES, SERVICE, AND CONDITIONS

Existing highway service and conditions for major facilities were analyzed within the 1-40 corridor including an inventory of roadway, traffic, and accident data for 1-40. Significant segments of 1-40 were constructed on former US 66 infrastructure. Some of the structural sections and sub-grades upon which the roadway was constructed are over 50 years old. The normal design life for facilities is 20 years. These older areas of the interstate are deteriorating at a much faster rate than other segments. Portions of 1-40 were constructed prior to the introduction and acceptance of current interstate design standards.

Roadway deficiencies identified by this inventory are summarized below.

• Fifty-five percent of the eastbound lane miles, or 395 lane miles, and fifty percent of the westbound lane miles, or 359 lane miles, may be eligible for rehabilitation.

• Thirty-three bridges-over ten percent of the total-require rehabilitation and six bridges need to be replaced.

• Forty-six interchanges, or 55 percent of the total, need to be improved. Of these, the following interchanges need to be reconstructed in the long-range: Blake Ranch Road, Adamana, Sanders, Window Rock, and Lupton.

• Three hundred ninety-seven geometric deficiencies have been identified including horizontal curves, vertical curves, or steep grades.

• Forty-six miles of 1-40, approximately 13 percent of the total, were identified with accident problems. For locations over 5,000 feet in elevation, the primary causes of accidents were inclement weather and wild game. Nighttime conditions were also a problem in high accident locations for all elevations.

• Many existing segments of 1-40 currently operate at level of service (LOS) B or better. Segments in Kingman from the West Kingman TI to the DW Ranch TI operate at LOS C, and segments in Flagstaff from the 1-17 junction to the East Flagstaff TI operate at LOS D.

• Segments of 1-40 totaling 96 miles-over 26 percent of the Arizona 1-40 total- will operate at LOS C or worse in the year 2020. Segments of 1-40 in Kingman and Flagstaff will operate at LOS F.

• Nearly ten miles of steep grade sections along 1-40 will have levels of service of LOS C or worse.

• Two new rest areas are needed and one existing rest area needs to be removed. In addition, two existing rest areas need to be improved.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 8 • Both ports of entry need to be improved.

• Existing Intelligent Transportation System technologies on 1-40 include Roadside Weather Information Systems (RWIS), Variable Message Signs (VMS), Weigh-in Motion Systems (WIMS), and Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs). Additional ITS technologies are needed along 1-40 and have been planned for the highway.

• Needs have been identified for noise barriers, landscaping, and pedestrian facilities, particularly in the Kingman and Flagstaff areas .

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, RAIL, AVIATION, AND OTHER MODES

An inventory and analysis were conducted for existing conditions for public transportation, rail, aviation, pipeline, and intermodal facilities within the corridor.

Both urban and rural areas have limited special public transportation services. Public transportation needs to be expanded in Flagstaff and surrounding areas, including the Navajo Nation and Hopi Indian Reservation. The City of Kingman has high demand for a transit system, and transit service needs to be assessed for Winslow, as well. lntermodal facilities should be developed in Flagstaff to integrate Intercity Bus (ICB) service with other transportation modes. Intercity Bus service should be retained in rural markets and should be further developed in rural communities over 5,000 in population.

The 1-40 corridor is an important rail passenger and freight corridor. However, noise from locomotive horns impacts adjacent neighborhoods in communities along the corridor. In addition, at-grade rail crossings cause safety problems, traffic delays at blocked crossings, and delays of emergency vehicles. Grade separations are currently needed in the Flagstaff area and will also be needed in Kingman. Suggestions have been made by agencies and citizens to relocate the existing railroad in Flagstaff. Poorly maintained railroad property is an issue in some communities. Direction signs to passenger rail stations need to be upgraded, and all rail stations currently lack Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance.

No pipeline deficiencies or needs were identified in the corridor, and no major pipeline terminals are located in the corridor.

Bicycles are permitted on 1-40, however approximately one-third of the shoulders along 1- 40 have low bicycle suitability ratings. A need exists for bicycle paths within the 1-40 right-of-way. 1-40 is also a barrier to pedestrian movement in communities crossed by the highway, and interchanges are a constraint to pedestrians.

Approximately $80 million dollars in needs have been identified for airports in the corridor by the year 2015.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 9 CORRIDOR VISION AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY

CORRIDOR VISION

The 1-40 Multimodal Corridor will provide safe, efficient, and environmentally compatible transportation for personal and commercial trips served by the private automobile, commercial truck, rail, and bus transit modes. The rail mode serves both passenger trips and freight transportation. The transit mode includes · urban and rural bus transit services and intercity bus passenger transportation. Passenger rail stations and intermodal rail freight yards provide interfaces between the rail, automobile, and bus transit modes.

