Final Report September 19, 2011 Final Report Table of Contents 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2. 1.5.3 2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2. 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.4 2.5 3.0 3.1 4.0 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Background Information ............................................................................................ 1 Study Area Overview .................................................................................................. 2 Study Purpose, Needs and Objectives ......................................................................... 2 Previous Plans and Studies ........................................................................................ 4 Community Involvement............................................................................................. 4 Technical Advisory Committee .................................................................................... 5 Public Open Houses .................................................................................................... 5 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................. 6 Inventory of Current Conditions .................................................................................. 6 Land Use, Population and Socioeconomics ................................................................. 6 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 6 Social Characteristics .................................................................................................. 8 Economic Characteristics............................................................................................. 9 Roadway System Inventory and Traffic Analysis ........................................................ 10 Roadway Network and Functional Classifications ...................................................... 10 Roadway Characteristics .......................................................................................... 13 Safety and Crash History ........................................................................................... 14 Current Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................ 24 Highway Capacity and Level of Service ...................................................................... 29 Existing Traffic Conditions - 2010 ............................................................................... 30 Bridges ..................................................................................................................... 32 Multi-Modal Transportation ..................................................................................... 33 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Plans and Policy Documents....................................... 33 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................... 33 Transit Plans and Policy Documents .......................................................................... 35 Existing Transit Services ............................................................................................ 35 Freight ...................................................................................................................... 35 Airport ...................................................................................................................... 35 Natural Environment ................................................................................................ 36 Cultural Environment ................................................................................................ 40 Programmed Improvements ..................................................................................... 42 Short Term Programmed Improvements .................................................................. 42 Stakeholder Identified Transportation Needs ............................................................ 42 Overview .................................................................................................................. 42 Specific needs Identification and Locations ............................................................... 43 Forecast of Future Conditions ................................................................................... 47 Population Growth ................................................................................................... 47 Future Land Use ........................................................................................................ 47 Future Traffic and Level of Service ............................................................................. 49 Forecast Conditions 2015 .......................................................................................... 53 Forecast Conditions 2020 .......................................................................................... 54 Page i Final Report 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 10.0 11.0 Forecast Conditions 2030 .......................................................................................... 55 Traffic Forecast Summary.......................................................................................... 56 Multimodal Conditions ............................................................................................. 56 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation ............................................................................. 56 Transit Circulation..................................................................................................... 58 Findings .................................................................................................................... 58 Functional Classification............................................................................................ 61 Project Needs ........................................................................................................... 64 Structures ................................................................................................................. 64 Roadway Improvement Projects ............................................................................... 71 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Projects ........................................................................... 91 State Highway Improvements ................................................................................... 93 Airport Project Needs ............................................................................................. 101 Revenue and Financing Alternatives ........................................................................ 102 Federal Funding ...................................................................................................... 102 State Funding.......................................................................................................... 105 Local Funding Sources ............................................................................................. 106 Private Funding Sources .......................................................................................... 108 Current Revenue Streams ....................................................................................... 109 Suggested New Revenue Approaches ...................................................................... 109 Evaluation Criteria for Project Selection .................................................................. 110 Recommended Short, Medium and Long Term Project Priorities ............................. 111 Appendix 1 Stakeholder Interview Notes............................................................................ 114 Appendix 2 Reference Documents ...................................................................................... 159 Appendix 3 FEMA flood Insurance Rate Maps ..................................................................... 160 Appendix 4 Public Open House Summary 1 ........................................................................ 166 Appendix 5 Public Open house Summary 2 ......................................................................... 171 Appendix 6 Application Draft for Revised Functional Classification ..................................... 178 Appendix 7 Town of Colorado City Executive Order #2010-01 and Mohave County Flood Declaration December, 2010 ........................................................... 198 Page ii Final Report List of Figures 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 Regional Context ........................................................................................................ 1 Study Area .................................................................................................................. 3 Industrial Park Locations ............................................................................................. 6 Current Land Use ....................................................................................................... 7 Public Lands Ownership .............................................................................................. 8 Major Streets 1 of 2 ................................................................................................. 11 Major Streets 2 of 2 .................................................................................................. 12 Functionally Classified Town Roads .......................................................................... 12 Unimproved Roads ................................................................................................... 15 Crash Severity-Main Town Area 2005-2010 .............................................................. 16 Crash Severity Centennial Park Area 2005-2010 ........................................................ 17 Crash Severity Cane Beds Area 2005-2010 ................................................................. 18 Crash Severity SE Highway 389 Area 2005-2010 ........................................................ 19 Crash Type-Main Town Area 2005-2010 .................................................................... 20 Crash Type Centennial Park Area 2005-2010 .............................................................. 21 Crash Type Cane Beds Area 2005-2010 ...................................................................... 22 Crash Type SE Highway 389 Area 2005-2010 ............................................................. 23 North Study Area Traffic Count Locations .................................................................. 25 South Study Area Traffic Count Locations ................................................................. 26 Current Daily Traffic Counts ..................................................................................... 27 2010 Traffic Flowband .............................................................................................. 31 Study Area Level of Service ....................................................................................... 32 Bridge Locations ....................................................................................................... 33 Sidewalk Locations.................................................................................................... 34 Airport Facilities ....................................................................................................... 36 Wildlife Linkages ....................................................................................................... 40 Old Spanish Trail ...................................................................................................... 41 Stakeholder Identified Transportation System Needs ............................................... 46 Future Land Use ....................................................................................................... 48 Colorado City Sketch Level Model Network .............................................................. 49 Estimated Population Growth Categories ................................................................. 51 Estimated Employment Growth Categories ............................................................... 52 2015 Level of Service................................................................................................. 53 2020 Level of Service ................................................................................................ 54 2030 Level of Service................................................................................................. 55 Recommended Functional Classification Changes ..................................................... 63 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Projects ........................................................................... 93 Highway Widening and Improvement Locations ........................................................ 94 Intersection Turning Lane Needs ............................................................................... 95 Pedestrian Underpass Location ............................................................................... 100 Page iii Final Report List of Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Social Characteristics .................................................................................................. 9 Economic Characteristics............................................................................................. 9 Functional Classification............................................................................................ 10 Traffic Count Locations and Results .......................................................................... 28 Roadway Segment Capacities & LOS Criteria for Small Urban Areas ........................... 30 Roadway Segment Service Volumes for Small Urban Areas........................................ 30 Endangered Species in Mohave County ..................................................................... 38 Population Projections .............................................................................................. 47 Demographic Control Totals for Each Analysis Year ................................................... 50 Percentage of Study Area Mileage in Each LOS Category............................................ 56 Average Volumes of Selected Road Segments ........................................................... 57 New Functional Classification ................................................................................... 61 Structural Project Summary with Costs ..................................................................... 65 Roadway Improvement Project Summary with Costs................................................. 71 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Project Summary with Costs ............................................ 92 State Highway Project Summary with Costs............................................................... 93 Airport Project Needs ............................................................................................. 101 Five Year Revenue History....................................................................................... 109 Short Term Projects ................................................................................................ 111 Medium Term Projects............................................................................................ 112 Long Term Projects ................................................................................................. 113 Page iv Final Report 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Information The Town of Colorado City Transportation Study was initiated by the Town of Colorado City in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Multimodal Planning Division. This study, and the resulting transportation plan, is funded through ADOT’s Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program. ADOT and the Town of Colorado City have retained the consultant team of Wilbur Smith Associates to conduct the study under the oversight and direction of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that includes members from the Town of Colorado City; adjacent Hildale City, Utah; Mohave County; the Arizona Department of Transportation Multimodal Planning Division; the ADOT Flagstaff District Engineer’s office; and other interested parties. Colorado City is within an area of the state referred to as the Arizona Strip. The Arizona Strip is separated from the balance of the state by Marble Canyon, the Grand Canyon, and Lake Mead, all of which are along the Colorado River. There are no vehicular river crossings of the Colorado River between Page, Arizona and the Hoover Dam, a straight line distance of nearly 200 miles. As a result, much of the 5 million acre Arizona Strip is closer to regional urban services in St. George, Utah, 43 miles to the northwest and Las Vegas, Nevada, 161 miles to the west, than to Arizona’s urban centers. Page is 113 miles to the east, Flagstaff is 252 miles to the southeast and Phoenix is 354 miles distant. The Mohave County seat of Kingman is 266 miles away. Figure 1 Regional Context, shows the location of Colorado City relative to regional destinations. Figure 1 Regional Context The town was founded in 1908 and was originally known as Short Creek for a nearby stream that sank into the ground before it had run very far. The community officially changed its name to Colorado City in 1963, but was not incorporated until 1985. Colorado City is located in an incredibly scenic area that has many nearby points of interest including the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, House Rock Valley, Navajo Trail, Cane Beds, Historic Pipe Springs National Monument, Vermillion and Shinorump Cliffs, Steamboat Rock, Kaibab National Forest, Zion National Park, Cedar Breaks National Monument, Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park, and Lake Powell, Lake Mead, and Glen Canyon National Recreation Areas. The traditional economic focus on agriculture and ranching has shifted over time with growth and urbanization. Colorado City has thriving commercial and retail enterprises while neighboring Hildale has an active industrial park and service industries. Hildale plays an important part in Colorado City’s economy. Arizona State Route 389 bisects the Page 1 Final Report community in a northwest-southeast direction while Short Creek traverses the Town in a northeastsouthwest direction. 1.2 Study Area Overview The study area includes not only the Town of Colorado City, but also the entire local community area encompassing the unincorporated communities of Cane Beds and Centennial Park in Mohave County, Arizona, and the immediately adjacent incorporated community of Hildale in Washington County, Utah. The study area can generally be described as: • • Bounded on the north by the northern boundary of the City of Hildale Bounded on the east by Yellowstone Road except for the inclusion of Cane Beds Road and Rosy Canyon Road to the state line • Bounded on the south by the junction of Yellowstone Road and SR 389 • Bounded on the west by the westernmost corporate boundary of the Town of Colorado City. The study area is shown in more detail in Figure 2 Study Area shown on the next page. 1.3 Study Purpose, Need, and Objectives This study is intended to update the transportation study done for the Town in 1993. That study is extremely outdated, and the town needs a fresh look and new approach to developing their transportation plan to meet the current and future needs of the community. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to create a useful, workable transportation system planning document that contains a realistic and achievable program for implementing transportation system improvements throughout the study area over short, medium, and long term time frames. Need: There is a critical need for effective transportation planning to provide improved and safer traffic circulation throughout the study area, especially along the SR 389 corridor. Objectives: The primary outcomes of this study are set forth in the following listing. 