VERDE VALLEY MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY FINAL REPORT MAY 2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to extend our appreciation to the following Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members whose support, knowledge, and participation contributed to this project: Judy Adams Janet Aniol Sherry Bailey Kyle Birkemeier Randy Blake Curt Bohall Phil Bourdon Chris Bridges Nancy Buckel Steven Burroughs Tim Costello George Dana Chip Davis Billy Garner George Gehlert Sandra Gilbert John Gillam John Harper Maggie Holt Ruth Johnson Eric Levitt Enalo Lockard Ron Long Gayle Mabery Brenda Man-Fletcher Chris Moran Charles Mosley Mal Otterson Michael Raber Kim Secakuku Mike Willett James Zumpf U.S. Forest Service, Sedona Ranger Station Beaver Creek, LMPOA Transportation Chair Town of Clarkdale Yavapai County Development Services Arizona Department of Transportation, Prescott District Town of Clarkdale Town Council Yavapai County Public Works Yavapai County Public Works Town of Camp Verde Town of Clarkdale City of Cottonwood Public Works Cornville Community Association Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Yavapai-Apache Nation Tribal Council City of Cottonwood Arizona Department of Transportation, MPD Big Park Regional Coordinating Council Arizona Department of Transportation, Flagstaff District Beaver Creek, LMPOA Verde Village City of Sedona Yavapai County Planning & Building Town of Camp Verde Public Works Town of Clarkdale Town of Jerome Yavapai County City of Sedona Verde Village Property Owners Association City of Sedona Long Range Planning Yavapai-Apache Nation Yavapai County Arizona Department of Transportation, MPD Appreciation is also extended to all participants at the public meetings held in November 2007 and January 2009. Their comments, ideas, and suggestions helped us to focus and address the needs and concerns of the various communities. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW............................................................................. 1 STUDY PURPOSE AND COMPONENTS ........................................................ 3 RECENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS..................... 5 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.............................. 8 2. EXISTING REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................. 17 EXISTING SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................................................. 17 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM ................................................................. 21 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................. 27 EXISTING TRANSIT AND TRANSIT PLANNING ........................................... 33 EXISTING TRAILS AND TRAILS PLANNING ............................................... 34 3. FUTURE REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................. 36 FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................................................... 36 FUTURE COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................ 43 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ............................................................... 47 FUTURE COMMITTED TRANSIT ............................................................... 55 4. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND PROGRAM ........................ 57 DEVELOPMENT OF TWO ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE MODELS ..................... 57 RESULTS OF TWO ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE MODELS............................... 62 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING RAODWAY IMPROVEMENTS............................. 66 PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ................................................... 71 PROPOSED TRANSIT AND TRAVEL DEMAND MANGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................. 76 FUTURE TRAILS SYSTEM ........................................................................ 79 5. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN....................................................................... 80 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .......................................... 80 REVENUE SOURCES AND FUNDING OUTLOOK .......................................... 84 ACCESS MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 87 REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN AND COUNTY TRAILS PLAN COORDINATION ..... 89 APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) BASE MAP ........................... 93 APPENDIX B. 2007, 2015, AND 2030 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT BY TAZ ..... 96 APPENDIX C. 2030 ROADWAY MODELING ALTERNATIVES ........................ 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 138 i LIST OF TABLES Page 1-1. 1999 VERDE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION STUDY PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND CURRENT STATUS ............................................. ...6 1-2. REGIONAL, LOCAL, AND ADOT PLANS COMPLETED 1999-2007 ............... ...7 1-3. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................... ...9 1-4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC MEETINGS - NOVEMBER 2007...10 1-5. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC MEETINGS - JANUARY 2009 . ...14 2-1. VERDE VALLEY 2000 CENSUS AND 2007 POPULATION ............................. 18 2-2. VERDE VALLEY 2007 EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR CATEGORY..................... 19 2-3. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS ................. 30 2-4. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2007 ................................. 31 2-5. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ............................................................... 31 3-1. VERDE VALLEY 2015 AND 2030 HOUSING UNITS ..................................... 37 3-2. VERDE VALLEY 2015 AND 2030 EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR CATEGORY ...... 40 3-3. VERDE VALLEY LARGE EMPLOYMENT ESTABLISHMENTS....................... 43 3-4. VERDE VALLEY ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS 2007-2015 .................................................................... 45 3-5. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2015 ................................. 50 3-6. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2030 ................................. 53 4-1. VERDE VALLEY COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................. 63 4-2. 2025 SR 179 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ......................... 63 4-3. TRANSIT SHARE AND DESTINATION ACROSS CITIES (1990) ...................... 71 4-4. VERDE VALLEY PROPOSED SHORT- AND LONG-TERM ALTERNATE MODE IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................... 78 5-1. UNIT COSTS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ................................................. 80 5-2. VERDE VALLEY PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ......... 81 5-3. ROADWAY PROGRAM SUMMARY .......................................................... 83 5-4. COST INDEXING .................................................................................. 84 5-5. ACCESS MANAGEMENT CATEGORY ASSIGNMENTS (DRAFT), VERDE VALLEY................................................................................... 90 ii LIST OF FIGURES Page 1-1. VERDE VALLEY STUDY AREA MAP ........................................................ 2 2-1. VERDE VALLEY HOUSING UNIT DENSITY WITH 2007 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES ................................................................... 20 2-2. VERDE VALLEY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH 2007 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES ................................................................... 22 2-3. VERDE VALLEY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ON 2007 ROADWAY NETWORK .......................................................................... 25 2-4. VERDE VALLEY NUMBER OF LANES ON 2007 ROADWAY NETWORK ......... 26 2-5. VERDE VALLEY SPEED LIMITS ON 2007 ROADWAY NETWORK ................. 28 2-6. VERDE VALLEY TRAFFIC COUNTS ON 2007 ROAD NETWORK ................... 29 2-7 VERDE VALLEY 2007 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE........... 32 3-1. VERDE VALLEY 2015 HOUSING UNIT DENSITY ....................................... 38 3-2. VERDE VALLEY 2030 HOUSING UNIT DENSITY ....................................... 39 3-3. VERDE VALLEY 2015 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY ........................................ 41 3-4. VERDE VALLEY 2030 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY ........................................ 42 3-5. VERDE VALLEY 2015 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION .............................. 44 3-6. VERDE VALLEY 2015 COMMITTED NETWORK WITH NUMBER OF LANES... 46 3-7. VERDE VALLEY 2030 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION .............................. 48 3-8. VERDE VALLEY 2030 COMMITTED NETWORK WITH NUMBER OF LANES... 49 3-9. VERDE VALLEY 2015 COMMITTED NETWORK, TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS................................................................ 51 3-10. VERDE VALLEY 2030 COMMITTED NETWORK, TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS................................................................ 54 4-1. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 1, NUMBER OF LANES ..................... 60 4-2. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 2, NUMBER OF LANES ..................... 61 4-3. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 1, VOLUMES AND LOS ..................... 64 4-4. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 2, VOLUMES AND LOS ..................... 65 4-5. POTENTIAL STATE LAND ANNEXATION................................................. 67 iii LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page 4-6. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 1 WITH TRAFFIC VOLUMES REDUCED BY FIVE PERCENT ................................................................ 70 4-7. VERDE VALLEY 2030 RECOMMENDED PROJECTS.................................... 72 4-8. PROPOSED ALTERNATE MODE SYSTEM ................................................. 77 5-1. ACCESS MANAGEMENT CATEGORY MAP, (DRAFT) VERDE VALLEY ......... 92 iv 1. INTRODUCTION REGIONAL OVERVIEW The Verde Valley is a region of 673 square miles in northeastern Yavapai County with a study area population of about 72,200 in 2007. The central Verde Valley is about 100 miles north of central Phoenix and 40 miles south of central Flagstaff. The Verde Valley study area (Figure 1-1) is nearly coterminous with the middle portion of the Verde River watershed. To the northwest and southeast of the Verde Valley, the Verde River and its tributary creeks make their way through a rugged landscape with peak elevations of about 5,000 feet. Elevations are above 6,000 feet to the east and northeast of the Verde Valley, bordering the Coconino Plateau and the Mogollon Rim. To the west of the valley, Mingus Mountain, the highest peak in the Black Hills, has a peak elevation over 7,700 feet. The mountains that flank the region are stunningly diverse in appearance. Natural, historical, and cultural attractions sustain a thriving tourist industry and are also frequently visited by local residents. The Prescott and Coconino National Forests offer many recreational opportunities. The study area also contains the following federal and state lands open to the public: Montezuma Castle National Monument (including Montezuma Well), Tuzigoot National Monument, Dead Horse Ranch State Park, Fort Verde State Historic Park, Jerome State Historic Park, and Red Rock State Park. The study area includes the incorporated municipalities of Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, Jerome, and Sedona, as well as the Yavapai-Apache Nation and unincorporated parts of northeast Yavapai County. Although the eastern part of Sedona lies in Coconino County, all of Sedona is included in the study area to better reflect traffic conditions in the region. The Yavapai County portion of the study area contains about 31 percent of the County’s population, or about 69,000 persons in 2007. The Verde Valley’s transportation system serves both internal regional traffic and substantial tourist traffic. Interstate 17 (I-17) also includes a substantial component of through traffic that does not stop in the region. The mountains and rivers present transportation challenges and opportunities. They are barriers to travel, and at the same time they attract visitors who are served by features of the transportation network designed to facilitate access. The number, locations, and diversity of the tourism sites make for particularly complicated travel patterns compared to those in other regions. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 1 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 2 STUDY PURPOSE AND COMPONENTS The purpose of the Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study (VVMTS) is to develop a long-range regional transportation plan to guide the implementation of transportation improvements on the roads of regional significance in the Verde Valley, including I-17, State Routes (SR), and roads on the County Regional Road System. The VVMTS is an update of the 1999 Verde Valley Transportation Study Update. While the study’s roadway recommendations are largely limited to the roads of regional significance, some major City and Town streets are analyzed as components of the existing and future roadway networks. A large part of the demand for travel on the roads of regional significance comes from trips between one city or town and another. An accurate depiction of the locations and volume of traffic flows from the cities and towns to the regional network is vital. That depiction makes possible an assessment of how the existing roads of regional significance are performing. The VVMTS has been prepared in coordination with concurrent transit planning and trails planning done by others. Existing transit operations and short-term transit planning are described in Chapter 2, while later sections of this study address the ability of the roads of regional significance to serve transit in the future. The Yavapai County trails plan is also described in Chapter 2, while later sections of this study address the “intermodal” locations where travelers move between roads of regional significance and the trail system. Later sections also address the degree to which trails might serve a transportation purpose, rather than only a recreational purpose. The Yavapai County Comprehensive Plan and the General Plans of each of the Verde Valley cities and towns have provided key background information for this study. The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan (2006) is of special note, as it was a recent, cooperative effort among the same communities as those who have participated in this study, and it contains a Regional Transportation chapter. The Regional Land Use Plan did not displace any comprehensive or general plan; rather it set regional goals for cooperative efforts regarding Transportation, Open Space, Housing, and Land Management Agencies. The next section of Chapter 1 looks back to the recent transportation plans and projects that have been accomplished in the Verde Valley. The VVMTS was funded by Yavapai County. Cities and towns and the Yavapai-Apache Nation provided data and guidance for the study. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised representatives from Yavapai County, the incorporated municipalities, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the Coconino National Forest, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and community groups in several of the unincorporated Yavapai County communities. The final section of Chapter 1 summarizes the technical advisory committee and public involvement activities for the VVMTS. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 3 Chapter 2 analyzes the socioeconomic conditions existing in 2007 and the relationship between those existing conditions and existing travel demand. Analysts devised a set of 204 small subareas of a size and shape that is appropriate to the study, called Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). For each TAZ there is a tabulation of the number of housing units in the TAZ and the number of persons working in the TAZ (in 9 employment categories). Chapter 2 also describes the existing transportation system. An inventory is included of the functional classification, number of lanes, and speed limits on each roadway segment in the regional network. A catalogue of recent traffic counts on the network is provided. Chapter 2 describes the results of the first phase of Verde Valley travel demand modeling. A traffic forecasting model was developed using the TransCAD transportation forecasting software and was checked using the year 2007 transportation network and estimated 2007 socioeconomic data. The transportation forecasting method requires that the traffic volumes estimated using the rates of trip generation for each housing or employment category be similar to actual existing traffic counts on the roadway network. The process is termed model calibration. Once the model is calibrated using existing data it is considered valid to use with projected data. The 2007 model was successfully calibrated. Modeling documentation for the VVMTS is provided under separate cover. Chapter 3 describes the future (2015 and 2030) socioeconomic conditions and the relationship between future conditions and travel demand. For each TAZ there are projections for 2015 and 2030 of the number of housing units in the TAZ and the number of persons working in the TAZ. Chapter 3 also describes the future committed roadway network. The committed network includes the 2007 network plus planned roadway improvements and new roadways for which funding has been committed as of 2008. Since no projects are committed beyond the year 2015, the committed network is the same for 2015 and for 2030. Finally, Chapter 3 describes the results of the second phase of Verde Valley travel demand modeling. The calibrated model was applied using the projected socioeconomic data to devise two sets of forecast traffic volumes on the committed roadway network, one for 2015 and the other for 2030. The forecasted volumes indicated how the committed roadway network could perform to fulfill the travel demand in 2015 and 2030. Congestion increases are projected to be dramatic on some roadways between 2015 and 2030 if there are no improvements to the committed network. Chapter 4 presents a program of roadway construction and upgrades needed over the next twenty years—by 2030—to ease congestion and to provide multimodal options with minimal disruption of the Verde Valley’s natural environment. This chapter begins with an explanation of the development of two 2030 roadway alternative model networks (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2), including the participation of the TAC in developing the alternatives. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 4 Chapter 4 continues with an interpretation of the results of model runs for each of the two networks designed to assess performance in meeting the 2030 travel demand. A second model run was made assuming a 5 percent reduction in travel demand, and that demand was applied to the Alternative 1 network. Those results indicate the effects of a demand reduction on system performance; among the factors that might account for a 5 percent reduction in demand would be a shift to transit, telecommuting, and the use of other alternate modes. Chapter 4 concludes with recommended improvements, including a recommended roadway projects list for 2030. The selected projects (a blend of Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and other projects) are those that would relieve congestion and that might be feasible in term of public input, land availability for right-of-way, and environmental concerns. Also, there is a list of proposed transit and travel demand management improvements. Finally, there is a description of proposed trailheads. Chapter 5 describes the implementation plan for the recommended projects, including costs, phasing, and funding sources. Implementation may include access management both as a part of the recommended projects and also on other portions of the regional network. The access management plan underway for the State Highway System is also addressed. Finally, the chapter describes some ways in which the implementation of the regional transit plan and the County trails plan could be coordinated with the roadways recommendations. RECENT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND IMPROVEMENTS Many plans have been prepared and transportation system improvements have occurred in the Verde Valley (Table 1-1) since the preparation of the 1999 Verde Valley Transportation Study Update. A table indicating progress on the 1999 recommendations appeared in The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan, 2006. Table 1-1 indicates further progress on seven of the projects between adoption of the land use plan in 2006 and early 2008. Besides the improvements listed in Table 1-1, other notable projects are underway in the region. Three major projects on the State Highway System are: 1. ADOT SR 89A from Clarkdale (Cement Plant Road) to Cottonwood (Black Hills Drive). The project is under construction from 2008 through early 2009, and includes the installation of five roundabouts, new box culvert extensions, and new pavement. The finished roadway will have two lanes in each direction with a center median. 2. ADOT SR 260 widening from Western Drive to Thousand Trails. The project is underway. 3. ADOT Cherry Creek Safety Improvements. The project is a part of the programming for SR 260 from Western Drive to Thousand Trails, but it originated in the SR 260 Access Management Plan (see Tables 1-1 and 1-2). The components of the project include intersection improvements at four intersections, slope improvements, to improve sight distance, and shoulder widening. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 5 TABLE 1-1. 1999 VERDE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION STUDY PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND CURRENT STATUS Facility Plan Recommendation Status SR 89A- SR 260 to Sedona Widen to four lanes Completed SR 260 Camp Verde Bypass Construct four-lane bypass Completed Mingus Avenue-Main Street to Cornville Road Montezuma Castle Highway Two-lane new extension Construction completed Widen to four lanes Improved two lanes completed Montezuma Avenue Not in plan Under project scoping SR 260 Ogden Ranch Road to I-17 Widen to four lanes Revised access management plan Progress Since 2006 On The Following Seven Projects: SR 179- SR 89A to I-17 Widen to four lanes I-17- Middle Verde Road to SR 179 SR 260 Western Drive to Thousand Trails Road I-17-McGuireville TI Widen to six lanes Cornville Road- SR 89A to Tissaw Road Jacks Canyon Road Beaver Creek RoadMcGuireville to Montezuma Well Low Water Crossing Over Wet Beaver Creek to Indian Lakes Area Widen to four lanes/part divided. Reconstruct TI Spot capacity and operational improvements Widen to four lanes Widen to four lanes Reconstruct Construct crossing Two-lane concept with roundabouts adopted and under construction Part of MOVEAZ project 16.04 Construction complete April 2009 Not Programmed. Under Construction, FY 2008 Safely improvements under design Project was two-lane improvements; completed November 2007 Construction began November 2007 Lake Montezuma secondary access study completed in May 2007 Source: The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan (2006), status revisions since 2006 is indicated. Yavapai County adopted new regulations for County road improvement districts by the Board of Supervisors’ Resolution No. 1317 in 2001. That resolution states: A County road improvement district is a county improvement district created for the purpose of improving a road or roads to County standard with the expectation that upon completion of the improvements the road or roads will be accepted into the County’s road maintenance system. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 6 Road improvement districts had been described as a potential funding source, in the 1999 Verde Valley Transportation Study Update. Currently, there are some road improvement districts in Yavapai County, but none in the Verde Valley. The Yavapai County Road Ordinance 2005-1 established a uniform County Road System including acquisition, construction, and maintenance for all public roadways under the jurisdiction of the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors. The ordinance specifies that a road inventory shall be maintained and that the County shall indicate in that inventory those roads that are maintained by the County. The ordinance also specifies the Board of Supervisors' procedures for adding roads into county maintenance or deleting roads from county maintenance, as well as standards for public road maintenance, public road construction, miscellaneous provisions, and penalties. Many plans that would affect the Verde Valley Region’s transportation system have been completed between 1999 and 2008. Those plans are listed in Table 1-2. TABLE 1-2. REGIONAL, LOCAL, AND ADOT PLANS COMPLETED 1999-2007 Title and Date Summary Regional and Local General, Comprehensive, and Transportation Studies and Plans Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan 2006 Plan revisits ADOT and County plans to improve vehicular access and the promotion of a comprehensive trail/pathway system throughout Verde Valley. Yavapai County General Plan 2003 Plan outlines the overall principles guiding Transportation, Land Use, Open Space, and Water Resources planning for Yavapai County. Its chief transportation goals are: • Design roadways to complement Yavapai County vision; • Provide for public transportation systems; and • Implement county-wide and community systems for both pedestrians and (Incorporates the four community plans below.) bicyclists Yavapai County Community Plans, 2003 Big Park Cornville Red Rock Dry Creek Beaver Creek Sedona Community Plan (1998) (1986) (1992) (1996) 2002 Soldiers Pass Road Area Traffic Study (Sedona) 2006 City of Cottonwood, General Plan Town of Camp Verde, General Plan Clarkdale General Plan 2003 Lima & Associates 2004 2002 Special studies, original preparation dates at left, but all readopted as a part of the General Plan 2003, that serve as an in-depth guide to future land use, development, and growth for unincorporated areas within Yavapai County. Sedona’s Community Plan describes, evaluates, and promotes existing and desired future conditions for the community of Sedona. Analyses options for city street modifications both north and south of Highway 89A, roundabouts, traffic signals, and access control at different intersections in the study area. Conceptual framework to meet the projected transportation needs of the community, defines Street Classification Map, and future corridors. The plan includes recommendations for transportation systems that preserve the rural lifestyle without sacrificing public safety or acceptable design guidelines. Provides for an efficient, orderly system of streets and the full range of intermodal transportation opportunities, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 7 TABLE 1-2. REGIONAL, LOCAL, AND ADOT PLANS COMPLETED 1999-2007 (Continued) Title and Date ADOT Plans Summary MoveAZ 2004 Arizona’s project-specific, long-range statewide transportation plan. Adheres to state statutes mandating the use of performance measures in planning and programming. Other tables in this section refer to specific Verde Valley projects included in MoveAZ. State Route 260 Access Management Plan Final Report State Route 260 Future Corridor Feasibility Study 2001 The purpose was to identify long-range access management strategies to preserve the operational integrity of the corridor. 