Interstate 40 will provide uninterrupted traffic flow predominantly for transcontinental, interregional, and intercity trips. The corridor will also serve intraurban trips in adjacent communities including Flagstaff, Holbrook, Williams, Winslow, and Kingman. However, intra urban trips within the corridor will be predominantly carried on community streets.

The interstate highway will meet updated safety and design standards. In addition, the highway's infrastructure will be in very good condition including pavements, structures, and appurtenances. Intermodal passenger and freight terminals will provide high quality service and intermodal access. At intervals as well as strategic locations within the corridor, real time information will also be provided to the traveling public on traveler information, weather, and detour conditions. Adequate vehicle and pedestrian connections across 1-40 will be provided between divided segments of communities. The corridor will continue to provide a high level of service to major recreational areas including the Grand Canyon, Flagstaff Area, Indian reservations, and wilderness areas. Moreover, the corridor will be compatible with wildlife, physical resources, and visual resources.

CORRIDOR NEEDS

Interstate 40 is an aging and outdated facility that was originally designed for transcontinental military transport. The freeway was built in the late 1960s and 70s to accommodate lower traffic volumes and a different vehicle mix than today's traffic. Design standards used to build 1-40 are outdated and many segments do not meet current design standards of the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). In some segments of the freeway, sight distance does not meet current standards. Other segments have horizontal curves that are too sharp. Still other segments have superelevated curves that are inadequate. The infrastructure is rapidly aging and is approaching its approximate life span of 50 years. Several structures are already structurally deficient. Many Interchanges are not adequate to accommodate existing as well as future traffic volumes and need to be significantly upgraded. Pavement conditions are poor in some segments. Other segments of 1-40 have poor subgrade conditions that result in the need for frequent rehabilitation. These segments need to be reconstructed with pavement that conforms to current standards. Traffic volumes have increased significantly and will continue to increase at high rates. In particular, traffic in the urban areas of Flagstaff and Kingman is projected to increase significantly, primarily due to local growth. The existing four lanes through these areas are not adequate to provide a suitable

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 10 level of service. Six lanes will be required in these areas. Total reconstruction of the roadway and interchanges would be required in these areas.

Transit service in both urban and rural areas needs to be expanded. In addition, corridor intermodal facilities need attention. Improvements to roadways that access airports in Kingman, Williams, Flagstaff, Winslow, and Holbrook are needed, and transit service to these facilities should be considered. Area intercity bus stations are not ADA compliant, and parking at the Amtrak station in Flagstaff is a problem.

INVESTMENT STRATEGY

The past approach to correcting problems on 1-40 has been to correct the spot problems rather than taking a comprehensive approach to correct the geometric and infrastructure deficiencies. Aging infrastructure and inadequate geometrics dictate the need for a new investment strategy. The recommended investment strategy is to reconstruct 1-40 to current design and structural standards for the projected traffic volumes. Interstate segments would be completely reconstructed in accordance with current AASHTO criteria as major improvements are made and in locations where pavement conditions warrant completely new pavement. In addition, the funding should be increased for rail freight and passenger services. Improvements should be made to intermodal freight and passenger terminals to encourage the use of other transportation modes.

The following are key elements in the investment strategy:

• Maintain interstate infrastructure as a priority by expending funds on pavement preservation and the maintenance of structures. • Expend funds early on ITS implementation. Continually reevaluate ITS facilities to ensure that the appropriate facilities are implemented in the most effective locations. • Fund the replacement of structures and pavements as needed. • Phase the reconstruction of 1-40 including pavements, structures, and interchanges. • Due to the age of the 1-40 infrastructure and inadequate geometrics for today's design standards, completely reconstruct segments to be widened or improved with a climbing lane, including horizontal and vertical geometrics and new pavement. • Completely reconstruct segments that require more frequent pavement rehabilitation than the normal ten-year cycle, including horizontal and vertical geometrics, new pavement, and new subgrade if needed. • Reconstruct interchanges and bridges when segments of the Interstate that include them are reconstructed or widened. Design the widening of the Interstate in the Flagstaff and Kingman areas to accommodate eight lanes. • When segments are widened to six lanes in Flagstaff and Kingman, design the roadway, bridges, interchanges, and appurtenances to accommodate eight lanes in the future.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 11 • Encourage the development of new truck stops along 1-40 through private/public partnerships to provide adequate opportunities for rest stops for truck drivers. • Encourage the development and marketing of additional Trailer-On-Flat-Car (TOFC) and other rail services designed to reduce highway truck traffic. • Encourage the improvement and expansion of both urban and rural transit services. • Coordinate planning, implementation, incident management, and winter maintenance management through an 1-40 coalition of ADOT Districts, local governments, and other stakeholders.