1. To update the functional classification of roads to optimize the use of state and federal funds 2. To improve the transportation system infrastructure to meet current and future needs 3. To consider and address traffic circulation, capacity, and safety of the principal access routes 4. To improve multimodal accessibility and safety for all residents and visitors 5. To minimize and mitigate any adverse community and environmental impacts 6. To receive mapping, street details, cross-sections, and guidelines for ongoing use by the Town The transportation plan addresses current and future demands placed on the area’s streets, highways, and multimodal facilities. The focus is on vehicular traffic and roadways, but this study also takes into account the current and needed multimodal facilities. This includes bus transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of transportation, in addition to the vehicular modes of transportation. The study is driven not only by the anticipated growth in both population and traffic volumes within the study area, but also by the need to address through traffic movements on SR 389 and pressing needs for safe access onto, off of, and across the highway by local traffic and pedestrians. The plan includes an implementation program with specific projects that address the identified needs and that can be accomplished in manageable phases. The program is categorized into five, ten, and twenty year horizons. Page 2 Final Report Figure 2 Study Area Page 3 Final Report 1.4 Previous Plans and Studies The first transportation study for the Town of Colorado City was completed in 1993. This study has served its purposed, and is now outdated. The Colorado City General Plan was done in 2002. In 2008, the Colorado City Municipal Airport Master Plan was completed. Other applicable planning documents that were reviewed to help develop this new plan include ADOT’s State Airport System Plan and regional plans for Eastern Washington County, Utah, and the Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization for the St. George, Utah metropolitan area. The Utah documents were reviewed for regional context north of the state line but greatly influencing the local community. In addition, the Mohave County General Plan was reviewed. From 2007 through early 2010, ADOT developed a very long range visioning process called Building a Quality Arizona (a.k.a. bqAZ). This process included the development of four regional studies known as framework studies for the northern, western, eastern, and central Arizona areas. Additional smaller area framework studies were undertaken for metropolitan areas of the state simultaneously. These visioning efforts were not fiscally constrained; and focused on year 2050 and beyond to “build-out” conditions, where capacity of the state’s developable lands was achieved. Three alternative scenarios were explored for each area, individually focusing on personal vehicular mobility, public transit, and focused growth (an effort to direct new development near existing development and infrastructure) alternatives. The Western Arizona Framework study and reported results were reviewed as part of this study effort to identify issues and needs relevant to the Colorado City community. Several tactics were employed to gather all available background information and data pertinent to the study area. First, the local liaisons for the project were asked to submit all study reports and background information that they were aware of for Colorado City, Hilsdale, Mohave and Washington (Utah) counties, and ADOT. The TAC members were also asked for their input on identifying any additional reports or studies done in the area. In a final effort to ensure that all studies were accounted for, stakeholders were asked during their interviews if they had or were aware of any reports or studies. By including all local contacts in this process, the study team was able to compile a comprehensive reference library of project and study reports that have been previously completed in the study area. This effort creates continuity between this report and previous studies, and builds on the information already collected and planning efforts already completed to fully serve the residents of the Colorado City community. A complete list of these studies and reports can be found in Appendix 2. 1.5 Community Involvement The Town of Colorado City Transportation Study public involvement program is being conducted as a cooperative planning process involving project stakeholders that include public agency staff, elected officials, and interested members of the general public. Public participation is an integral part of this transportation planning study, and study related information is presented to, and feedback solicited from, stakeholders throughout each phase of the study. ADOT’s Communications and Community Partnerships Division (CCP) leads the public involvement effort with the aid of their consultant consortia. The following sections summarize key components of the public involvement program. Page 4 Final Report 1.5.1 Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee was formed at the onset of the study with key members participating in refining and finalizing the study work program. TAC meetings are held upon the submittal of each working paper to review study results and to provide guidance and input into the planning process. The TAC members can then keep their respective agency or groups fully informed on the planning process and study progress, and can bring forth appropriate issues that may require consideration and/or technical analysis to the attention of the project team. Agency and stakeholder members of the TAC include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Audra Merrick, ADOT Flagstaff District Engineer’s office Steve Mackelprang, ADOT Flagstaff District Engineer’s office Justin Feek, ADOT MPD Project Manager Scott Florence, BLM District Manager Lorraine Christian, BLM Field Manager Laurie Ford, BLM Realty Specialist Dean Cooke, Colorado City Director of Public Works Jonathan Roundy, Colorado City Town Marshall David Darger, Colorado City Town Manager Freeman Barlow, Colorado City/Hildale Building Official Jake Barlow, Colorado City/Hildale Fire Chief Jeremiah Barlow, Hildale City Manager Steve Latoski, Mohave County Public Works Director Sharon Mitchell, WACOG Transportation Planner Charles Hammon, engineering consultant for local projects Mike Bradshaw, engineering consultant for local projects SR 389 in Colorado City Consultant team members of the TAC include: • Amy Rosar, Public Involvement Coordinator, KDA • Dale Miller, Project Manager, Wilbur Smith Associates • Randall Overmyer, Transportation Planner, Wilbur Smith Associates 1.5.2 Public Open Houses Public open houses were scheduled after submittal of study working papers throughout the course of the study. These meetings were advertised in local newspapers, through postings in visible places, and through notification of the TAC members, stakeholders, and other interested parties. These meetings served as a means to communicate with the general public throughout the planning process to make sure that their concerns were heard and addressed as appropriate, and to apprise them of the progress and findings of the study. These meetings are important to the overall planning process, as they helped inform the study team on any issues, concerns, or background information that might have otherwise been missed by the project team and the Technical Advisory Committee. Page 5 Final Report 1.5.3 Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholder interviews were held during the development of this working paper. These meetings were used to solicit and receive input from individuals and/or groups that may not be members of the TAC, but who are major stakeholders and interested parties for the study. The study team conducted these interviews with the participants to learn about issues of concern to them, solicit their input, and to answer any questions that they may have regarding the study. Each stakeholder was given a list of questions to think about before their meeting so that they had time to gather their thoughts on transportation issues and information that they wanted to discuss. The invitation sent to the stakeholders, and the summarized meeting notes from interviews, can be found in Appendix 1. 2. Inventory of Current Conditions 2.1 Land Use, Population, and Socioeconomics 2.1.1 Land Use The development of the Town of Colorado City and the City of Hildale is characterized by ten-acre residential blocks on a grid street pattern northeast of SR 389/Utah Route 59. The average residential density is under two units per acre. Colorado City has no zoning ordinance, and works with residents to encourage development consistent with the Town’s plans, including the 2002 General Plan. Startup businesses exist throughout Colorado City and Hildale, typically adjacent to residences on the large residential parcels. As these businesses mature, they can relocate to available commercial areas located along the state highway in the vicinity of the state line or to areas near the airport. Additional commercial/retail and employment areas are found in the vicinity of the Town Hall at Township Avenue and Central Street and along SR 389. The Colorado City Airport is located southwest of SR 389 to the west of the Centennial Park community. The Town has identified future industrial uses in the area immediately surrounding the airport, which can be readily accessed by Airport Avenue from highway SR 389. Figure 3 Industrial Park Locations More commercial and industrial uses exist in Hildale, where there is an industrial park adjacent to, and on both sides of, Utah SR 59. The Town of Colorado City General Plan notes that the stricter access management policies that ADOT has for the Arizona State Highway System has encouraged employment and commercial uses to locate north of the Utah state line, where less restrictive access practices are in place for Utah SR 59. Existing Land Uses in the community are shown in Figure 4 Current Land Use on the next page. Page 6 Final Report Figure 4 Current Land Use Source: 2002 Town of Colorado City General Plan Page 7 Final Report A portion of the lands in the study area are still used for agricultural purposes. About 15% of the study area is still used for agriculture, which is a use supported by the Town’s General Plan. The General Plan reports that 29% of the land in the city is currently vacant and another 28% has slopes above 12% which makes development a little more difficult and expensive. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona State Land Department, and the Utah Land Department have significant land holdings in the study area. Much of the private land in the study area is owned by the United Effort Plan Trust, a land holding trust of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Land ownership is shown in Figure 5 Public Lands Ownership. Figure 5 Public Lands Ownership A new school campus exists west of SR 389 at the southwest corner of Arizona Avenue and Cottonwood Street. The issue of school related traffic and pedestrians crossing the highway will be further investigated during this study and specific mitigation measures will be recommended in subsequent working papers. 2.1.2 Social Characteristics The current estimated population of Colorado City is 4,835 people, and the estimated population of Hildale is 2,430 people. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the following information for the study area was collected from the 2000 census: Page 8 Final Report Table 1 Social Characteristics Statistics for 2000 Less than 5 years old 18 years old and older 65 years and older Median Age Family size High School Graduate College Graduate Disability Status Arizona Portion of Study Area* 21.5% 74.3% 1.5% 14 7.25 71.5% 5.8% 9.7% Colorado City, AZ Hildale, UT 20.5% 39.6% 1.7% 14.3 7.88 70.6% 5.2% 10.4% 22.6% 36.4% 2.8% 13 8.10 73.2% 8.8% 10.7% National Average 6.8% 74.3% 12.4% 35.3 3.14 80.4% 24.4% 19.3 *Includes Town of Colorado City and unincorporated Cane Beds and Centennial Park communities. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Data 2.1.3 Economic Characteristics The following workforce information for the study area was collected during the 2000 census: Table 2 Economic Characteristics Workforce Category Statistics Adult Pop. (16+) in Workforce Construction/Maintenance Sales and Office Production/Transportation Mgmt. & Professional Service Colorado City, AZ 58% 32% 22% 19% 18% 9% Hildale City, UT 55.9% 20% 24% 22% 27% 7% National Average 63.9% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Data Just over 13% of the workers were employed by the public sector. According to the 2000 Census data, workers in the study area drove an average of 26 minutes to work; almost exactly the same as the national average. Currently unemployment rates are 11.1% for Mohave County, Arizona and 9.8% for Washington County, Utah, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The current slowdown in the construction industry has dramatically influenced these rates, especially around the communities of St. George, Utah, and Kingman, Lake Havasu City, and Bullhead City, Arizona, which have historically experienced rapid residential growth. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the average household income is $50,389 in Washington County, Utah, and $38,641 in Mohave County, Arizona. The Washington County figure is influenced by the higher incomes levels in the St. George metropolitan area, and may not be accurate for Hildale. Page 9 Final Report 2.2 Roadway System Inventory and Traffic Analysis This section describes and defines the existing critical roadway network for the study area. These are the significant routes that carry the majority of traffic circulating through and within the area. This section also discusses the existing traffic and traffic control on these routes. Because the roadway network carries the majority of the trips made in most communities in the United States, and this is certainly true in Colorado City as well, it is the backbone transportation infrastructure for the community. The roadway network in the Colorado City community consists of SR 389 and the local and county roadways in the study area. These routes move people and commodities throughout and beyond Colorado City, Hildale, Centennial Park, Cane Beds, and the balance of the study area. This roadway network comprises the primary surface transportation system, is shown in Figure 6 Major Streets 1 of 2 and Figure 7 Major Streets 2 of 2 on the following pages, and is discussed in more detail in the following sections. 2.2.1 Roadway Network and Functional Classifications Per the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary then to determine how this travel can be channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification defines the nature of this channelization process by defining the part that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway network. Functional classifications of roadways are used in transportation planning, roadway design, and to allocate federal roadway improvement funds. Table 3 Functional Classification Hierarchy of Functional Classification System Rural Areas Urbanized Areas Principal Arterials Principal Arterials Minor Arterial Roads Minor Arterial Streets Collector Roads Collector Streets Local Roads Local Streets These FHWA classifications are listed in descending (high to low) order of speed limit, vehicular capacity, and access restrictions. Urban and rural areas have fundamentally different characteristics as to density and types of land use, density of street and highway networks, nature of travel patterns, and the way in which all these elements are related in the definitions of highway function. Consequently, functional classifications provide for separate classification of urban and rural functional systems. Experience has shown that extensions of rural arterial and collector routes provide an adequate arterial street network in places with a population of less than 5,000. Hence, urban classifications are considered in the context of areas of population of 5,000 or more. Page 10 Final Report Figure 6 Major Streets 1 of 2 Page 11 Final Report Figure 7 Major Streets 2 of 2 Figure 8 Functionally Classified Town Roads The process of classifying roadways in Arizona is led by ADOT in cooperation with the regional councils of governments; in this case, the Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG). All roads that are part of the public roadway network are to be classified. For a project to be eligible for federal funding, and to be included in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), the roadway in question must be functionally classified as a major collector or above. ADOT’s HPMS data shows that the Town’s streets listed below, and shown in the map to the right, are those that are currently classified as major collectors and thus are eligible for federal funding assistance: Central Street, from SR-389 to Arizona Ave Johnson Avenue, from SR-389 to Central St Arizona Avenue, from SR-389 to Central St Page 12 Final Report It should be noted that Johnson Avenue was formerly connected to SR 389 and served as a major collector street. However, this connection to SR 389 was eliminated due to its close proximity to the SR 389 bridge over Short Creek causing insufficient space for an improved intersection and sight distance problems due to the structure’s side walls. Because of this, the street intersection with SR 389 was moved south to connect with Mohave Avenue. Mohave Avenue now accommodates much of the traffic flow to and from the highway that previously was served by Johnson Avenue. Mohave Avenue should therefore be reclassified as a major collector in recognition of this change, and Johnson Avenue should be reclassified as a local street. There are other major streets in the study area (see Figures 5 and 6) that may also qualify for an upgrade in functional classification, thereby making the major street segments eligible for state and federal aid. If a street segment qualifies, the study effort will include assisting the Town of Colorado City with its application for the warranted change in functional classification. ADOT has a process for modifying routes on Arizona’s approved functional classification system. Applications for reclassification are submitted to ADOT through WACOG. The application identifies the routes to be added or deleted, route termini, average daily traffic, and rationale for justifying the change in functional classification. ADOT’s Multimodal Planning Division reviews the application and the impacts of reclassification on the roadway system balance for the surrounding system. They will take into account the opinions and views of local officials, WACOG, and the ADOT Flagstaff District Engineer. If approved by ADOT, the request is then forwarded to the FHWA for their concurrence and approval. The primary candidates for upgraded functional classification based on current conditions are: • • • • • • • • • Township Avenue from Richard Street to Hildale Street Mohave Avenue from Redwood Street to Hildale Street Airport Avenue from Redwood Street to SR 389 Cane Beds Road from Central Street to SR 389 and east to Rosy Canyon Road Redwood Street from Airport Road to Mohave Avenue Richard Street from Mohave Avenue to Uzona Avenue Hildale Street from Mohave Avenue to Uzona Avenue Rosy Canyon Road from Cane Beds Road to the Utah State Line Academy Avenue from Richard Street to Hildale Street In Hildale, the major streets based on current conditions are: • • • • Utah Avenue from UT SR 59 to Hildale Street Richard Street from Uzona Avenue to Utah Avenue Central Street from Uzona Avenue to Utah Avenue Hildale Street from Uzona Avenue to Utah Avenue Mohave Avenue to the west across Central Street 2.2.2 Roadway Characteristics All of the streets and roads in the Colorado City study area are 2-lane undivided facilities. Many of the streets in the developed areas of Colorado City and Hildale have been paved or chip sealed, as the Town and City each have a program in place to improve streets as monies become available. The following street segments are still unimproved or dirt. Page 13 Final Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cooke Avenue Township Avenue west of Short Creek Academy Avenue west of Central Street Arizona Ave from SR 389 to Elm Street Edson Avenue Garden Avenue Harker Avenue Warren Avenue Black Avenue Apple Avenue Cherry Avenue Plum Avenue Maple Street • • • • • • • • • • • • Redwood Street south of Airport Avenue Juniper Street Oak Street Willow Street Homestead Street Lauritzen Street Hammon Street Pioneer Street Pioneer Lane Colvin Street south of Academy Avenue Carling Street south of Academy Avenue Canyon Street south of Township Avenue In Hildale, all local roadways are unpaved east of Maple Street except for Utah Avenue, Hildale Street, and parts of Canyon Street. The locations of unimproved streets are shown in Figure 9 Unimproved Roads shown on the following page. 2.2.3 Safety and Crash History Crash data was obtained from the ADOT Traffic Records Section for the period including January 2005 through August of 2010. In addition, the Town of Colorado City provided supplemental crash data from their records for the calendar years 2005 through 2010. Crash severities for both the ADOT records and the supplemental Town records are shown on Figures 10 through 13. Crash types for the ADOT records and the supplemental Town records are shown on Figures 14 through 17. These figures are found on the following pages. Note that the ADOT crash records are identified by a circle on the figures while the supplemental Town records are identified by a triangle on the figures. During the six year analysis period, the ADOT data showed 29 crashes on SR 389 and 62 crashes on local streets and roads within the study area. Adding in the local crash data, there were 48 total crashes on the highway and 129 total crashes on local streets and roads. There were a number of animal or livestock related crashes, which are more typically found in rural than in urban areas. There were three fatal crashes on study area roads during the analysis period (2005 – 2010). All of these fatal crashes occurred on SR 389. There were ten pedestrian involved collisions, including six in the main Town area and 4 in the Centennial Park neighborhood. There were fourteen bicycle involved crashes reported, all in the main Town area. Page 14 Final Report Figure 9 Unimproved Roads Page 15 Final Report Figure 10 Crash Severity – Main Town Area 2005 – AUG 2010 Page 16 Final Report Figure 11 Crash Severity – Centennial Park Area 2005 – AUG 2010 Page 17 Final Report Figure 12 Crash Severity – Cane Beds Area 2005 – AUG 2010 Page 18 Final Report Figure 13 Crash Severity – SE HWY 389 Area 2005 – AUG 2010 Page 19 Final Report Figure 14 Crash Type – Main Town Area 2005 – AUG 2010 Page 20 Final Report Figure 15 Crash Type – Centennial