2003 The purpose was to identify potential highway corridors to improve the connection between SR 89A in Clarkdale and I-17 at Camp Verde. SR 179 Corridor Management Plan 2004 Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2003 ADOT used a Needs Based Implementation Planning process, modeled specifically to produce a context sensitive solution for SR 179 that evaluated existing conditions and recommended improvements to SR 179 based on the values of the community and its present and future needs. Comprehensive Review of the state system conditions for bicyclist and pedestrians. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Technical Advisory Committee The TAC met several times with the consultant and guided the process, see Table 1-3. Chief roles of the TAC members were: 1) to share transportation system, socioeconomic, and transit data, 2) to inform the consultant of the status of related planning projects, and 3) to review draft documents. Public Information Meetings and Correspondence Public meetings were held early in the project to discuss existing conditions and transportation issues. Public meetings were held late in the project to present the draft plan and the study findings. Three public meetings were held in November 2007 and three were held in January 2009. Each series of meetings included a meeting in Cottonwood, Sedona, and Camp Verde. The meeting format included a slide presentation by the consultant, a group question and answer period, and opportunities for one-on-one discussion as participants viewed large maps and other displays. The meetings were advertised in newspapers, on the Yavapai County Website, and through the distribution of flyers by TAC members. Participants were invited to submit written comments at the meetings or to mail or E-mail comments following the meetings. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 8 TABLE 1-3. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Agency Yavapai County Yavapai County Staff ADOT Town of Camp Verde Town of Clarkdale Beaver Creek City of Cottonwood Coconino National Forest Town of Jerome City of Sedona Yavapai-Apache Nation Big Park RCC Clarkdale Town Council Cornville, CA Verde Village POA Representative Chip Davis Phil Bourdon Mike Willett Chris Bridges Enalo Lockard Randy Blake Sandra Gilbert John Harper Alvin Stump Nancy Buckel Ron Long Curt Bohall Steven Burroughs Sherry Bailey Janet Aniol Maggie Holt Tim Costello George Gehlert Judy Adams Brenda Man-Fletcher Eric Levitt Charles Mosley Mike Raber Kim Secakuku Billy Garner John Gillam Curt Bohall George Dana Mal Otterson Ruth Johnson Title Board of Supervisors Director of Public Works Assistant Director of Public Works Planner Assistant Director of Development Services Prescott District Development Engineer Planner, MPD District Engineer, Flagstaff District Engineer, Prescott Regional Planner Director of Public Works Town Council Director of Public Works Regional Planner LMPOA Transportation Chair LMPOA Director of Public Works Community Development Director Regional Planner Town Manager City Manager Director of Public Works; City Engineer Regional Planner Regional Planner Tribal Council Representative Town Councilman Representative President Representative The comments from the first series of public meetings (Table 1-4) indicated several types of concerns on the part of residents. Many of the concerns about likely future roadway congestion were to be addressed after the future traffic conditions were modeled. Many of the concerns and suggestions about current traffic conditions on major regional roadways were an indicator of the array of roadway and other modes improvements that might be considered. Several participants made specific comments about transit, trails, wildlife protection, water availability and protection, and likely changes in the demographics profile and lifestyles in the Verde Valley. The comments from the second series of public meetings (Table 1-5) are mostly concerning specific draft study recommendations. Some comments in the second series of public meetings assisted in determining priorities for the recommended projects. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 9 TABLE 1-4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS - NOVEMBER 2007 Public Comment Camp Verde - 25 Participants Disposition of Comment Stoneman Lake Road predates I-17 and intersects with the Beaver Creek Ranger Station Road. There are many traffic problems along this route, worsening with growth. I advocate an additional interchange northwest of the historic Rimrock Airport. This would ease access to fast-growing neighborhoods both NW and SE of I-17. This might also provide a significant traffic flow solution, including an alternative way to connect with Cornville Road as the area grows. (2 comments) An additional interchange is not recommended. A paved and upgraded N.F. 119, as recommended, would become a functional connection to the SR 179 exit. That connection would serve some of the same travel demand as would be served by the suggested additional interchange. Improvements to the McGuireville Exit in 2008-09 also assist traffic flow. Recommended 2030 Projects include three lanes in each direction on I-17 (which would require adjustments to various existing I-17 interchanges in Verde Valley). I -17 interchange at McGuireville is neither scheduled nor funded for Improvements to the McGuireville Exit in 2008-09 assist traffic reconstruction. It is difficult for commercial projects to invest in a location flow. Recommended 2030 Projects include three lanes in each where they might end up with a freeway ramp in their midst. (3 comments) direction on I-17, which would require many adjustments to interchanges. Will the 1-lane tunnel access that Bice Road uses under I-17 be widened Would be considered in any I-17 widening alternatives. Bice Road with either placement of the interchange or done separately, and when? (2 area travel demand is included in study. comments) There will be a charter school on a road that intersects Cornville Road, The socioeconomic projections account for residential, workplace, initially with 60 students and a maximum of 150 students. and community facility growth for future. Priority areas are 2-lane segment of SR 260 and Cornville Road. Recommended 2030 Projects include completion of a four-lane SR The transition from a 2-lane SR 260 to 4-lanes is a problem and will cause 260, and four lanes on the west end of Cornville Rd long back-ups. Will the land management agencies be consulted? The U.S. Forest Service was represented on the TAC. Arizona State Land Department and AZ Game and Fish resources were used. Need to think broader in regard to possible alternatives. Many more alternatives were added over the course of the study. Need to include bicycle facilities in the plan. Recommended for 2030 include bicycle facilities in Cottonwood, and There is interest in a trail along the river from Camp Verde to Cottonwood. Park-n-Ride lot locations as trailheads for bicycle routes. Yavapai County and ADOT work together on the implementation of the 2003 Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Yavapai County Trails Committee continues implementation of Master Trails Plan. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– – Page 10 TABLE 1-4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS - NOVEMBER 2007 (Continued) Cottonwood - 18 Participants Supervisor Chip Davis spoke of how this plan will show linkages among land use, economic development, and transportation modes. The highest volumes now on the county system are on Cornville Road. Since the Cornville community has stated they do not want a 4-lane road, access management is particularly important to good functioning of Cornville Road. Maybe do not improve roads. Need to include other modes besides roads – walking, transit, light rail, passenger rail. In 10-20 years there will be many boomers wishing to be mobile with either electric carts or quad chassis based small vehicles. Many of these will be incompatible with traffic lanes or sidewalks. Cars are moving toward dinosaur status, especially large motors. Multi-modal is the future. The Verde Valley regional trails coalition was represented. Study was conducted in the manner indicated. Sedona is looking at land use to support efficient transportation. Verde Valley workers who have “location neutral” jobs will go from 10% in 2007 to 40% by 2012, according to a consultant working with the City of Prescott. An asset inventory is being done for the Verde Valley by the Rural Policy Institute. Description of functional classification in presentation was not clear. Acknowledged. A new 4-lane road from Ogden Ranch Road to Rio Mesa and Fir would impact Prescott National Forest or developed private land, with severe negative impacts: impact to national forest land; potential loss of important public land; impact to Black Canyon inventoried roadless area; and negative impacts on existing neighborhoods. Important to protect quail and javelina in the Quail Springs Ranch Road area. (2 comments) West Loop two-lane minor collector, south only to Quail Springs Rd, became a recommendation. Some National Forest land is in the corridor. As an alternative to the Foothills Highway, we suggest a proposed ADOT plan to create a new 260 bypass to the east, with one terminus near Thousand Trails and connecting with Highway 89A near Cornville Road. Such bypass will clearly reduce congestion at the 89A-260 intersections by a far greater amount than a foothills alternative to the west. “Foothills Highway” as an arterial was removed from consideration early in the study. No lengthy SR 260 bypass to east of SR 260, but a short bypass SE of SR 260/SR 89A was recommended to ease that intersection. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– – Page 11 Close coordination occurred with NAIPTA planning. Special modeling analysis was performed and indicated a 5% travel demand reduction. Acknowledged. Acknowledged and improved in later meetings. TABLE 1-4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS - NOVEMBER 2007 (Continued) Cornville Road currently functions as an arterial. (3 comments) 89A has a median and some access control between Cottonwood and Sedona, its cut-throughs give more access and have more intersections than on an interstate. A review of the 1999 study indicated that some traffic projections for 2010 made in the 1999 study in Cottonwood have already been exceeded. Bike/alternate vehicle lanes on all new and resurfaced construction. The cement plant may greatly increase production, but are planning to use rail and have most truck trips from 12 – 6 a.m. No new road through USFS lands! Portion of Cornville Road that functions as arterial was recommended for upgrade to arterial standards. Acknowledged. This study’s projections for 2015 indicate an acceleration in traffic growth, and were the basis of this study’s alternatives. Recommendations for 2030 include bicycle facilities in Cottonwood, and Park-n-Ride lot locations as trailheads for bicycle routes. Yavapai County and ADOT work together on the implementation of the 2003 Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Acknowledged. New alignments through USFS lands that were recommended include: Beaverhead Flat Road extension (4 mi), Future freeway W of SR 260 (about 2 mi), West Loop (about 2 mi). Sedona - 6 Participants Land use form, water availability, and other factors contributing to transportation need to be reviewed. Is the study looking at land use and zoning? Explore alternative modes of transportation (i.e., walking, transit, and rail). Why is it assumed I-17 needs widening without exploring other modes of transportation? Land use and zoning were reviewed extensively as part of devising socioeconomic projections. A model alternative was run that used a 5% reduction in travel demand as input. It assumed a combination of the listed modes. After the public meeting, modeling was done to analyze whether there was demand for I-17 widening. Recommendations in 2030 for I-17 widening were a result of that effort. The importance of park-and-ride lots was discussed. A major constraint to locating park-and-ride lots is the cost of land. Participants suggested that park-and-ride lots should be located at the gateways to Verde Valley Presentation was made about the regional transit study. Meetings were held to identify transit issues and gather input from residents. Transit options include additional commuter buses and on-demand service at the Sedona Loop. Proposed park-and-ride lot locations—three by the county and six by NAIPTA—are included in the recommendations. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– – Page 12 Presentation was one of the instances of coordination with NAIPTA transit study. Coordination was continued and the resulting transit summaries are in Chapter 4. TABLE 1-4. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS - NOVEMBER 2007 (Continued) Written Comments, through Alternative Development Phase: Communities in our area would benefit from the extension of the Beaverhead Flat road from Cornville Road to Route 260 as access for senior citizens in our area to services in Cottonwood. Many seniors prefer not to travel I-17. This would also be an alternate route from the Village of Oak Creek to many destinations. Pave N.F. 119 and do not add another interchange between McGuireville and SR 179. (4 comments) The Cottonwood General Plan show a short link connecting SR 260 and SR 89A via the southeast quadrant using Fir Street or Rodeo Drive. Neither Alternative shows this. Beaverhead Flat Road from Cornville Road to Route 260 is recommended for 2020-2030. Final recommendation includes a paved and upgraded N.F. 119, and no new interchange between McGuireville and SR 179. The short bypass of the SR 260 and SR 89A intersection via the southeast quadrant using Fir Street is in the final recommendations. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– – Page 13 TABLE 1-5. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS - JANUARY 2009 Public Comment Cottonwood - 24 Participants Disposition of Comment "Western Loop" would cut off forest land and will negatively impact adjoining property values, open space, wildlife habitat, and water table. Utilize existing roads to connect Cottonwood to SR 260. West Loop two-lane minor collector, south only to Quail Springs Rd, is a final study recommendation. Some National Forest land is in the corridor. For any "New" road on Forest Land, please understand impacts on that land use, forest land, aquifers, wildlife habitat, view sheds, and especially near the Mingus Black Hills Foothills. A wide corridor is identified for the West Loop. NEPA studies for any USFS lands and an alignment study would take place before alignment would be selected. I support three recommendations that affect my area: Cornville Road to remain two lanes (with improvements) through Cornville. Extension of Beaverhead Flat Road to Rte 260. Page Springs Road kept as a rural byway. Cornville Road as two lanes with access management is a final study recommendation. Beaverhead Flat Road from Cornville Road to Route 260 is recommended for 2020-2030. No changes recommended for Page Springs Road. A wide corridor is identified for the West Loop. NEPA studies for any USFS lands and an alignment study would take place before alignment would be selected. Notify Cottonwood Ranch Residents of discussions/meetings when identifying the West Loop alignment. Camp Verde - 17 Participants Improve N.F. 119 to a paved, two-lane local road. Would relieve congestion on Beaver Creek Rd, which has the highest accident rate in the area and a chronic dust problem. Would shorten commutes to Flagstaff. This project was proposed in 1999, but was halted due to the higher than expected costs on other projects. (2 comments) Subsequently the recommendation was revised to include a paved and upgraded N.F. 119. Request the proposed date of start of construction on Hwy 260 from Thousand Trails to I-17 be designated as 2010. The final study recommendation is for improvements of that segment of SR 260 to occur between 2010 and 2020. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– – Page 14 TABLE 1-5. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS - JANUARY 2009 (Continued) Sedona - 16 Participants "Western Loop" needs to be extended to Ogden Ranch Road, which is already a public roadway and will be more cost effective. Groseta Ranch Road needs to be improved and connected to Old Highway. City of Cottonwood/Yavapai county concurred: future upgrade of Quail Springs would be done only when State Land develops (recommended no sooner than 2020). Ogden Ranch is very close to Black Canyon roadless area. Groseta Ranch Road upgrade to minor collector is recommended for 2010-2020. Is too premature to preserve Future Freeway Right-of-Way from I-17 to Highway 260. Improving (widening) Highway 260 should be number one priority. Written Comments on Recommendations: The recommendation is for SR 260 widening to occur between 2010 and 2020. Future Freeway Right-of-Way would only be preserved when development along the corridor became more certain. There is a Nature Conservancy parcel that straddles the Verde River directly adjacent to and north of the Beaverhead Flat Extension alignment. It is a mitigation property purchased with mitigation funds from sources including Yavapai County under terms of the biological opinion for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat. A wide corridor is identified for the new road from Beaverhead Flat Road to SR 260. NEPA studies for any USFS lands and an alignment study would take place before an alignment would be selected. There is a longer-term effort to protect and restore riparian habitat values in the vicinity of the proposed Middle Verde Extension. Options should be discussed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects of any projects near the river. Contact the U.S. Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service for information on endangered and listed species in the vicinity of the proposed route. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– – Page 15 TABLE 1-5. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS - JANUARY 2009 (Continued) “Western Loop” is not the best way to accommodate future traffic flow to the area and has negative impacts on forest land in the region. The Western Loop Alignment will cover up needed watersheds that have already diminishing static water levels. The Forest Service also has a project in the proposed Western Loop area called the Black Hills Vegetation Management Project that improves the habitat for pronghorn antelope. City of Cottonwood/Yavapai county concurred: future upgrade of Quail Spring would be done only when State Land develops (projected no sooner than 2020). West Loop from Fir to Quail Springs also for 2020-2030. Ogden Ranch is closer to Black Canyon roadless area than is Quail Springs. Additionally, the relatively low traffic volumes carried on the Western Loop do not justify the damage and negative consequences caused by building the road. Suggest dispersing traffic onto existing roads: Fir, Peila, and Rio Mesa. Also, instead of extending Quail Spring Ranch Road to SR-260, direct traffic on Ogden Ranch Road to Camino Real. State Land planning would indicate the densities intended for the State Land parcel. Further study would weigh the traffic benefit versus the impacts. The County land near the proposed Western Loop Alignment is steep with deep washes; a new roadway will require deep road cuts and will permanently scar the land’s aesthetic quality. The route described will result in the condemnation of people’s homes and reduce property values. Wide corridor is identified for West Loop and an alignment study would take place before alignment would be selected. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– – Page 16 2. EXISTING REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Travel demand in the Verde Valley study area includes the trips made among the homes and other establishments in the region, some trips starting or ending outside the region, and some through trips. The socioeconomic conditions existing in 2007 and the relationship between those conditions and travel demand are detailed in this section. EXISTING SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS Geographic Framework: Designation of Traffic Analysis Zones Verde Valley regional travel demand is defined as the number of and geographic distribution of trips taken within the region. Each trip has a beginning location, known as a trip origin, and an ending location, known as a trip destination. The majority of trips in the Verde Valley include homes or places of employment (or both) as beginning or ending locations. Therefore, accurate knowledge of the geographic distribution of homes and employment makes for accurate analysis of the bulk of travel demand. There are trip purposes other than those that include homes and workplaces, and the places associated with those trips are important to the analysis of trips. Examples of the places are retail shopping centers, nursing homes, schools, and churches. Many visits to shopping centers are customer trips and they do not originate at home or at work. Most places associated with other trip purposes are also places of employment. The trips are analyzed for the various trip purposes, whether for work or for other purposes. There are a few places that are termed “special generators.” They are not associated with homes or workplaces, yet they are important destinations. An example in the Verde Valley might be Airport Mesa in Sedona, a very popular view point, particularly for viewing sunsets. Those places may be accounted for separately from the home and workplace locations. The next two sections describe the compiling of information on the locations of homes and places of employment. The traffic analysis zones (TAZs) described in this section are the building blocks of a geographic framework used to relate the beginning and ending points of trips to the roadway network where travel occurs. Each TAZ is devised by considering how trips flow from local roadways onto the major regional roadway network. Guidelines for the designation of TAZs are: a TAZ should be an appropriate size, taking into account the different densities of development in the region. In densely developed places a small TAZ may account for a large number of trips. Also, a TAZ should be an appropriate shape. One or more roadways that connect to the major regional roadway network should be within the TAZ. The outer edges of the TAZ are often barriers to travel, such as a steep slope or a stream not crossed by a bridge. The guidelines were applied to the Verde Valley and 204 TAZs were designated. The TAZ base map (Figure A-1) shows the TAZs, including their unique numeric labels. The TAZs are Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 17 the geographic units for many of the thematic maps in this report, such as Figures 2-1 and 2-2. Note the relatively large number of TAZs in the more densely populated areas and the large geographic size of TAZs in the more rural areas. Recent Trends and Existing Conditions: Housing and Population The population of the Verde Valley in 2007 is approximately 72,200 persons. The population in households is about 70,500 persons and the population in group quarters is about 1,500 persons. The housing units in the region number approximately 30,600. The housing unit distribution was tabulated for each TAZ (Appendix B, Table B-1). Rapid population growth has been experienced in the Verde Valley since the year 2000, although the growth rate has been less than that of Yavapai County or the State of Arizona (Table 2-1). TABLE 2-1. VERDE VALLEY 2000 CENSUS AND 2007 POPULATION Area 1990 Census (April 1) Verde Valley City or Town: Camp Verde 5,566 Clarkdale 2,216 Cottonwood 5,923 Jerome 405 Sedona (Yavapai & Coconino Counties) 7,720 Unincorporated Yavapai County, Verde Valley Portion: Big Park CDP1 3,024 Cornville CDP1 N/A N/A Lake Montezuma CDP1,2 Verde Village CDP1 7,037 N/A Remainder of Mingus Mountain CCD3 3 Remainder of Verde CCD N/A Remainder of Verde Valley, Unincorporated 6,613 Yavapai-Apache Nation Reservation 650 Total Verde Valley 39,154 Total Yavapai County 107,714 Total State Of Arizona 3,665,228 2000 Census (April 1) 2007 Estimate (July 1) 9,451 3,422 9,179 329 10,192 11,519 3,986 11,130 329 11,134 12,163 3,783 11,534 330 11,222 5,245 3,335 3,344 10,610 1,263 2,004 N/A 743 59,117 167,517 5,130,632 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6,783 4,197 4,385 12,894 1,743 2,278 N/A 854 72,166 220,170 6,432,007 223,934 6,500,194 2007 projection Source: Census Bureau, year 2000 population by place and CCD part, downloaded 9/10/07. 2007 Estimates (approved 12/15/07) and 2007 Projections (approved 12/01/06), Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, Population Statistics Unit. Notes: 1 The Census Bureau in partnership with localities, defines some unincorporated areas as Census Designated Places (CDP). Some of the CDPs in the Verde Valley were first designated for the 1990 Census, while others were first designated for the 2000 Census. 2 The Lake Montezuma CDP comprises the communities commonly known as Lake Montezuma, Beaver Creek, Rimrock, and McGuireville. 