FINANCIAL STRATEGY

This investment strategy requires a new financial strategy. Funds have been available to maintain pavement and structures, however current state funding and Interstate Maintenance funding levels are not adequate to reconstruct the Interstate. Federal, state, and local stakeholders must work together in formulating an aggressive financial strategy. In order to address a significant percentage of the comprehensive reconstruction and rehabilitation projects recommended for the corridor, all possible revenue sources must be used. Projects must be categorized by the source or sources potentially available to each, and projects must be planned, scoped, and initiated in ways that ensure the maximum availability of funds, including substantive inclusion of multi-modal components where necessary.

Tourism and recreation will continue to be important catalysts for use of the corridor, however Interstate 40 also plays a critical role in the movement of commercial truck traffic upon which corridor communities depend. This truck traffic is responsible for much of the daily wear and tear on the facility; fortunately, it is also a potential source of significant additional revenue. Aggressive use of the ports of entry to collect all applicable tolls must be pursued-aided by the new technologies when available. Periodic review of State tariff regulations pertaining to trucking-to ensure that each vehicle is paying its fair share for the use of the highway-is appropriate.

Extensive use of Federal funding is essential. TEA-21 created a number of funding mechanisms that, together with pre-existing vehicles such as the Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF) and the Local Area Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF), are available for funding both highway and intermodal projects in the corridor. Table 4 summarizes these revenue sources.

ADOT must work closely with regional and local agencies and communities, freight and passenger transportation providers, tourism and recreation destinations, freight customers, and the traveling public to develop and maintain a political constituency for this vital corridor. Such a constituency will ensure that the service provided by all the modes within the corridor will continue to expand to meet the needs that the area's growing population will demand, and that Interstate 40 will continue to provide an adequate year-round level of service for commercial and automobile traffic.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 12 TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF REVENUE SOURCES

Funding Title Arizona Total TEA-21 Funds Surface Transportation Program (STP) $648.1 million FYs 1998-2003 Total The National Highway System (NHS) $589.3 million FYs 1998-2003 Total Interstate Maintenance funds $541.7 million FYs 1998-2003 Total The Minimum Guarantee $347.7 million FYs 1998-2003 Total High Priority Projects $60.9 million FYs 1998-2003 Total Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation $59.3 million FYs 1998-2003 Total Access to Work program Unspecified Transportation Enhancement Funds * Metropolitan Planning $18 million FYs 1998-2003 Total Recreational Trails Program $4.9 million FYs 1998-2003 Total Other Revenue Sources Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) $1,071,268 FYs 1999-2007 projected average Local Transportation Assistance Fund $23 million each fiscal year. (LTAF) Local Government Transportation Program Approximate 1998 allocations: NACOG) $1.9 million; W ACOG $0. 7 million. Economic Strength Projects Fund Sponsored by State and funded by HURF. Governor's Office of Highway Safety Funds are provided under the National Highway Safety Act. Public Transit Funding Section 5311 program Currently, the total funding in Arizona for general public systems in rural and small urban areas is Section 5310 program approximately $3. 8 million annually. Section 5307 program Additional sources Funding for Other Modes Federal Transit Funds Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Federal Aviation Administration 1999 to 2003, estimates that Federal grant monies will fund $208 million

* Currently, Arizona receives about $6 million per year for transportation enhancement projects that are divided between ADOT and local government projects.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Pro.file Study - Executive Summary - Page 13 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

1-40 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM COMPONENTS

A very important management objective for 1-40 is the comprehensive implementation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) facilities in order to monitor weather conditions, provide information to motorists, and monitor traffic movement and speed. These facilities should be provided at specific intervals as well as at strategic locations. The 1-40 ITS Coalition should continue as a working group to help guide the implementation of ITS within the 1-40 Corridor. In addition, the three ADOT Districts should continue to take day-to-day operation of ITS facilities. Currently, both the ADOT Traffic Operations Center (TOC) in Phoenix and the Engineering Districts can operate the VMS locations. Each Engineering District updates the Highway Closures and Restrictions System (HCRS) and transmits the updated data to the Phoenix TOC. The Flagstaff District is operating the Roadway Weather Information System (RWIS) locations for the Flagstaff, Holbrook, Kingman, and Safford Districts. Regular coordination meetings among the Districts should be held to coordinate ITS activities along 1-40 as well as to share information among the District staff. A Flagstaff TOC should be implemented to operate and coordinate ITS facilities within the corridor as well as on other state highways.