Park Area 2005 – AUG 2010 Page 21 Final Report Figure 16 Crash Type – Cane Beds Area 2005 – AUG 2010 Page 22 Final Report Figure 17 Crash Type – SE HWY 389 Area 2005 – AUG 2010 A review of the crash locations identifies several apparent issues. There have been a cluster of crashes around the intersection of Center Street and Township Avenue in downtown Colorado City. A second cluster of crashes is found along Pioneer Street between Edson and Township Avenues. Smaller clusters of crashes are found at the intersection of Center Street and Johnson Avenue, and along Homestead and Richard Streets between Academy Avenue and Arizona Avenue. Finally, a significant number of the crashes occurred approaching or crossing Short Creek at all three low water stream crossing locations: Richard Street, Central Street, and Hildale Street. SR 389 intersections in the study area are also of concern due to the higher speeds, but statistically the number of crashes is lower than Page 23 Final Report state averages for similar facilities. The segment of SR 389 from the Utah border to Airport Avenue has a crash rate of 6.45 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles (MVMs) with one fatality recorded during the six year sample period. Compare that to the average crash rate for Arizona 2-lane rural roads of 84 crashes per 100 MVMs with an average fatality rate of 1.4 fatal crashes per 100 MVMs. The segment of SR 389 from Airport Avenue to a point about a mile southeast of Yellowstone Road has a crash rate of 12.64 crashes per 100 MVMs with a fatality rate of 0.74 per 100 MVMs. This segment is also below the state average crash rate. ADOT conducted a Road Safety Assessment of SR 389 between mileposts 30 and 31 southeast of the study area in July of this year. In ten years, that one mile segment experienced 50 crashes. Their report notes that accident rates in that area were well below the average for two lane rural highways. That conclusion is also valid for the portion of the highway within this study area. 2.2.4 Current Traffic Volumes Recent traffic data was available from a number of sources, including the 2007 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), maintained by ADOT. This database includes recent traffic counts for all state highways. ADOT reports that SR 389 in the study area has average daily traffic of 3,600 vehicles. Of this, 14% is truck traffic. Similar data was obtained from the Utah Department of Transportation for Utah Route 59 in the study area. UDOT reports that Route 59 has daily traffic of 3,530 vehicles in the study area. Of this amount, 17% is truck traffic. To supplement the data in these reports, additional traffic count data was collected specifically for this study. A set of thirtyeight traffic counts made in the area in November 2010, along with current and historic counts from the Arizona and Utah Departments of Transportation were used to help define the existing traffic conditions. Figure 18 North Study Area Traffic Count Locations and Figure 19 South Study Area Traffic Count Locations found on the following pages show the locations of the traffic counts collected. These counts were conducted on November 17, 2010. Locations marked in red indicate locations where average daily traffic (ADT) was counted. Locations marked in green show locations where vehicle classification counts were taken as well as ADT. These counts show the breakout of traffic by vehicle type and are used to gauge commercial (truck) volumes as a percentage of total traffic. Note that all of the DOT counts were classification counts. For the purposes of this study, trucks are defined as combination trucks only. SR 389 looking north from Mohave Avenue Central Street & Township Ave In downtown Colorado City SR 389 Bridge over Short Creek Page 24 Final Report Figure 18 North Study Area Traffic Count Locations Page 25 Final Report Figure 19 South Study Area Traffic Count Locations The findings of these counts are shown in Figure 20 Current Daily Traffic Counts and Table 4 Traffic Count Locations and Results. Figure 20, showing the current ADT counts, is located on the following page. Count data for all locations is reported in Table 4 and it is located on the page after next. Someone tampered with the counter equipment at location #15, and so no data was recorded there; but all other locations recorded good data. Central Street Low Water Crossing of Short Creek Hildale Street Low Water Crossing of Short Creek Page 26 Final Report Figure 20 Current Daily Traffic Counts Page 27 Final Report Table 4 Traffic Count Locations and Results Site ID Avg Volume Route Location 1 Utah Hwy 59 NW of Mulberry St / 1500 W 2,910 2 Utah Ave E of Utah Hwy 59 / State St 1,410 3 Utah Ave Between Homestead St and Richard St 2,530 4 Central St 1,860 5 Utah Ave 6 Hildale St 7 Township Ave 8 Uzona Ave Between Utah Ave and Field Ave Between Carling St and Hildale St Between Utah Ave and Field Ave E of Arizona Hwy 389 Between Homestead St and Richard St W of Utah Hwy 59 W of Arizona Hwy 389 E of Arizona Hwy 389 Between Uzona Ave and Arizona Ave N of Academy Ave W of Redwood St Between Arizona Ave and Uzona Ave Between Arizona Ave and Creekbed Ave Between Hammond St and Central St S of Arizona Ave Between Central St and Pioneer St Between Central St and Colvin St Between Township Ave and University Ave Between Township Ave and Edson Ave Between Colvin St and Central St Between Mohave Ave and Garden Ave Between Mohave Ave and Garden Ave Between Richard St and Central St W of Central St NW of Mohave St NE of Arizona Hwy 389 N of Ariport Rd W of Arizona Hwy 389 W of Central St E of Redwood St N of Lost Springs Rd / Cane Beds Rd W of Arizona Hwy 389 E of Arizona Hwy 389 S of Cane Beds Rd SE of Yellowstone Rd 9 Uzona Ave 10 Arizona Ave 11 Arizona Ave 12 Arizona Hwy 389 13 Redwood St 14 Airport Ave 15 Richard St 16 Richard St 17 Arizona Ave 18 Central St 19 Township Ave 20 Township Ave 21 Hildale St 22 Hildale St 23 Mohave Ave 24 Central St 25 Richard St 26 Mohave Ave 27 Mohave Ave 28 Arizona Hwy 389 29 Central St 30 Arizona Hwy 389 31 Airport Ave 32 Airport Ave 33 Airport Ave 34 Central St 35 Cane Beds Rd 36 Cane Beds Rd 37 Yellowstone Rd 38 Arizona Hwy 389 Avg % Trucks 11.6% 2,070 1,770 230 220 530 670 1,110 5,170 120 50 2,780 1,610 3,080 2,250 1,500 1,410 880 590 2,490 960 1,560 540 3,630 8.6% 880 4,590 1,600 1,090 150 150 310 640 210 2,080 12.8% Page 28 Final Report 2.2.5 Highway Capacity and Level of Service Beginning in 1965, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) divided highway level of service (LOS) into six letter grades, “A” through “F,” with “A” being the best and “F” being the worst. With the “A” through “F” LOS scheme, traffic engineers were much better able to explain to the general public and elected officials the operating and design concepts of highways. The LOS letter scheme caught on so well that it is now used throughout the United States in transportation. Long range transportation planning studies typically use generalized roadway segment daily capacity and daily volume-to-capacity (V/C) based level of service (LOS) criteria as screening tools to help identify and quantify existing and future roadway deficiencies. The primary advantage of the planning level generalized criteria is that it requires relatively little data to generate reasonable results for a large number of roadway locations. Depending on the nature and scope of the study, more detailed capacity and LOS analyses may or may not be warranted. More detailed analyses require substantial additional data collection, analysis time, and cost. This section of the report offers a reasonable set of generalized planning-level roadway segment capacity and V/C based LOS criteria for consistent use in ADOT small urban area transportation planning studies. These criteria were reviewed and approved by ADOT for use on transportation planning studies for small urban areas. As much as possible, these criteria are based upon the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000). However, the HCM2000 does not explicitly define roadway segment capacity or V/C based LOS criteria for all types of roadways. For example, HCM2000 uses average travel speed, not V/C, to measure LOS on urban streets. Consequently, the capacity and LOS criteria suggested below for urban streets are not directly attributable to the HCM2000, but are reasonable approximations of determinations that may be made using HCM2000 analyses for specific roadway segments. The HCM2000 does provide somewhat more explicit guidance for freeway V/C based LOS (HCM2000 Exhibit 23-2), as well as for free-flowing rural multilane roadways (HCM2000 Exhibit 21-2). But even for these, the information reflects “ideal design and conditions”, which may not exist at all locations being analyzed. Table 5 Roadway Segment Capacities & LOS Criteria for Small Urban Areas presents a proposed set of HCM2000 based planning level roadway segment per-lane capacities and V/C based level of service criteria suitable for use in small urban, urbanizing and suburban areas. Based upon Table 5, Table 6 Page 29 Final Report Roadway Segment Service Volumes for Small Urban Areas presents the maximum service volumes by level of service for the most common roadway types found in small urban, urbanizing and suburban areas. Table 5 Roadway Segment Capacities & LOS Criteria for Small Urban Areas Roadway Type Freeway Multilane Arterial 2-Lane Arterial 2-Lane Collector Daily Per Lane Capacity 20,000 8,000 7,000 5,000 Max LOS A V/C Ratio 0.29 n/a n/a n/a Max LOS B V/C Ratio 0.47 n/a n/a n/a Max LOS C V/C Ratio 0.68 0.70 0.50 0.50 Max LOS D V/C Ratio 0.88 0.95 0.90 0.90 Max LOS E V/C Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Table 6 Roadway Segment Service Volumes for Small Urban Areas Roadway Type 4-Lane Freeway 4-Lane Arterial 2-Lane Arterial 2-Lane Collector Daily Per Lane Capacity 20,000 8,000 7,000 5,000 Max LOS A Service Volume 23,000 n/a n/a n/a Max LOS B Service Volume 38,000 n/a n/a n/a Max LOS C Service Volume 54,000 22,000 7,000 5,000 Max LOS D Service Volume 70,000 30,000 13,000 9,000 Max LOS E Service Volume 80,000 32,000 14,000 10,000 Note: Service volumes have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. 2.2.6 Existing Traffic Conditions – 2010 The flow of the modeled traffic volumes for 2010 is shown in Figure 21 2010 Traffic Flowband which is located on the following page. As would be expected, Utah Hwy 59/Arizona Hwy 389, the highest level facility in the area, shows the highest volumes. Within the study area, the traffic flows are generally seen to increase as they near the urban core, and diminish with turning movements at intersections. Overall, the counted and modeled traffic flows for 2010 appear reasonable. Page 30 Final Report Figure 21 2010 Traffic Flowband The 2010 levels of service for the study area are shown in Figure 22 Study Area Level of Service which is found on the following page. Modeled volumes show about 97% of the study area’s roadways by mileage currently operating at LOS A. Three distinct areas of congestion stand out at LOS B: (1) Hwy 389 between Uzona Ave and Arizona Avenue, (2) Hwy 389 between Central Street and Airport Avenue, and (3) Central Street between Arizona Avenue and Township Avenue. In each case, there is a local activity in the area which is more intense than surrounding land uses. Page 31 Final Report Figure 22 Study Area Level of Service 2.2.7 Bridges ADOT has not inspected any bridges on the local roadway network. On SR 389, there are two bridge structures within or close to the study area. One of these is a concrete box culvert located north of the intersection with Central Street. The other is the bridge over Short Creek. Per ADOT’s most recent bridge inspection reports, the condition of the box culvert is acceptable and the structure has a sufficiency rating of 84. The Short Creek Bridge also has an acceptable condition and has a sufficiency rating of 59. It is recommended that this bridge be periodically inspected and that replacement of this structure should be anticipated within a ten to twenty year planning horizon. The locations of the structures are shown in Figure 23 Bridge Locations on the next page. Page 32 Final Report Figure 23 Bridge Locations BRIDGE LOCATION CULVERT LOCATION 2.3 Multi-Modal Transportation 2.3.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Plans and Policy Documents The 1993 Transportation Study recommended bicycle lanes along collector streets in the community. This recommendation has not been implemented. The Town has been installing sidewalks on both sides of the street whenever a street paving project is undertaken. 2.3.2 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle: There are no developed bicycle facilities within the study area. There is reportedly very limited bicycle use in the community. Bicycle riders share the public rights of way with vehicles as best they can or use sidewalks where they may exist. During the stakeholder interviews, it was reported that there is very little bicycle usage and providing bicycle facilities was a very low priority for the Town. A suggestion was made that a multiuse path be constructed along the highway through the community and another suggestion was made to provide a multiuse path to the BLM lands to the north and east of the community for access to recreational areas. Looking West along Central Ave across Richard St – note the sidewalks on both sides Page 33 Final Report Pedestrian: Some local roadways have adjacent sidewalks while others do not. The following roadways have sidewalks as noted in the Town’s General Plan: • • • • • • • Central Street from Arizona Avenue to Mohave Avenue on both sides. Central Street from Mohave Avenue to Black Avenue on the east side only. Richard Street from Uzona Avenue to Mohave Avenue, except for the east side from Academy Avenue to Looking west along Cannon Ave Township Avenue. from Richard Street – note the Academy Avenue has a small segment both east and sidewalks along both sides west of Colvin Street along the north side. Township Avenue from Richard Street to Carling Street, on the north side only east of Central. Johnson Avenue from just west of Richard Street to Central Street. Mohave Avenue-from Richard Street to Hammon Street. The above sidewalk facilities are shown on Figure 24 Sidewalk Locations below. Other small segments of sidewalk were noted from aerial reconnaissance, but these were likely installed piecemeal by individual residents. There are new sidewalks installed as part of the paving project recently completed on Central Street from Warren Avenue to Apple Avenue in the southern area of Town. This project was funded with Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funds. There are sidewalks along many of the improved streets in Centennial Park; however, there are no sidewalks in Cane Beds. Figure 24 Sidewalk Locations Page 34 Final Report 2.3.3 Transit Plans and Policy Documents Transit is an important service that can provide mobility for those that do not have a car, are not able to drive, or simply choose not to drive. It is especially important to the senior and disabled communities. While transit generally takes a ‘back seat’ to automobile travel, it is an invaluable resource for a community. In addition to expanding transportation options for residents and visitors alike, transit can reduce overall automobile usage, thereby decreasing vehicular traffic, lowering noise and air pollution, and reducing dependence on oil. The 2002 Town of Colorado City General Plan noted the option of public transit. The size of the community, as well as the low numbers of elderly and persons with disabilities, suggests that the need for internal circulation transit service is low, but that demand for commuter service, or at least van pools, to Hurricane and St. George, Utah, might be present and will likely increase in the future. The Town operated a transit service for the elderly and handicapped, but was forced to suspend the service three years ago due to inadequate funding. 2.3.4 Existing Transit Services There is no fixed route public transit service within the study area at this time. 2.3.5 Freight Freight traffic in the Arizona SR 389 and Utah Route 59 corridor is limited to locally generated volumes. Not surprisingly, there is more truck traffic northbound from the study areas than southeast bound along this highway. Utah Route 59 north of Hildale currently accommodates about 600 trucks per day; 388 of them semi-trucks. SR 389 in Arizona accommodates about 500 trucks per day; half of them semi-trucks. 2.3.6 Airport The Colorado City Municipal Airport was initially constructed in 1961 on land leased from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The airport serves general aviation only; no commercial service is available. In 1991, the Town of Colorado City purchased the land from the BLM and constructed paved runways to replace earlier dirt runways. The two runways are 6,300 and 5,100 feet long. Lands immediately east of the airport are planned for employment uses. Lands north, south, and west of the airport are planned for agricultural uses. The most recent Airport Master Plan was completed in 2008. That plan calls for the future relocation of the terminal building and apron outside of the Runway Visibility Zone. Figure 25 Airport Facilities found on the next page shows the airside facilities at the municipal airport. The Town of Colorado City has adopted an Airport Overlay Zoning ordinance that sets height restrictions in the aircraft approach areas and requires airport compatible uses for new development. Page 35 Final Report Figure 25 Airport Facilities Source: Colorado City Municipal Airport, Airport Master Plan, December 2008 2.4 Natural Environment Terrain: The Colorado City study area has major soils categories that have been defined based on their position in the landscape. These are floodplains, uplands, and mountains. The study area would generally fall within the first two categories. Soils in the area are generally Mesic Semi-Arid soils. Most of the study area is comprised of the Palma-Clovis-Redbank association; which are deep upland soils. The higher elevations may include some Moenkopic-Shalet association; which is shallower soil over sandstone or shale upland. There are no unusual risks or instability when road building on these soils. Major Drainage Ways: The major drainage way in study area is Short Creek that flows generally from the northeast to the southwest through the study area. Floodplains for the study area have been identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA maps for the study area are included in Appendix 3 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Page 36 Final Report Surface Drainage: Rainfall runoff generally flows from north to south into Short Creek and from east to west, also draining into Short Creek. A diversion canal was constructed on the east side of the community to intercept much of the runoff from the public lands to the east. This drainage channel runs along Canyon Street and diverts the runoff into a reservoir located south of the Mohave Avenue and Hildale Street intersection. Any overflow from the reservoir runs southwesterly into a natural channel that crosses Center Street and SR 389 approximately at the Plum Avenue alignment. During significant rainfall events, the streets serve as drainage conduits since there is no significant storm drainage infrastructure in the community beyond the creek and wash crossing structures. The streets that carry significant runoff have been (or should be) provided with curb and gutter sections to aid in the conveyance of storm runoff and to help protect adjacent properties. North of Short Creek, the streets that serve as major drainageways include Willow Street, Richard Street, Carling Street and Hildale Street. East of the creek, University Avenue, Township Avenue, Johnson Avenue, and Warren Avenue are the major drainageways. Runoff reportedly can flow six inches or more in depth during heavy rainfall events. The planning and design of street improvements therefore needs to closely look at drainage and be designed to convey the runoff waters within the right of way Richard Street Low Water to a natural drainageway, such as Short Creek. Crossing of Short Creek Wilderness Areas: The study area touches on the Cottonwood Point Wilderness. This 6,860 acre BLM wilderness is just east of Colorado City and is contiguous to the 47,170 acre Canaan Mountain Wilderness Study Area in Utah to the north of the Town. The wilderness contains 400-foot-high, multicolored Navajo sandstone cliffs, wooded canyons, and rock pinnacles. Pinyon and juniper woodlands cover much of the wilderness in association with sagebrush. Willow and cottonwood can be found in some of the canyons. Mule deer, coyote, bobcat, and mountain lion inhabit the area. Recreation opportunities in the wilderness include hiking, photography, wildlife observation, and sightseeing. Primary access to the wilderness areas are from unimproved roads and trails connecting to SR 389, which passes close to the area’s western boundary. Mohave County Road 237 (Cane Beds Road) and Ruby Canyon Road provide access to the wilderness areas. Water Canyon Road and the Maxwell Parkway forking off of Canyon Street in northeast Hildale also provides access to the wilderness area for recreation purposes. Vegetation and Wildlife: Many visitors, local and from afar, come to the Arizona Strip and southern Utah area to see and enjoy the natural beauty of the numerous national parks, monuments, and other public lands. Endangered/threatened species that may be of concern for