3 The Census Bureau subdivides counties into Census County Divisions (CCD). Statistics for the “remainder of” a CCD include the CCD minus all incorporated cities and towns as well as CDPs. The CCD statistics were not readily available for 1990. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 18 The housing unit density map (Figure 2-1) shows that the Verde Valley region has several areas of urban density as of 2007. Areas in the highest density range, 900 to over 2,200 housing units per square mile, have a population density from 2,000 to over 4,000 persons per square mile. Those highest-density areas are in Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Sedona, and Big Park/Villages of Oak Creek. In contrast to those areas, there are large areas—23 entire TAZs—mostly in the national forests, that have no housing units. Existing Conditions, Employment The estimated total employment for the Verde Valley in 2007 is about 23,900 jobs. The employment distribution was tabulated for each TAZ (Appendix B, Table B-4). The employment figures were tabulated into nine categories to capture trip generation characteristics that are similar within the category and distinct from the other categories. Overall, the Verde Valley’s employment distributed by category is shown in Table 2-2. TABLE 2-2. VERDE VALLEY 2007 EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR CATEGORY Category Retail Service Lodging Industrial Office Public Schools Casino Colleges Total Number of Employees 7,429 6,128 2,743 2,641 2,282 1,101 930 400 262 23,916 The dominance of tourism jobs in the Verde Valley has been documented in many studies, such as The Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan (2006). The dominance of the retail, service, and lodging sectors in the Verde Valley employment summary is consistent with the overall tourism economy. The concept of jobs-housing balance has been variously defined. A definition that permits exploration of several environmental, energy, and lifestyle issues is as follows: A community with a jobs-housing balance has a number of jobs that equals the number of workers for whom there is suitable housing within a reasonable average commute time to their workplaces. The employment to population ratio in the study area overall is about 0.33 in 2007, which is one job for every three persons in the total population and slightly less than one job per household. A large number of retirees are in Verde Valley households that do not participate in the workforce. Varying employment to population ratios in different parts of the region is associated with long commutes in some cases. Housing costs and availability are also contributors to the long commutes. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 19 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 20 Figure 2-2 displays the number of employees by TAZ. In the urban areas, many individual TAZs have large numbers of employers and a great variety of employment categories. In the rural areas, the TAZs with many employees tend to have employment that is clustered in just a few establishments and categories. There are large areas (over 50 entire TAZs), mostly in the national forests, that have no employment. EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM The roads of regional significance in the Verde Valley include several highways on the State Highway System and several on the County Regional Road System. The State Highway System comprises an Interstate Highway and State Routes. I-17 is the backbone of the regional transportation system as the only high capacity corridor distributing traffic between Phoenix and central and northern Arizona. I-17 crosses the Verde Valley in a northeasterly direction, descending the Black Hills just southwest of Camp Verde (milepost (MP) 283) crossing the Verde River at MP 288, and leaving the Verde Valley study area at MP 303, climbing toward the Colorado Plateau. The State Routes include SR 89A, SR 260, and SR 179. SR 89A generally parallels I-17 in the northwest portion of the region and provides an alternative route to I-17 for traveling to Flagstaff from Prescott. SR 89A bisects Jerome, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Sedona and the route is very congested in Cottonwood. SR 89A then descends into the Verde Valley from the west, and, like I-17, climbs out of the Verde Valley to the north. SR 89A serves as a commuter route between Cottonwood and Sedona and four of its sections have special designations within the study area: • Mingus Mountain Scenic Road as it rises to Jerome (MP 332.0 to 343.5) • Jerome-Clarkdale-Cottonwood Historic Road, the stretch descending from Jerome to Clarkdale (MP 343.5 to 353.5) • Dry Creek Scenic Road, a 6.5-mile portion of State Route 89A from Cottonwood to Sedona (MP 363.5 to 370.0) • Sedona-Oak Creek Canyon Scenic Road which climbs through the Oak Creek Canyon between Sedona and Flagstaff (MP 375.5 to 390.0) SR 260 enters the Verde Valley from the southeast and proceeds northwest through Camp Verde and into Cottonwood, roughly parallel to the Verde River. SR 260 ends at SR 89A in Cottonwood and it is very congested where there is much commercial development in the last few miles south of that intersection. SR 260 serves as a commuter route, largely inbound to Cottonwood from Verde Village and Camp Verde. SR 179 begins at I-17 north of McGuireville and ends at State Route 89A at Sedona. State Route 179 traverses a pristine and uniquely scenic area and is used by hundreds of thousands of tourists each year. State Route 179 from MP 302.5 to 310 was previously designated Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 21 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 22 an Arizona State Scenic Byway in 1987 and was designated an All-American Road by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in September 2005. It was designated according to FHWA criteria including a determination that it possesses “multiple intrinsic qualities that are nationally significant and contain one-of-a-kind features that do not exist elsewhere.” The entire 16-mile SR 179 is in the study area, beginning at the I-17 intersection and terminating at SR 89A in Sedona. The only north-south route connecting the business and residential communities in Sedona, SR 179 is also an important intercity link for residents, commuters, and commercial traffic of the region. The County Regional Road System includes several major and minor collectors. Those roads are further discussed in the roadway characteristics sections below. Functional Classification Figure 2-3 displays the functional class of each roadway on the State Highway System and the County Regional Road System. The functional classification of a road network groups roads that have similar design and traffic characteristics. One functional class differs from another according to the degree of access and mobility, defined as: • • Mobility - the movement of people and freight from place to place Access - the connection between roadways and properties along the roadways An arterial, for example, provides mobility over long distances with minimal access to adjoining properties. A collector, on the other hand, provides access to adjacent properties rather than serving long distance travel. Roadway functional classifications were developed to reflect both urban and rural areas in the study area. I-17 is an interstate which has limited access and carries a large volume of traffic. Until recently it had two main functions: • • To facilitate access to the region via Exit 287/SR 260 and Exit 298/SR 179N. To facilitate through movements bypassing the region. However, increases in trips that enter and then leave I-17 within the region have coincided with the rapid growth of Camp Verde, Big Park, and Lake Montezuma. Arterials serve or bypass the primary centers of activity, carry relatively high traffic volumes, and carry the primary portion of trips entering and leaving the area. Some arterials have full or partially controlled access to improve mobility. The following arterials have access control features: • • • • SR 89A from Cottonwood to Sedona SR 89A in Sedona and Cottonwood (sections) SR 260 in Cottonwood (the northern portion) SR 260 in Camp Verde (sections) Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 23 Other arterials in the study area are: • • • SR 89A from the western portion of the region through Jerome to Clarkdale SR 89A east of Sedona Old SR 89A in Clarkdale and Cottonwood • • • Mingus Avenue in the center of Cottonwood SR 260 from southern Cottonwood to I-17 and east of Camp Verde SR 179 from I-17 to SR 89A in Sedona For SR 179, ADOT undertook a Needs Based Implementation Plan (NBIP) completed in December 2004, for the purposes of preserving the scenic beauty and the values of the community around the route. The SR 179 NBIP covered an area overlapping most of the portion later designated as an “All-American Road,” but also extending north to the intersection with SR 89A. The resulting construction project underway from 2006 through 2009 contains a special combination of functional improvements for this two-lane arterial, including raised medians and roundabouts at major intersections. The collector system distributes trips from the arterials to the local streets. Collector streets also provide traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods and low density areas, and direct access to adjacent property. Major collectors on the County Regional Road System are Cornville Road, Beaverhead Flat Road, the eastern portion of Mingus Avenue, and Beaver Creek Road just east of I-17. Cornville Road is under study to be reclassified as an arterial. Minor collectors on the County Regional Road System are Red Rock Loop, Page Springs Road, Jacks Canyon Road, Verde Valley School Road, and the eastern portion of Beaver Creek Road. Examples of urban collectors, important to the study, yet not on the County system are General Crook Trail, Fir Street, Old SR 279 in Cottonwood, Middle Verde Road in Camp Verde, and Sanborn Drive in Sedona. Additional collectors are in the region (Figure 2-3); generally the roadways that carry relatively large amounts of traffic are named above. Number of Lanes The regional roadway network predominately comprises two-lane roadways (Figure 2-4). I-17 is a limited access divided highway with a total of four lanes. However, at some locations there is considerable distance between the northbound and southbound lanes, depicted on the map by the separate lines representing each direction. SR 260 was reconstructed from just west of I-17 east to MP 223 as a four-lane divided highway in 2004 to serve as a bypass to the south and west of the developed area of Camp Verde. The widening of SR 89A to a four-lane highway between Cornville Road and West Sedona was completed in 2004. The roadway is divided and has some access control features. Other four-lane roadways are State Route 89A through most of Sedona, Old State Route 89A, and a portion of State Route 89A through Cottonwood. The northern portion of State Route 260 from Western Drive to SR 89A is four lanes, and a four-lane portion from Thousand Trails Road Western Drive is under construction. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 24 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 25 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 26 Speed Limits The fastest speed limit in the Verde Valley is 75 mph on I-17 throughout most of its extent in the region (Figure 2-5). The posted speed limits on the County Regional Road System and the State Highway System, other than I-17, generally range from 25 to 65 mph. There is significant variation in the speed limits on the state routes. The roadway design and traffic conditions make possible a 65 mph speed limit on much of SR 89A between Cottonwood and Sedona. Much of SR 260 and the southern portion of SR 179 have a 55 mph speed limit. The majority of Cornville Road and Beaverhead Flat Road have a 50 mph speed limit. Traffic conditions caused speed limits to be set at 40 mph in and near Sedona on SR 179 and SR 89A. Within the more densely settled areas on the remainder of the roadway network, speed limits generally vary from 25 to 45 mph. The notable exceptions are where visibility is limited, tight “S” curves, switchbacks, or steep grades. For example, State Route 89A from the west through Jerome has posted speeds of 15 mph and 20 mph at various locations because of its winding path, steep inclines, and sheer drop-offs. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing traffic conditions in the Verde Valley area can be described as a result of completing a traffic inventory and some modeling procedures. The inventory is a compilation of traffic counts for the roadways in the study area. The modeling procedure is the calculation of traffic volumes. Traffic Counts A traffic count is the number of vehicles that passes a particular location over a stated period of time. Raw counts may be adjusted by various factors so that the resulting statistic represents an average day in the year or a typical “peak hour,” which is the hour of the day with the highest traffic count. A display of the inventory of traffic counts compiled for the study (Figure 2-6) shows that average daily traffic on the State Highway System and County Regional Road System varies from 33,000 on SR 89A just west of its intersection with SR 260 in Cottonwood down to 1,200 on SR 260 east of Camp Verde. In the study area, I-17 serves moderate to high traffic volumes comprised of a high proportion of trucks and recreational vehicles. The ten highest average daily traffic counts in the study area inventory are shown in Table 2-3. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 27 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 28 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 29 TABLE 2-3. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS Location SR 89A West of Intersection SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Saddlerock Ct. in Sedona SR 89A Between Les Springs Dr. and Rolling Hills in Sedona I-17 South of General Crook Trail SR 89A West at Willard Rd in Cottonwood I-17 between Cornville Rd and Montezuma Castle Hwy SR 89A East of Soldier Pass Rd in Sedona SR 260 South of Fir Rd in Cottonwood I-17 between Bice Rd and SR 179 I-17 North of SR 179 Average Daily Traffic Count 33,000 31,100 30,800 27,600 26,100 25,800 25,800 23,500 23,100 19,300 Source: ADOT Average Annual Daily Traffic, 2006; City of Sedona Traffic Study 2005; additional data Traffic Model Calibration The purpose of the traffic forecasting model for the VVMTS is to characterize the performance of the future roadway network. The detailed description of the traffic forecasting process is in the Future Regional Characteristics section of the study (Chapter 3). The first important component of the modeling process, however, is model calibration. Model calibration is performed using the existing (2007) socioeconomic data and transportation network. That component is described briefly in this section. The model was developed using the TransCAD transportation forecasting software. The transportation planning model is a representation of the study area transportation facilities and the travel patterns using these facilities. The socioeconomic data by TAZ described above is used to estimate the number of daily vehicle trips generated by each TAZ (origins), the number of daily vehicle trips attracted to each TAZ (destinations), and the assignment of the vehicle trips to the street network. The model calibration is an accuracy check. The 2007 daily traffic counts (Figure 2-6) are compared with the daily traffic volumes produced by the model. When the model matches the traffic counts within acceptable ranges of error the model can be used to test future year scenarios. Modeling documentation for the VVMTS is provided under separate cover. Traffic Volumes The 2007 traffic volumes in the calibrated Verde Valley regional model include the following areas with the highest modeled traffic volumes (Table 2-4). The 2007 volumes are displayed on Figure 2-7. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 30 TABLE 2-4. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2007 Location SR 89A West of Soldiers Pass Rd in Sedona SR 89A West of Camino Real in Cottonwood SR 89A West of SR 179 in Sedona SR 89A West of Intersection SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 260 South of SR 89A in Cottonwood SR 89A East of SR 179 in Sedona SR 89A East and West of 12th St in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Shelby Dr in Sedona SR 179 South of SR 89A Intersection in Sedona SR 89A East of SR 260 in Cottonwood Average Daily Traffic Volume 32,300 29,600 28,000 27,300 25,700 25,300 25,000 23,700 22,800 20,400 The level of congestion results from the amount of traffic a roadway carries and its capacity (the amount of traffic it is designed to carry). Many of the roadway segments with high volumes are not the most congested roadways in 2007, such as the top four segments in Table 2-4. The 2007 level of service (LOS) section below indicates the congested roadways. Level of service is another result of modeling: a qualitative measure of traffic operations stated in terms of factors such as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The best level of service is unrestricted or nearly unrestricted traffic flow, known as “Under Capacity.” The worst LOS is a congested or severely congested traffic condition, known as “At or Over Capacity.” In a rural area, the acceptable level of service is usually considered to be at the least-congested end of the “Near Capacity” range, and in an urban area, the acceptable level of service is usually considered to be in the middle of the “Near Capacity” range. Table 2-5 presents the criteria used for determining LOS based on volume-to capacity ratio. Several characteristics contribute to a roadway’s capacity. The number of lanes is a key contributor. As the ratio of daily traffic volume to capacity increases, the LOS experienced by drivers deteriorates until it exceeds the road capacity and bottlenecks occur. TABLE 2-5. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Level of Service Under Capacity Near Capacity At or Over Capacity Lima & Associates V/C ≤ 0.50 .51 - 0.90 ≥ .91 - >1.00 Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 31 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study– Page 32 2007 Level of Service The 2007 calibrated model levels of service on the Verde Valley network are displayed in Figure 2-7, which include a level of service of at or over capacity for portions of several roadways. • Cornville Road is at capacity at its west end approaching the intersection with SR 89A. • McGuireville Exit approaches and ramps to I-17 are over capacity. Beaver Creek Road is at capacity for the first 1.2 miles east of the McGuireville interchange of I-17. • Finnie Flat Road approaches to Montezuma Castle Highway and Main Street in Camp Verde are over capacity. • SR 179 is at capacity approaching SR 89A and Verde Valley School Road is at capacity for .25 miles before the intersection with SR 179. Note, that this level of service is before the reconstruction and addition of roundabouts at both of the intersections that are referenced. EXISTING TRANSIT AND TRANSIT PLANNING Transit service in the Verde Valley includes: • Cottonwood Area Transit (CAT) that serves Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Bridgeport, and Verde Village. • Sedona RoadRunner that operates circulator service within Sedona and commuter service to and from Cottonwood. The Sedona services are operated under the auspices of the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA), which also operates both fixed route and paratransit services in Flagstaff. The Cottonwood service is operated by the City of Cottonwood, with additional funding provided by Yavapai County and Clarkdale. Cottonwood Area Transit Cottonwood Area Transit has been in operation for twenty years. Its services are currently deviated fixed route and demand response service. A new transit center is being developed on West Mingus Avenue with an estimated completion date of late 2009. The fixed route service runs Monday through Friday, using two buses. The route is a single loop and one bus travels it clockwise and the other counterclockwise, each completing the loop in about one hour. The route is flexible and deviations are made. The demand response (“dial-a-ride”) service uses five buses and runs Monday through Friday, as well as limited hours on Saturday by appointment only. Both types of service have a high demand. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 33 The Cottonwood Area Transit currently operates a fleet of nine vehicles. All of these are 14passenger “cutaway” style vehicles based on recreational vehicle chassis. All of the vehicles are wheelchair accessible. Two of the vehicles are used to protect the deviated fixed route service, and five are used for paratransit dial-a-ride service. One of the remaining two vehicles is parked on “stand-by” while the other spare vehicle undergoes periodic maintenance as needed. Sedona RoadRunner The Sedona RoadRunner includes both fixed route service and “dial-a-ride” service in Sedona. The Sedona RoadRunner Circulator (fixed) Route has been in operation since 2006, and is free to riders. The route is a short 1.3 mile corridor that has Sedona's highest density of commercial activity and traffic, which includes Hillside Galleries and Shops, Tlaquepaque Arts & Crafts Village, and Uptown Sedona. The paratransit service uses special vans to transport disabled persons who are unable to use the RoadRunner. The RoadRunner commuter service, know as the “Cottonwood Express,” provides two commuter runs in the morning and two in the evening from Garrison Park in Cottonwood to Sedona uptown and gallery row. Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority NAIPTA was formed to coordinate public transportation service planning in Northern Arizona. Current members of the organization include Coconino and Yavapai Counties; the cities of Flagstaff, Sedona, and Cottonwood; and Northern Arizona University. The Vision adopted by the NAIPTA Board of Directors is “To create the finest public transportation experience making NAIPTA services an excellent choice for Northern Arizona Communities.” The Authority would like to see Verde Valley connected by quality, convenient public transportation that can facilitate affordable living, stimulate economic development, and meet the social service needs of the area. EXISTING TRAILS AND TRAILS PLANNING The Yavapai County Master Trails Plan (MTP) was adopted on November 2, 1998. The purpose of the Yavapai County MTP is to describe goals and recommendations needed to develop and maintain a county-wide non-motorized trail system with access points into the system and to public lands in unincorporated areas of the County. The County’s Trails Committee has worked for a number of years to implement the MTP. Trails are important for recreation and transportation. The following statement focused upon the transportation value of trails is among the educational items put forth by the county trails Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 34 committee. This statement best captures the intermodal access considerations that are to be a part of the multimodal transportation plan: Trails have transportation as well as recreational uses, and they have a position in transportation planning for developing areas. With growth there is a need to address establishment of a connecting alternative means of transportation. Trail networks should be planned with a view to addressing environmental concerns as well as serving all the people. The Master Trail Plan (MTP) will provide an opportunity for multi-use alternative means of transportation, as well as recreational purposes. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 35 3. FUTURE REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The future travel demand in the study area for the VVMTS includes the trips that will be made among the homes and other establishments in the region, some trips starting or ending outside the region, and some through trips. This section describes the socioeconomic conditions projected for 2015 and 2030 and the relationship between those conditions and travel demand. FUTURE SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS The traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were established as the building blocks of a geographic framework for purposes of both the existing conditions analysis and the future conditions analysis. A TAZ reference map appears in Appendix A (Figure A-1). The TAZs are areas within which trips begin and end. The establishment of the TAZs is described in chapter 2, in the Existing Socioeconomic Conditions section. Future Conditions: Housing and Population The population of the Verde Valley is projected to grow from about 72,200 persons in 2007 85,400 in 2015 and 108,900 in 2030. The population in group quarters, rather than households, will likely grow from about 1,500 persons in 2007 to 1,600 in 2015 and 2,000 2030. The housing units in the region will increase from about 30,600 in 2007 to 38,800 2015 and 49,500 in 2030. to in in in Rapid growth is projected to continue in the Verde Valley through 2030, although the growth rate will likely be lower than that of Yavapai County or the State of Arizona. The forecasted growth rate for the region for 2007 through 2030 is 51 percent, while the growth rate for the state is 61 percent. The projected future housing unit distribution was tabulated for each TAZ (Appendix B, Tables B-2 and B-3). A summary of the projected housing units and the projected occupied housing units, or households, appears in Table 3-1. Each TAZ is identified with a city, a town, or unincorporated Yavapai County. The boundary of the group of TAZs associated with each city or town is similar to, but not identical to, the city or town boundary. Population projections for the entire region were compared with those prepared by the Arizona Department of Commerce (DOC) in 2006. The 2015 total population projection for this study is 2.5 percent higher than the DOC projection, while the 2030 projection is 6 percent higher than the DOC projection. Projections of housing units for each TAZ for this study were based upon the general plans, zoning, and approved subdivisions in each community. Growth in each TAZ between the year 2000 and 2007 had been confirmed using parcel and subdivision maps, aerial photographs, and building permit information. The projection of the 2000-2007 trends into the future was aided by comparing the number of homes already built in various neighborhoods with the buildout capacity of neighborhoods and specific subdivisions, using data from the Yavapai County Assessor’s Office. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 36 TABLE 3-1. VERDE VALLEY 2015 AND 2030 HOUSING UNITS TAZ Areas Town of Camp Verde Town of Clarkdale City of Cottonwood Town of Jerome City of Sedona (Yavapai & Coconino Counties) Unincorporated Yavapai County (Verde Valley portion) Total Verde Valley Total Housing Units Occupied Housing Units 2015 6,010 2,000 7,603 182 2030 8,052 2,300 10,100 182 2015 5,617 1,860 6,960 155 2030 7,525 2,139 9,245 155 6,982 8,256 6,426 7,595 16,057 20,588 14,268 18,295 38,834 49,478 35,286 44,954 Housing unit density maps were prepared for 2015 (Figure 3-1) and 2030 (Figure 3-2). The Verde Valley region will have additional truly urban areas by 2030, which are those in the density range of 1,000 to over 3,050 housing units per square mile. Most of the highestdensities will continue to be found in the cores of the cities and towns. Generally, the areas that will add the most housing units during those years are developing areas on the edges of existing communities, including Beaver Creek/Lake Montezuma and Cornville. Some areas will open to development for the first time, including the area north of Cornville Rd across from Verde Santa Fe, the Ruskin “land exchange” area west of Camp Verde, and the large tract of state land northeast of Cottonwood. In contrast, there are large areas—22 entire TAZs in 2015 and 19 in 2030, that are projected to have no housing units. Most of the areas with no housing units are in the national forests. Future Conditions, Employment The projected employment for the Verde Valley is about 30,200 jobs in 2015 and 37,900 jobs in 2030. The employment distribution was tabulated for each TAZ (Appendix B, Tables B-5 and B-6). The employment figures were tabulated into the same nine categories as were used in Table 2-2. The Verde Valley’s employment distributed by category is shown in Table 3-2. Jobs associated with tourism are projected to continue to dominate in the Verde Valley through 2030. Retail, service, and lodging employment, in that order, will be the categories with the largest numbers of employees, just as they were in 2007. The dominance of the retail, service, and lodging sectors in the Verde Valley employment summary is consistent with the overall tourism economy. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 37 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 38 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 39 TABLE 3-2. VERDE VALLEY 2015 AND 2030 EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR CATEGORY Category Retail Service Lodging Industrial Office Public Schools Casino Colleges Total Number of Employees 2015 2030 10,145 7,460 3,168 2,740 2,480 1,953 1,360 600 276 13,029 9,185 3,768 3,381 3,074 2,481 1,932 600 451 30,182 37,901 Employment density maps were prepared for 2015 (Figure 3-3) and 2030 (Figure 3-4). The employment in retail, service, and office categories will continue to be concentrated in the core areas of Cottonwood and Sedona. Numerous small establishments will continue to be present along roadways in all of the cities and towns, as well as in Big Park/Villages of Oak Creek and the Verde Villages. About eight TAZs will begin to have employment in small establishments that will accompany residential development between 2007 and 2015. The single largest new employment center in the region is likely to be on the Ruskin land exchange west of Camp Verde. Conversely, large areas (over 40 entire TAZs), mostly in the national forests, will have no employment through 2030. A group of fifteen individual establishments that account for 10 percent of the total employment in the region in 2007 will likely continue to be among the largest employers for the next several years (Table 3-3). While most of the employment in the region is concentrated in population centers as stated previously, several of the largest establishments are not in the center of communities. For example, the Enchantment Resort is northwest of Sedona (TAZ 98) and the Salt River Materials Group Cement Plant (TAZ 171) is in an industrial area north of Clarkdale. The Cliff Castle Casino (TAZ 29), in a newly developing area, has excellent access from I-17. Several of the above employers, such as the Salt River Materials Group Cement Plant and Cliff Castle Casino, have indicated plans to add more employees by 2015. A notable new industrial employer will be the Clarkdale Metals operation in Clarkdale, where by 2015 there are to be 100 industrial workers reclaiming metals from the former mining slag pile, and by 2030 the reclamation workers will be finished, followed by a 100 industrial workers on the reclaimed land. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 40 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 41 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 42 TABLE 3-3. VERDE VALLEY LARGE EMPLOYMENT ESTABLISHMENTS Establishment Cliff Castle Casino Yavapai County Jail Salt River Materials Group Cement Plant Verde Valley Medical Center Wal-Mart Yavapai County Government Home Depot Mingus Union High School Verde Valley Medical Center Enchantment Resort Los Abrigados Resort & Spa Hilton-Sedona L'Auberge de Sedona (resort) Amara Resort Radisson-Poco Diablo Resort Location Camp Verde Camp Verde Clarkdale Cottonwood Cottonwood Cottonwood Cottonwood Cottonwood Cottonwood Sedona Sedona Sedona Sedona Sedona Sedona FUTURE COMMITTED ROADWAY NETWORK The future committed roadway network in the Verde Valley is described in this section of the VVMTS. The committed network includes the 2007 network plus planned roadway improvements and new roadways for which funding has been committed as of 2008. In the subsequent traffic conditions and network deficiencies sections, the committed network is assessed as to how well it would perform given the travel demand in 2015 and 2030. 2015 Committed Roadway Network Several roadway projects have resources committed to their completion by 2015, so the committed roadway network would differ from the existing 2007 roadway network. Some examples of the programs in which funding commitments are documented are the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Five-Year Construction Program and the Yavapai County Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Figure 3-5 displays the 2015 functional class of each roadway on the State Highway System and the County Regional Road System. Table 3-4 describes how roads in the 2015 are different from those in the 2007 existing network. Few changes were made to the functional class in 2015. These changes include Willard Street and its extension Monte Tesoro in Cottonwood will become a continuous minor collector from Mingus Avenue to the end of Monte Tesoro Drive south of Fir Street. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 43 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 44 TABLE 3-4. VERDE VALLEY ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS 2007-2015 Jurisdiction ADOT Route or Road SR 260 Improvement Description Completion of widening to four lanes between Western Drive and Thousand Trails Road. ADOT SR 260 Safety Improvements between Thousand Trails Road and I-17. Spot projects including consolidating intersections at Cherry Creek Road, Old 279, and the County Complex; improvements at Horseshoe Bend, Park Verde, and Dickison Circle; Slope improvements to improve sight distance, and passing lanes between Cherry Creek Road and Coury Drive. ADOT SR 89A Cement Plant, Clarkdale to Black Hills Drive, Cottonwood, widening to four lanes (two lanes with a center median). Includes five roundabouts designed to handle large trucks (wheelbases of 67 feet). ADOT I-17 ADOT SR 179 Completion of the improvements that resulted from the 2004 NBIP. While the route will remain two lanes, a portion of the northern end will be divided (a new southbound alignment). Other key improvements are raised medians and roundabouts at major intersections. Yavapai County Cornville Rd Reconstruction and safety improvements in 2008-09 between Tissaw Road and Page Springs Road, including paved shoulders, with a center turn lane from Loy Road to Page Springs Road. Yavapai County Beaver Creek Rd Reconstruction City of Cottonwood Willard St McGuireville Traffic Interchange. Construction in 2008 on a ramp widening and lengthening project. The Beaver Creek Road reconstruction project was finished in the spring of 2008. Willard Street (named Monte Tesoro Dr at its south end) will be extended to become a continuous, two-lane minor collector from Mingus Avenue to ¼ mile south of Fir Street. 2015 Number of Lanes The regional roadway network would still largely comprise two-lane roadways in 2015 (Figure 3-6). The lane additions to SR 260, SR 89A, and Cornville Road appear on Figure 3-6 and in Table 3-4. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 45 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 46 2030 Committed Roadway Network No funding commitments for roadway network improvements are scheduled to take place between 2015 and 2030, so the 2030 committed roadway network would have the same functional classification and the same number of lanes as in 2015. Some improvements for which preliminary planning have taken place would be likely to be constructed if funding were to become available. An example would be the widening of SR 260 to four lanes between Thousand Trails Road and the point west of I-17 where it is now four lanes. The time period from 2000 through 2008 has been a time when many planning profile studies have taken place in Arizona. Concurrently, there has been a recognition that under current funding programs there is a significant shortfall in projected funding to maintain and improve the roadway network. More information about possible projects that have been studied, but that are not committed to be constructed by 2030 appears in Chapter 4, in the Development of Two Roadway Alternative Models section. A 2030 functional classification map (Figure 3-7) and a 2030 number of lanes map (Figure 38) appear on the following pages. Their roadway network information is the same as for the corresponding maps for 2015. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Forecasting Process Overview A traffic forecasting model was developed and validated for the VVMTS Transportation Study area to estimate future traffic volumes. The model was developed using the TransCAD transportation forecasting software and was calibrated using the year 2007 transportation network and estimated 2007 socioeconomic data. The transportation planning model is a representation of the study area transportation facilities and the travel patterns using those facilities. The model calibration for the VVMTS is described in chapter 2, in the Existing Traffic Conditions section. Modeling documentation for the VVMTS is provided under separate cover. The next step in the traffic forecasting process was to apply the calibrated model to devise two sets of forecast traffic volumes on the committed roadway network, one for 2015 and the other for 2030. Traffic volumes are, by definition, the demand for trips distributed to the roadway network. While the committed roadway network does not differ between the two forecast years, there will be a significant increase in housing units and employment in the fifteen-year time period. Therefore, the traffic volume in 2030 will be considerably greater than in 2015. The housing unit and employment projection process and results for the two years are described above and in Appendices A and B. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 47 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 48 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 49 Forecast traffic volumes for both years included three types of projected travel demand: • • • Verde Valley Regional traffic generated by the projected 2015 and 2030 households and employment. Projected traffic from outside of the region attracted to destinations inside the region. Projected traffic from outside of the region passing through the region. Level of service is another result of modeling. LOS, more fully described in Chapter 2 (Existing Traffic Conditions section), is a qualitative measure of traffic operations stated in terms of factors such as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. 2015 Committed Roadway Network Model Results Several areas exist where the Verde Valley roadways will become more congested and traffic would slow down between 2007 and 2015, if the funded improvements were the only improvements made to the network. 2015 Traffic Volumes The 2015 traffic volumes on the Verde Valley regional roadway network include many roadway segments where traffic will have increased from 2007. The highest traffic volumes in the study area on the 2015 committed network are shown in Table 3-5. The 2015 volumes are displayed on Figure 3-9. TABLE 3-5. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2015 Location SR 89A West of Camino Real in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Soldiers Pass Rd in Sedona SR 89A West of Intersection SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 89A West of SR 179 in Sedona SR 89A East of Soldiers Pass Rd in Sedona SR 89A East and West of 12th St in Cottonwood SR 260 South of SR 89A in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Shelby Dr in Sedona SR 89A East of SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Dry Creek Rd in Sedona Lima & Associates Average Daily Traffic Volume 37,000 36,700 34,000 33,000 32,700 31,500 30,800 28,700 26,500 25,600 Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 50 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 51 The level of congestion on a roadway results from the amount of traffic it carries and its capacity (the amount of traffic it is designed to carry). Many of the roadway segments with high volumes are not projected to be the most congested roadways in 2015. The future network deficiencies section below illustrates the level of congestion. 2015 Level of Service The projected 2015 levels of service on the Verde Valley network are displayed in Figure 3-9. They include a level of service at or over capacity for portions of several roadways. Cornville Road would be over capacity at its west end approaching the intersection with SR 89A. Cornville Road would be at capacity for a 1.37-mile segment including the area where Verde Santa Fe is on the south side of Cornville Road. The approaches and ramps to the McGuireville Exit of I-17 would be congested. Beaver Creek Road would be over capacity for the first 1.37 miles east of the McGuireville interchange of I-17. Cornville Road would be over capacity approaching Beaver Creek Road from the west. Finnie Flat Road in Camp Verde would have segments totaling .2 miles at or over capacity. Montezuma Castle Highway and Middle Verde Road would be over capacity at the Middle Verde Road exit. SR 179 would be at capacity approaching SR 89A and Verde Valley School Road would be at capacity for .25 miles before the intersection with SR 179. 2030 Committed Roadway Network Model Results Many areas exist where the Verde Valley roadways will become more congested and traffic would slow down between 2015 and 2030, if no additional capacity improvements were made to the network. 2030 Traffic Volumes The 2030 traffic volumes on the Verde Valley regional roadway network include many roadway segments where traffic will have increased from 2015. The highest traffic volumes in the study area on the 2030 committed network are shown in Table 3-6. The 2030 volumes are displayed on Figure 3-10. In addition to the volumes stated above, I-17 projected traffic from outside of the region passing through the region will nearly double from 2015 to 2030. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 52 TABLE 3-6. VERDE VALLEY HIGHEST TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2030 Location SR 89A West of Camino Real in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Intersection SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 89A East of Coffee Pot Rd in Sedona SR 260 South of SR 89A in Cottonwood SR 89A West of SR 179 in Sedona SR 89A East of Soldiers Pass Rd in Sedona SR 89A West of 12th St in Cottonwood SR 89A East of SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 89A East of Zalesky Rd in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Shelby Dr in Sedona Average Daily Traffic Volume 48,100 44,200 41,300 40,800 39,700 39,000 38,600 38,300 35,300 34,100 2030 Level of Service The projected 2030 levels of service on the Verde Valley network are displayed in Figure 310. They include a level of service at or over capacity for portions of several roadways. Longer sections of several roadways at or over capacity in 2015 would be at those levels in 2030. The performance of some segments would decline from a better LOS to at or over capacity over the 15 years’ time. SR 260 would be over capacity from Thousand Trails Road south to .7 miles north of the I-17 intersection. SR 89A in Cottonwood would drop from near capacity to over capacity between its intersections with Camino Real and where it turns west. In addition, the south portion of Main Street (Old SR 89A) would be over capacity. SR 89A would be at capacity just west of SR 260. Camino Real in Cottonwood would be over capacity just south of Fir Street. Cornville Road would be over capacity at its west end approaching the intersection with SR 89A, including dropping from at capacity to over capacity for the 1.37-mile segment including the area where Verde Santa Fe is on the south side of Cornville Road. The approaches and ramps to the McGuireville Exit of I-17 would be congested. Beaver Creek Road would be over capacity for the first 1.37 miles east of the McGuireville interchange of I-17. Cornville Road would be over capacity approaching Beaver Creek Road from the west. Finnie Flat Road in Camp Verde would have segments totaling .2 miles at or over capacity. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 53 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 54 Montezuma Castle Highway and Middle Verde Road would be over capacity at the Middle Verde Road exit, and at two intersections to the south. SR 179’s traffic volumes are discussed in the “Results of Two Roadway Alternative Models” section of Chapter 4, as modeling of SR 179 was a critical part of the Needs Based Implementation Plan. FUTURE COMMITTED TRANSIT Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority NAIPTA is currently completing an update of a five-year transit plan for Verde Valley. As a part of that update process, the Authority has analyzed a range of service scenarios and has developed service recommendations for the study area with input from citizen advisory committees formed for that purpose. NAIPTA requested and was provided with both 2015 and 2030 socioeconomic data developed for the VVMTS to assist the Authority in refining its travel demand forecasts for candidate corridors and service areas. Draft recommendations of the NAIPTA Five-year Plan Update include: • • • Converting CAT deviated fixed routes to fixed routes and limiting dial-a-ride service to special needs clients such as seniors and mobility-limited persons Increasing the number of daily trips between Cottonwood and Sedona Adding limited Saturday service Specific planning beyond the five-year horizon is more general in nature, but the Authority indicates it is considering the future implementation of additional bus service connecting Verde Valley communities on major highways. However, specific service levels for the various corridors being considered have not been determined and sources of funding have yet to be identified. Various funding options are being considered. The project includes a limited amount of conceptual planning for further expansion that would occur more than five years from now (beyond 2013). According to NAIPTA, the Authority and its member agencies are working with ADOT and with the Northern Arizona Council of Governments to secure Federal Transit Administration and Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus) funds for expanded transit service in Verde Valley. CAT Expansion Plans In 2009, CAT plans to obtain a tenth vehicle and hire an additional driver. The new vehicle will be used to introduce a third deviated fixed route. While transit ridership in Cottonwood has grown dramatically in recent months as in other cities due to the increased price of Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 55 gasoline, CAT believes that the 14-passenger vehicles are more than adequate to meet nearterm demand. Ultimately, CAT hopes to introduce more fixed routes and reduce the number of vehicles dedicated to dial-a-ride services. While operated by the City, CAT functions as a member of NAIPTA and coordinates closely with Sedona Roadrunner, the other NAIPTA operation in Verde Valley. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 56 4. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND PROGRAM Regional roadway construction and upgrades are needed over the next twenty years to prevent congestion on the Verde Valley roadway system in 2030. This chapter describes a transportation plan and program designed to ease congestion, to provide multimodal options, and to avoid disruption of the Verde Valley’s natural environment. The previous chapter described the travel demand in 2030 and the levels of congestion in the system if the only upgrades by 2030 were to be the few that are already committed. This chapter begins with an explanation of the development of two 2030 roadway alternative model networks (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2). The same regional travel demand was assumed for both networks in 2030. The model was run for each of the two alternative networks in order to assess its performance in meeting that demand. The results of the model runs were interpreted. Modeling documentation for the VVMTS is provided under separate cover. Next, a second model run was made for one of the networks (Alternative 1). The regional travel demand for single and low-occupancy vehicular travel was assumed to be reduced by 5 percent in 2030 for the second Alternative 1 model run. Among the factors that might account for a 5 percent reduction in demand would be a shift to transit, telecommuting, and the use of other alternate modes. Finally, the results of Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 1 with Demand Reductions were compared. A set of recommended projects emerged from the analysis. The recommended projects are those that would relieve congestion and that could be feasible in term of public input, land availability for right-of-way, and environmental concerns. DEVELOPMENT OF TWO ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE MODELS The congestion anticipated to be present on the 2030 committed roadway network without any new projects was displayed on Figure 3-10. Two alternative networks were developed for modeling purposes. The alternatives were intended to show two different sets of potential new and upgraded roadways that could relieve congestion. The most common upgrades were additional travel lanes on existing roadways. The alternatives are displayed on Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. All potential new segments are shown as lines, but they actually represent wide corridors where there will be a high travel demand in 2030, and where building a roadway somewhere within the corridor might relieve congestion. Descriptions of potential new roadways mention some existing roadways in their vicinity. Such descriptions are only general location references, and they do not imply that the new roadway would be an upgrade of an existing road. Alternative 1 had fewer components than Alternative 2. With more components Alternative 2 would be expected to be more effective at relieving congestion, but would also be more costly Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 57 to construct, would require more new right-of-way, and would require mitigation of more environmental effects. A few roadway segments would carry more traffic in Alternative 1 than in Alternative 2. Tables that list all components of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 appear in Appendix C. Components in Both Alternative Networks There were seven components that were the same between the two alternative networks. Those components are described below. Interstate 17. I-17 is assumed to be upgraded by increasing the number of travel lanes from two to three both northbound and southbound. That assumption resulted from communication with ADOT representatives participating in various I-17 studies. In the Verde Valley, in 2030, I-17 would operate almost at capacity over about one-third of its length, and near capacity over the remainder, in the absence of any roadway widening. “Near capacity” (LOS C) is considered to be an acceptable level of service on such a rural interstate. Cornville Road. Both alternative networks included an upgrade of Cornville Road from a major collector to an arterial and the addition of a travel lane in each direction from SR 89A to Tissaw Road. Both alternative networks also kept Cornville Road as a major collector with two travel lanes from Tissaw Road to I-17. SR 89A/Cornville Road Intersection Bypass. Both alternative networks included a new bypass to relieve traffic across the eastern quadrant of the intersection of SR 89A and Cornville Road. Beginning at the Cornville Road/Tissaw Road intersection, the four-lane minor collector would traverse private land, connecting to SR 89A opposite the Bill Gray Road intersection. The private land is an approved, planned area development (mixed commercial and residential) in Cottonwood. SR 260/SR 89A Intersection Bypass. Both alternative networks include a new bypass to relieve traffic across the southeast quadrant of the intersection of SR 260 and SR 89A. From the intersection of Fir St and SR 260 the four-lane, minor collector bypass would head east, then north to intersect SR 89A in the area between Oasis Park Mobile Home Park and UVX Road. A similar proposed bypass is in the circulation element of the 2003 City of Cottonwood General Plan. Main Street in Cottonwood. Between Mingus Ave and SR 89A, Main Street would be upgraded to arterial standards (it already has four lanes). New Road from Beaverhead Flat Road to SR 260. Both alternative networks included a new connector from the Beaverhead Flat Road/Cornville Road intersection to SR 260. The two-lane major collector county road would traverse an area in the Coconino National Forest, and then continue west adjacent to the Town of Camp Verde boundary, eventually Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 58 connecting to SR 260. Middle Verde Road would be extended northwest to connect to the new road. New Sedona SR 179 Bypass. Both alternative networks included a new two-lane minor collector going west from SR 179 near Back O’ Beyond, crossing Oak Creek, continuing near Chavez Ranch Road, and joining Upper Red Rock Loop Road to complete the connection to SR 89A. Components Unique to Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is displayed in Figure 4-1. Potential new segments appear as lines, but actually represent wide corridors. The elements unique to Alternative 1 are: Cottonwood area. Two elements largely in Cottonwood would also affect traffic flow in Clarkdale and the western portion of the Verde Valley in general. The West Loop, an access-controlled minor collector with two lanes, is in the circulation element of the 2003 City of Cottonwood General Plan. Main Street in Cottonwood between Mingus Ave and SR89A would be upgraded to arterial standards (it already has four lanes). Camp Verde area. Two elements largely in Camp Verde would affect regional traffic flow. Finnie Flat Road would remain at two lanes, but would be upgraded to an arterial. Montezuma Castle Highway would be improved to major collector standards. Beaver Creek area. Improvements to Beaver Creek Road and N.F. 119 would result in upgraded functional classes. On Beaver Creek Road, proceeding from the McGuireville interchange with I-17, the new functional class would be arterial, and further to the east the functional class would be major collector. N.F. 119 would become a paved, two-lane local road. Components Unique to Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is displayed in Figure 4-2. Potential new segments appear as lines, but actually represent wide corridors. The elements unique to Alternative 2 are: SR 260, “Forest Alignment” Freeway, and Cherry Creek Road area connector. The segment of the SR 260 arterial from Thousand Trails Road to West of I-17 would be widened from two to four lanes. Therefore, once the widening was completed, SR 260 would be a four-lane arterial from SR 89A in Cottonwood through to southern Camp Verde east of the Verde River. The Forest Alignment Freeway would provide an alternative to SR 260 from approximately Thousand Trails Road to I-17. Cherry Creek Road would be upgraded to a minor collector and would connect to the Forest Alignment Freeway at a traffic interchange. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 59 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 60 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 61 Cottonwood area. While Alternative 1 addressed traffic flow on the west side of the city and in the city center, Alternative 2 would address the traffic flow with relatively more capacity improvements. The West Loop minor collector would extend further south to Quail Springs Ranch Road. At that point, Quail Springs Ranch Road would extend east to SR 260. Groseta Ranch Road would be upgraded to a minor collector. Main St from Mingus Ave to Willard St in historic Cottonwood would be changed from four to two lanes and would be made more conducive to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Clarkdale area. A new loop, particularly to accommodate an expected increase in industrial truck traffic, would begin at Cement Plant Road and would arc to the east through National Forest lands in the unincorporated county, to SR 89A. The loop would be a two-lane minor collector. Camp Verde area. Two roadways would receive more intensive upgrades than in Alternative 1. Finnie Flat Road would become a four-lane arterial. Montezuma Castle Highway would become a major collector with a center two-way left-turn lane. Sedona area. A western minor collector bypass of the SR 179/SR 89A intersection (known as the “Y”) would comprise an upgrade of Ranger Road and an extension of Ranger Road to the west and north to SR 89A (west of Brewer Road). Beaver Creek area. Improvements to Beaver Creek Road would result in upgraded functional classes. On Beaver Creek Road, proceeding from the McGuireville interchange with I-17, the new functional class would be arterial, and further to the east the functional class would be major collector. N.F. 119 would not be improved so it would remain an unpaved road at less than local road standards. A low-water local road connection would be constructed from Brocket Ranch Rd (which intersects Beaver Creek Road), to the Indian Lakes area for general use and to serve as an emergency route. RESULTS OF TWO ROADWAY ALTERNATIVE MODELS The modeling result for each of the two alternative networks would have effects throughout the regional roadway system. The result of Alternative 1 is displayed in Figure 4-3 and Alternative 2 in Figure 4-4. The daily traffic volumes for some key roadway segments are compared in Table 4-1. SR 179 is a special case; its traffic volumes appear in Table 4-2 and the SR 179 modeling is described following that table. SR 260 Widening and “Forest Alignment” Freeway, Combined Result. Alternative 2 included the widening of SR 260 to four lanes from Thousand Trails to the point west of I-17 in Camp Verde where it is already four lanes. Alternative 2 also included a freeway (two lanes in each direction) to serve as a bypass of SR 260 from Thousand Trails to the General Crook Trail interchange vicinity in Camp Verde. The bypass was dubbed the “Forest Alignment” Freeway due to the extent of right-of-way acquisition required from the USFS (Prescott National Forest). The freeway would be an ADOT project needing considerable interaction with USFS, Yavapai County, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Town of Camp Verde. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 62 TABLE 4-1. VERDE VALLEY COMPARISON OF DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Location SR 89A West of Camino Real in Cottonwood SR 89A West of Intersection SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 89A East and West of Soldiers Pass Rd in Sedona SR 260 South of SR 89A in Cottonwood SR 260 South of Fir St in Cottonwood SR 89A West of SR 179 in Sedona SR 89A East of SR 260 in Cottonwood SR 89A West of 12th St in Cottonwood SR 260 at I-17 in Camp Verde SR 179 South of Schnebly Hill Rd in Sedona* Cornville Road South of SR 89A Cornville Road (between Page Springs Rd and Beaverhead Flat Rd) Beaverhead Flat Rd Road from Beaverhead Flat Rd to SR 260 Beaver Creek Rd 2030 Average Daily Traffic Volume Committed Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Network 48,100 48,031 45,032 44,200 44,645 41,670 41,100 36,798 37,060 39,300 40,800 39,400 38,300 38,600 36,900 25,500 19,700 24,005 40,754 35,250 20,620 38,683 31,782 25,500 20,446 23,774 41,410 34,917 19,336 36,723 22,003 25,500 20,529 7,500 6,892 6,517 4,200 N/A 17,300 3,969 7,452 20,614 4,338 6,160 20,591 *Needs Based Implementation Plan traffic volumes, see text. TABLE 4-2. 2025 SR 179 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Roundabout Location SR 89A North of "Y" SR 89A/SR 179 Schnebly Hill Rd Canyon Dr Morgan Rd Chapel Rd Back O'Beyond Rd Bell Rock Blvd Cortez Dr Jacks Canyon Rd Ridge Trail Dr 2025 Traffic Volume (in Thousands) 27 31 25-26 21-22 15-18 15 15 14 16 12 10 Average Vehicle Intersection Delay (in seconds) N/A 5 9.8 7 7.5 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.1 6.2 4.5 Average LOS1 A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B A&B *Source: SR 179 Village of Oak Creek to Sedona Access Management Study, DMJM, December 2005 1 The LOS “A & B” is equivalent to “under capacity.” The LOS was calculated for 2025 in the source study, and by 2030 traffic congestion would be likely to increase (see text). Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 63 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 64 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 65 Projected development might occur if the Yavapai Ranch land exchange were completed between a private landowner and USFS, putting several hundred acres at the south end of the freeway into private ownership. Once land came into private ownership, right-of-way would be acquired from the private landowner. The modeling results indicated that the travel demand through 2030 on the SR 260 corridor could be met with the improvements to SR 260 alone. However, there is likely to be much development beginning a few years before 2030 from Cherry Road south to I-17. SR 179. The SR 179 NBIP and subsequent roadway improvement project is mentioned in each chapter of this VVMTS study (in a detailed fashion in Chapter 2, Existing Roadway System). The NBIP comprised intensive public involvement and scrutiny. The VVMTS included the SR 179 roadway as a part of the regional model. Such regional modeling includes the functional class, speed limit, and number of lanes characteristics of each roadway. In contrast, project-level modeling was done in the NBIP to forecast the performance of the SR 179 project. The results appear in Table 4-2. Project-level modeling includes more detail than regional modeling, and in the case of the SR 179 project, there was specific modeling of every intersection. Table 4-2 displays the results of modeling the roundabouts, specifically. Other key elements of the SR 179 included in the NBIP modeling were: • • • • • • • • One travel lane in each direction. 8-foot shoulders that will allow emergency vehicle access and accommodate bicycles. Sidewalks and walking paths. Curb and gutter throughout. One ¾-mile passing lane in each direction (northbound between MP 307 and 308; southbound between MP 308 and 309). Improvements to the Bell Rock Vista scenic pullout and Little Horse trailhead, and the addition of two pullouts with parking. Multiple dedicated turn lanes. Raised medians. NBIP modeling was for the year 2025, while VVMTS modeling was for 2030. With growth between 2025 and 2030, some SR 179 roundabouts might move into the “near capacity” range, and perhaps the roadway would be “at capacity” just south of the SR 89A/SR 179 Intersection. The VVMTS modeling indicated more congestion on SR 179 by year 2030, without consideration of all of the design features listed above. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Several criteria were considered in order to select roadway improvements. The consideration of the criteria began when the alternative networks were devised. For example, a preliminary corridor concept near Tissaw Road to connect Cornville Road with SR 260 was rejected based Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 66 upon the likely effects on the Verde River environs and the likely right-of-way costs. After the alternative modeling, the following criteria were used to select the final slate of projects: Travel Demand Model results indicate that the level of service on the roadway and on nearby roadways would be better with the project than without. Regional Benefit The system taken as a whole must serve residents’ travel within the communities and among the region’s communities. Visitor travel must be served, as tourism is the region’s leading industry. Each project contributes to that overall system. Public Input Many Verde Valley residents attended public meetings, where oral questions and comments were spoken and written comments were received. Mailed and E-mailed comments were also received. Residents were welcome to make comments as individuals or as the representatives of groups. Environmental Impact The amount of new right-of-way required was minimized. The number of crossings of waterways was minimized. The Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment results were consulted. Project Cost Once the projects were selected based on the above factors, project costs were considered in order to program the project for completion either in 2010-2020 or 2020-2030. Two projects analyzed in model alternatives were screened out after considering the criteria. The two projects present in the alternatives, but not recommended as proposed projects, were: 1. Cement Plant Road Loop FIGURE 4-5. POTENTIAL STATE LAND ANNEXATION Travel Demand/Regional Benefit Criteria: The model indicates that a moderate volume of traffic (2,819, under capacity), would be attracted to the loop in 2030. The volume could be managed elsewhere in the network, with design details employed that would make the industrial traffic more compatible with adjacent land uses. A roadway might be needed in the future if the state land were to build out faster than is currently projected. The state land labeled “North 89A” Source: Verde News 10-16-08 (Figure 4-5) is now being considered for annexation by Cottonwood. SR 89A runs Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 67 through the state land and a roadway to serve the state land might need access only to SR 89A. Environmental Impact Criterion: The loop roadway would cross the Verde River. The traffic volume calculated by the model (2,819) would depend upon at least one additional bridge across the Verde River for Clarkdale neighborhoods to access the loop. Without the bridge from Clarkdale neighborhoods, the traffic volume on the loop would be low. Any bridges constructed would be very close to the Verde River Greenway State Natural Area. The loop would have about 2.25 miles of its length on USFS land in rugged terrain. The benefit of the loop would likely be far exceeded by its high cost and potential environmental impacts. 2. New Sedona SR 179 Bypass A new two-lane minor collector was modeled that would begin within Sedona, would cross Oak Creek, and would end in unincorporated Yavapai County. The model specified a corridor near Back O’ Beyond, crossing Oak Creek, continuing near Chavez Ranch Road, and joining Upper Red Rock Loop Road to reach SR 89A. The model calculated that a roadway on that corridor would attract a large volume of traffic in 2030 (5,004, near capacity), which would relieve congestion on other roadways. Travel Demand. The New Sedona SR 179 Bypass would reduce SR 179 traffic volumes by about 25 percent south of the intersection of SR 179 and SR 89A and might improve the LOS on SR 179 in that area from “near capacity” to “under capacity.” The SR 89A volumes would be reduced by about 12 percent west of Shelby Drive in Sedona, which would not be enough to change the LOS from “near capacity” to “under capacity.” With regard to safety, the bypass would provide additional emergency services access across Oak Creek. While the bypass, as shown in the model, should only be considered to represent a wide corridor, there would be a benefit to upgrading existing roadways to provide the connection, which would avoid the environmental and aesthetic impacts of entirely new “road scars.” Regional Benefit. The bypass would begin and end in Sedona, but it would allow some through traffic from further points in the Verde Valley to go from south on SR 179 to west on SR 89A, completely bypassing the Sedona commercial areas. Environmental Impact. The bypass would have potential adverse water resource and riparian impacts on Oak Creek. The mitigation of those impacts would likely require a bridge that would be rather high and long, and that would be visible from many surrounding viewpoints. Other environmental impacts would be impacts on about .4 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 68 miles of USFS land crossed by the bypass. There would also be impacts from additional traffic on about 1.6 miles of Red Rock Loop Road that cross USFS land. Project Cost. Two particularly high costs associated with the aspects of the bypass emerged. First, the construction of a prospective high and long bridge (described above) would be very costly. Second, the purchase of some additional right-of-way would be required. Any alignment would likely require right-of-way purchase from existing residential development in the Back O’ Beyond corridor or adjacent areas. The benefits of the New Sedona SR 179 Bypass in relieving traffic congestion and providing a regional alternative would likely be exceeded by its high cost and potential environmental and aesthetic impacts. Modified Travel Demand Model To identify potential long-term transit and multimodal projects, the consultant conducted a modified session of the travel demand model with an output of daily traffic volumes reduced by five percent. Figure 4-6 depicts the study area 2030 Alternative 1 network with the reduced volumes. A comparison of Figure 4-6 with Figure 4-3 shows that reducing traffic volumes by five percent made a significant change to the roadway level of service on very few major roadway segments. It should be further noted that achieving a five percent reduction in motor vehicle volume would require significant commitment on the part of study area agencies to many of the recommendations of the NAIPTA Five-year Plan, together with all of the following: • Comprehensive development of a bicycle-friendly bike route and multi-use path network throughout Verde Valley. • Proactive encouragement and facilitation of ridesharing including carpooling and vanpooling. • Encouragement of future land uses that encourage mixed-use developments and other strategies designed to enable and encourage persons to live near where they work. • Implementation of Valley-wide wireless internet broadband capability, employer education, and other strategies designed to facilitate high levels of telecommuting. • Pedestrian-oriented environment in all of the urbanized areas to complement the areawide trail system. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 69 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 70 The Importance of Trip Destination in Determining Transit Share, authored by Gary Barnes, a research associate with the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, documents that in major cities, transit itself can attract significant percentages of travel in specific corridors, provided that the destination is a central business district with a high concentration of jobs. Table 4-3 presents Barnes’ findings. TABLE 4-3. TRANSIT SHARE AND DESTINATION ACROSS CITIES (1990) Los Angeles Atlanta Twin Cities Pittsburgh Transit Share to CBD 14.3 15.7 22.0 29.0 Transit Share to Non-CBD Destinations 3.8 3.7 3.0 3.6 Percent of Total Regional Jobs in CBD 5.2 9.5 15.0 20.1 Transit Share, Overall Urbanized Area 4.3 4.8 5.9 8.7 Source: Barnes, Gary, The Importance of Trip Destination in Determining Transit Share, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 2005 Barnes did not specifically address transit use in more rural areas such as Verde Valley. However, in researching his paper, Barnes discovered that the residential density of an area originating work trips does not have as significant an effect on the percentage of trips from that area to the central business district as previously thought. The number of jobs concentrated in the central business district has a significant impact on the percentage of trips to that district made by transit. For example, Sedona’s business district is the closest thing to a “central business district” in the study area, for tourism employees of Sedona businesses who live in Cottonwood. The schedule for the “Cottonwood Express” commuter system currently being operated between Cottonwood and Sedona refers to “service to Sedona’s business district.” The starter service, which has a daily capacity of 50 reserved riders, is approximately 50 percent subscribed according to NAIPTA. PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The proposed roadway improvements were selected after considering the criteria set out in the section above. The consideration of the criteria began when the alternative networks were devised. For example, a preliminary corridor concept near Tissaw Road to connect Cornville Road with SR 260 was rejected based upon likely effects on the Verde River environs and likely right-of-way costs. The proposed improvement projects appear in Figure 4-7 and are described below. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 71 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 72 Projects Under Yavapai County Government Jurisdiction The first group of projects includes those that would be Yavapai County government projects, as they are located entirely in the unincorporated county. Cornville Road. From SR 89A to Tissaw Road Cornville Road should be upgraded from a major collector to an arterial and travel lanes should be added, for a total of two travel lanes in each direction. Cornville Road should remain a major collector with one travel lane in each direction from Tissaw Road to I-17; multimodal and traffic flow spot improvements should be made continually. Beaverhead Flat Road to SR 260. A new major collector with one travel lane in each direction should be constructed. Proceeding from the Cornville Road/Beaverhead Flat Road, intersection, it should be constructed roughly in the Forest Service 119A corridor, and at some point it would turn to continue west north of the northern boundary of Camp Verde. The roadway would include a bridge across the Verde River. An extension of Middle Verde Road would connect to the new major collector. The collector from Beaverhead Flat Road to SR 260 would involve some USFS land; therefore, it would definitely be subject to Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The roadway alignment would be selected with consideration of the riparian habitat and threatened/endangered or sensitive species in the area. The Beaverhead Flat Road to SR 260 connection would relieve some traffic that would otherwise use Cornville Road from Beaverhead Flat Road heading northwest. Without such a connection it would have been necessary to make additional capacity improvements on Cornville Road. West Loop. The West Loop project should be constructed with coordination between Yavapai County and the City of Cottonwood. The portion in the unincorporated county would extend from south of Fir Street to the point where the loop would reenter the city just northwest of the intersection with Quail Springs Ranch Road. A related city project would be the extension of Quail Springs Ranch Road to SR 260 (below). SR 260/SR 89A Bypass (southeast quadrant). The bypass should be constructed across the southeast quadrant of the intersection of SR 260 and SR 89A to relieve traffic south of the intersection on SR 260. From the intersection of Fir St and SR 260 the four-lane, minor collector bypass would head east, then north to intersect SR 89A in the area between Oasis Park Mobile Home Park and UVX Road. The bypass would be mostly in the City of Cottonwood but the intersection with SR 89A would be in the unincorporated county. A similar proposed bypass is in the circulation element of the 2003 City of Cottonwood General Plan. Beaver Creek Road. Beaver Creek Road should be upgraded from a major collector to an arterial between I-17 and Montezuma Lake Road. From Montezuma Lake Road to the end of pavement at N.F. 119 Beaver Creek Road would be upgraded to a major collector. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 73 N.F. 119 should become a paved, two-lane local road. In the 1999 Verde Valley Transportation Study Update, N.F. 119 (termed an extension of Beaver Creek Road), was recommended to be upgraded from a dirt road, rural collector to a major collector. N.F. 119 was one of two potential projects subject to NEPA in a study known as the Beaverhead Flat Road/Beaver Creek Road Environmental Assessment 2000, for which both a decision notice and a Finding of No Significant Impact were issued on June 9, 2000. Beaverhead Flat Road was subsequently improved, but the N.F. 119/ Beaver Creek Road project did not go forward. Beaver Creek Low Water Road. This connection is accessed from Beaver Creek Road to Brocket Ranch Road, and then continues on one of three corridors to cross Wet Beaver Creek. The connection would be local and an emergency route, especially for fire safety. Wet Beaver Creek would not have a bridge, so it would only be useable under low-water conditions. Projects Under ADOT, City, or Town Government Jurisdiction The following projects would not be primarily the responsibility of Yavapai County. The projects are important to the functioning of the Verde Valley regional network in 2030. Each project description indicates the governmental jurisdiction that would have the primary responsibility for project implementation. Interstate 17 (ADOT). I-17 should be widened to three lanes in each direction throughout its extent in the study area, from about milepost 280 to milepost 305. This recommendation is consistent with the recommendations by ADOT officials in various recent and current studies. With completion of the widening, I-17 would be improved from LOS D to LOS C, considered to be an acceptable level of service on such a rural interstate. State Route 260 (ADOT). It is recommended that SR 260 be widened to two lanes in each direction from Thousand Trails Road to the point west of I-17 where SR 260 already has two lanes in each direction. The roadway would remain an arterial and access management guidelines would be employed. This project would be the last segment required to make SR 260 four lanes continuously from SR 89A in Cottonwood to about 1.2 miles east of the Verde River in southern Camp Verde. SR 260 Bypass Right-of-Way Preservation (ADOT, USFS, Yavapai County, YavapaiApache Nation, Camp Verde). While the travel demand through 2030 on the SR 260 corridor could be accomplished with the improvements to SR 260 stated above, right-ofway preservation is recommended for a bypass to begin approximately at Thousand Trails, going south to the General Crook Trail interchange vicinity. Cherry Road south to I-17 is likely to have considerable development beginning a few years before 2030. The right-ofway width would be to accommodate a freeway with two lanes in each direction. The Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 74 eventual project would require rebuilding the General Crook Trail interchange. This bypass project would be constructed when needed. Groseta Ranch Road (Cottonwood). This existing roadway between SR 89A and old SR 89A is recommended to be upgraded to a minor collector. Quail Springs Ranch Road (Cottonwood). The recommendation for existing Quail Springs Ranch Road is to extended it east to SR 89A as a minor collector. Besides adding access for the existing Quail Springs Ranch area, the roadway would be the more direct of two connections between the West Loop and SR 260. Main Street (Cottonwood), two improvements. Beginning at Willard Street on the west, the section of Main Street east to Mingus Avenue is recommended to be reduced from four to two lanes, yet would remain an arterial. Main Street would be modified to make it safer and more accessible for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Main Street from Mingus Avenue to SR 89A is recommended to remain a four-lane arterial, but would receive other safety and capacity enhancements. Bypass Route SR 89A/Cornville Road Intersection (Cottonwood). A new bypass is recommended to relieve traffic across the eastern quadrant of the intersection of SR 89A and Cornville Road. Beginning at the Cornville Road/Tissaw Road intersection, the fourlane minor collector would traverse private land, connecting to SR 89A opposite the Bill Gray Road intersection. The private land is an approved, planned area development (mixed commercial and residential) in Cottonwood. Finnie Flat Road (Camp Verde). An upgrade of Finnie Flat Road from SR 260 to Montezuma Castle Highway would include widening it to four lanes (Camp Verde project). If the widening of the entire segment proves infeasible, equivalent capacity improvements would be made near Finnie Flat, perhaps involving Hollamon Street and South 7th Street. Montezuma Castle Highway (Camp Verde). From the Yavapai-Apache Nation Boundary to Finnie Flat Road, the highway would be upgraded from a Minor Collector to a Major Collector. The current recommendation is for the addition of a center left-turn lane and other improvements. However, the Town is investigating the possibility of widening the roadway to two travel lanes in each direction (from Apache to Montezuma Castle Road). Bypass of “Y” (Sedona). From SR 179 to SR 89A Ranger Road would be upgraded and extended to the west and north (at or west of Brewer Road) to connect to SR 89A. The bypass would be a Minor Collector, one lane each way. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 75 PROPOSED TRANSIT AND TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS This section describes the approach taken to develop short- and long-range transit and multimodal projects for the Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Plan. During the conduct of this study, a five-year plan was independently developed by the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA). The two cities located in the study area that currently operate transit systems, Cottonwood and Sedona, are both members of NAIPTA. Cottonwood’s system is operated by the City, but Sedona’s system is operated directly by NAIPTA. Hence, the draft regional service alternatives suggested in the NAIPTA Five-year Plan comprise a logical beginning for the evaluation of short-term projects. Regional long-term service alternatives proposed by the draft NAIPTA Five-year Plan for 2013 appear in Figure 4-8. Each regional service concept was scored based on the following four criteria: • • • • Increases Productivity Promotes Regional Connectivity Enhances Current Service Serves New Areas A separate score is assigned to each concept based on the estimated level of investment. The following four concepts received the highest scores: • Develop regional park-and-rides that connect express fixed-route services to local services. Locations: Cottonwood (near Wal-Mart - connect with CAT); Sedona (Uptown - connect with Trolley); Village of Oak Creek (TBD); Camp Verde (TBD). • Operate express peak service (6:00 - 8:30 a.m.; 4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) connecting Camp Verde, Cottonwood, and Sedona. • Operate daily peak and mid-day service on SR 89A in Sedona from Uptown north approximately 15-miles to top of switchbacks. • Develop a Valley-wide Van Pool Program. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 76 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 77 Proposed Alternate Mode Improvements The proposed alternate mode improvement projects appear in Table 4-4. TABLE 4-4. VERDE VALLEY PROPOSED SHORT- AND LONG-TERM ALTERNATE MODE IMPROVEMENTS Service Type Short-Term Projects Regional park-and-rides Express peak service Daily peak and mid-day service Van Pool Program Service Area or Corridor Cottonwood (near Wal-Mart connect with CAT); Sedona (Uptown - connect with Trolley); Village of Oak Creek (TBD); Camp Verde (TBD) Cornville Road at Page Springs Road (APS site); Cornville Road Trailhead; SR 260 in Verde Villages Camp Verde, Cottonwood and Sedona SR 89A in Sedona from Uptown north approximately 15-miles to top of switchbacks Valley-wide Ride Sharing Program “NextBus” real time schedule service Valley-wide CAT Schedules Google Transit Trip Planning Service Valley wide Comments Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Proposed by Yavapai County Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Currently available for Sedona Roadrunner schedules only Long-Term Projects Daily Service Call-n-Ride Implementation of wireless internet broadband capability Lima & Associates Between Cornville and Village of Oak Creek Between Village of Oak Creek and I-17 Between Camp Verde, Lake Montezuma, and Rim Rock Between Sedona and Cottonwood Medical Centers Valley-wide Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Proposed in NAIPTA Fiveyear Plan Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 78 FUTURE TRAILS SYSTEM As is the case with transit, the trails network within the Verde Valley is currently undergoing a comprehensive planning process. The process is being conducted cooperatively by Yavapai County, the United States Forest Service, and local community groups. Draft maps of proposed trails have been developed and are still under internal review. Specifically, the new trails proposed for development within the Coconino National Forest are still being evaluated. In addition, any prioritization of candidate trail corridors that may have taken place has not been made public; nor have the funding requirements for specific trails been identified. Of particular interest to the VVMTS are the candidate locations of future trailheads. Opening a trailhead on a specific roadway will generate additional motor vehicle traffic on the roadway as trail users access the trailhead. In addition, future vehicle parking needs will exist at each trailhead, including adequate space for pick-up and horse trailer “rigs” at the beginning of equestrian trails. Signage, sight-distance, and other considerations with respect to pedestrians and equestrians will need to be made in the immediate vicinity of the trailheads. At this stage in the trail planning process, ten candidate trailhead locations have been identified within the study area: Cottonwood/Clarkdale area: 1. One-fourth mile West of Desperado at Rustler 2. One-half mile south of Airport Road on Mingus Avenue 3. Chuckwalla Drive at Fir Street 4. End of Mingus Avenue at the beginning of F.S. 493 Sedona: 1. Dry Creek Road at Gidner Trail 2. Dry Creek Road one-half mile north of North Slope Drive Camp Verde: 1. F.S. 136 at City Boundary—on General Crook Trail 2. One-tenth mile north of Arena del Loma at Hidden Canyon Trail 3. Middle Verde Road at Arch Way 4. SR 260 at Verde Lakes Drive As the trails planning process progresses and more information with respect to future trails planning is made available, additional trails data will be incorporated as addenda to the VVMTS. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 79 5. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This implementation plan provides cost, phasing, and possible funding details for the recommended roadways projects. The plan then provides an update of some of the access management concepts previously explored in the 1999 plan. Finally, the chapter describes some ways in which the implementation of the regional transit plan and the County trails plan could be coordinated with the roadways recommendations. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The transportation improvement program (TIP) includes costs based upon the actual itemized costs of construction for roadway projects in Arizona in 2007, expressed in year 2007 dollars. For each type of roadway, the cost estimation was performed by a consistent method. The initial itemized materials and labor unit costs were combined into a subtotal cost per mile. Typical multipliers were then applied to that cost per mile for design (10%), mobilization (7%), incidental utility work (5%), traffic control during construction (10%), and construction administration (10%). The final total cost per mile appears in Table 5-1. TABLE 5-1. UNIT COSTS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Item Design and widen an urban principal arterial Design and widen a minor arterial Design and widen an urban major collector Design and construct an urban minor collector Design, grade, and pave a County two-lane rural roadway (no curb, gutter, or sidewalk) Traffic signal Typical low water crossing (150'x60' @ $80/SF) Cost (2007 Dollars) $5,500,000 per mile $5,000,000 per mile $3,700,000 per mile $2,800,000 per mile $1,300,000 per mile $250,000.00 $720,000.00 The TIP appears in Table 5-2, showing costs calculated by applying the unit costs to the recommended projects. The TIP is organized into two phases, 2010-2020 and 2020-2030. Within each phase, the projects for which Yavapai County government would be responsible are listed, then the projects for which ADOT or a city or town, as specified, would be responsible. The grand total costs for the Verde Valley TIP sum to $275 million. Note that just over half (50.3%) of the total cost is in one project, the recommendation that ADOT reconstruct I-17 to three lanes in each direction in the Verde Valley. The upgrade of Beaver Creek Road, at $20.29 million, would be the highest-cost project for Yavapai County. County Board of Supervisors Resolution 1621 states that the Board seeks the assistance of the VVTPO in making recommendations for regional road project priorities, and that regional transportation plans such as the VVMTS will be used as one of the resources in the cost benefit analysis for a five-year Regional Road Construction Program, both for roadways and for public transportation. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 80 TABLE 5-2. VERDE VALLEY PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 2010-2020 Projects under Yavapai County Government Jurisdiction Road Name From To Cornville Rd SR 89A Tissaw Rd Functional Classification Arterial Cornville Rd Tissaw Rd I-17 Major Collector West Loop Black Hills Dr Fir Minor Collector SR 260/SR 89A Bypass SR 260/Fir St SR 89A Minor Collector Beaver Creek Road I-17 (McGuireville) I-17 (at SR 179 exit) Arterial Major Collector Local Local Low water Road, Beaver Creek Beaver Creek Rd/Brocket Ranch Rd Coronado Trail/Indian Lakes area Description Four lanes from SR 89A to Tissaw Rd. Upgraded from two-lane major collector. Some improvements, but no new travel lanes. No change to functional class. Access-controlled, two-lanes. Fir St would be extended to connect to the West Loop. Four-lane bypass of the SR 260, SR 89A intersection (southeast quadrant). Beaver Creek Rd, upgrade near I-17 to an arterial. From the Y to N.F. 119 would be a major collector. N.F. 119 would be a local roadway. Connection and emergency route, low water crossing. Subtotal, Yavapai County Jurisdiction, 2010-2020 Cost (2007 Dollars) $6,155,000 $376,000 $5,975,000 $1,630,000 $20,296,000 $1,262,000 $35,694,000 Projects under ADOT, City, or Town Government Jurisdiction Road Name From To SR 260 Thousand Trails Rd West of I-17 Functional Classification Arterial Groseta Ranch Rd SR 89A Old SR 89A Minor Collector Main St (Cottonwood) Mingus Ave Willard Arterial Main St (Cottonwood) Mingus Ave SR 89A Arterial Montezuma Castle Hwy Yavapai-Apache Nation Boundary SR 179 Finnie Flat Rd Major Collector SR 89A Minor Collector Bypass of “Y” Description This project would be the last segment required to make SR 260 four lanes continuously from SR 89A in Cottonwood to about 1.2 miles $43,022,000 east of the Verde River in southern Camp Verde (ADOT). Groseta Ranch Road would be upgraded to a two-lane minor $2,563,000 collector (Cottonwood). Change from four to two lanes and enhance for bicycle and Lima Suggests a pedestrian travel (Cottonwood). Design Concept Report Safety and Capacity enhancements to this existing four-lane arterial Lima Suggests a (Cottonwood). Design Concept Report Three lanes (Camp Verde). $17,457,000 Bypass, one lane each way (Sedona). $1,519,000 Subtotal, ADOT, City, or Town Jurisdiction, 2010-2020 Lima & Associates Cost (2007 Dollars) $64,561,000 (plus DCR costs) Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 81 TABLE 5-2. VERDE VALLEY PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (Continued) 2020-2030 Projects under Yavapai County Government Jurisdiction Road Name From To Functional Class Beaverhead Flat Rd to SR 260 Beaverhead Flat Rd/Cornville Rd SR 260 Major Collector Description Cost (2007 Dollars) Construction of two-lane county road on roughly the Forest Service 119A alignment from Cornville Rd, continuing west north of boundary of Camp Verde to SR 260. Extend Middle Verde Rd northwest to connect to the Beaverhead Flat Rd to SR 260 Rd. Included in the cost would be $5,760,000 for a Verde River bridge. $14,918,000 Subtotal, Yavapai County Jurisdiction, 2020-2030 $14,918,000 Projects under ADOT, City, or Town Government Jurisdiction Road Name From To Functional Class I-17 South of Study Area, Approximately Milepost 282 Thousand Trails North of Study Area, Approximately Milepost 304 Interstate SR 260 Bypass Description Three lanes in each direction (ADOT). $138,423,000 General Crook Trail interchange Freeway vicinity (interchange reconstruction) This project would be constructed when needed; but right-of-way preservation is recommended well in advance of construction. A new I-17 interchange would be required to accommodate the width of the freeway, as the General Crook interchange cannot do so (ADOT). One Lane in Each Direction (Cottonwood). Quail Springs Ranch Road Old SR 279 SR 260 Minor Collector Bypass Route SR 89A/Cornville Rd Intersection SR 89A/Bill Gray Rd Intersection Cornville Rd/Tissaw Rd Intersection Minor Collector Four lanes, in a planned mixed commercial and residential development (Developer construction, dedication to Cottonwood). Finnie Flat Rd SR 260 Montezuma Castle Hwy Arterial Four lanes (Camp Verde). West Loop Fir St Minor Collector Access-controlled, two lanes (Cottonwood). Middle Verde Extension Middle Verde Rd Quail Springs Ranch Rd /Old SR 279 Beaverhead Flat Rd Minor Collector Two-lane extension (Camp Verde). 161 acres Right-of-way Acquisition $3,280,000 $4,730,000 $7,638,000 Subtotal, ADOT, City, or Town Jurisdiction, 2020-2030 TOTAL, Yavapai County, ADOT, City, or Town Jurisdiction, 2010-2030 Lima & Associates Cost (2007 Dollars) $5,130,000 $800,000 $160,001,000 (plus Right-of-way Acquisition) $275,174,000 Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 82 The cost estimates in the TIP include neither NEPA environmental costs, in cases where there is a federal action (such as federal-aid funding applied to the project), nor right-of-way costs. Projects on the State Highway System (I-17, SR 260, SR 89A), are assumed to include federal-aid funding. Projects not on the State Highway System cannot be assumed to receive federal-aid funding. Corridor Studies and Design Concept Reports are not included in the estimates. A State Route 260 Future Corridor Feasibility Study was completed in 2003 (see Table 1-2) and its findings helped shape the SR 260 Bypass recommendation. Design Concept Reports are recommended for each of the larger TIP projects. A DCR was already completed for the Beaver Creek lowwater crossing (Lake Montezuma Secondary Access Study, 2007). Table 5-3 is a summary of the roadway program according to the functional class of the road. Generally, the VVMTS addresses roadways of regional importance at and above the Minor Collector functional class. The two exceptions are N.F. 119 and the low-water crossing of Beaver Creek, both of which are in the regional plan stressing their importance to community access and safety. TABLE 5-3. ROADWAY PROGRAM SUMMARY Functional Class Interstate Freeway Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Road Total Yavapai County Length Roadway (miles) Cost City Jurisdiction or ADOT Length Roadway (miles) Cost Total Cost 0.00 0.00 2.52 $0 $0 $13,193,000 21.93 0.00 1.39 $138,423,000 $0 $7,638,000 $138,423,000 $0 $20,831,000 20.95 $23,838,000 3.19 $17,457,000 $41,295,000 5.92 $12,735,000 10.82 $55,914,000 $68,649,000 4.64 34.03 $5,977,000 $55,743,000 0.00 37.33 $0 $219,432,000 $5,977,000 $275,175,000 Table 5-3 does not reflect the length of approximately 4.59 miles for the eventual Forest Alignment Freeway, as right-of-way acquisition is the only 2010-2030 time period action on this eventual project. Right-of-way acquisition costs cannot be estimated at this time and part of the right-of-way might be handled through a USFS land exchange rather than a purchase. Similarly, the table does not include the 1.94 miles of Main Street in Cottonwood where two projects could provide mobility improvements and a unique streetscape. This one-of-a-kind project should be the subject of a Design Concept Report to define its elements before engaging in final design. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 83 In future years, those using the TIP as a planning tool should take care to update the cost estimates in this section using a recognized cost index. One such cost index is the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) State and Local Government deflators. TABLE 5-4. COST INDEXING Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008(1) BEA NIPA State and Local 71.038 74.255 76.385 78.291 81.467 84.971 90.489 95.127 100.000 105.911 Note: The BEA NIPA State and Local price deflators series as it existed in 1993-2004, was used for each Arizona Association of County Engineers Needs Study. The BEA NIPA State and Local deflators, reindexed (2007=100), appear in Table 5-4. This index, which has been used in a series of Arizona needs studies, indicates that a project that cost $71,000 in 1999 (at the time of the previous VVMTS) would cost $100,000 in 2007. By 2008 costs would have increased another six percent. Actual project cost information for Verde Valley projects, 1999-2008 would indicate that costs have actually risen at a rate higher than suggested by the index. It is not possible, however, to create an index based only on past Arizona local or state project costs, since there are not enough directly comparable projects to do so. The important point for those who use the TIP in the future is to be aware of cost increases and to estimate those increases based upon an index that is state of the art at that time. REVENUE SOURCES AND FUNDING OUTLOOK This section outlines the funding sources likely to be available to implement the recommended projects. The first part of the section indicates recent and current funding sources. The final portion of the section comments upon some possible funding trends amid the economic uncertainty of early 2009, when this plan was completed. The communities in the Verde Valley have a number of funding sources to finance improvements to the roadway system. Funding options include both traditional and innovative sources. Traditional sources are the Arizona Highways User Revenue Fund (HURF); the Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF); Federal-Aid Funds (Surface Transportation, Bridge, Safety, and Transportation Enhancement Funds); and local general funds, such as general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. Alternative sources of funding include special assessment districts, developer dedications, and exactions, such as impact fees. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 84 Primary Funding Sources The primary source of roadway funding for Yavapai County, as for most counties, cities, and towns in Arizona is the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) which consists of revenue collected by the state. There is a State Constitutional requirement that the revenue go to highway construction, improvements, and other related expenditures. In 2008, taxes on motor fuels have continued to yield the bulk of HURF funds, but over the past ten years they have declined from 57 percent to 52 percent of total HURF funds. Vehicle license taxes constitute the next largest amount (29 percent), followed in order by vehicle registrations, other miscellaneous fees, and motor carrier fees. HURF funds totaled $11,800,000 for all areas of unincorporated Yavapai County in 2008. In addition, the Verde Valley cities and towns received $6,300,000 as follows: Camp Verde ..................... $900,000 Clarkdale........................... 300,000 Cottonwood........................ 900,000 Jerome............................... 27,800 Sedona........................... 1,025,000 A second funding source from the state is revenue from the Arizona Lottery, Local Transportation Assistance Fund (LTAF), Local Transportation Assistance Fund II, which is exclusively for mass transit. Throughout the history of the program, transit and special needs transportation have been the recipients of this funding in the Verde Valley. There are several types of impact fees that Arizona counties are authorized to levy on new development. The “Yavapai County Roadway Development Fee” is an impact fee to fund roadways. Ordinance No. 2006-01, which established the impact fee, replaced a previous 1998 roadway development fee ordinance. The Roadway Development Fee is charged per dwelling unit at the time of issuance of the building permit for construction of the dwelling unit, and must be set roughly proportional to the cost of the roadway infrastructure to serve the new development. The Roadway Development Fee is currently at $3,400 per dwelling unit, countywide. Impact fees must be used for services designated when the fees are instituted. The county received about $11.5 million from roadway development fees from 1998 through mid-2006. Secondary Funding Sources Federal Aid. All states are assured of at least a minimum apportionment of federal-aid funding. Arizona received a FY 2007 apportionment of nearly $688,000,000 distributed among twelve categories. While a state must use the funding in each category for which it is intended, each state has much discretion over which projects are funded each year. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 85 The funding sources that collectively compose federal aid are facing shortfalls as is true for other highway revenue sources. For example, the federal Highway Trust Fund was nearly bankrupt in September 2008, and then received a one-year allocation as a temporary fix. For a few weeks, six federal aid highway projects on the State Highway System were placed on hold but have now resumed. One of those projects was $8.9 million in improvements to the I17 McGuireville interchange in the Verde Valley. Individual local governments are not assured of any federal-aid funding. Yavapai County and the cities and towns in the Verde Valley have an opportunity to compete with other Arizona local governments for federal-aid funding that could be used for regional roadways and transit. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has the authority to administer many of the Federal-aid projects in the state. Challenges faced by all local governments in pursuing federal-aid funding include: • • Aligning federal funding categories with local transportation needs Anticipating the level of future federal funding to be available, especially at the turn of the federal transportation funding cycle (the current cycle runs out September 30, 2009) Funding Trends, 2009 The VVMTS is a regional plan for the next twenty years, through 2030. The recessionary period of 2008-2009 may not necessitate a shift in transportation priorities over that twentyyear period. As of the beginning of 2009, however, a few events have occurred that may affect the scheduling of projects already programmed by Yavapai County and ADOT. Other events may have a long-term effect upon the proportion of revenue available to the county from various sources. Overall, the outlook is poor for transportation revenues in general at the state and county levels. The Federal government, not limited by any balanced budget requirements, is contemplating an economic recovery package. In early December 2008, states were asked to identify potential transportation projects that could be funded by a federal economic recovery package. Projects were submitted only if they are considered “ready-to-go,” meaning their planning and design were far enough along that they could be under contract within 180 days. Two Verde Valley projects were made a part of the project list submitted by ADOT to the federal government: • • A pavement preservation project on I-17 from SR 179 to the Yavapai County Line, $10,000,000 The Cottonwood/NAIPTA Transit facility and refueling station $1,720,000 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 86 The Cottonwood/NAIPTA Transit facility is a project that is recommended by the VVMTS, while the I-17 pavement preservation project is a maintenance project. The State of Arizona was deemed to be in a severe budget and cash flow crisis, according to State Treasurer Dean Martin in early January 2009. The state operating balance was approaching $0, and before the balance falls below zero, the state was required to call in $110 million in loans to ADOT for transportation projects. The state treasurer is likely to do so shortly. A specific overview of revenue expectations was available for HURF funding. The overview stated that the outlook is poor for HURF revenues through about the next three years (through 2012). As the period begins, the economy is in recession. The Arizona economy peaked in FY 2006, earlier than the national economy. In FY 2008, HURF funds statewide decreased 2.7 percent from FY 2007. This was the first time since FY 1992 that HURF recorded a yearover-year decline that was truly an economic result (rather than an artifact due to a calculation procedure change). There was a lower than expected decrease in the gas tax and use fuel tax revenue categories, propped up by high fuel prices. Significantly higher fuel prices, lackluster job growth and the prolonged housing market slowdown have pushed the Arizona and national economies into recession levels in FY 2008. As of January 2009, Yavapai County had instituted several cost-cutting actions, yet was about $5.9 million in debt for the fiscal year. Ideas for cutting the debt included transferring money from the sales tax and road projects. Building permits were dramatically down in Yavapai County in 2008 compared with their peak in mid-decade, having a direct effect upon Roadway Development Fee revenue. Additional federal, state, and local initiatives were expected to deal with the recession through 2009. ACCESS MANAGEMENT The goal of an access management program is to successfully balance the roadway operation needs with the land development needs. The main benefits of an access management plan are the preservation of safety and service. A key tool in maximizing mobility is appropriate limits on the number of access points to public highways from adjoining property. Access management is already in place or under