WINTER MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT

Winter Maintenance Management is another important management component in the high elevation areas of 1-40. ADOT Districts are making a maximum effort with available resources and equipment. All Districts currently apply anti-icing agents and plow snow. The Flagstaff District monitors weather conditions for the three districts along 1-40 that are monitored by the RWIS locations. ADOT is also developing intranet capabilities for reading the RWIS locations throughout the state. The Districts report weather and road conditions to the HCRS. Each district operates VMS boards to give advance warning to motorists. In cases of snow emergencies, the three Districts, as well as the Phoenix District, provide assistance to the other Districts when needed. The Districts coordinate among the news media. In addition, a winter conference is held to discuss strategy and share resources. This conference is attended by ADOT maintenance staff, local maintenance staff, local and State law enforcement personnel, and the media. A detour plan is in place for 1-40. Advance warning VMS boards are in place at the New Mexico Border and in Kingman.

Although elements of winter maintenance management are in place, a comprehensive maintenance strategy needs to be defined with specific funding identified to implement the strategy. Elements of a winter maintenance management include the following:

• Obtaining accurate weather forecasting

• Using anti-icing techniques

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 14 • Plowing before anti-icing to remove snow and loose ice

• Providing reliable information to the public

Information must be provided in a timely manner to the public. This information should include closures, detours, and plowing information. In addition, research is needed to develop a winter maintenance strategy that includes all the elements of winter maintenance. This research must look at storage of materials, equipment modification, and cost-benefit of various techniques, as well as take advantage of the information and programs available from Federal, State and local agencies.

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Incident Management is a critical management strategy for maintaining safe and efficient operations along I-40. Emergency vehicles must have access to vehicles involved in accidents and vehicles that breakdown must get serviced or be cleared from the roadway quickly. The following general strategy is recommended:

• Give advance notice of incidents to proper authorities through ITS.

• Provide information to vehicles approaching incident locations through ITS. Coordinate among the Districts provide advance warnings to motorist across the length of I-40.

• Provide information on detours using ITS, information kiosks, and radio.

• Provide access to emergency vehicles through adequate shoulders, median breaks, and through interchanges.

• Provide emergency service to accidents.

• Clear vehicles, debris, and animal carcasses blocking travel lanes.

• Coordinate activities among key actors such as the ADOT, Department of Public Safety (DPS}, and Emergency Management Services (EMS).

One of the most important elements of incident management along I-40 is the coordination among the three engineering Districts. The establishment of an incident management team comprised of District personnel and other key agencies is recommended to ensure that incidents are handled quickly and thoroughly.

OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The high truck traffic along I-40 impedes traffic flow and slows traffic on I-40, particularly on segments with steep grades. Trucks and recreational vehicles that pass other trucks on

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 15 steep grades cannot always maintain the posted speed limit and cause vehicles to back up. One strategy for managing this is to restrict trucks to the right lane on steep grades. The practices of other states in regulating trucks should be investigated and draft legislature should be prepared for restricting trucks to the right lanes.

Rest areas and other services are needed for motorists and truck drivers traveling long distances. To ensure that truck drivers have adequate opportunities to rest along 1-40, truck stops are needed in addition to existing truck stops and rest areas. One strategy to encourage new truck stops is to form private/public partnerships to fund facilities at interchange areas .

TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT/TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The purpose of Travel Demand Management/Transportation System Management (TDM/TSM) is to reduce the number of vehicle trips through the implementation of specific management techniques. Travel demand management strategies for the 1-40 corridor include strategies to increase intercity public transportation by increasing intercity bus and rail trips and general transit shuttles. Implementing transit improvements in Urban/Metropolitan areas could also reduce some vehicle trips on 1-40.

Other strategies include constructing pedestrian and bicycle facilities on and off interstate right-of-way and crossing the interstate. Management strategies to reduce truck traffic on 1-40 are to increase long distance rail/truck intermodal trips and improve intermodal terminal access and terminal facilities, thus diverting trucks from the highway to the railroad.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 16 PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED PROJECTS

A number of projects are currently planned and programmed to address deficiencies in the corridor. The Arizona Department of Transportation's tentative five-year program (FY 2000-2004) identifies construction projects on Interstate 40 totaling $54.6.7 million.

Interstate 40 Kingman District projects include intermediate TI improvements, intersection improvements, and maintenance programs for a number of District bridges including bridge deck rehabilitation. Other Kingman District projects are the design and construction of passing and climbing lanes, pavement preservation, and the design and reconstruction of several rest areas. The total estimate for Kingman District projects is $16. 7 million.

Flagstaff District projects include the design of climbing lanes, pavement preservation, TI improvement, roadway sign rehabilitation, and bridge maintenance and replacement. The total estimate for these projects is $18.6 million.