projects in the area are listed in Table 6 Endangered Species in Mohave County found on the next page. These species are currently listed for Mohave County, but do not necessarily occur in Colorado City proper or the study area. Federally funded projects would need to have an environmental document completed including a cultural and biological assessment to clear the project for construction and identify mitigation measures needed, if any. Page 37 Final Report California condors are the largest flying land bird in North America. Condors are members of New World vultures. They are opportunistic scavengers that feed primarily on large dead mammals such as deer, elk, bighorn sheep, range cattle, and horses, and travel 100 miles or more per day in search of food. In prehistoric times, condors ranged from Canada to Mexico, across the southern United States to Florida, and on the east coast in New York. During this period, condors were a common resident of the Grand Canyon area. By the time Europeans arrived in western North America, condors had retreated to a stronghold along the Pacific coast from British Columbia to Baja California. Over the years, the population dropped until 1982, when only 22 birds were left, all in California. Reintroduction of captive bred condors began in 1992 in California, and 1996 in Arizona. The reintroduction site is located near the Vermilion Cliffs north of US 89A east of Jacobs Lake. California condors are one of the most endangered birds in the world. They were placed on the federal endangered species list in 1967. In Arizona, reintroduction was conducted under a special provision of the Endangered Species Act that allows for the designation of a nonessential experimental population. Under this designation (referred to as the 10(j) rule), the protections for an endangered species are relaxed, providing greater flexibility for management of a reintroduction program. Table 7 Endangered Species in Mohave County Endangered Arizona cliff-rose, Purshia subintegra Bonytail chub, Gila elegans Brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis California condor, Gymnogyps californianus Holmgren milk vetch, Astragalus holmgreniorum Hualapai mexican vole, Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis Humpback chub, Gila cypha Razorback sucker, Xrauchen texanus Southwestern willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii Virgin River chub, Gila seminude Yuma clapper rail, Rallus longirostris yumanensis Threatened Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus Desert tortoise, Gopherus agassiziii Jones cycladenia, Cycladenia jonesii Mexican spotted owl, Strix occidentalis lucida Siler pincushion cactus, Echinocactus Utahia sileri Candidates for Inclusion Fickeisen plains cactus, Pediocactus peeblesianus fickeiseniae Relict leopard frog, Rana onca Yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus Page 38 Final Report According to the Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel who manage the condor habitat and reintroduction program, condors have been seen in the Colorado City area. However, Town officials report that they are unaware of any sightings of condors in or around the study area. Condors are very inquisitive animals and often watch human activities where a feeding opportunity may occur. Game and Fish staff has advised against intentional human feeding of the birds. They are not usually bothered by surface construction activities, and roadway maintenance and improvement work should not pose a conflict. Before any project developments are considered near potential condor habitat, an environmental assessment should be undertaken and all NEPA environmental regulatory agencies should be contacted to confirm that none of these species or habitats will be impacted by the proposed project. Developers and builders should make an effort to avoid disturbing or encroaching on Short Creek and other drainageway areas and floodplain open space wherever possible during the planning, design and implementation of their projects. This can help preserve flood protection which safeguards residents, and can help provide wildlife habitat and improve water quality. In addition, developers can create dedicated open or natural areas along washes and creeks passing through or adjacent to new developments and subdivisions. If it does become necessary to disturb these natural areas, the next best option is to mitigate the disturbance by replanting in adjacent areas or doing restoration projects to restore native vegetation to previously affected areas. The Arizona Game and Fish Department would like to see greater emphasis on determining and avoiding or mitigating impacts on wildlife for transportation and development projects. They have wildlife friendly guidelines that can be followed. These guidelines include facilitating crossings for wildlife; mitigating development by providing for well designed wildlife corridors; providing wildlife connections to agricultural areas (for feeding); and avoiding concurrent connectivity for humans in the same corridor (such as roads, trails, etc.). Rosy Canyon Road Regarding this study, the most important issue that the Arizona Game and Fish Department would like to see addressed is that the major wildlife linkage corridors be considered when transportation improvement projects are planned, designed, and constructed. Within this study area, there is a major wildlife linkage corridor across SR 389 south and east of the study area. This linkage corridor, entitled the “Cedar Rim/Fredonia Pronghorn Crossing” connects major wildlife habitats on each side of the highway around the Cottonwood Point wilderness and points east. Figure 26 Wildlife Linkages shows the general location of the wildlife linkage zone. Page 39 Final Report Figure 26 Wildlife Linkages An additional priority for the Arizona Game and Fish Department is that they would like to see the local agencies help to preserve existing access to state and federal lands by requiring that existing accesses be maintained, or alternately, mitigated with new legal access roads, should an existing access need to be removed. They report that they are losing access to public lands through development, making it more difficult for the public to access these lands. Access to public lands is important to hikers, hunters, residents, visitors, and for public safety purposes. The Department would like to see opportunities taken advantage of that would improve access corridors. Cottonwood Point Wilderness is the primary location in the study area where public land access is important. Noise: Adherence to the ADOT Noise Abatement Policy dated December 05, 2005, and as amended on August 24, 2007, is advised for any new or improved roadway corridors. This policy is based on the currently accepted noise abatement policies and procedures outlined by both the United States and Arizona governing bodies. FHWA has specific noise abatement criteria that serve as an upper limit for federally funded projects in the State of Arizona. Air Quality: A review of ADEQ and EPA maps reveal no ongoing air quality issues in the study area. Hazardous Materials: A review of ADEQ and EPA maps reveal no hazardous materials exposure locations in the study area. 2.5 Cultural Environment According to the National Register of Historic places, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), there are no protected historic places and/or buildings in the study area. In conversations with SHPO staff, they indicated anecdotal information had suggested that an old schoolhouse structure existed that may qualify. This is currently used as a library. Page 40 Final Report Bureau of Land Management (BLM) staff has reported that archeological resources are found on properties near Short Creek. Old Spanish Trail: In 1829, Antonio Armijo began using this route as a trading corridor between the Spanish colonies of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Los Angeles, California. Parts of his route followed a pathway used by early trapper, Jedediah Smith, and before that, by Spanish padres, Domingues and Escalante, in the 18th century. As the trail evolved, it included northern legs that connected to the area that is now Grand Junction, Colorado. The southern route went through Pipe Springs National Monument and from there to the Virgin River, passing close to Colorado City. In the report of his 1844 exploratory trip to California, John Fremont referred to the route as the “Spanish Trail”. In 2002, Congress designated the “Old Spanish Trail” as a National Historic Trail jointly administered by the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Detailed directions to trail heads and trail conditions can be found at http://www.nps.gov/olsp. Figure 27 Old Spanish Trail is a map showing the regional location and route of the trail. Figure 27 Old Spanish Trail Source: National Park Service Page 41 Final Report 3. Programmed Improvements 3.1 Short Term Programmed Improvements WACOG: The draft 2011-2014 WACOG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes the following projects within the study area: 1. Street Sign Replacement 2010 $ 25,000 encumbered 2. Safety Improvements 2011 $ 50,000 3. Box Culvert 2013 $422,800 4. Surface Transportation Funds 2015 $264,250 5. Potential future Transportation Enhancement funds for a Central Street shared use walkway $277,451 All but the first line item are not yet assured as the current TIP is not yet fiscally constrained. The new WACOG Transportation Planner, Sharon Mitchell, is currently working on revisions to the TIP. Mohave County: Mohave County funds are limited to maintenance of current county facilities. County roadways within the study area include: • Mt. Trumball Loop • Yellowstone Road • Rosy Canyon Road • Cane Beds Road to the east and west of SR 389 • Some dedicated local roadways within the Centennial Park subdivision Yellowstone Road south of Cane Beds Road Town of Colorado City: The Town does not have a current 5year transportation improvement plan. Similar to the county, the city has been expending their available transportation funds on maintaining the existing street system, and improving local streets to all-weather status by chip sealing, when funds are available. The Town has been successful in securing CDBG funds to incrementally pave and improve streets with asphalt pavement, curb and gutter sections, and sidewalks. 4. Stakeholder Identified Transportation Needs 4.1 Overview During the course of the research phase of this study, interviews were conducted with various stakeholders to determine known deficiencies, problem areas, needed improvements, and desired projects for the local communities and the study area. The summary of the discussions with various stakeholders can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. Mohave Avenue looking east past Richard Street Page 42 Final Report 4.2 Specific Needs Identification and Locations The stakeholders interviewed identified a number of improvements to the transportation system for the study area. Many of the identified needs were common to many or all of the stakeholders, meaning universal support for most of the identified needs for the transportation system. The stakeholders identified needs for the region and did not limit their remarks to strictly the local community only. Many of these identified projects were also cited by local public agencies as needed transportation system improvements. The indication is that the public will support most, if not all, of these improvements when funding becomes available from any and all sources. Key specific needs identified by the stakeholders are summarized below: • Arizona Avenue at SR 389: Installation of a pedestrian/bicycle underpass of SR 389 at Arizona Avenue to protect children as they make their way to and from the school located on the west side of the highway at the southwest corner of Arizona Avenue and Cottonwood Street. The community had applied for a transportation enhancement grant for such a facility a few years back, but the project was not funded. • Redwood Street at Short Creek: Construct a bridge or low water crossing of Short Creek at Redwood Street for traffic to circulate in the area west of SR 389 without having to use SR 389. • Township Avenue at Short Creek: Construct a bridge or low water crossing of Short Creek and extend the street to connect the downtown area to SR 389. This would enable commercial traffic from SR 389 direct access into downtown Colorado City which would reduce commercial traffic in residential areas. • Looking east at Arizona Avenue for SR 389 SR 389 Intersections with Town Streets and County Roads: Provide left turn lanes and right turn deceleration and acceleration lanes, where not already present, to improve safety for cars turning off and onto the highway. Specific locations mentioned include: o Mohave Avenue: Need right turn deceleration lanes on SR 389 in both directions. o Arizona Avenue: Need left turn lanes and right turn deceleration lanes on SR 389 in both directions. Also needs intersection lighting and pedestrian markings and signage. o 3200 South: Need left turn lanes on SR 389 for southbound to eastbound traffic. o 3600 South: Need left turn lanes on SR 389 for southbound to eastbound traffic. o Airport Avenue: Need a right turn deceleration lane on SR 389 for southbound to westbound traffic. o Cane Beds Road: Need left turn lanes and right turn lanes on SR 389 in both directions. o Central Street: Provide an acceleration lane for right turns onto the highway. o Township Avenue: Provide left turn lanes and right turn lanes – will be needed if Short Creek crossing is constructed connecting downtown to SR 389. o Uzona Avenue: This is a skewed crossing with a southbound left turn lane for UT 59 traffic to turn onto eastbound Uzona, but there is no opposing left turn lane on the Arizona side. Page 43 Final Report This intersection presents a safety concern to the community due to its irregular geometrics and it needs to be improved to enhance safe travel through the intersection. • Central Street: Improve with base stabilization and chip seal surfacing Central Street from Centennial Avenue to Cane Beds Road in the Centennial Park area. • Redwood Street: Improve with base stabilization and chip seal surfacing Redwood Street from Airport Avenue to Cane Beds Road in the Centennial Park area. • Yellowstone Road: Improve with base stabilization and chip seal surfacing Yellowstone Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South in the Cane Beds area. • School Boundary Road: Improve with base stabilization and chip seal surfacing School Boundary Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South in the Cane Beds area. • Cane Beds Road Extension & Rosy Canyon Road: Finish the improvement (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) of Cane Beds Road from the current termination of the improved surfacing east and northerly to the Utah State line where the road has chip seal surfacing. This road connects the Colorado City area to US 89 in Utah and provides a travel time saving over alternate routes. • Cane Bed Road Connection: To improve public safety response time and reduce school bus route time, connect 3200 South between School Bound road and 1960 East so 3200 South is continuous from SR 389 east to Yellowstone Road; improve the entire road to all weather standards (Note: This may require right of way acquisition/dedication and improvement to County Road standards). • Water Canyon Road (in northeastern Hildale area): The road is narrow in places and has lots of recreational use. Parking at the terminus trailhead area is deficient. The road should be widened to enable two-way travel the entire length and additional trailhead parking should be provided. • Airport Improvements: o More T-hangars are needed at the airport. o New parallel taxiway. o Runway reconstruction and a new runway extension. • BLM would like improved access to two trailhead locations for the Cottonwood Point Wilderness Area. These points are at the east end of roadways of use on the Airport Road alignment east of SR 389, and a roadway of use to the east located one half mile to the north of the Airport road alignment. • As funds are available, the dirt road paving program of the town should be continued. • As funds become available, improve chip seal surfaced major streets with asphalt paving and curb and gutter sections. o Hildale Street was mentioned as needing curb and gutter sections. Hildale Street looking north from University Avenue Page 44 Final Report • Traffic control and lane striping is very limited. As funds become available, a more aggressive program should be implemented to add striping and markings where needed and to maintain all striping and markings in place. • Central Street: Complete the improvement of Central Street from Apple Avenue to SR 389 including a new drainage structure for the wash crossing at Plum Avenue. o This street has a wide expanse of pavement for pedestrians to cross; it was suggested that pedestrian refuge islands be provided at crosswalks. • Utah Avenue/Central Street Intersection: This is a “T” intersection on a curve in Utah Street with adequate sight distance issues. Intersection needs improvement to enhance safety. The Utah Avenue/Central Street Intersection has some unique design issues associated with it including angled right-of-ways which create sight problems, a very steep rocky outcropping, and Federal BLM land encroaching. • Utah Avenue and Central Street Intersection Sidewalks: Construct and provide sidewalks where needed to provide for effective pedestrian circulation. Specific locations mentioned include: o Arizona Avenue: Sidewalks are needed along Arizona Avenue from Cottonwood Street east to Juniper Street. o Uzona Avenue: Sidewalks are needed along Uzona Avenue to provide additional pedestrian access to the school. o Hildale Street: Sidewalks are needed along Hildale Street from Academy Avenue to the cemetery entrance at Township Avenue. o School area: Sidewalks are needed where not already present on Township Avenue, University Avenue, Colvin Street, and Carling Street in the vicinity of the school contained within these bounds. o Church area: Sidewalks are needed where not already present on Academy Avenue, Hildale Street, and other streets to provide good pedestrian connectivity to and from the Church. o Other areas of focus for sidewalks include Edson Avenue south of the Post Office from Central Street Cemetery at the end of to Richard Street and Cooke Avenue from Central Township Avenue on the west Street east to the Zoo. side of Hildale Street The transportation system needs identified by the stakeholders are also shown on Figure 28 Stakeholder Identified Transportation System Needs that can be found on the next page. The listing and map do not show all improvement needs mentioned, but rather show those that were mentioned by multiple stakeholders and those that fell into general categories. Page 45 Final Report Figure 28 Stakeholder Identified Transportation System Needs Page 46 Final Report 5. Forecast of Future Conditions 5.1 Population Growth Population projections for Arizona are developed by the Department of Commerce. These projections were evaluated along with projections for Hildale prepared by the State of Utah and the regional planning agency in Washington County, Utah. Table 8 Population Projections shows projections for both communities: Table 8 Population Projections Year 2010 2020 2030 Colorado City 4835 6196 7302 Hildale 2795 4585 6008 This does not tell the whole picture of future transportation in the study area though, nor does it explain the future “through” traffic volumes that can be anticipated. Much of the future through traffic will be generated by the dynamic growth in Washington County, Utah; specifically around the St. George metropolitan area. The Five County Association of Governments (FCAG) projects Washington County to grow from a population of 162,544 in 2010 to 251,896 in 2020 and 352,922 in 2030. Even more rapid growth is projected from then to 2050, when the county population is projected to be 607,334. By 2050, the St. George share of that population is expected to be 318,000, and the Hurricane share is expected to be 53,445. Both through traffic on SR 389/Utah 59, and commuter traffic from the study area to new employment centers in Hurricane and the St. George metropolitan area, will impact in and through traffic at Colorado City. 5.2 Future Land Use The Town of Colorado City General Plan contains a land use element suggesting future land uses. The General Plan encourages the location of future service and retail uses along SR 389 and around the town center. The General Plan encourages industrial and employment land use development surrounding the municipal airport. The plan also encourages development of new public lands access roadways to adjacent BLM holdings. Preservation of the community’s large lot size and rural character is emphasized as important. The General Plan does include a couple features unique to Colorado City. The preservation and continuation of agricultural uses within the community is endorsed, and there is a land use designation for it. Development of home based businesses as a business incubator is also promoted. Most community land use plans seek to separate employment and residential uses, but the Colorado City General Plan supports this linkage, at least until such time as businesses outgrow the residential site constraints. Future land uses from the General Plan are shown in Figure 29 Future Land Use. Page 47 Final Report Figure 29 Future Land Use Source: 2002 Town