construction in several portions of the Verde Valley regional network. Access management assists mobility on collector roadways off the state highway system. As presented in this plan and Cottonwood plans, the West Loop in that city and the unincorporated county would have widely-spaced access points. Access management guidelines were recommended in the 1999 Verde Valley Transportation Study Update. Some access management measures were included in the Yavapai County Public Works Road Requirements (Resolution No. 1036), adopted in 1997. An addendum to Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 87 Resolution 1036 requires turn and deceleration lanes to be a required improvement necessary for development approvals for all new development creating an impact to the County arterial roadway system, designed to be consistent with the posted speed limit of the impacted arterial roadway. County ordinance 2001-1, Regulating Obstructions, Excavation, and Use of Publicly Maintained Roads, further detailed the requirements for driveways and other temporary and permanent encroachments on county roadways. Implementation of ordinance 2001-1 has included the use of a standard right-of-way permit procedure. Other access management guidelines were recommended in the 1999 Verde Valley Transportation Study Update, but have not yet been adopted by Yavapai County. Those recommendations are incorporated by reference into this study. On the State Highway network, medians, roundabouts, and intersection controls provide access management in an urban setting on SR 179. Roundabouts and other access management techniques are employed in the SR 89A project under construction in 2008 in the Clarkdale-Cottonwood corridor. ADOT has access categories under development for the state highway system. Verde Valley state highways are assigned to one of six categories; see Table 5-5 and Figures 5-1 at the end of this Chapter. I-17 is assigned to the freeway category, which would have the greatest emphasis on mobility over access, as has always been a purpose of the interstate system. Sections of SR 260 and SR 89A are proposed to be in the Major Regional category, which would be next in its emphasis on mobility over access. The proposed access characteristics include “access to the roadway may be a mix of at-grade and grade-separated intersections. Direct access service to abutting land is subordinate to providing service to through traffic movements.” Sections of the state highways in and near Camp Verde, Clarkdale, Cottonwood, and Sedona are proposed to be in Urban categories U1, U2, or U3. Category U1 is proposed to be applied to new urban alignments and to emphasize travel at least at medium speeds and volumes, and distances, with through traffic dominant over direct access service. Category U2 is typically for a road with roadside development and emphasizes travel at moderate speeds, volumes, and medium to short distances, still with through traffic dominant. Category U3 is typically for a road with extensive roadside development, little area for widening, and travels at low to moderate speeds, moderate volumes, and medium to short distances, with a balance between through traffic and direct access. Intersection spacing is proposed to be greatest for category U1, less for U2, and least (typically because of existing conditions) for U3. Private access to the highway is restricted least for U3 highways. SR 260 in the Verde Valley is a roadway that may have much additional development adjacent to it over the next several years. Maximizing mobility on SR 260 calls for both access management and the recommended widening of SR 260 from Thousand Trails Road southbound to where the roadway currently has four lanes. Upon adoption of ADOT’s Arizona Statewide Access Management Plan, it is recommended that its access category system become an appendix to the Verde Valley Multimodal Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 88 Transportation Study. While the ADOT system would control access on the state highway system, Yavapai County and other local jurisdictions would control access on the remainder of the regional system. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLAN AND COUNTY TRAILS PLAN COORDINATION The roadways recommendations in the VVMTS would provide a network that would coordinate with planning underway for the other modes: • • • • NAIPTA and CAT transit options NAIPTA Park-n-Ride lots Yavapai County Park-n-Ride lots Trailhead parking locations It is noted that the NAIPTA Park-n-Ride lots are to articulate with transit routes. The Yavapai County Park-n-Ride lots might be initiated for use by carpools, and subsequently serve future transit routes. Some of the Park-n-Ride lots could serve as trailhead parking or motor vehicle to bicycle transfer points. Some potential exist for Park-n-Ride lots to serve commuters on weekdays and recreationists on the weekend. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 89 TABLE 5-5. ACCESS MANAGEMENT CATEGORY ASSIGNMENTS (DRAFT), VERDE VALLEY Route From MP To MP Access Category* County SR 260 206 207 U1 Yavapai From Jct SR 89A (in Cottonwood) to Mongini Dr SR 260 207 218 MR Yavapai SR 260 218 219 MR Yavapai SR 260 219 223 U1 Yavapai From Mongini Dr to Begin center turn lane (in Camp Verde) From Begin center turn lane (in Camp Verde) to Jct I-17 - Exit 287 - East off-ramp From Jct I-17 East off-ramp - Exit 287 to Bndary entering Coconino Natl Forest SR 260 223 243 R1 Yavapai From Bndary entering Coconino Natl Forest to Coconino County Line I 17 278 287 FW Yavapai I 17 287 299 FW Yavapai I 17 299 311 FW Yavapai SR 179 299 306 R1 Yavapai From Jct SR 169 (Exit 278) to Jct SR 260 (Exit 287) (in Camp Verde) From Jct SR 260 (Exit 287) (in Camp Verde) to Jct SR 179 North (Exit 298) From SR 179 North (Exit 298) (in Coconino Natl Forest) to Coconino County line From I-17 - Exit 298 (in Coconino Natl Forest) to Avenida de Piedras/Ridge Trail Dr SR 179 306 307 U1 Yavapai From Avenida de Piedras/Ridge Trail Dr to 254 ft north of Bell Rock Blvd SR 179 307 308 R1 Yavapai SR 179 308 310 R1 Coconino From 254 ft north of Bell Rock Blvd to Coconino County line From Coconino County line to Indian Cliffs Rd/Back O Beyond Rd (in Sedona) SR 179 310 313 U1 Coconino From Indian Cliffs Rd/Back O Beyond Rd (in Sedona) to Canyon Dr SR 179 313 313 U2 Coconino From Canyon Dr - End of SR 179 Lima & Associates Description Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 90 TABLE 5-5. ACCESS MANAGEMENT CATEGORY ASSIGNMENTS (DRAFT), VERDE VALLEY (Continued) Route From MP To MP Access Category* County SR 89A 324 332 R1 Yavapai From Jct SS 89 / Robert Rd to Bndary entering Prescott Natl Forest SR 89A 332 344 R1 Yavapai From Bndary entering Prescott Natl Forest to Jerome Town Limits SR 89A 344 345 U3 Yavapai From Jerome Town Limits to Dundee Ave (in Cottonwood) SR 89A 345 349 R1 Yavapai From Dundee Ave (in Cottonwood) to Phoenix Cement Plant Rd SR 89A 349 352 U1 Yavapai SR 89A 352 355 U2 Yavapai From Phoenix Cement Plant Rd to 6th St From 6th St to 113 south of Grosetta Rd (in Cottonwood) (Flagstaff District Line) SR 89A 355 356 U2 Yavapai From 113 south of Grosetta Rd (in Cottonwood) to Zelesky Rd SR 89A 356 358 U1 Yavapai SR 89A 358 369 MR Yavapai From Zelesky Rd to Bndary Coconino Natl Forest From Bndary Coconino Natl Forest to 1/4 mile south of Upper Red Rock Loop Rd SR 89A 369 371 U1 Yavapai From 1/4 mile south of Upper Red Rock Loop Rd to Pinion Dr SR 89A 371 373 U2 Yavapai From Pinion Dr to 195 ft south of Airport Rd SR 89A 373 373 U1 Yavapai From 195 ft south of Airport Rd to Coconino County Line SR 89A 373 374 U1 Coconino From Coconino County Line to Hwy 89A (Begin City Street) SR 89A 375 398 R1 Coconino From 289 ft north of Art Barn Rd (End City Street) to Pine Del Dr Description *Access Categories are decoded in Figure 4-8. SOURCE: ADOT Arizona Statewide Access Management Plan (draft), URS, 2008. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 91 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 92 APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BASE MAP Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 93 The following map of Traffic Analysis Zones (Figure A-1) illustrates the 204 areas that represent neighborhoods (housing areas) and employment areas. Five additional zones that do not appear on Figure A-1 are used in the travel demand model to account for: • Through traffic that does not stop in the region • Trips that begin inside the region and end outside the region • Trips that begin outside the region and end inside the region The traffic generated by households, employment, and other gathering places is distributed to the roadway network for travel demand modeling. Additional information on the use of the TAZs in the travel demand model is in Chapter 2. Comprehensive modeling documentation for the VVMTS is provided under separate cover. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 94 Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 95 APPENDIX B. 2007, 2015, AND 2030 HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 96 Both housing and employment figures were allocated to the appropriate TAZ using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Refer to Appendix A for the locations of TAZs. Table B-1 displays the 2007 Housing Units by Traffic Analysis Zone in the Verde Valley. Housing information was compiled using Census 2000 as a baseline inventory and then was updated to January 1, 2007. Each place had jurisdiction-wide information on the total number of housing unit completions per year. The City of Sedona provided TAZ-by-TAZ information to update the City’s figures. Unincorporated areas in Yavapai County were updated using exact locations of building permits, provided by the County Assessor’s Office. In the other areas, there was limited information on the number of housing units completed in subdivisions between 2000 and 2007. The new housing units completed in subdivisions were verified by using aerial photographs. Between Census years, there is only limited information available on group quarters, occupancy rates, and persons per household. The information readily available to this study indicates that out of the 72,200 persons in the region in 2007, approximately 1,500 were in group quarters and 70,700 were in households. In the year 2000 there were about 1,000 persons in group quarters such as the Yavapai County Eastern Detention Bureau and nursing homes; approximately half of those persons were in group quarters within the five cities and towns. An assumption that the region’s population in group quarters rose to about 1,500 by 2007 is consistent with the limited data available on the number and staffing levels at assisted living homes, nursing homes, and other group quarters in 2007. Table B-4 displays the 2007 Number of Employees by Traffic Analysis Zones by Major Employment Sector in the Verde Valley. Detailed current employment information by establishment, including number of employees at the establishment’s specific location, was received from InfoUSA. Technical Advisory Committee members from each jurisdiction reviewed the individual employer records for their jurisdictions, made some corrections, and removed duplicate records. The InfoUSA information included the latitude and longitude of the employer’s geographic location. GIS methods were used to assign each employer to the correct TAZ. Supplemental information came from Chambers of Commerce concerning new employment establishments. In some cases those establishments were contacted directly. The InfoUSA information also included the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) for each establishment. The number of employees by SIC was generalized into eight major employment sectors. Additional information on 2007 socioeconomic conditions can be found in Chapter 2. Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 97 TABLE B-1. 2007 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE CAMP VERDE TAZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Lima & Associates Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV Total Housing Units 0 1 60 24 2 0 5 124 275 1 266 0 51 50 193 182 60 10 2 0 0 2 5 18 0 0 227 44 61 10 61 70 239 384 0 271 3 98 127 137 30 8 81 97 66 Occupied Housing Units 0 1 56 22 2 0 5 115 256 1 247 0 47 47 179 169 56 9 2 0 0 2 5 17 0 0 211 41 57 9 57 65 222 357 0 252 3 91 118 127 28 7 75 90 61 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 98 TABLE B-1. 2007 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ Area CV 46 47 CV 48 CV 49 CV 50 CV 51 CV 52 CV 53 CV 54 CV 55 CV 56 CV CAMP VERDE SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 14 34 162 173 45 150 114 349 190 3 15 4,594 Occupied Housing Units 13 32 151 161 42 140 106 325 177 3 14 4,273 Total Housing Units 0 80 67 546 394 175 234 215 99 1,810 Occupied Housing Units 0 74 62 508 366 163 218 200 92 1,683 Total Housing Units 10 4 569 392 3 20 0 259 294 19 511 323 50 353 267 166 394 10 Occupied Housing Units 9 4 512 353 3 18 0 233 265 17 544 291 45 318 240 149 355 9 CLARKDALE TAZ Area 162 CD 163 CD 164 CD 165 CD 166 CD 167 CD 168 CD 169 CD 170 CD CLARKDALE SUBTOTAL COTTONWOOD TAZ 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 Lima & Associates Area CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 99 TABLE B-1. 2007 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ Area CW 153 154 CW 174 CW 175 CW 176 CW 177 CW 178 CW 179 CW 180 CW COTTONWOOD SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 2 0 0 400 357 348 80 278 324 5,433 Occupied Housing Units 2 0 0 360 321 313 72 250 291 4,974 Total Housing Units 76 106 182 Occupied Housing Units 65 90 155 Total Housing Units 0 89 498 436 23 146 266 64 28 574 1058 258 0 0 406 102 31 218 5 66 91 122 0 79 54 19 84 0 Occupied Housing Units 0 77 432 378 20 127 231 55 24 498 916 224 0 0 352 88 27 189 4 57 79 106 0 68 47 16 73 0 JEROME TAZ 172 173 Area J J JEROME SUBTOTAL SEDONA TAZ 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Lima & Associates Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 100 TABLE B-1. 2007 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SEDONA SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 0 112 0 0 315 304 42 283 70 8 145 118 100 57 6,271 Occupied Housing Units 0 97 0 0 273 264 36 245 61 7 126 102 87 49 5,435 UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY TAZ 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Lima & Associates Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Total Housing Units 0 0 5 103 4 7 0 2 11 12 88 842 792 282 0 17 137 218 3 844 620 447 247 29 700 229 0 78 Occupied Housing Units 0 0 4 92 4 6 0 2 10 11 78 743 699 249 0 15 121 194 3 751 552 398 220 26 623 203 0 69 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 101 TABLE B-1. 2007 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 151 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 171 Lima & Associates Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C UNINCORPORATED SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Total Housing Units 113 112 52 20 100 173 555 688 0 3 5 5 3 23 217 0 1 15 2 49 41 583 23 1,876 309 216 18 87 814 324 63 5 0 19 1 21 28 15 8 21 Occupied Housing Units 101 100 46 18 89 154 494 612 0 3 4 4 3 20 193 0 1 13 2 44 36 519 20 1,670 275 192 16 77 724 288 56 4 0 17 1 19 25 13 7 19 12,325 30,615 10,952 27,472 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 102 TABLE B-2. 2015 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE CAMP VERDE TAZ Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV Lima & Associates Total Housing Units 0 1 60 238 2 0 5 337 274 21 371 0 50 50 192 181 60 10 173 0 0 2 5 18 0 638 226 44 61 10 61 70 238 382 0 270 3 97 126 136 30 7 154 96 65 Occupied Housing Units 0 1 56 222 2 0 5 315 256 20 347 0 47 47 179 169 56 9 162 0 0 2 5 17 0 596 211 41 57 9 57 65 222 357 0 252 3 91 118 127 28 7 144 90 61 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 103 TABLE B-2. 2015 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ Area CV 46 47 CV 48 CV 49 CV 50 CV 51 CV 52 CV 53 CV 54 CV 55 CV 56 CV CAMP VERDE SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 14 34 162 172 45 150 113 348 189 3 15 6,010 Occupied Housing Units 13 32 151 161 42 140 106 325 177 3 14 5,617 CLARKDALE TAZ Area CD 162 163 CD 164 CD 165 CD 166 CD 167 CD 168 CD 169 CD 170 CD CLARKDALE SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 5 85 77 582 428 265 239 220 99 2,000 Occupied Housing Units 5 79 72 541 398 246 222 205 92 1,860 Total Housing Units 12 4 795 489 6 20 0 323 367 19 624 495 74 505 333 207 492 102 Occupied Housing Units 11 4 728 448 5 18 0 296 336 17 571 453 68 462 305 190 450 93 COTTONWOOD TAZ Area 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 104 TABLE B-2. 2015 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ Area CW 153 154 CW 174 CW 175 CW 176 CW 177 CW 178 CW 179 CW 180 CW COTTONWOOD SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 2 242 0 572 446 435 115 427 497 7,603 Occupied Housing Units 2 222 0 524 408 398 105 391 455 6,960 JEROME TAZ 172 173 Area J J JEROME SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 76 106 182 Occupied Housing Units 65 90 155 Total Housing Units 40 96 660 440 37 160 277 71 29 724 1,070 264 0 0 442 138 31 255 5 91 91 148 0 79 57 23 88 0 Occupied Housing Units 37 88 607 405 34 147 255 65 27 666 985 243 0 0 407 127 29 235 5 84 84 136 0 73 52 21 81 0 SEDONA TAZ 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Lima & Associates Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 105 TABLE B-2. 2015 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SEDONA SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 57 112 0 0 315 304 42 283 72 8 157 118 105 93 6,982 Occupied Housing Units 52 103 0 0 290 280 39 260 66 7 144 109 97 86 6,426 UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY TAZ Area 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Lima & Associates Total Housing Units 0 0 5 132 6 10 0 2 11 12 113 1,120 1,053 375 0 22 182 340 4 976 717 517 292 34 809 271 0 100 Occupied Housing Units 0 0 4 117 5 9 0 2 10 11 100 995 936 333 0 20 162 302 4 867 637 459 259 30 719 241 0 89 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 106 TABLE B-2. 2015 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 151 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 171 Lima & Associates Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C UNINCORPORATED SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Total Housing Units 145 199 67 77 210 221 738 915 150 50 50 7 5 29 250 0 1 15 2 65 56 775 26 2,401 411 276 21 111 1,042 415 84 5 0 24 1 22 36 19 8 25 Occupied Housing Units 129 177 60 68 187 196 656 813 133 44 44 6 4 26 222 0 1 13 2 58 50 689 23 2,134 365 245 19 99 926 369 75 4 0 21 1 20 32 17 7 22 16,057 38,834 14,268 35,286 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 107 TABLE B-3. 2030 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE CAMP VERDE TAZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Lima & Associates Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV Total Housing Units 0 1 60 291 2 0 5 337 274 32 371 0 50 50 192 181 60 10 216 0 674 2 5 18 0 681 226 44 61 10 361 70 238 382 0 270 3 97 126 136 30 7 172 96 65 Occupied Housing Units 0 1 56 272 2 0 5 315 256 30 347 0 47 47 179 169 56 9 202 0 630 2 5 17 0 636 211 41 57 9 337 65 222 357 0 252 3 91 118 127 28 7 161 90 61 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 108 TABLE B-3. 2030 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ Area CV 46 47 CV 48 CV 49 CV 50 CV 51 CV 52 CV 53 CV 54 CV 55 CV 56 CV CAMP VERDE SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 14 34 1061 172 45 150 113 348 189 3 15 8,052 Occupied Housing Units 13 32 992 161 42 140 106 325 177 3 14 7,525 Total Housing Units 10 90 90 620 495 382 284 230 99 2,300 Occupied Housing Units 9 84 84 577 460 355 264 214 92 2,139 Total Housing Units 59 4 1,057 587 18 20 59 378 440 19 681 698 106 598 411 235 881 223 Occupied Housing Units 54 4 968 537 16 18 54 346 403 17 623 639 97 547 376 215 807 204 CLARKDALE TAZ Area CD 162 163 CD 164 CD 165 CD 166 CD 167 CD 168 CD 169 CD 170 CD CLARKDALE SUBTOTAL COTTONWOOD TAZ 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 Lima & Associates Area CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 109 TABLE B-3. 2030 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ Area CW 153 154 CW 174 CW 175 CW 176 CW 177 CW 178 CW 179 CW 180 CW COTTONWOOD SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 35 452 0 676 521 508 135 600 699 10,100 Occupied Housing Units 32 414 0 619 477 465 124 549 640 9,245 Total Housing Units 76 106 182 Occupied Housing Units 65 90 155 Total Housing Units 200 115 833 488 53 232 301 102 33 805 1,152 291 0 0 560 195 37 333 14 103 102 174 0 86 79 38 114 0 Occupied Housing Units 184 106 766 449 49 213 277 94 30 741 1,060 268 0 0 515 179 34 306 13 95 94 160 0 79 73 35 105 0 JEROME TAZ 172 173 Area J J JEROME SUBTOTAL SEDONA TAZ 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 Lima & Associates Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 110 TABLE B-3. 2030 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SEDONA SUBTOTAL Total Housing Units 57 112 0 0 335 341 42 283 96 8 177 127 128 110 8,256 Occupied Housing Units 52 103 0 0 308 314 39 260 88 7 163 117 118 101 7,595 UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY TAZ 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Lima & Associates Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Total Housing Units 0 0 5 150 7 13 0 2 11 12 138 1,489 1,348 499 0 32 242 680 5 1,071 752 555 333 42 848 315 0 120 Occupied Housing Units 0 0 4 133 6 12 0 2 10 11 123 1,323 1,198 443 0 28 215 604 4 952 668 493 296 37 754 280 0 107 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 111 TABLE B-3. 2030 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (Continued) TAZ 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 151 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 171 Lima & Associates Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C UNINCORPORATED SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Total Housing Units 177 240 77 100 320 244 945 1,171 700 425 425 9 7 34 260 0 1 15 2 100 100 775 29 2,761 513 354 22 148 1,146 531 86 5 50 29 1 23 36 20 8 30 Occupied Housing Units 157 213 68 89 284 217 840 1,041 622 378 378 8 6 30 231 0 1 13 2 89 89 689 26 2,453 456 315 20 132 1,018 472 76 4 44 26 1 20 32 18 7 27 20,588 49,478 18,295 44,954 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 112 TABLE B-4. 2007 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR CAMP VERDE TAZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV Lima & Associates Retail 50 0 1 1 15 64 0 0 0 0 0 4 34 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 135 79 0 0 8 0 100 30 0 14 Service 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 25 Office 0 0 6 0 1 23 13 0 30 20 1 0 5 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 38 Public 90 0 9 0 9 57 17 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 13 0 546 0 65 0 0 7 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179 0 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 TOTAL 140 0 18 1 38 144 576 0 95 20 6 11 79 4 17 6 5 2 0 0 0 41 153 194 0 0 197 0 509 30 0 93 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 113 TABLE B-4. 2007 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CAMP VERDE SUBTOTAL Retail 32 31 105 8 0 3 0 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 41 15 6 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office 47 44 23 0 0 0 66 6 0 0 26 7 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Public 9 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 24 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 Industrial 144 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lodging 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colleges 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 776 118 418 330 866 195 0 51 400 Retail 0 0 0 38 1 Service 0 0 0 35 4 Office 0 5 5 22 0 Public 0 0 0 25 0 Industrial 0 0 0 82 5 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 0 Colleges 0 138 0 50 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 289 139 134 17 3 3 69 6 1 0 77 14 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 3 0 3 0 8 3,154 CLARKDALE TAZ 162 163 164 165 166 Area CD CD CD CD CD Lima & Associates TOTAL 0 143 5 252 10 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 114 TABLE B-4. 2007 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 167 168 169 170 Area CD CD CD CD CLARKDALE SUBTOTAL Retail 0 1 0 0 Service 9 75 3 0 Office 0 0 0 0 Public 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 37 0 Lodging 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 56 0 45 Colleges 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 9 132 40 45 40 126 32 25 124 0 101 188 0 636 Retail 0 0 19 401 60 163 593 26 126 0 8 50 20 156 537 41 66 0 0 0 0 151 162 8 12 Service 0 0 25 30 19 4 32 42 119 8 63 139 732 316 263 18 38 0 0 0 0 155 131 63 203 Office 0 0 13 23 14 33 10 14 39 0 5 13 15 23 260 0 3 0 4 0 0 14 89 7 3 Public 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 16 22 73 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 270 Industrial 0 0 16 6 0 0 0 31 36 10 1 27 0 107 49 4 5 0 0 0 0 40 24 15 46 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 15 0 0 2 0 0 22 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 25 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 6 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 37 0 82 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 Colleges 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 91 466 218 209 635 113 338 26 77 293 789 675 1,204 67 194 0 7 0 0 394 431 93 534 COTTONWOOD TAZ 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 153 154 174 175 176 177 178 Area CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 115 TABLE B-4. 2007 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 179 180 Area CW CW COTTONWOOD SUBTOTAL Retail Service Office Public Industrial Lodging School College Casino TOTAL 101 6 336 23 20 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 550 29 2,706 2,759 602 453 418 81 403 11 0 7,433 Retail 200 4 204 Service 46 3 49 Office 42 0 42 Public 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Lodging 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 TOTAL 288 7 295 Retail 0 2 2 3 0 3 0 9 0 6 52 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 91 353 Service 71 1 26 4 0 6 4 0 0 86 124 15 0 0 18 0 0 6 89 290 Office 12 0 0 1 0 4 4 0 0 14 38 5 0 3 3 3 0 1 58 260 Public 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 Industrial 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 21 138 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 35 3 Lodging 42 6 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 60 152 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 College 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 135 11 48 9 0 17 10 12 0 127 418 27 0 3 39 4 0 190 338 1,065 JEROME TAZ Area J 172 173 J JEROME SUBTOTAL SEDONA TAZ 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 181 182 Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 116 TABLE B-4. 