Holbrook District 1-40 improvements include the construction of a Rest Area and a new North Park TI in Winslow. Other projects include the construction of passing lanes, and the reconstruction of the Sanders Port of Entry. The total estimate for Holbrook District projects is $19.3 million.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Due to their isolation and remoteness, many sections of 1-40 are prime candidates for various Advanced Rural Transportation Systems (ARTS) programs such as Remote Weather Information Systems (RWIS), infrastructure operations and maintenance, emergency services, and traveler safety and security.

Remote Weather Information Systems already exist on 1-40 and consist of an array of roadside weather and pavement sensors installed along the highway. These sensors send information to ADOT maintenance personnel to assist them in making decisions regarding snow removal operations, roadway closures, and traveler information. Programs to increase traveler safety and security on 1-40 include the implementation of systems to detect roadway hazards and the installation of security devices to monitor rest stops and other roadway facilities. Approximately, $7. 3 million is planned for implementing ITS technologies on 1-40.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Three corridor communities are beginning or expanding their public transit systems. Kingman is instituting a start up system with one van projected to cost $73,000 annually to operate. Flagstaff plans to expand existing fixed route bus service and paratransit service

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 17 for an annual cost of $899,400. The Navajo Nation plans to continue existing fixed route service and expand senior paratransit services for an annual cost of $3,400,000. Planned Corridor transit operations are projected to total $4,372,400 each year.

AVIATION

In the Arizona Five-Year Aviation Program (2000-2004) a total of $24.5 million in improvements is programmed for airports within the Corridor. Scheduled airport improvements include environmental assessments at Holbrook, Seligman, and Williams, and terminal design and construction at Holbrook, Williams, and Winslow. Grading, drainage installation, and surfacing of aprons, runways, or taxiways are planned for Flagstaff, Williams, Winslow, and St. Johns. In addition, a number of navigational aids will be installed that should greatly improve air transportation service in the corridor.

OTHER MODES

At the time of this report, no information had been obtained from the railroads concerning planned or programmed projects, and no . intermodal terminal projects are currently planned or programmed in the corridor.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 18 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED INVESTMENT OPTIONS

A wide array of possible investment options were analyzed to meet the corridor deficiencies. Possible investment options for the corridor include improvements to roadway capacity, roadway infrastructure, and roadway access, and options for transportation system management and travel demand management. Major capital projects include roadway widening, pavement reconstruction, and bridge replacement. Infrastructure projects include pavement preservation, bridge rehabilitation, improvements to facilities such as ports of entry and rest areas, and the installation of ITS components such as variable message signs.

1-40 MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

The purpose of major capital projects is to add capacity to carry additional person and vehicle trips. Capital projects generally improve levels of service, improve safety, and reduce travel time. Such projects potentially have impacts on environmental resources, community disruption, noise, and air quality. The following types of capital projects were identified for I-40: widening to six lanes, constructing climbing lanes, reconstructing highway segments, reconstructing interchanges, constructing new interchanges, constructing noise barriers, and constructing pedestrian crossings.

The rapid growth in the Flagstaff area is placing significant pressure on I-40. Major capital improvements have been recommended to improve traffic conditions in the Flagstaff area including the following:

• Widening I-40 to six lanes through Flagstaff • Reconstructing existing interchanges through Flagstaff to accommodate widening to an ultimate width of eight lanes • Reconstructing existing bridges through Flagstaff to accommodate widening to an ultimate width of eight lanes

In addition, a Design Concept Report (DCR) should be prepared to evaluate a possible interchange at 4 th Street.

The growth in the Kingman area, Golden Valley area, and Mohave County, and the proposed new bridge across Hover Dam will put significant traffic pressure on the I-40/US 93 interchanges as well as the I-40 mainline. Major capital improvements have been recommended to improve traffic conditions in the Kingman area including the following:

• Widening I-40 through Kingman to six lanes • Reconstructing the I-40/US 93 North interchange • Constructing a new interchange at approximately MP 55 in East Kingman • Reconstructing other interchanges to accommodate an ultimate width of eight lanes • Reconstructing existing bridges to accommodate an ultimate width of eight lanes

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 19 Another recommendation is to conduct a study of a bypass to the existing US 93 North Interchange. Other long-range improvements within Mohave County beyond the 20 year horizon include constructing an interchange with the proposed US 95 bypass that would connect 1-40 to Bullhead City, evaluating the 1-40 interchange at Gem Acres Road, and evaluating the need for an interchange at Happy Jack Road. To the east of Kingman, the 1- 40/US 93 South interchange should be reconstructed.