of Colorado City General Plan Page 48 Final Report 5.3 Future Traffic & Level of Service A travel forecasting sketch-level travel demand model has been developed to provide future roadway level traffic forecasts for highways, arterials, and collectors throughout the study area. Traffic volumes, percent trucks, and level of service (LOS) are based on the sketch-level travel demand model and traffic count data collected for this study. The network for the model was developed to include its functionally-classified streets and additional streets of local significance. Following standard practice, not all local streets were included in the network. Figure 30 Colorado City Sketch Level Model Network shows the network and defined area of the sketch-level model. Network streets are shown with a heaver line weight. Local streets which are not in the model network are shown as lighter lines. Six external stations were developed to account for traffic coming into the study are from outside. Figure 30 Colorado City Sketch Level Model Network Page 49 Final Report This tool provides insights into the overall magnitude and distribution of future traffic within the study area. The model was developed with a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) system of thirty-nine zones. Demographic data estimated for each zone included population and basic, retail, and service employment. Census data for Colorado City and Hildale, state and county level Census data and data relationships, and estimates based on aerial photos, were used to develop demographic data control totals for the years 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. These were then disaggregated to the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level. Control total data are shown in Table 9 Demographic Control Totals for Each Analysis Year. Table 9 Demographic Control Totals for Each Analysis Year Disaggregation of data to the TAZ level was made subjectively, based on available vacant land, preservation of farm land, topology, and existing activity in the zone. The general categories of zones defined for population growth are shown in Figure 31 Estimated Population Growth Categories; this figure is located on the following page. Figure 32 Estimated Employment Growth Categories shows the categories for population growth in zones. This figure is found on the page after the next page. While the TAZ-level demographics and external station volumes were grown for each year, no changes were made to the 2010 network; it was used as a no-build network for each of the analysis years. Page 50 Final Report Figure 31 Estimated Population Growth Categories Page 51 Final Report Figure 32 Estimated Employment Growth Categories Level of Service: Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the average service level of a roadway based on its 24-hour volume and saturation flow capacity. Functional Classes and daily capacities for the network were redefined based on the ADOT Small Urban Area Planning Studies (PARA) guidelines. A simple ratio of the assigned model volume to the link capacity was used to define the LOS. Daily capacities and the ranges of the volume to capacity ratio which were used to define LOS for each functional class are shown in Table 5 in Section 2.2.5. Page 52 Final Report 5.3.1 Forecast Conditions – 2015 Assigned volumes from the 2015 Colorado City sketch-level travel demand model were used to calculate LOS, using the 2010 no-build network. LOS for 2015 is shown in Figure 33 2015 Level of Service. Compared with 2010, the relatively congested areas are spreading and merging towards each other. Roadway mileage at LOS B increases from 3% in 2010 to 10% in 2015. Figure 33 2015 Level of Service Page 53 Final Report 5.3.2 Forecast Conditions – 2020 Forecasting demographic conditions five years further to the year 2020, while still using the no-build network, some additional LOS degradation can be seen. LOS for 2020 for the study area is shown in Figure 34 2020 Level of Service. Figure 34 2020 Level of Service Page 54 Final Report 5.3.3 Forecast Conditions – 2030 For the 2030 forecast of twenty years’ worth of demographic growth on the no-build network, decreased levels of service can be seen more extensively throughout the study area. The study area LOS for 2030 is shown in Figure 35 2030 Level of Service. The effects of the forecast demographic growth traffic can be clearly seen. Highway 389 at sections between Utah Avenue and Arizona Avenue has dropped to LOS C and LOS D. Another section of LOS C appears on Utah Avenue just west of Richard Street. All the rest of Utah Avenue, and most of Central Street above Mohave Avenue, are at LOS B. Figure 35 2030 Level of Service Level of Service 2030 Page 55 Final Report 5.3.4 Traffic Forecast Summary In general, the local roads serving the urban areas of Colorado City and Hildale that are at LOS A under existing conditions in 2010 are forecasted to have sufficient capacity to maintain their performance through the year 2030. In contrast, the higher-level facilities such as Utah Highway 59/Arizona Highway 389, Utah Avenue, and Central Street are forecasted to show degraded levels of service through the year 2030. Table 10 Percent of Study Area Mileage in Each LOS Category shows the percentage of the total mileage within the study area that is at each defined LOS category for the existing conditions and the three forecast years. Table 10 Percent of Study Area Mileage in Each LOS Category It can be seen that the roadways at LOS A show a steady decline throughout the twenty-year forecast period. Much of the LOS A decrease is taken to LOS B. By the year 2030, more significant degradation of levels of service takes some area roadways to LOS C and LOS D. It should be noted that LOS is defined by ranges, so a road’s volume can increase by a fairly significant amount without tripping it into the next category. Additionally, average volumes over a stretch of roadway vary with the traffic loading points and with turning movements at intersections. As Table 11 Average Volumes for Selected Road Segments located on the next page shows, the average volumes over the larger stretches of road segments only increase slightly for the twenty-year forecast period, with an average increase of only 4.4%. This table also shows the higher growth assigned to Utah Avenue northeast of Hildale, which was viewed as containing vacant land and therefore a likely recipient of Hildale’s forecast demographic growth. 5.4 Multimodal Conditions 5.4.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Regardless of the size of a community, it can benefit by increasing the share of non-motorized transportation among its residents. Walking and bicycling expand mobility for non-drivers, reduce motor vehicle demands on the street system, do not impact the environment with noise, air pollution or consumption of valuable oil resources, and provides a venue for healthy exercise. Currently, the infrastructure to support walking and bicycling in the study area is limited. The few sidewalks that do exist are mostly found within the developed area of Colorado City and Centennial Park, while there are no designated bikeways in the study area at all. Page 56 Final Report Table 11 Average Volumes of Selected Road Segments With an eye on future growth, this is a good time to begin the process of building the pedestrian and possibly bicycle infrastructure to ensure that, as the region grows, the pedestrian and bicycle systems are planned and developed to be a safe, attractive, and functional part of the transportation system of the two communities. The following recommendations are suggested to build on existing efforts towards pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities: • Make minor and major improvements as funding and resources become available. Even small, inexpensive improvements (painted crosswalks or roadway sweeping) can improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Develop guidelines and standards to provide for pedestrian and bicycle facilities in all new development and redevelopment projects, particularly those involving construction of new roadways or upgrades to existing roadways. This includes school bus route stops. • Provide for convenient pedestrian and bicycle access through and to developments. ‘Shortcut’ pathways to surrounding major roads and destinations are especially important to encourage walking and bicycling. Piggyback on other development or redevelopment projects, such as street repaving projects, can be used to improve walking and bicycling networks. Other elements important to pedestrians and bicyclists include bicycle parking, education (directed at pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, adults, and children), enforcement, facility maintenance, wayfinding/signage, and ADA accessibility. Page 57 Final Report 5.4.2 Transit Circulation Transit is a beneficial element for any community providing access for those who cannot or choose not to drive. In addition, transit can replace trips currently made by the automobile, thereby reducing our contribution to roadway congestion, consumption of oil resources, and noise and air pollution. Transit, in conjunction with walking and bicycling, extend the range of trips made by the individual modes. As the population in the study area grows older, transit will become even more necessary to support mobility for seniors who can no longer drive. While the need for internal transit service appears minimal in Colorado City, future interest in regional commuting service between the study area, Hurricane, and St. George will likely increase. Considerations for future transit service in the study area include: 6. • Work trips provide a good basis for transit service with repeat trips to/from fixed locations. • A park-and-ride lot near the highway for carpool users and vanpools can offer a low cost startup for future transit focused on commuter trips. • While no public transit exists in the study area, a number of school bus routes do exist. To make this service more effective, the town could work with the school district to identify locations for pullouts to move school buses out of the ‘through’ travel lane during boarding of students. This increases the safety of both riders and motorists. At busier pick up points, the installation of seating, shelters and bicycle racks will make the system more userfriendly. Utah Avenue – looking west towards Richard Street Current and Future Conditions Findings This working paper identifies and describes the current and future conditions of the transportation system for the Town of Colorado, including the communities of Hildale, Cane Beds, and Centennial Park. Future traffic was forecast to the Year 2030 and the performance of the existing street, road and highway network was analyzed under the increased traffic loadings. There are many needs and desired improvements identified herein, but some of the more important findings are set forth as follows: 1. The existing local street and road network in the study area will adequately meet the forecasted traffic demand throughout the 20-year planning period. 2. Consequently, for the next working paper, Evaluation Criteria and Improvement Plan, the study will focus on developing solutions to address safety concerns at identified locations such as at each intersection with the highway, SR 389/UT 59; to support economic development efforts, and to improve the overall quality of life for community residents. 3. Initial review of the travel demand model data would support the improvement of Redwood Street from Uzona Avenue on the north to Cane Beds Road West on the South, including a Page 58 Final Report crossing structure of Short Creek, to enable traffic circulation to occur on the west side of the highway without vehicles having to use the highway. 4. A means for pedestrians to safely cross the highway at Arizona Avenue is needed since the school is located on the west side of the highway while most of the students are located on the east side of the highway. 5. Application needs to be made to get the major traffic carrying streets, such as Utah Avenue, Hildale Street, Richard Street, Township Avenue, Mohave Avenue and Airport Avenue, functionally classified to urban major collector status so needed improvements are eligible for federal funding. 6. Plan for a new street connection and a crossing structure at Short Creek for Township Avenue to provide a direct connection from the downtown area to SR 389 to remove some of the traffic from streets that pass through residential neighborhoods. 7. Non-motorized travel in the community is reportedly primarily by foot; therefore, a plan that would provide for sidewalk continuity and connectivity between major destinations such as the Church, schools, dairy store, commercial/retail area near Town Hall, etc., would be beneficial. 8. Provide additional east-west capacity in Hildale to reduce the dependency on Utah Street; this could include improvement of Uzona Avenue as another parallel collector street. 9. Develop a program to create an all-weather road for 3200 South from SR 389 to Yellowstone Road that would include acquisition of right of way for the entire corridor, opening a road where it does not currently exist from School Boundary Road east to 1960 East, and grading, stabilizing and chip sealing the road for its entire length to enhance public safety for Cane Beds. 10. Crash rates within the study area are within acceptable limits; however, crashes along SR 389 southeast of town, between Airport Avenue and just east of Yellowstone road are higher than those within the town. On the local streets and roadways, several crash clusters are noted that will be evaluated further for safety enhancements. 11. Special consideration needs to be given to the SR 389 highway corridor given the dramatic growth projected for the St. George area and its potential impact on traffic through the Colorado City community. 12. The community needs to continue to secure grant monies from all available sources to leverage local funds to maximize the transportation system improvements that can be implemented. The information, data, discussion, input, and findings from this section of the plan guided the development of evaluation criteria and, based on the needs that have been identified, a set of alternative solutions to address the needs, and an implementation plan that contains sets of specific projects that are grouped into short-term (5-year), mid-term (10-year), and long-term (20-year) transportation system improvement programs. Page 59 Final Report 7.0 Functional Classification Per the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that individual roads and streets rarely serve travel independently. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. It becomes necessary to determine how this travel can be channelized within the network in a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification defines the nature of this channelization process by defining the part that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through a highway network. Functional classifications of roadways are used in transportation planning, roadway design, and to allocate federal roadway improvement funds. Table 12: Functional Classification Hierarchy of Functional Classification System Rural Areas Urbanized Areas Principal Arterials Principal Arterials Minor Arterial Roads Minor Arterial Streets Collector Roads Collector Streets Local Roads Local Streets In Table 12, these FHWA classifications are listed in descending (high to low) order of speed limit, vehicular capacity, and access restrictions. Urban and rural areas have fundamentally different characteristics as to density and types of land use, density of street and highway networks, nature of travel patterns, and the way in which all these elements are related in the definitions of highway function. Consequently, functional classifications provide for separate classification of urban and rural functional systems. Experience has shown that extensions of rural arterial and collector routes provide an adequate arterial street network in places with a population of less than 5,000. Hence, urban classifications are considered in the context of areas of population of 5,000 or more. The process of classifying roadways in Arizona is led by ADOT in cooperation with the regional councils of governments; in this case, the Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG). All roads that are part of the public roadway network are to be classified. For a project to be eligible for federal funding, and to be included in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), the roadway in question must be functionally classified as a major collector or above. Applications for reclassification are submitted to ADOT through WACOG. The application identifies the routes to be added or deleted, route termini, average daily traffic, and rationale for justifying the change in functional classification. ADOT’s Multimodal Planning Division reviews the application and the impacts of reclassification on the roadway system balance for the surrounding system. They will take into account the opinions and views of local officials, WACOG, and the ADOT Flagstaff District Engineer. If approved by ADOT, the request is then forwarded to the FHWA for their concurrence and approval. Based on the analysis done in the existing and future conditions of the plan, input from Stakeholder Surveys, discussions with Town staff and field surveys of the community roadway network, applications Page 60 Final Report for functional classifications were prepared and submitted to the Town Manager for the following roadways: • • • • • • • • • • • Uzona Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street – to Major Collector Arizona Avenue from Redwood Street to SR 389 – to Major Collector Academy Avenue from Richard Street to Hildale Street – to Major Collector Township Avenue from SR 389 to Hildale Street – to Major Collector Mohave Avenue from Redwood Street to Hildale Street – to Major Collector Airport Avenue from Redwood Street to SR 389 – to Major Collector Cane Beds Road from Redwood Street to SR 389 and to Rosy Canyon Road – to Major Collector Redwood Street from Uzona Street to Cane Beds Road – to Major Collector Richard Street from Uzona Avenue to Mohave Avenue – to Minor Arterial Hildale Street from Uzona Avenue to Mohave Avenue – to Major Collector Rosy Canyon Road from the Utah State Line to Cane Beds Road – to Major Collector Recommendations to Utah DOT for Hildale will include major collector classification of: • • • • • Utah Avenue from UT SR 59 to Canyon Street Richard Street from Uzona Avenue to Utah Avenue Central Street from Uzona Avenue to Utah Avenue Hildale Street from Uzona Avenue to Jessop Avenue Uzona Avenue from Mulberry Street to SR 59 Additionally, an application was prepared to remove the collector designation from Johnson Avenue. This roadway no longer connects to SR 389, and this deletion should enhance the request for Mohave Avenue. Figure 36 shows the roadways for which functional classification requests were submitted. SR 389 looking north from Mohave Avenue Page 61 Final Report Figure 36 Recommended Function Classification Changes Page 62 Final Report 8.0 Project Needs The projects identified in this working paper were selected based on issues identified in Working Paper #1, Current and Future Conditions. Since the inception of this project, discussions with Colorado City staff, comments by members of the Technical Advisory Committee, and interviews with area stakeholders have all illustrated a framework of transportation needs for the area. Field investigations have validated that perception. These draft candidate projects are, in total, much less that the total universe of transportation needs within the study area. The ability to meet these just these candidate needs will stress the financial resources of all area stakeholder agencies. The ability to address the entire universe of needs is extremely problematic. These draft candidate projects should be reviewed by all stakeholders, and their feedback through consultation and the public involvement process of this study may result in the addition or deletion of individual projects. Most of these projects are needed now. When projects identified are not needed currently (such as widening of a segment of the state highway), is was noted in the text. Stakeholder feedback is needed on the ranking and prioritization of a finalized list of projects into short (five year), medium (ten year), and long range (twenty year) time frames. This setting of priorities will also be influenced the ability of external public agency partners to address a reasonable share of the needs. 