2007 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ Area S 183 184 S 185 S 186 S 187 S 188 S 189 S 190 S 191 S 192 S 193 S 194 S 195 S 196 S 197 S 198 S 199 S 200 S 201 S 202 S 203 S 204 S SEDONA SUBTOTAL Retail 0 11 266 0 6 0 158 74 399 525 14 445 0 0 274 0 0 124 0 6 2 18 2,863 Service 0 25 22 2 17 0 16 32 188 100 74 156 9 17 75 2 0 388 8 6 0 41 1,918 Office 2 111 6 0 4 0 0 4 1 141 35 110 3 6 22 0 0 48 0 2 0 8 909 Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 3 0 0 143 Industrial 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 134 0 0 30 0 8 53 34 0 0 9 595 Lodging 0 9 275 0 0 0 69 11 283 96 40 22 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 18 1,359 School 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 93 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 174 569 5 27 0 247 121 875 975 163 870 12 82 401 2 8 736 42 31 2 94 7891 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public 0 0 0 0 3 0 Industrial 0 0 0 3 0 0 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 4 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 3 3 7 UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY TAZ 57 58 59 60 61 62 Area C C C C C C Lima & Associates Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 0 0 0 0 0 3 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 117 TABLE B-4. 2007 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Lima & Associates Retail 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 2 0 0 26 0 0 297 4 73 0 0 232 3 25 0 8 1 5 0 15 0 6 10 19 0 Service 0 0 0 5 0 38 8 12 0 0 0 6 0 69 13 188 182 1 55 13 1 7 5 24 24 0 0 0 69 7 5 0 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 118 6 0 25 1 0 1 25 0 7 0 0 0 2 18 0 0 Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 19 22 0 0 0 0 6 3 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 17 15 3 0 0 3 51 0 14 12 41 3 0 18 0 0 5 4 2 18 0 6 20 19 38 0 0 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 31 0 10 0 25 0 0 0 83 2 2 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 5 0 77 39 92 22 0 29 57 0 799 63 426 201 1 358 17 26 13 125 132 56 0 30 25 141 73 24 0 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 118 TABLE B-4. 2007 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ Area 95 C C 96 C 97 C 98 C 99 C 118 C 119 C 120 C 121 122 C 123 C 124 C 125 C 126 C 127 C 128 C 129 C 130 C 131 C 132 C 133 C 151 C C 155 C 156 C 157 C 158 C 159 C 160 C 161 C 171 UNINCORPORATED SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Lima & Associates Retail 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 48 18 3 3 0 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 13 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 10 37 0 5 0 87 125 19 2 8 35 10 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 Office 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 10 13 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 90 28 11 4 8 13 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 Lodging 0 0 0 460 96 0 3 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 13 0 0 467 101 0 27 0 11 52 28 8 0 283 184 37 9 18 150 41 7 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 840 7,429 1,158 6,128 279 2,282 150 1,101 638 2,641 1,108 2,743 333 930 1 262 0 400 4,507 23,916 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 119 TABLE B-5. 2015 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR CAMP VERDE TAZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV Lima & Associates Retail 50 0 1 1 15 64 112 120 0 32 0 36 34 4 0 0 0 0 160 0 0 41 295 79 480 0 8 0 100 30 0 14 Service 0 0 7 0 1 29 16 0 38 25 1 0 6 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 49 Office 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 32 Public 0 0 0 0 16 0 702 0 83 0 0 9 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Industrial 115 0 11 0 45 85 21 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 217 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 TOTAL 165 0 21 1 77 178 851 120 121 57 7 45 91 4 21 7 5 2 160 0 0 41 317 225 480 0 250 0 711 30 0 115 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 120 TABLE B-5. 2015 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CAMP VERDE SUBTOTAL Retail 32 31 185 168 0 3 0 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 60 56 29 0 0 0 85 7 0 0 33 9 0 0 0 3 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Office 53 19 7 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public 185 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 11 16 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 30 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 Lodging 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 School 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,112 527 147 1,111 460 62 237 13 600 Retail 0 0 0 44 1 Service 0 0 0 41 4 Office 0 5 5 25 0 Public 0 0 0 28 0 Industrial 0 0 0 94 5 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 175 0 62 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 361 168 221 179 3 3 88 7 1 0 93 18 0 0 0 3 5 0 2 3 0 3 0 9 5,269 CLARKDALE TAZ 162 163 164 165 166 Area CD CD CD CD CD Lima & Associates TOTAL 0 180 5 294 10 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 121 TABLE B-5. 2015 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 167 168 169 170 Area CD CD CD CD CLARKDALE SUBTOTAL Retail 0 1 0 0 Service 9 88 4 0 Office 0 0 0 0 Public 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 142 0 Lodging 0 35 0 0 School 0 69 0 55 College 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 9 193 146 55 46 146 35 28 241 35 124 237 0 892 Retail 0 0 22 465 70 189 688 30 146 0 9 75 23 206 600 68 77 0 0 40 0 175 188 Service 0 0 29 35 22 5 38 49 140 9 74 180 840 397 300 40 45 0 0 40 0 182 154 Office 0 0 15 26 16 37 11 16 144 0 6 30 17 51 291 20 3 0 4 40 0 16 100 Public 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 18 25 81 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 Industrial 0 0 18 7 0 0 0 35 141 11 1 31 0 122 56 5 6 0 0 0 0 46 27 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 17 0 0 2 0 0 26 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 29 School 0 0 0 7 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 46 0 101 0 0 0 0 18 0 College 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 106 540 262 241 737 130 591 29 90 393 905 857 1,359 137 232 0 7 120 0 459 498 COTTONWOOD TAZ 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 153 154 174 175 176 Area CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 122 TABLE B-5. 2015 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 177 178 179 180 Area CW CW CW CW SUBTOTAL Retail 9 14 117 17 3,228 Service 74 239 396 37 3,325 Office 8 3 22 10 886 Public 0 301 0 0 505 Industrial 17 53 1 0 577 Lodging 0 0 0 10 103 School 0 0 113 0 496 College 0 0 0 0 14 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 108 610 649 74 9,134 Area J J SUBTOTAL Retail 232 4 236 Service 54 3 57 Office 47 0 47 Public 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Lodging 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 TOTAL 333 7 340 Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Retail 50 162 2 3 0 3 0 9 0 6 66 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 123 Service 171 1 26 4 0 6 4 0 0 86 124 15 0 0 18 0 0 6 89 Office 12 0 20 1 0 4 4 0 0 14 38 5 0 3 3 3 0 1 83 Public 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Industrial 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 21 138 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 35 Lodging 242 22 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 60 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 College 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 485 187 68 9 0 17 10 12 0 127 432 27 0 3 39 4 0 190 395 JEROME TAZ 172 173 SEDONA TAZ 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 181 Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 123 TABLE B-5. 2015 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ Area S 182 183 S 184 S 185 S 186 S 187 S 188 S 189 S 190 S 191 S 192 S 193 S 194 S 195 S 196 S 197 S 198 S 199 S 200 S 201 S 202 S 203 S 204 S SEDONA SUBTOTAL Retail 411 0 11 266 0 6 0 188 74 399 525 14 445 0 0 324 0 0 136 0 6 2 18 3,269 Service 290 0 30 22 2 17 0 16 32 188 100 74 156 9 17 75 2 0 402 8 6 0 41 2,037 Office 260 2 111 6 0 4 0 30 4 1 141 85 110 3 6 22 0 0 68 0 2 0 8 1,054 Public 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 3 0 0 143 Industrial 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 134 0 0 30 0 8 53 34 0 0 9 595 Lodging 152 0 24 275 0 0 0 69 11 283 96 80 22 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 18 1,640 School 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 93 College 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,123 2 194 569 5 27 0 307 121 875 975 253 870 12 82 451 2 8 792 42 31 2 94 8,842 Office 0 0 0 0 0 Public 0 0 0 0 3 Industrial 0 0 0 3 0 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 3 3 UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY TAZ 57 58 59 60 61 Area C C C C C Lima & Associates Retail 0 0 0 0 0 Service 0 0 0 0 0 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 124 TABLE B-5. 2015 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Lima & Associates Retail 0 0 0 0 250 10 26 0 2 0 0 30 0 0 345 5 85 0 0 269 3 29 0 9 11 6 0 17 0 7 12 22 0 Service 3 0 0 0 5 0 45 9 14 0 0 0 7 0 81 15 221 214 1 65 15 1 8 6 28 28 0 0 0 81 8 6 5 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 132 7 0 28 1 0 1 28 0 8 0 0 0 2 20 0 0 Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21 25 0 0 0 0 7 3 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 17 3 0 10 3 58 0 16 14 47 3 0 21 0 0 6 5 2 21 0 7 23 22 43 0 0 Lodging 4 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 36 0 12 0 29 0 0 0 97 2 2 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 7 0 0 0 295 10 90 43 109 25 10 33 65 0 931 73 492 236 1 415 19 30 15 145 169 65 0 34 29 167 83 28 5 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 125 TABLE B-5. 2015 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ Area 95 C C 96 C 97 C 98 C 99 C 118 C 119 C 120 C 121 C 122 C 123 C 124 C 125 C 126 C 127 C 128 C 129 C 130 C 131 C 132 C 133 C 151 C 155 C 156 C 157 C 158 C 159 C 160 C 161 C 171 UNINCORPORATED SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Lima & Associates Retail 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 56 21 3 3 0 5 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 20 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 12 44 0 5 0 102 147 22 2 9 41 12 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 Office 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 15 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 103 32 13 4 9 15 19 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 308 Lodging 0 0 0 535 112 0 3 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 25 0 0 543 118 0 30 0 13 61 33 8 0 325 215 43 9 20 181 52 7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 368 1,254 10,145 1,368 7,460 311 2,480 166 1,953 867 2,740 1,328 3,168 410 1,360 1 276 0 600 5,705 30,182 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 126 TABLE B-6. 2030 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR CAMP VERDE TAZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV Lima & Associates Retail 50 0 1 1 15 64 132 170 0 32 0 36 34 4 0 0 0 0 320 0 210 391 615 79 480 0 8 0 100 30 0 14 32 Service 0 0 11 0 2 40 23 0 52 35 2 0 9 0 21 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 66 81 Office 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 43 71 Public 0 0 0 0 23 0 945 0 113 0 0 12 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 249 Industrial 156 0 16 0 65 95 30 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 35 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 293 0 0 0 0 0 28 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 206 0 32 1 105 199 1,130 170 165 67 11 48 113 4 30 11 10 4 320 0 210 391 646 279 480 0 336 0 716 30 0 151 477 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 127 TABLE B-6. 2030 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Area CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CAMP VERDE SUBTOTAL Retail 31 205 208 0 3 0 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 76 40 0 0 0 114 11 0 0 45 12 0 0 0 6 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Office 26 11 12 0 0 6 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 23 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 42 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 Lodging 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 218 256 224 6 3 120 11 1 0 122 24 0 0 0 6 7 0 4 6 0 6 0 15 3,282 729 208 1,500 624 90 321 17 600 7,371 Retail 0 0 0 56 1 0 Service 0 0 0 54 4 9 Office 0 5 5 30 0 0 Public 0 0 0 33 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 117 5 0 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 246 0 86 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 251 5 376 10 9 CLARKDALE TAZ 162 163 164 165 166 167 Area CD CD CD CD CD CD Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 128 TABLE B-6. 2030 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 168 169 170 Area CD CD CD CLARKDALE SUBTOTAL Retail 1 0 0 Service 116 5 0 Office 0 0 0 Public 0 0 0 Industrial 0 153 0 Lodging 35 0 0 School 97 0 78 College 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 TOTAL 249 158 78 58 188 40 33 275 35 175 332 0 1,136 Retail 0 0 28 596 89 242 881 39 150 0 12 125 30 232 769 93 98 0 0 50 0 224 241 12 Service 0 0 39 46 29 6 49 65 150 12 97 230 1102 422 393 65 59 0 0 50 0 239 202 97 Office 0 0 18 31 19 45 14 19 244 0 7 80 20 76 353 50 4 0 5 50 0 19 121 9 Public 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 0 21 29 98 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 Industrial 0 0 23 9 0 0 0 44 241 14 1 39 0 153 70 6 7 0 0 0 0 57 34 21 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 22 0 0 3 0 0 33 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 37 0 School 0 0 0 10 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 64 0 142 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 College 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 136 692 353 306 944 167 811 37 117 578 1,181 981 1,730 219 310 0 9 150 0 591 635 139 COTTONWOOD Area 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 153 154 174 175 176 177 Area CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW CW Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 129 TABLE B-6. 2030 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ Area CW 178 CW 179 CW 180 COTTONWOOD SUBTOTAL Retail 18 150 22 Service 313 519 49 Office 4 27 12 Public 362 0 0 Industrial 66 1 0 Lodging 0 0 13 School 0 159 0 College 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 TOTAL 763 856 96 4,101 4,233 1,227 606 786 132 697 19 0 11,801 Retail 297 4 301 Service 71 3 74 Office 57 0 57 Public 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 Lodging 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 TOTAL 425 7 432 Retail 155 162 2 3 0 3 0 9 0 46 66 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 126 478 Service 251 1 26 4 0 6 4 0 0 86 124 15 0 0 18 0 0 6 89 290 Office 12 0 20 1 0 4 4 0 0 14 38 5 0 3 3 3 0 1 83 260 Public 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 Industrial 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 21 149 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 35 3 Lodging 242 22 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 60 152 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 College 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 720 187 68 9 0 17 10 12 0 267 443 27 0 3 39 4 0 190 398 1,190 JEROME TAZ Area J 172 J 173 JEROME SUBTOTAL SEDONA TAZ 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 181 182 Area S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Lima & Associates DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 130 TABLE B-6. 2030 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ Area S 183 S 184 S 185 S 186 S 187 S 188 S 189 S 190 S 191 S 192 S 193 S 194 S 195 S 196 S 197 S 198 S 199 S 200 S 201 S 202 S 203 S 204 SEDONA SUBTOTAL Retail 0 51 266 39 6 0 188 78 399 561 14 450 0 0 324 0 0 204 0 6 2 18 3,676 Service 0 30 22 2 17 0 16 32 188 105 74 156 9 17 75 2 0 402 8 6 0 41 2,122 Office 2 141 6 10 4 0 30 4 1 141 85 110 3 6 22 0 0 108 0 2 0 8 1,134 Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 3 0 0 143 Industrial 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 139 0 0 30 0 8 53 34 0 0 9 611 Lodging 0 24 275 0 0 0 69 11 283 96 80 22 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 18 1,740 School 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 113 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 284 569 54 27 0 307 125 875 1,016 253 880 12 82 451 2 8 900 42 31 2 94 9,600 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Lodging 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 4 4 9 0 0 0 UNINCORPORATED YAVAPAI COUNTY TAZ 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Area C C C C C C C C C Lima & Associates Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 131 TABLE B-6. 2030 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Area C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Lima & Associates Retail 270 13 33 0 3 0 0 39 0 0 441 6 108 0 0 345 4 37 0 12 11 7 0 22 0 9 15 48 10 16 0 0 4 Service 7 0 59 12 19 0 0 0 9 0 107 20 290 281 1 85 20 2 11 8 37 37 0 0 0 107 11 28 17 36 0 0 5 Office 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 160 8 0 34 1 0 1 34 0 9 0 0 0 3 24 20 10 0 0 0 1 Public 0 0 0 17 25 29 0 0 0 0 8 4 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 24 21 4 0 12 4 73 0 20 17 59 4 0 26 0 0 7 6 3 26 0 9 29 27 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lodging 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 524 46 0 15 0 37 0 0 0 124 3 3 0 13 7 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 689 School 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 332 13 116 54 146 29 12 43 82 0 1,200 93 625 308 1 531 25 39 19 184 231 82 0 44 36 224 104 146 57 102 0 0 699 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 132 TABLE B-6. 2030 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (Continued) TAZ Area C 99 C 118 C 119 C 120 C 121 C 122 C 123 C 124 C 125 C 126 C 127 C 128 C 129 C 130 C 131 C 132 C 133 C 151 C 155 C 156 C 157 C 158 C 159 C 160 C 161 C 171 UNINCORPORATED SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL Lima & Associates Retail 0 0 0 0 0 9 10 0 0 71 27 4 4 0 6 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Service 8 0 0 0 15 57 0 7 0 134 193 29 3 12 54 15 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 Office 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 14 18 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Public 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 0 1 13 10 0 0 128 40 16 5 11 19 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 373 Lodging 144 0 4 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Casino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 152 0 36 0 16 79 72 11 0 411 278 56 12 26 248 75 9 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 451 1,611 13,029 1,839 9,185 408 3,074 199 2,481 1,085 3,381 1,771 3,768 626 1,932 22 451 0 600 7,561 37,901 DRAFT Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 133 APPENDIX C. 2030 ROADWAY MODELING ALTERNATIVES Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 134 TABLE C-1. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 1 Road Name I-17 From To Functional Classification Description North of Study Area, Approximately Milepost 305 Tissaw Rd Interstate Six lanes (three lanes in each direction) Cornville Rd South of Study Area, Approximately Milepost 280 SR 89A Arterial Four lanes from SR 89A to Tissaw Rd. Cornville Rd Tissaw Rd I-17 Major Collector Some improvements, but no new travel lanes. SR 260/SR 89A Bypass Main St, (Cottonwood) Beaverhead Flat Rd to SR 260 SR 260/Fir St SR 89A Minor Collector Mingus Ave SR 89A Arterial Four lane bypass of the SR 260, SR 89A intersection (southeast quadrant) Improvements to this existing four-lane arterial Beaverhead Flat Rd/Cornville Rd SR 260 Major Collector Sedona SR 179 Bypass West Loop SR 179 SR 89A Minor Collector Black Hills Dr S. of Fir St Minor Collector Finnie Flat Rd SR 260 Montezuma Castle Hwy Arterial Construction of two-lane county road on roughly the Forest Service 119A alignment from Cornville Rd, continuing west north of boundary of Camp Verde to SR 260. Extend Middle Verde Rd northwest to connect to the Beaverhead Flat Rd to SR 260 Rd. Two lanes, near Back O’ Beyond, then Chavez Ranch Rd, then Upper Red Rock Loop Rd to connect to SR 89A. Access-controlled, two lanes. Fir St would be extended to connect to the West Loop Improved intersections, not four lanes Montezuma Castle Hwy Beaver Creek Area Yavapai-Apache Nation Boundary I-17 Finnie Flat Rd Major Collector Two lanes with improvements SR 179 (see Description column) Bypass Route SR 89A/Cornville Rd SR 89A/Bill Gray Rd Cornville Rd/Tissaw Rd Intersection Intersection Beaver Creek Rd and N.F. 119, upgrade each section one functional classification with additional improvements. Beaver Creek Rd becomes arterial near I-17, becomes major collector elsewhere, and N.F. 119 becomes a paved, two-lane local road. Four lanes, in a planned mixed commercial and residential development Lima & Associates Minor Collector Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 135 TABLE C-2. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 2 Road Name I-17 From To Functional Classification Interstate Six lanes (three lanes in each direction) Description North of Study Area, Approximately Milepost 305 Cornville Rd South of Study Area, Approximately Milepost 280 SR 89A Tissaw Rd Arterial Four lanes from SR 89A to Tissaw Rd. Cornville Rd Tissaw Rd I-17 Major Collector Some improvements, but no new travel lanes. SR 260/SR 89A Bypass Main St, (Cottonwood) Beaverhead Flat Rd to SR 260 SR 260/Fir St SR 89A Minor Collector Mingus Ave SR 89A Arterial Four lane bypass of the SR 260, SR 89A intersection (southeast quadrant) Improvements to this existing four-lane arterial Beaverhead Flat Rd/Cornville Rd Intersection SR 260 Major Collector Sedona SR 179 Bypass SR 179 SR 89A Minor Collector SR 260 SR 89A in Cottonwood About 1.2 miles E of Verde River, in Camp Verde General Crook Arterial Old SR 89A Minor Collector Forest Alignment Thousand Trails Rd Freeway Groseta Ranch Rd SR 89A Lima & Associates Freeway Construction of two-lane county road on roughly the Forest Service 119A alignment from Cornville Rd, continuing west north of boundary of Camp Verde to SR 260. Extend Middle Verde Rd northwest to connect to the Beaverhead Flat Rd to SR 260 Rd. Two lanes, near Back O’ Beyond, then Chavez Ranch Rd, then Upper Red Rock Loop Rd to connect to SR 89A. Four lanes throughout (the last segment from Thousand Trails Rd to West of I-17 would have been widened from two to four lanes) Two lanes each direction Groseta Ranch Rd upgraded to two-lane minor collector. Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 136 TABLE C-2. VERDE VALLEY 2030 ALTERNATIVE 2 (Continued) Old SR 279 Quail Springs Ranch Rd /Old SR 279 SR 260 Functional Description Classification Minor Collector Access-controlled, two-lanes. Fir St would be extended to connect to the West Loop Minor Collector One Lane in Each Direction (Cottonwood) Mingus Ave Willard Arterial Cement Plant Rd (arc east to) SR 89A Change from four to two lanes and enhance for bicycle and pedestrian travel Minor Collector Two lanes Forest Align. Fwy SR 260 SR 260 Montezuma Castle Hwy Minor Collector One lane each direction. Arterial Four lanes Montezuma Castle Highway Bypass of “Y” Low water Road, Beaver Creek Yavapai-Apache Nation Boundary SR 179 Beaver Creek Rd/ Brocket Ranch Rd Finnie Flat Rd Major Collector Three lanes SR 89A Coronado Trail/Indian Lakes area Minor Collector Bypass, one lane each way Local Connection and emergency route, low water Beaver Creek Area I-17 Beginning of unpaved (see Description Beaver Creek Rd, upgrade each section one column) functional classification with additional improvements. Beaver Creek Rd becomes arterial near I-17, becomes major collector elsewhere. and N.F. 119 remains an unpaved, less than two-lane local road. Minor Collector Four lanes, in a planned mixed commercial and residential development Road Name From West Loop Black Hills Dr Quail Springs Ranch Road Main St, (Cottonwood) Cement Plant Rd Loop Cherry Creek Rd Finnie Flat Rd Bypass Route SR SR 89A/Bill Gray 89A/Cornville Rd Rd Intersection Lima & Associates To Cornville Rd/Tissaw Rd Intersection Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 137 BIBLIOGRAPHY Many regional, local, and ADOT plans completed in the time period 1999-2007 are listed in Table 1-2. In addition to those plans, the following references contributed to the VVMTS: Arizona Department of Transportation Intermodal Transportation Division, Roadway Predesign Section, Scoping Report, I-17, Jct. SR 179 to I-40 (MP 298.5 to MP 340.0), Federal Aid No. NH-017-B(AUC), Project No. 017 YV 298 H6960 01L, 2007 Arizona Department of Transportation, Financial Management Services, Highway User Revenue Fund, Fiscal Year 2008 Year- End Report, Phoenix, Arizona, 2008. Barnes, Gary, The Importance of Trip Destination in Determining Transit Share, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 2005. DMJM Harris 2004, Needs Based Implementation Plan (NBIP) archives (SR 179), accessed at http://ww.scenic179.com/NBIP/index.cfm Gough, Jim, “Planning on a Regional Basis: York Region Transportation Master Plan” MMM Group, 2008. North Country Council & North Country Transit, Regional Coordinated Transit Plan for the North Country Council Planning Region, New Hampshire, 2006. Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, Draft NAIPTA Fiveyear Transit Plan for the Verde Valley Region, 2008. Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission, 2007-2032 Long Range Transportation Plan, Gannett Fleming, July, 2007. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Beaverhead Flat Road, Beaver Creek Road, Environmental Assessment, Coconino National Forest, prepared for Yavapai County and Coconino National Forest, March 15, 2000. -----, Golden, James W., Forest Supervisor, Finding of No Significant Impact, Beaverhead Flat Road and Beaver Creek Road Improvements, June 9, 2000. -----, Golden, James W., Forest Supervisor, Decision Notice, Beaverhead Flat Road and Beaver Creek Road Improvements, June 9, 2000. Lima & Associates Verde Valley Multimodal Transportation Study – Page 138