Approximately 125 miles of major reconstruction of portions of existing 1-40 have been recommended to improve geometric, pavement, and subgrade conditions. The longest segment proposed for reconstruction is between Holbrook and the New Mexico State Line, approximately 70 miles. This reconstruction would affect the Petrified Forest National Park, a 4(f) property. Exit 311 is the principal access for Park visitors and employees, and 1-40 runs through the Park for a distance of more than two miles. Park officials strongly support the proposed reconstruction as it will provide the State with an opportunity to enhance the entrance to the Park.

Some interchanges located along the portions of the Interstate recommended to be reconstructed may also need to be reconstructed. However, Design Concept Reports for the potential reconstructed highway segments are needed to determine the extent of interchange reconstruction required if any. For widening projects, it was assumed that the present bridges and interchanges would be reconstructed.

Pedestrian facilities across 1-40 are lacking. No separate pedestrian crossings exist across 1-40 and existing interchanges do not have adequate facilities to accommodate pedestrians. Future construction and reconstruction of interchanges must be designed to include pedestrian facilities to ensure that pedestrians are safely accommodated. Any interchange pedestrian facilities and separate pedestrian crossings must be coordinated with existing and planned trails.

As noted in the previous review of proposed projects in the 1-40 Corridor, Mohave County is planning a linear industrial park south of the McConnico Interchange. Although the level of service analysis did not indicate a need for six lanes on this segment, six lanes may be needed on 1-40 in the future between the McConnico Interchange and SR 95 depending on the intensity and timing of the industrial development.

SUMMARY OF PROJECTS

Table 5 summarizes the recommended major capital projects by ADOT District, and Figure 1 illustrates these major projects. Table 6 is a summary of recommended infrastructure projects. Recommended 1-40 major capital, infrastructure, and study projects will require approximately $1. 9 billion over the next 20 years. A summary of recommended public transportation projects is presented in Table 7.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 20 TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

2000- 2010- 2004 2005- 2020 Est. 2009 Est. Est. Cost Cost Cost Comments/ Project Location ($000} ($000) ($000s} Constraints Kingman District Highway Widening Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes MP 37 to MP 44.31 $32,895 LOSC LOS D or Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes MP 44.31 to MP 55 $48,105 worse LOS D or Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes MP 55 to MP 71.93 $76,185 worse MP 91.7 to MP Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes 103.58 $53,460 LOSC MP 144.94 to MP Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes 146.22 $5,760 LOSC Climbing Lane Construction Construct Climbing Lane WB MP 81.5 to MP 82.2 $700 LOSC Construct Climbing Lane WB MP 83 .7 to MP 84 $300 LOSC Construct Climbing Lane WB MP 125.5 to MP 125.9 $400 LOS C Interchange Construction and Reconstruction Construct New Interchange MP 10 to MP.20 $10,000 SR 95 Bypass Reconstruct Griffith TI MP 37.03 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Mcconnico TI MP44.31 $10,000 Widening Construct New Interchange Between MP 55 and $10,000 Right-of-way MP56 Reconstruct West Kingman TI MP49 $12,000 Reconstruct Stockton Hill TI MP 51.68 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct E. Kingman TI MP 53.08 $10,000 . Widening Reconstruct D W Ranch RD TI MP 59.65 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Blake ..Ranch RD TI MP66.47 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Hwy 93 TI MP 71.96 $10,000 Reconstruct Cross Mountain TI MP 96.02 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Jolly Road TI MP 103.58 $10,000 Widening Relocation of Construct New Interchange MP 121 to MP 130 $10,000 SR 89 to 1-40 Infrastructure Construction Construct Noise Barriers MP 49 to MP 53 $4,000 Construct New Rest Area MP3 $4,500 Construct New Rest Area · Between MP 90 and $4,500 MP94 Highway Reconstruction Reconstruct Highway MP Oto 9.79 $39,160 Reconstruct Highway MP 71.93 to 79 .$28,280 Reconstruct Highway MP 84 to 85 $4,000 Reconstruct Highway MP 103.10 to 110.50 $29,600 Reconstruct Highway MP 123.40 to 144.94 $86,160 Total Cost for Kingman District $15,900 $214,790 $319,315 Flagstaff District Highway Widening LOS D or Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes MP 157 to MP 205 $216,000 worse Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes MP 205 to MP 230 $112,500 LOSC

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 21 TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS (continued)