8.1 Structures Five structural need projects have been identified. These are new bridges over Short Creek at the Redwood Street alignment, the Township Avenue alignment, and the Academy Avenue alignment as well as upgraded Short Creek crossing box culvert structures at Hildale Street, and Central Street. These five structural projects are summarized in the Table 13 below: Page 63 Final Report Table 13: Structural Project Summary with Costs Site Project Location No. Project Description Redwood Street at Short Creek 1 Bridge Township Avenue at Short Creek 2 Bridge Academy Avenue at Short Creek 3 Bridge Central Street at Short Creek 4 Bridge Jurisdiction Planning Level Cost Colorado City $2,990,000 Colorado City $2,990,000 Colorado City $2,925,000 Colorado City $2,437,500 Colorado City $975,000 Hildale Street at Short Creek 5 Box Culvert Roadway and Intersection Improvements TOTAL $12,317,500 Individual project description and cost sheets for these structural projects, including maps, are shown on the following pages. Page 64 Final Report Project No. 1 Project Type: Bridge over Short Creek Location: Redwood Street at Short Creek Solution Description: Travel demand modeling done for the Colorado City Transportation Study predicted some future congestion along SR 389, especially the segments between Airport Avenue and Central Street and between Arizona Avenue and the Utah border. A partial solution to this issue is to provide parallel roadways for local trips to occur off the state highway. Redwood Street is also a primary access route to the Centennial Park neighborhood and the airport. This route is currently interrupted at Short Creek due to the lack of a crossing structure. During storms, SR 389 is the only all weather crossing in the area. In the event of an incident on the highway, a Redwood Street connection across the creek would also provide an alternative emergency access route. The bridge will allow vehicles, including emergency services, medical response, and law enforcement to reach both sides of the river on a continuous basis. The bridge is estimated to be 250 feet long and 46 feet wide. Planning Level Cost Estimate Short Creek Bridge at Redwood Street DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Construction TOTAL = $690,000 $2,300,000 $2,990,000 Page 65 Final Report Project No. 2 Project Type: Bridge over Short Creek Location: Township Avenue alignment at Short Creek Solution Description: Township Avenue is interrupted at Short Creek. A bridge at the Township alignment would permit this roadway to be extended to SR 389, providing an additional connection from the highway to the central business district and town center. The two lane bridge would be about 250 feet long. Travel demand modeling done for the Colorado City Transportation Study predicted some future congestion along SR 389, especially the segments between Airport Avenue and Central Street and between Arizona Avenue and the Utah border. A partial solution to this issue is to provide connections to parallel roadways allowing local trips to occur off the state highway. Planning Level Cost Estimate Short Creek Bridge at Township Avenue alignment DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Construction TOTAL = $690,000 $2,300,000 $2,990,000 Page 66 Final Report Project No. 3 Project Type: Bridge over Short Creek Location: Academy Avenue at Short Creek Solution Description: Flooding during the winter of 2010 demonstrated the vulnerability of low flow box culverts in Short Creek on several roadways including Academy Avenue. This new bridge will be about 250 feet in length with a width of 60 feet, permitting two through lanes and sidewalks. Planning Level Cost Estimate Short Creek Bridge at Academy Avenue DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Construction TOTAL = $675,000 $2,250,000 $2,925,000 Page 67 Final Report Project No. 4 Project Type: Bridge over Short Creek Location: Central Street at Short Creek Solution Description: Flooding during the winter of 2010 demonstrated the vulnerability of box culverts in Short Creek on several roadways including Central Street. This new bridge structure will be about 80 feet in width with a length of 50 feet, permitting two through lanes and sidewalks. Planning Level Cost Estimate Short Creek Culvert at Central Street DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Construction TOTAL = $562,500 $1,875,000 $2,473,500 Page 68 Final Report Project No. 5 Project Type: Improved Box Culvert over Short Creek Location: Hildale Street at Short Creek Solution Description: Flooding during the winter of 2010 demonstrated the vulnerability of low flow box culverts in Short Creek on several roadways including Central Street. This new box culvert will be about 100 feet in width with a length of 50 feet, permitting two through lanes and sidewalks. Planning Level Cost Estimate Short Creek Culvert at Hildale Street DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Construction TOTAL = $225,000 $750,000 $975,000 Page 69 Final Report 8.2 Roadway Improvement Projects Twenty two roadway improvement projects have been identified, exclusive of projects on the state highway. The list includes projects in Colorado City, in Hildale, and in unincorporated Mohave County areas within the study area. These roadway construction projects are summarized in Table 14 below. Individual project description and cost sheets for these roadway projects, including maps for major projects, are shown on the following pages. Table 14: Roadway Improvement Project Summary with Costs Site Project Location No. Project Description 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Redwood Street from Mohave Avenue to Township Avenue Paving Redwood Street from Airport Avenue to Cane Beds Road Paving Township Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street New Roadway Uzona Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street Paving Central Street from Cherry Avenue to SR 389 Paving and Drainage Improvements Arizona Avenue from SR 389 to Elm Street Paving and Widening Edson Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Paving Cooke Avenue from Central Street to Hildale Street Paving Uzona Avenue at SR 389 Realignment to Highway Canyon Street and Water Canyon Road Widening and Chip Seal Cane Beds Road from Redwood Street to Rosy Canyon Road Paving 3200 South from SR 389 to Yellowstone Road Paving School Boundary Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Paving Yellowstone Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Paving and Extension Rosy Canyon Road from Cane Beds Road to Utah Line Paving Jurisdiction Planning Level Cost Colorado City $2,015,000 Colorado City $3,432,000 Colorado City $1,442,500 Colorado City $3,120,000 Colorado City Colorado City $2,601,000 $581,400 Colorado City $1,612,500 Colorado City $1,530,000 Colorado City $1,599,000 Hildale $182,000 Mohave County $45,500,000 Mohave County $4,934,000 Mohave County $3,432,000 Mohave County $3,432,000 Mohave County $26,000,000 Page 70 Final Report Site Project Location No. Project Description 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Central Street from Centennial Avenue to Cane Beds Road Chip Seal Paving Pioneer Lane from Johnson Avenue to Township Avenue Chip Seal Paving Homestead Street from Township Avenue to Arizona Avenue Chip Seal Paving Willow Street from Arizona Avenue to Academy Avenue Chip Seal Paving and drainage improvements Warren Avenue from Central Street to Barlow Street Chip Seal Paving and drainage improvements Barlow Street from Arizona Avenue to Academy Avenue Chip Seal Paving and drainage improvements Maple Street from Uzona Avenue to Academy Avenue Chip Seal Paving and drainage improvements TOTAL Jurisdiction Mohave County Mohave County Colorado City Colorado City Colorado City Colorado City Colorado City Planning Level Cost $127,650 $45,000 $87,300 $79,700 $162,800 $71,050 $153,900 $102,158,800 A number of the individual project sheets also show lowered cost figures for chip sealing some roadways where major construction costs were estimated, rather than build fully engineered roads with asphalt paving. Due to the number of projects and the magnitude of the needs, it may be preferable to chip seal some of these lower use roads. New construction around bridges and roadways serving the school as well as those serving retail areas near the highway warrant longer term improvements. Page 71 Final Report Project No. 6 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Redwood Street from Mohave Avenue Curve to Township Avenue. Solution Description: Redwood Street is interrupted at Short Creek. A bridge here would permit this roadway to be continuous from Cane Beds Road to Uzona Avenue. This segment of about 3,100 feet needs grading, base stabilization and paving. Travel demand modeling done for the Colorado City Transportation Study predicted some future congestion along SR 389, especially the segments between Airport Avenue and Central Street and between Arizona Avenue and the Utah border. A partial solution to this issue is to provide parallel roadways allowing local trips to occur off the state highway. Planning Level Cost Estimate Redwood Street Construction Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Sealing TOTAL = $465,000 $1,550,000 $2,015,000 $14,000 $93,000 $107,000 Page 72 Final Report Project No. 7 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Redwood Street from Airport Avenue to Cane Beds Road. Solution Description: This segment of about one mile, needs grading, base stabilization and paving. Travel Demand modeling done for the Colorado City Transportation Study predicted some future congestion along SR 389, especially the segments between Airport Avenue and Central Street and between Arizona Avenue and the Utah border. A partial solution to this issue is to provide parallel local roadways allowing local trips to occur off the state highway. Planning Level Cost Estimate Redwood Street Construction Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Sealing TOTAL = 792,000 $2,640,000 $3,432,000 24,000 $158,400 $182,400 Page 73 Final Report Project No. 8 Project Type: Roadway Construction Location: Township Avenue alignment from SR 389 to Richard Street Solution Description: Township Avenue is interrupted at Short Creek. A bridge at the Township Avenue alignment would permit this roadway to be extended from Richard Street to SR 389, a distance of about 1,950 feet. This will provide an additional connection from the highway to the central business district and town center. Travel demand modeling done for the Colorado City Transportation Study predicted some future congestion along SR 389, especially the segments between Airport Avenue and Central Street and between Arizona Avenue and the Utah border. A partial solution to this issue is to provide connections to parallel roadways allowing local trips to occur off the state highway. Planning Level Cost Estimate Township Avenue Construction Right of Way Acquisition and Relocation Design and Construction Engineering Construction TOTAL = $175,000 $292,500 $975,000 $1,442,500 Page 74 Final Report Project No. 9 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Uzona Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street. Solution Description: This segment of about 4,800 feet needs grading, base stabilization and paving. Improvements to Uzona Avenue are important to the relief of Utah Avenue, which is the only significant east/west corridor in Hildale. This is a two lane roadway with shoulders. Planning Level Cost Estimate Uzona Avenue Construction Design and Construction Documents Construction (@$700 LF) TOTAL = $720,000 $2,400,000 $3,120,000 Page 75 Final Report Project No. 10 Project Type: Roadway Drainage and Paving Improvements Location: Central Street from Cherry Avenue to SR 389 Solution Description: This segment of about 1,700 feet has storm water from a small drainageway crossing the roadway. This impedes traffic and contributes to pavement deterioration. In addition to two new box culverts at the drainageway crossing and pavement maintenance, curbing and gutters will help stabilize the situation on this roadway segment. Repaving to match the new section to the north is also included. Planning Level Cost Estimate Central Street Drainage Improvements Design and Construction Engineering Curb and Gutter both sides Drainage Improvements Repaving TOTAL = $81,000 $45,000 $225,000 $2,250,000 $2,601,000 Page 76 Final Report Project No. 11 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Arizona Avenue from Cottonwood Street to Juniper Street. Solution Description: This segment needs grading, base stabilization and paving. Possible commercial development of adjacent properties, and resultant increases of traffic suggest that this segment be widened to include multiple through and turn lanes. A potential schematic is shown below. This improvement project includes curb and gutter and sidewalks, which are also included in the cost estimate. A short extension of this wider cross section should continue west of SR 389. The segment between SR 389 and Juniper Street is scheduled for construction in August of 2011. Planning Level Cost Estimate Arizona Avenue Construction Design and Construction Engineering Curb and Gutter Sidewalk Roadway Construction TOTAL = $474,750 $82,500 $125,000 $1,375,000 $2,057,250 Page 77 Final Report Proposed Schematic for Arizona Avenue at SR 389 if Retail Development Occurs Page 78 Final Report Project No. 12 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Edson Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street. Solution Description: This segment of about 2,625 feet needs grading, base stabilization and paving. This will contribute to the paving of roadways serving the downtown core. This is a two lane roadway. Planning Level Cost Estimate Edson Avenue Construction Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Seal TOTAL = $300,000 $1,312,500 $1,612,500 $12,000 $78,750 $90,750 Page 79 Final Report Project No. 13 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Cooke Avenue from Lauritzen Street to Hildale Street. Solution Description: This segment of about 2,460 feet needs grading, base stabilization and paving. This will contribute to the paving of roadways serving the downtown core. This is a two lane roadway. Planning Level Cost Estimate Cooke Avenue Construction Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Seal TOTAL = $300,000 $1,230,000 $1,530,000 $11,070 $73,800 $84,870 Page 80 Final Report Project No. 14 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Uzona Avenue Realignment at SR 389 Solution Description: Uzona Avenue intersects with SR 389/Utah 59 at a skewed angle. This creates potential sight distance problems and longer travel length for some turning movements. An inexpensive solution might be to install a traffic light at this location, although it is doubtful that entering volumes meet standard signal warrants. Potential commercial development at the southeast corner of this intersection will significantly increase traffic volumes at this intersection, necessitating a more comprehensive look at solutions. Two alignment options are illustrated, with comparable costs. These provide enhanced connectivity to Redwood Street while still preserving commercial access. Planning Level Cost Estimate Uzona Avenue Realignment and Reconstruction DCR, EA, and Design and Construction Engineering Curb and Gutter Sidewalk Roadway Construction TOTAL = $307,500 $61,500 $164,000 $1,066,000 $1,599,000 Option One Working Page 81 Final Report Option Two Page 82 Final Report Project No. 15 Project Type: Roadway Widening and Improvement Location: Water Canyon Rd. and Canyon St. from Williams Way to Maxwell Park Solution Description: Water Canyon Road and Canyon Street are unpaved roads in Hildale, leading to BLM recreational areas. The roadway is currently narrow and it is difficult for two vehicles to pass. The roadway needs to be widened, stabilized and have a chip seal surface from Canyon Street to its terminus 0.9 mile to the north as well as drainage improvements. Additionally, additional trailhead parking is needed at the northern end of the road, with adequate space for vehicle and trailer turnarounds. Planning Level Cost Estimate Water Canyon Road and Canyon Street Improvements Design and Construction Engineering Construction TOTAL = $78,500 $524,400 $602,900 Page 83 Final Report Project No. 16 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Cane Beds Road from Redwood Street to Rosy Canyon Road. Solution Description: Cane Beds Road is a county route that connects the area to much of the Arizona Strip. It also serves as a major access route for the Centennial Park and Cane Beds neighborhoods as well as connecting to Rosy Canyon Road at its eastern terminus, a route used as a regional connector to Kanab, Utah. East of SR 389, this is a bus route for local schools as well. This 7 mile segment needs base stabilization and paving for two lanes and shoulders. Planning Level Cost Estimate Redwood Street Construction DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Seal TOTAL = $10,500,000 $35,000,000 $45,500,000 $166,320 $1,108,800 $1,275,120 Page 84 Final Report Project No. 17 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: 3200 South from SR 389 to Yellowstone Road. Solution Description: 3200 South is a major access route to the Cane Beds area. This is a bus route for area schools as well. This 1.4 mile road needs base stabilization and paving for two lanes and shoulders. Planning Level Cost Estimate 3200 South Construction Right of Way Acquisition $130,000 Design and Construction Engineering $1,108,000 Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving $3,696,000 TOTAL = $4,934,000 Right of Way Acquisition Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Seal TOTAL = $130,000 33,264$ $221,760 $385,024 Page 85 Final Report Project No. 18 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: School Boundary Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Solution Description: School Boundary Road is a major access route to the Cane Beds area. This is a bus route for area schools as well. This one mile road needs base stabilization and paving for two lanes and shoulders. Planning Level Cost Estimate School Boundary Road Construction Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Seal TOTAL = $792,000 $2,640,000 $3,432,000 $23,760 $158,400 $182,160 Page 86 Final Report Project No. 19 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Yellowstone Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Solution Description: Yellowstone Road is a major access route to the Cane Beds area. This is a bus route for area schools as well. Yellowstone Road continues south to SR 389, but currently, this one mile segment is the priority need for base stabilization and paving for two lanes and shoulders. Planning Level Cost Estimate Yellowstone Road Construction Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Seal TOTAL = $792,000 $2,640,000 $3,432,000 $23,760 $158,400 $182,160 Page 87 Final Report Project No. 20 Project Type: Roadway Construction and Paving Location: Rosy Canyon Road from Cane Beds Road to Utah border Solution Description: Rosy Canyon Road is an extension from Cane Beds Road that is used as a regional route to the Kanab Utah area; a much shorter distance than using SR 389. This route contributes to regional economic development efforts. The four mile Arizona segment is the priority need for base stabilization and paving for two lanes and shoulders. In Utah, this is a county maintained route. Planning Level Cost Estimate Rosy Canyon Road Construction Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option One: Fully engineered road with asphalt paving TOTAL = Design and Construction Engineering Construction Option Two: Chip Seal TOTAL = $6,000,000 $20,000,000 $26,000,000 $95,040 $633,600 $728,640 Page 88 Final Report A number of other unpaved roadways in the study areas should be considered for chip seal coating as an initial stabilization and preservation step. These additional interim improvement projects and their cost estimates are listed below. Illustration of these interim projects are not included. Project No. 21 Project Type: Roadway Chip Seal Location: Central Street from Centennial Avenue to Cane Beds Road Solution Description: This 3,700 foot segment of Central Street in the Centennial Park area is not currently paved. An initial step would be to chip seal this roadway. Engineering Construction TOTAL = $16,650 $111,000 $127,650 Project No. 22 Project Type: Roadway Chip Seal Location: Pioneer Lane Solution Description: This 1,300 foot segment of Pioneer Lane is not currently paved. An initial step would be to chip seal this roadway. Engineering Construction TOTAL = $6,000 $39,000 $45,000 Project No. 23 Project Type: Roadway Chip Seal Location: Homestead Street from Township Avenue to Arizona Avenue Solution Description: This 2,530 foot segment of Homestead Street is not currently paved. An initial step would be to chip seal this roadway. Engineering Construction TOTAL = $11,400 $75,900 $87,300 Project No. 24 Project Type: Roadway Chip Seal Location: Willow Street from Academy Avenue to Township Avenue Solution Description: This 1,310 foot segment of Homestead Street is not currently paved. An initial step would be to chip seal this roadway and provide some drainage improvements. Engineering Drainage Improvements Roadway Chip Seal TOTAL = $5,400 $35,000 $39,300 $79,700 Page 89 Final Report Project No. 25 Project Type: Roadway Chip Seal Location: Warren Avenue from Central Street to Barlow Street Solution Description: This 1,310 foot segment of Warren Avenue is not currently paved. An initial step would be to chip seal this roadway and provide drainage improvements. Engineering Drainage Improvements Roadway Chip Seal TOTAL = $55,900 $46,900 $60,000 $162,800 Project No. 26 Project Type: Roadway Chip Seal Location: Barlow Street from Arizona Avenue to Academy Avenue Solution Description: This 1 segment of Barlow Street is not currently paved. An initial step would be to chip seal this roadway and provide drainage improvements. Engineering Drainage Improvements Roadway Chip Seal TOTAL = $9,300 $28,000 $33,750 $71,050 Project No. 27 Project Type: Roadway Chip Seal Location: Maple Street from Uzona Avenue to Academy Avenue Solution Description: This 2,630 foot segment of Maple Street is not currently paved. An initial step would be to chip seal this roadway and provide drainage improvements. Engineering Drainage Improvements Roadway Chip Seal TOTAL = 8.3 $20,000 $55,000 $78,900 $153,900 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Projects Thirteen curb, gutter and sidewalk projects have been identified. Each is a “stand alone” project that can be done with or without roadway paving improvements that may have been identified in the previous section (Some roadway improvement projects, such as Arizona Avenue and Uzona Avenue improvements nearing or across the state highway, included curb, gutter, and sidewalk costs). Overlapping projects were adjusted to avoid double counting segments. These projects are summarized in Table 15 below. Page 90 Final Report Table 15: Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Project Summary with Costs Site Project Location No. Project Description 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Hildale Street from Mohave Avenue to Uzona Avenue Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Arizona Avenue from Cottonwood Street to Juniper Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Uzona Avenue from Redwood Street to Richard Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk School Area (University, Academy, Colvin and Carling) Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Church Area (University, Academy, Carling and Hildale) Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Edson Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Cooke Avenue from Central Street to Hildale Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Redwood Street from Uzona Avenue to Arizona Avenue Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Township Avenue from Colvin Street to Hildale Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Field Avenue from SR 59 to Richard Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Richard Street from Academy Avenue to Township Avenue Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Garden Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Pioneer Street from Academy Avenue to Johnson Avenue Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk TOTAL Jurisdiction Planning Level Cost Colorado City $696,960 Colorado City $357,500 Colorado City $513,000 Colorado City $281,600 Colorado City Colorado City $123,420 $288,750 Colorado City $270,160 Colorado City $97,900 Colorado City $104,800 Hildale $414,400 Colorado City $106,000 Colorado City $211,440 Colorado City $156,800 $3,622,730 Figure 37 on the next page shows the locations of the above curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvement projects. Page 91 Final Report Figure 37 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Projects 8.4 State Highway Improvements Four projects were identified for the state highway (SR 389 in Arizona, State Route 59 in Utah). These are widening of the Arizona segment north of Airport Avenue, widening of the Utah segment in Hildale, spot intersection improvements in the Arizona portion of the study area, and provision of a grade separated pedestrian crossing of the highway near Arizona Avenue. These project costs are summarized in Table 16 below. Table 16: State Highway Project Summary with Costs Site Project Location No. Project Description 41 42 43 44 Widening of State Route 59 from Utah Avenue to Uzona Avenue Roadway Widening Widening of SR 389 from Arizona Avenue to Airport Avenue Roadway Widening SR 389 Intersections from Utah Avenue to Yellowstone Road Intersection Improvements (left and right turn lanes) SR 389 near Arizona Avenue Grade separated pedestrian crossing TOTAL Jurisdiction Planning Level Cost Hildale/UDOT $1,196,150 ADOT $10,879,050 Colorado City/ADOT $6,650,000 Colorado City/ADOT $1,365,000 $20,090,200 Page 92 Final Report The location of state highway widening, and intersection improvement needs are shown in Figure 3 below. Specific turning movement needs at these intersections are shown in Figure 4 below. Figure 38: Highway Widening and Improvement Locations Page 93 Final Report Figure 39: Intersection Turning Lane Needs Page 94 Final Report Figure 39 continued Page 95 Final Report Figure 39 continued Page 96 Final Report Individual project description and cost sheets for these state highway projects follow. Project No. 41 Project Type: Highway Widening Location: Utah Route 59 from Utah Avenue to Uzona Avenue Solution Description: This segment of the state highway, 1,850 feet length, needs to be widened to a four lane cross section. The taper will end about 500 feet northwest of Utah Avenue. The additional lanes will allow for more regional through traffic on the roadway while still accommodating local traffic growth. Travel demand modeling predicts that this additional capacity will not be needed until after 2020. Planning Level Cost Estimate State Highway Widening DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering $276,150 Roadway Construction $920,500 TOTAL = $1,196,150 Project No. 42 Project Type: Highway Widening Location: SR 389 from Arizona Avenue to Airport Avenue Solution Description: This segment of the state highway, 3.17 miles in length, needs to be widened to a four lane cross section. The additional lanes will allow for more regional through traffic on the roadway while still accommodating local traffic growth. Travel demand modeling predicts that this additional capacity will not be needed until after 2020. Planning Level Cost Estimate State Highway Widening DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Roadway Construction TOTAL = $2,510,550 $8,368,500 $10,879,050 Project No. 43 Project Type: Highway Intersection Improvements Location: Utah Route 59 and Arizona SR 389 from Utah Avenue to Yellowstone Road Solution Description: This segment of the state highway has eleven intersections requiring additional turn lanes for left turn and right turn movements. These additional lanes will allow for safer operations for local traffic at these locations. Page 97 Final Report Planning Level Cost Estimate Intersection Improvements DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Intersection turn lane construction, striping and signage TOTAL = $1,500,000 $5,150,000 $6,650,000 Project No. 44 Project Type: Pedestrian Crossing of SR 389 Location: SR 389 near Arizona Avenue Solution Description: With the construction of the school complex west of SR 389, there is a potential safety problem with bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the highway en route to school. Over 400 students, plus staff, attend this school. The Town of Colorado City has expressed an interest in a pedestrian grade separation of the highway at this location. The crossing structure will need to satisfy ADA requirements for slopes and landing areas. Evaluation processes will look at minimizing engineering conflicts, addressing utility conflicts, coordinating regulatory approvals, obtaining environmental clearances, and utilizing available right-of-way wherever possible. During a future Design Concept Report and Alternatives Analysis study, an evaluation of the specific location and alignment of the pedestrian crossing in the vicinity Arizona Avenue should take place. Details to consider will be length of the approach ramps, necessary right-of-way, and other engineering parameters. Options exist for both an overhead or a below grade structure. Placing the facility below the roadway creates more traffic operations concerns during construction. It may also require a pumping station to drain the tunnel during storms, and security lighting will need to be provided. As a plus, a below grade structure is less imposing. The ADOT District Engineer’s office prefers a below grade facility. Costs provided below are for such a structure. Planning Level Cost Estimate SR 389 Pedestrian Grande Separation near Arizona Avenue DCR/EA, Design and Construction Engineering Below Grade Improvements, including Embankment/Grade Improvements, lighting, and drainage features TOTAL = $928,800 $3,096,000 $4,024,800 Page 98 Final Report Figure 40 Pedestrian Underpass Location Examples of Pedestrian Underpasses Page 99 Final Report 8.5 Airport Project Needs The Town of Colorado City completed an Airport Master Plan in 2008. That plan identified a number of short, medium and long term capital needs and projected revenue sources for state and federal assistance. Table 17 below shows these projects, which will be carried forward into the final report for this project. Table 17: Airport Project Needs Source: Colorado City Municipal Airport, Airport Master Plan, 2008. Page 100 Final Report 9.0 Revenue and Financing Alternatives 9.1 Federal Funding There are a number of federal funding programs that can be used to address transportation needs within the study area. These funds are typically distributed through and by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). In some cases, such as Transportation Enhancement Funds, regional Councils of Governments (COGs) rank the local applications. The Colorado City area is represented by the Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG). Federal surface transportation programs are included in an omnibus funding program that is intended to be reauthorized every five years or so. The current program, The Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), expired in 2009. A new bill has not yet been enacted by Congress. In such cases of a funding lag (which has happened in the past), a series of short term “continuing resolutions” serve to bridge the gap until Congress agrees on the wording and policies of a new authorization bill. The structure of the new authorization bill is not yet known. It will be influenced by Congress, the Obama Administration, and various transportation professional associations (such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), as well as a variety of other transportation advocacy groups. The trend for the program appears to focus on modal balance, flexibility of funds between programs, and performance based funding decision making. Since the recent economic downturn, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has also provided “stimulus funding” for projects including transportation. While these funds are most welcome, the requirements for rapid obligation and expenditure of these funds, while mandating adherence to all federal project requirements, makes it difficult to use these resources for projects that would require federal environmental clearance. Environmental reviews to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can be quite lengthy, and since such reviews are not required for state and local projects in Arizona, it can be difficult to use these funds for many desired projects, especially those that include right of way acquisition, utility relocation, and capacity expansion. At the present time, federal funding programs include: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funds: “Stimulus Program” funds described above. Additional ARRA funds beyond those already obligated are uncertain. Page 101 Final Report Border Infrastructure Program: Very limited discretionary (competitive) program in SAFTEA-LU. Projects must be related to cross-border (international border) trade and traffic movements. It is unlikely this study area would qualify for these funds. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ): These funds are limited to designated areas that exceed air quality standards. The study area is not eligible for these funds. Federal Transit Adminstration (FTA) Section 5311 Funds: These monies are used to support public transit service in non-metropolitan (rural) areas such as the study area. These funds can be used for both capital and operating costs. Federal Transit Adminstration (FTA) Section 5310 Funds: This program provides capital funds for vehicles for agencies providing transit service to the elderly and persons with disabilities. The primary target recipients are non-profit agencies and Native American Indian tribes. Local public agencies can apply for these funds if no “willing and able” non-profit agencies are available in a service area. These funds are available to both urban and rural recipients. Funds can be used to cover 80% of vehicle costs, but recipients must fund the costs of operating service. Highway Bridge Program: These funds are used for maintenance and repairs to bridges on the State Highway System. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): These funds are designated for highway safety projects, including high risk rural roads and railroad crossings of roadways. The funds are distributed through ADOT to the various regional councils of governments (COGs), and then to the local agencies for use on specific safety projects. Interstate Maintenance Funds: These funds are restricted to maintenance costs for the existing Interstate Highway System. Job Access Reverse Commute Funds: The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program was established to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and lowincome persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Many new entry-level jobs are located in suburban areas, and low-income individuals have difficulty accessing these jobs from inner city, urban, or rural neighborhoods. States and public agencies are eligible designated recipients. Eligible subrecipients are private non-profit organizations, state or local governments, and operators of public transportation services including private operators of public transportation services. The program funds capital planning and operating expenses for projects that transport low income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to employment, and for reverse commute projects, typically through the FTA Section 5311 program. Page 102 Final Report National Highway System Funds: The funds are used for maintenance of the designated National Highway System (NHS). There are no NHS routes in the study area. Safe Routes to Schools Program: This federal program was created in 2005 to encourage students to walk or bicycle to school, and to provide funding for programs to encourage students in elementary and middle schools to walk or bike to school and address safety improvements needed for the route to the school. The program has averaged $2.2 million per year in funding in Arizona and is administered by ADOT. Eligible projects include:  Sidewalk improvements  Traffic calming and speed reduction improvements  Pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements  On-street bicycle facilities  Off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities  Secure bicycle parking facilities  Traffic diversion improvements in the vicinity of schools  Creation and reproduction of promotional and educational materials  Bicycle and pedestrian safety curricula, materials and trainers  Training including workshops that target school- and community-level audiences  Incentives for SRTS contests and incentives that encourage more walking and bicycling  Safety and educational tokens that also advertise the program  Photocopying, duplicating, mailing and printing costs related to the program  Costs for data gathering, analysis, and evaluation reporting at the local project level  Pay for substitute teacher to cover for faculty attending SRTS functions  Costs for additional law enforcement or equipment needed for enforcement activities  Equipment and training needed for establishing crossing guard programs  Stipends for parent or staff coordinators Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) funds: These federal funds are used for planning studies such as ADOT’s PARA program that funded this planning study. Surface Transportation Program funds (STP): These are federal highway funds distributed by ADOT. They can be used for a broad number of transportation projects, including transit. The New Freedom Program: This FTA program aims to provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society. Lack of adequate transportation is a primary barrier to work for individuals with disabilities. The 2000 Census showed that only 60 percent of people between the ages of 16 and 64 with disabilities are employed. The New Freedom formula grant program seeks to reduce barriers to transportation services and expand the transportation mobility options available to people with disabilities beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. States and public bodies are eligible designated recipients. Eligible sub-recipients are private non-profit Page 103 Final Report organizations, state or local governments, and operators of public transportation services including private operators of public transportation services. Eligible activities are capital and operating expenses for new public transportation services and new public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) that are designed to assist individuals with disabilities. Tolling Program: Very limited discretionary money was provided in the SAFETEA-LU program for pilot or demonstration projects to finance Interstate construction or reconstruction projects. The study area would not qualify for these funds. Transportation Enhancement Funds: These federal funds are distributed by ADOT and may be used for bicycle, pedestrian, and aesthetic enhancements to transportation projects. Competition for these limited funds is keen. Individual project funding limits are $943,000 for state system projects and $750,000 for local projects, supplemented by local matching funds in the minimum amount of 5.7% of the total project value. 9.2 State Funding State funding for transportation is somewhat limited. Gasoline tax, vehicle fees, and lottery proceeds are the only revenue sources. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, and roadway costs increase, the buying power of the fuel tax is diminishing. The state gasoline tax has not been raised for many years. Forty of the fifty states have higher gasoline taxes than Arizona. In addition to these constraints, a portion of the fuel tax revenues is being used to support the operation of the Department of Public Safety, which patrols the State Highway System. Current state funding sources are as follows: Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF): These are state gasoline tax and vehicle license funds, shared with local jurisdictions and distributed by percentage of state population. These may be “swept” into the general fund during a state fiscal crisis. These are typically expended for maintenance rather than capital improvements. Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF): These are state shared revenues from proceeds of the state lottery, which may be spent on roadways or public transit. These funds are distributed based on population. These funds are distributed to cities and towns, but not to counties. These have been “swept” into the general fund during the recent a state fiscal crisis, and it may be years before they are restored. Local Transportation Assistance Funds II (LTAF II): These are state shared revenues from proceeds of the state lottery that must be spent on transit. These funds are distributed based on population. These may be “swept” into general fund during a state fiscal crisis. Page 104 Final Report Safety Enforcement Transportation Infrastructure Fund (SETIF): These funds are generated from fees charged to foreign vehicles entering Arizona through the international ports of entry. The funds are used for vehicle safety enforcement, to improve and maintain facilities within twenty-five miles of the international border, and to reduce congestion at the ports of entry. These funds have also been used for Department of Public Safety activities and for joint projects with the Department of Homeland Security, the Arizona-Mexico Commission, and the International Development Authority. There are no eligible projects in the study area. Vehicle License Tax Funds (VLT): These are state shared revenues from vehicle license taxes. These funds may also be “swept” into general fund during a state fiscal crisis. 