2000- 2010- 2004 2005- 2020 Est. 2009 Est. Est. Cost Cost Cost Comments/ Project Location ($000) ($000) ($000s) Constraints Climbing Lane Construction MP 194.4 to MP . Construct Climbing Lane WB 194.7 $300 LOSC Interchange Construction and Reconstruction Reconstruct Devil Dog TI MP 157. 77 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct W. Williams TI MP 161.96 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Grand Canyon Blvd TI MP 163.54 ~10,000 Widening Reconstruct E. Williams TI MP 166 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Garland TI MP 167.52 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Pittman TI MP 171.65 _$10,000 Widening Reconstruct Parks TI MP 178.18 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Transwestern TI MP 185.11 $10,000 Widening . Reconstruct A-1 Mountain TI MP 190.54 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct W. Flagstaff TI MP 191.67 _i l0,000 Widening Reconstruct Dairy RD TI MP 192.56 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct 1-17 TI · MP 195.42 $10,000 Widening Construct New Interchange- Lone Tree MP 196 $10,000 - Reconstruct Interchange- Butler Avenue MP 198 to MP 198 $l0,00Q Reconstruct E._Flagstaff TI MP 201.12 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Walnut Canyon TI MP 204.85 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Cosnino RD TI MP 207.24 $10,000 Widening_ Reconstruct Winona TI . MP 21.1.16 $10,000 - Widening , Reconstruct Twin Arrows TI MP 219.55 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Buffalo Range TI MP225.05 ~- $10,000 Widening · Infrastructure Construction Construct Noise Barriers MP 195 to MP 205 $10,000 Highway Reconstruction Reconstruct-Highway MP 146.25 to 148 $7,000 Reconstruct Highway MP 154 to 157 $12,000 Total Cost for Flagstaff District $300 $386,000 $171,500 Holbrook District Highway Widening Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes MP 2~0 to MP 233.88 $17,460 LOS C MP 245.39 to MP Reconstruct and Widen to Six Lanes 252.12 $30,285 LOS C Interchange Construction and Reconstruction Reconstruct Two Guns TI MP 230.43 $10,000 Widening Reconstruct Meteor Crater TI MP 233.88 $10,00Q Widening Infrastructure Construction Construct Noise Barriers MP 282 to 288 $6,000 Construct Pedestrian Crossing MP 333 to 339 $1,000 Construct New Rest Area MP323 $6,000 Highway Reconstruction Reconstruct Highway MP 286 to 360 $2_96,000 Total Cost for Holbrook District $7,000 $369,745 Total Cost of Recommended Projects $16,200 $607,790 $860,560 Note: Projects do not include programmed projects.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 22 N A

Kingman/Flagstaff Engineering FIGURE 1. RECOMMENDED District Border Line 1-40 MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS SR 64

80

117 N Climbing Lane Projects • Milepost SR 77 IV Interstate 40

AZ/CA State Border Line RECOMMENDED CLIMBING LANE PROJECTS

Kingman/Flagstaff Engineering District Border Line

90 80 Reconstruct and Widen Interstate to 6 Lanes A/ Reconstruct Highway • Milepost 30 us 93 IV Interstate 40 20 10 SR89 SR 77

RECOMMENDED WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AZ/CA State Border Line

CJ Milepost Range for New Interchange Projects Interchange Reconstruction Projects • Milepost IV Interstate 40

RECOMMENDED INTERCHANGE PROJECTS

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corr~dor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 23 TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

2000-2004 2005-2009 Est. Cost Est. Cost 2010-2020 Est. Project T;y~e ($000) ($000) Cost ($000s) Kingman District Safety Projects $0.0 $5,000.0 $0 .0 Replace/Rehabilitate Bridges $300.0 $2,300.0 $2,130.0 Improve Interchanges $113.4 $0.0 $0 .0 ITS Improvements $0.0 $305.5 $0.0 Landscaping $0.0 $4,000.0 $0.0 Pavement Preservation $15,200.0 $26,892.0 $27,060.0 Pavement Preservation-Frontage $0.0 $4,562.0 $4,562.0 Roads Port of Entry Improvements $0.0 $1 ,000.0 $0.0 Total Kingman District $15,613.4 $44,059.5 $33,752.0 Flagstaff District Safety Projects $1,000.0 $35,000.0 $0.0 Replace/Rehabilitate Bridges $3,550.0 $100.0 $300.0 Improve Interchanges $355.0 $0.0 $0.0 ITS Improvements $728.0 $0.0 $0.0 Landscaping $0.0 $10,000.0 $0.0 Pavement Preservation $10,128.0 $14,312.0 $21,640.0 Pavement Preservation-Frontage $0.0 $3,552.0 $3,552.0 Roads Total Flagstaff District $15,761.0 $62,964.0 $25,492.0 Holbrook District Safety Projects $0.0 $1 ,000.0 $0.0 Replace/Rehabilitate Bridges $5,166.0 $300.0 $0.0 Improve Interchanges $520.5 $1,150.0 $0.0 Landscaping $6,000.0 ITS Improvements $1,078.0 $0.0 $1,500.0 Pavement Preservation $17,272.0 $34,088.0 $18,396.0 Pavement Preservation-Frontage $0.0 $11,552.0 $11 ,552.0 Roads Improve Cross-drainage $500.0 Total Holbrook District $24,036.5 $54,590.0 $31,448.0 Total Infrastructure Projects $55,410.9 $161,613.5 $90,692.0

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

Location Recommended Project Implement starter transit system recommended in Kingman Transit Study. Kingman Expand system as needed Implement service improvements to increase service for elderly and Williams disabled. Expand routes within Flagstaff and to outlying areas. Implement Flagstaff improved demand responsive service. Navajo Nation Upgrade transit fleet and expand service. Expand time of service. Reconstruct for better interface between social Hopi Indian Reservation service transit providers. Winslow Implement study of transit needs.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 24 RECOMMENDED MULTIMODAL PROJECTS

The study also recommends a number of projects for intermodal facilities. The need for a signal and a merge lane on the connector road leading to the Kingman Airport should be examined, together with the impact of air traffic on nearby development, and the need for transit service should be assessed. A study of Flagstaff's Pulliam Field connector road signage and striping should be conducted, as well as an assessment of the improvement of geometrics at the I-17 / Airport Road TI and the need for transit. Striping of the connector roads to airports in Williams, Winslow and Holbrook should be studied, as well as the need for transit service. Preservation of pavement on airport access roads owned and maintained by the local jurisdictions is a concern in Kingman and Winslow.

The upgraded passenger rail stations in Kingman, Williams, and Flagstaff are or will be in ADA compliance. The Winslow facility needs to be upgraded as well. Transit needs studies should be conducted at all four stations. Parking is of particular concern in Flagstaff. No deficiencies in rail freight facilities were noted except that the turning radii for trucks on the Flagstaff access road needs to be improved.

Intercity bus stations in Flagstaff, Holbrook, and Houck need to be upgraded to be in ADA compliance. The need for local transit to these facilities should be examined.

ADDITIONAL STUDIES

The Study recommended some additional studies for the design and concept of recommended improvements to Interstate 40, including reconstruction and widening projects. Table 8 is a summary of these recommended studies.

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 25 TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED 1-40 STUDIES

Estimated Study Location Cost Kingman District Design Concept Report Reconstruct Highway MP Oto 9.79, 71.93 to 79, 84 to 85, $920,000 123.4 to 144.94 Design Concept Report Widening to Six Lanes MP 37 to MP 72 $500,000 Design Concept Report Widening to Six Lanes MP 91.7 to MP 103.58 $50,000 Design Concept Report Construct Climbing Lane MP 44 to MP 51 (EB) $50,000 Design Concept Report Construct Climbing Lane MP 79 to MP 88 $50,000 Design Concept Report Construct Climbing Lane MP 81.5 to MP 82.2 (WB) $50,000 Design Concept Report Construct Climbing Lane MP 83.7 to MP 84 (WB) $50,000 Design Concept Report Construct Climbing Lane MP 125 .5 to MP 125.9 (WB) $50,000 Design Concept Report New Interchange Approximate MP 55 $200,000

Design Concept Report Reconstruct West MP49 $200,000 Kingman TI Safety Analysis (7 miles) MP47 to 48, 71 to 72, 82 to 83, 86 to $35,000 87, 112 to 113, 133 to 134, 140 to 141 Landscape Report MP 49 to 53 $20,000 Conduct Noise Study MP 49 to MP 53 $20,000

Subtotal Kingman District $2,195,000 Flagstaff District Design Concept Report Widening to Six Lanes MP 144.94 to MP 146.25 $50,000 Design Concept Report Reconstruct Highway MP 146.22 to 148, 155 to 157 $80,000 Design Concept Report Widening to Six Lanes MP 157 to MP 233.88 $500,000 Design Concept Report Reconstruct Interchange MP 198 $200,000 Butler A venue Design Concept Report New Interchange Fourth MP 199 $200,000 Street Design Concept Report New Interchange SR 89 MP 195 to MP 197 $200,000 Landscape Report MP 195 to MP 205 $50,000 Conduct Noise Study MP 195 to MP 205 $50,000

Subtotal Flagstaff District $1,330,000 Holbrook District Design Concept Report Widening to Six Lanes MP 245.39 to MP 252.12 $100,000 Design Concept Report Reconstruct Highway MP 286.6 to 360 $1,480,000 Subtotal Holbrook District $1,580,000

Lima & Associates 1-40 Corridor Profile Study - Executive Summary - Page 26