9.3 Local Funding Sources There is a wide range of options available for local funding sources. State enabling legislation varies as well as some, but not all, jurisdictions have been empowered by state statutes to levy things such as dedicated sales taxes. Local funding sources overlap to some degree with private funding options since they rely on resident funding and sometimes developers. Local funding sources include: Bonding: Funding for capital projects from the sale of bonds by a public agency. Bond programs must be approved by a vote of the public. Bonding is actually a financing tool rather than a funding source. A revenue stream, typically from a secondary property tax, is needed to retire general obligation bond debt service. A second type of bonding, revenue bonds, can be issued for projects with a dedicated revenue source, such as toll roads. Development Exactions: In many areas, builders of residential and commercial developments construct all internal public infrastructure (roads, curb, gutter, and sidewalks, traffic and street lights, and utility infrastructure), and then dedicate these improvements to the local public agency as public infrastructure and public street right-of-way. Sometimes these exactions extend to parks and property for public schools as well, depending on the size and scope of the developments. Development Impact Fees: A number of local public agencies, both counties and cities, have imposed development impact fees. These fees cover the costs of extending public services to new developments, and, in some cases, provide funds to offset capacity demands on public service systems some distance removed from the developments. These fees can cover utility services such as water, wastewater, and refuse collection, fire and police facilities, libraries, and transportation. These fees are for capital outlays only, and do not cover ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Recent legislation has limited the amounts and use of such funds. Transportation impact fees are typically computed based on the trip generation of new developments and are calculated on residential units and “equivalent dwelling units” for employment and commercial land uses. This analysis is usually based on planned roadway facilities in a General Plan Page 105 Final Report Transportation Element. Developers usually receive credits against these fees for planned regional roadways within or adjacent to their respective developments that they have constructed. Transportation (or Development) Impact Fees, therefore, usually require the developer to front load the construction costs, as fees are imposed on building permits. The trip analysis done for impact fee studies typically discounts “pass-through” or external traffic on targeted roadways, as such traffic is not created by the developments bearing the fees. Roadway capacity to accommodate total traffic, however, is required, and limited area impact fees only address a portion of the needed capacity. Therefore, it is preferable that impact fees be adopted over a larger regional area to address a larger portion of the regional travel needs and to prevent development from “leapfrogging” beyond the boundaries of smaller fee imposition areas. The acceptance of such fees by the developers varies. Residential impact fees are passed on to home buyers through higher home purchase prices. Market accommodation of commercial development impact fees can only be achieved by higher commodity prices, however. This results in higher prices at stores within the impact fee area than at similar nearby retailers in areas with lower or no impact fees. As a result, resistance to these fees can be high. Local officials are sometimes leery of losing retail sales taxes when commercial developments seek to locate near, but outside of their impact fee areas. Impact fee rates vary, but a number of suburban communities in Arizona impose transportation impact fees higher than $5,000 per home or dwelling unit. The volatility of this revenue source is high, as income rises and falls with the market demand for new housing units. Improvement Districts: Improvement Districts are created to provide specific facilities for specific geographical areas, and use the sale of obligation bonds to fund the improvements. Historically, improvement districts were used to upgrade older areas to modern standards for such actions as installing street lights, undergrounding utilities, or converting an area from septic tanks to sanitary sewers. These districts can also be used for newer areas to provide needed capital facilities. Usually a district uses a secondary property tax to retire the bonds. Sometimes a neighborhood area approaches a local government to create such a district to provide needed improvements. A vote of the property owners of the impacted area is required to authorize a district. Improvement districts can be used for roadway improvements within cities or in county areas. The creation of an improvement district requires the concurrence of 51% of the property owners, and costs are imposed on properties based on calculated benefits which may include parcel size, roadway frontage, or some other value. Special assessments are then levied against the benefited property for the apportioned cost of the improvements. A “cash demand period” is established wherein owners may pay the assessment up front, interest free, within a short specified period of time. Bonds are sold for the balance of the costs of the improvements, and the owners make periodic payments including interest over the life of the bond which is based on the complete cost of the improvements. If roadways are improved to public agency standards, then the city or county typically assumes ownership, maintenance responsibility, and liability for the roadway. If roadways are improved, but not up to city or county standards, the public agency will not assume maintenance or liability for the roadway, and maintenance and liability remain the responsibility of the district. It is more expensive Page 106 Final Report up front to build the roadways to public agency standards, but less expensive in the long run as the public agency is thereafter responsible for operations and maintenance as well as liability exposure. Improvement Districts are typically established to address deficiencies in the infrastructure in established areas. Infrastructure deficiencies may include roadway width, drainage, pavement, or enhancements such as sidewalks, streetlights, utility undergrounding, or installing sanitary sewers in areas with current septic systems. General Funds: Monies generated by local governments from local revenue sources. Local or Countywide Sales Taxes: A number of cities and urban counties have dedicated general sales taxes for transportation. Some locations have restricted such tax revenues to public transit, while others have used the funds for all modes of transportation. Additionally, some local jurisdictions have dedicated sales taxes for transportation just on construction materials. Such taxes also include a computation of the materials used in new building construction as well as purchases made at home improvement stores. The logic behind this is that new construction increases vehicular impacts on the roadways and consequently should share in the cost of needed transportation infrastructure to service the increased traffic. A number of suburban high growth cities have received rather high returns on such taxes until the recent housing slump. The limited retail base in Colorado City promises very limited benefits from a sales tax increase. P3 funding: On July 13, 2009, Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2396, Arizona’s landmark P3 legislation. P3s are public-private partnerships, which include toll facilities and a variety of other innovative financing techniques involving private partnerships. The bill allows ADOT to issue concessions of up to 50 years, with extensions, for P3 projects. ADOT can also grant other units of government authority to develop P3 projects. 9.4 Private Funding Sources Community Facilities Districts (CFDs): In 1988, the Arizona Community Facilities District Act was approved. The purpose was to provide new mechanisms for funding of infrastructure improvements for both municipalities and developers. The law authorized tax exempt bonds to be issued and repaid by assessing only the lands directly benefiting by the new infrastructure. Originally, Community Facilities Districts were required to be within a city or town. In 2006, these districts were also allowed in unincorporated areas. CFD bonds can fund a number of public infrastructure needs including transportation. Developers prefer this funding approach, since their cost exposure is less than with conventional financing, and no security needs to be pledged against the bond other than the projected assessment revenue stream. Some local jurisdictions do not support CFDs due to the inherent risk that, in the event of developer default, the debt could fall on the public agency. CFD bonds are not backed by a contingent general obligation of the entire city, town or county, as are general obligation bonds. Page 107 Final Report To establish a CFD, at least 25% of the impacted property owners must petition for such a district and then the establishment moves forward through hearing, notification, and election processes. The notice, hearing, and election process can be waived if 100% of the impacted property owners petition for the CFD’s establishment, which could be the case for a new planned development under a single ownership entity. P3 funding: As discussed above, P3s involve a mix of public and private funding through a publicprivate partnership agreement. 9.5 Current Revenue Streams Table 18 shows the five year history of existing revenue sources and amounts that the Town of Colorado City has used to address their transportation needs (VLT HURF, LTAF, LTAF II,). It is important to realize that the majority of the transportation revenues are used for administration of the local transportation agencies and for the operations and maintenance of the transportation systems. In addition, the table contains town sales tax revenues and state-shared state sales tax revenues for the same years. Note that all revenue sources have declined to some extent due the recent economic downturn and recession. The revenues are expected to rebound with a slower growth trend starting in the next year or two as economic conditions hopefully start to improve. These sales tax funding sources are not specifically earmarked for transportation purposes. To the best of our knowledge, these funds are not being used for transportation system improvements by either the county or the city, although they can be used for such purposes. These are potential additional funding sources, if the local agencies choose to use them for this purpose. Table 18: Five Year Revenue History Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 9.6 VLT $243,426 $245,879 $226,762 $209,967 $201,325 HURF $406,162 $412,258 $371,609 $342,132 $336,528 LTAF $21,046 $18,581 $11,538 $17,386 $ 1,813 LTAF II $12,045 $ 6,487 0 0 0 City Sales Tax $320,285 $285,207 $281,434 $246,459 $235,085 State Sales Tax $373,827 $386,562 $360,703 $305,378 $299,284 Suggested New Revenue Approaches New revenue sources that may be considered by the Town of Colorado City include: Page 108 Final Report An additional sales tax dedicated to transportation system improvements: A one-half cent dedicated sales tax could be imposed exclusively within the Town of Colorado City through an increase in the sales tax rate. This would generate around $58,774 (2011 dollars) annually. The town currently has a two cent sales tax. This is about the average for similar communities, although some non-metro communities have higher rates. The City of Bisbee has a two and a half cent rate, Page is at three, and Fredonia, notably, is at four cents. Such actions, however, may incent the development and/or relocation of commercial enterprises outside, but near, the city limits. This can also encourage leapfrog development which is undesirable since it increases dramatically the infrastructure costs to serve the development. The result is a level of unfairness since facilities within the city are used jointly by both city and unincorporated area residents. A larger issue is that Colorado City has very limited retail activity. A new retail center, like the one under consideration at SR 389 and Arizona Avenue, would generate far more revenue that a half- cent rate increase. Hildale Utah currently has a one-cent sales tax rate. Development impact fees imposed on new development within the study area to fund regional roadway system improvements. Such development fees should only be considered if new larger scale subdivision plans are proposed. It would be difficult to impose fees on individual home builders who often do work in a piecemeal fashion. Large scale developers could also elect to use CFDs as a funding approach to provide internal infrastructure. Improvement Districts could be used to fund improvements in portions of the study area where the trust does not own the real property. This might be of interest in unincorporated portions of the study area where several longer roadway projects are needed. This might be feasible in the Centennial Park area, but there might not be enough participants to finance a district in the Cane Beds area. 10.0 Evaluation Criteria for Project Selection Since the inception of this project, discussions with Colorado City staff, comments by members of the Technical Advisory Committee, and interviews with area stakeholders have all illustrated a framework of transportation needs for the area. Field investigations have validated that perception. Projects identified in this draft were recommended based on the following criteria:     Provide additional all weather crossings of Short Creek, so the creek can no longer act as a barrier bisecting the community. Executive Order 2010-01, declaring a flood emergency, and Mohave County’s declaration of a flood emergency as a result of the December storms, are both attached as Appendix 2. Provide additional through streets in the area, so local traffic has alternative to the state highway Address pedestrian access to school locations in the area including steps to increase pedestrian safety Improve roads that serve as school bus routes Page 109 Final Report       Provide enhanced access to the downtown area and to major activity centers in the area including schools, the church, the zoo, and outdoor recreation areas Improve conflict points on the state highway Improve east/west travel capacity in and near Hildale Provide capacity and access opportunities to enhance marketability of industrial and commercial properties in the area Provide for future regional through traffic levels Enhance regional connections in the Arizona Strip The next step in the process will involve a collaborative review of these suggested projects, with additions or deletions as directed by staff and stakeholders. The final candidates will then need to be subject to a ranking procedure to establish priorities for short, medium and longer term implementation. 11.0 Recommended Sort, Medium and Long Range Project Priorities Identified projects were presented to the TAC and the public at meetings held in April of 20100. Based on feedback received from those meetings and review of the above evaluation criteria, the projects were prioritized into short (five year), medium (ten year), and long (twenty year) term implementation categories. Tables 19, 20, and 21 below list these projects. Table 19 Short Term Projects Site Project Location No. Project Description 10 12 13 21 23 24 25 26 27 Central Street from Cherry Avenue to SR 389 Paving and Drainage Improvements Edson Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Chip Seal Cooke Avenue from Laurentzen to Hildale Street Chip Seal Central Street from Centennial Avenue to Cane Beds Road Chip Seal Homestead Street from Township Avenue to Arizona Avenue Chip Seal Willow Street from Academy Avenue to Township Avenue Chip Seal and drainage improvements Warren Avenue from Central Street to Barlow Street Chip Seal and drainage improvements Barlow Street from Arizona Avenue to Academy Avenue Chip Seal and drainage improvements Maple Street from Uzona Avenue to Academy Avenue Jurisdiction Colorado City Colorado City Colorado City Mohave County Planning Level Cost $2,601,000 $90,750 $84,870 $127,650 Colorado City $87,300 Colorado City $79,700 Colorado City $162,800 Colorado City $71,050 Colorado $153,900 Page 110 Final Report Site Project Location No. Project Description 32 36 38 Jurisdiction Chip Seal and Drainage Improvements Church Area (University, Academy, Carling and Hildale) Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Township Avenue from Colvin Street to Hildale Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Richard Street from Academy Avenue to Township Avenue Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Planning Level Cost City Colorado City $123,420 Colorado City $104,800 Colorado City $106,000 TOTAL SHORT TERM PROJECTS $3,793,240 Table 20 Medium Range Projects Site Project Location No. Project Description 1 2 8 9 14 16 17 19 20 22 28 29 33 34 Redwood Street at Short Creek Bridge Township Avenue at Short Creek Bridge Township Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street New Roadway Uzona Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street Paving Uzona Avenue at SR 389 Realignment to Highway Cane Beds Road from Redwood Street to Rosy Canyon Road Chip Seal 3200 South from SR 389 to Yellowstone Road Chip Seal Yellowstone Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Chip Seal and Extension Rosy Canyon Road from Cane Beds Road to Utah Line Chip Seal Pioneer Lane from Township Avenue to Johnson Avenue Chip Seal Hildale Street from Mohave Avenue to Uzona Avenue Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Arizona Avenue from Cottonwood Street to Juniper Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Edson Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Cooke Avenue from Central Street to Hildale Street Jurisdiction Planning Level Cost Colorado City $2,990,000 Colorado City $2,990,000 Colorado City $1,442,500 Colorado City $3,120,000 Colorado City $1,599,000 Mohave County $1,275,120 Mohave County $385,024 Mohave County $182,160 Mohave County $728,640 Colorado City $45,000 Colorado City $696,960 Colorado City $357,500 Colorado City $288,750 Colorado City $270,160 Page 111 Final Report Site Project Location No. Project Description 35 37 39 40 43 44 Jurisdiction Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Redwood Street from Uzona Avenue to Arizona Avenue Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Field Avenue from SR 59 to Richard Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Garden Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Pioneer Street from Academy Avenue to Johnson Avenue Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk SR 389 Intersections from Utah Avenue to Yellowstone Road Intersection Improvements (left and right turn lanes) SR 389 near Arizona Avenue Grade separated pedestrian crossing Planning Level Cost Colorado City $97,900 Hildale $104,800 Colorado City $211,440 Colorado City $156,800 Colorado City/Hildale/DOTs $6,650,000 Colorado City/ADOT $1,365,000 TOTAL MEDIUM TERM PROJECTS $24,956,754 Table 21 Long Range Projects Site Project Location No. Project Description 3 Academy Avenue at Short Creek 4 Central Street at Short Creek 5 Hildale Street at Short Creek 6 7 11 15 18 30 31 Bridge Bridge Box Culvert Redwood Street from Mohave Avenue to Township Avenue Chip Seal Redwood Street from Airport Avenue to Cane Beds Road Chip Seal Arizona Avenue from Cottonwood St. to SR 389 to Elm Street Paving and additional widening for commercial development Canyon St. and Water Canyon Rd. - Williams Way to Maxwell Park Widening and Chip Seal School Boundary Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Chip Seal Uzona Avenue from Redwood Street to Richard Street Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk School Area (University, Academy, Colvin and Carling) Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Jurisdiction Planning Level Cost Colorado City $2,995,000 Colorado City $2,437,500 Colorado City $975,000 Colorado City $107,000 Colorado City $182,400 Colorado City $2,057,250 Hildale $182,000 Mohave County $182,160 Colorado City $513,000 Colorado City $281,600 Page 112 Final Report Site Project Location No. Project Description 41 42 Widening of State Route 59 from Utah Avenue to Uzona Avenue Roadway Widening Widening of SR 389 from Arizona Avenue to Airport Avenue Roadway Widening TOTAL LONG TERM PROJECTS Jurisdiction Planning Level Cost Hildale/UDOT $1,196,150 Colorado CityADOT $10,879,050 $21,988,110 Page 113 Final Report Appendix 1 – Stakeholder Interview Notes Page 114 Final Report Interviews were conducted with stakeholders on Monday, October 4, 2010, on Tuesday, October 5, 2010, and on Wednesday, October 6, 2010. This appendix is a compilation of the individual stakeholder interview meeting notes and summarizes the comments made and the information provided by the stakeholders during their interview sessions. The following introductory information and interview questions were used to facilitate discussions with each stakeholder, but in most cases the interviews were open format and the responses did not follow the questions. Stakeholder Interview Questions The Town of Colorado City, together with the Arizona Department of Transportation, is undertaking a study of the transportation system for cars, trucks, pedestrians, bicycles, public transportation and aviation for your community. The result of this study will be a new transportation plan that will serve as a guide for the planning, budgeting and implementation of improvements to the transportation system to provide better and safer traffic circulation throughout the community. Wilbur Smith Associates is the consultant employed to prepare this new transportation plan on your behalf. A key component of the data collection efforts will be conducting these stakeholder interviews. The information you provide during the interviews will give us invaluable input on the location and nature of known areas of transportation infrastructure deficiencies, safety concerns and issues, and other insights into streets, roads, intersections, sidewalks, shared use paths, transit needs, and roadside areas. 1. Are there any specific areas of the street system that you feel should be improved? If so, what type of improvements do you feel are needed. 2. Are you aware of any locations where accidents or lots of near misses have occurred? 3. Are there any new streets, pedestrian ways, bike ways, or transit services you feel are needed? 4. What do you believe should be the top priority transportation projects for the community? 5. Do you have any suggestions for new funding sources for transportation improvements? 6. Where do you make most of your trips during the course of a typical week? 7. How often do you travel outside the Colorado City / Hildale Area? >_1/week ____ 1/week ____ Every 2 weeks ____ 8. What are the primary reasons for this travel? Work Commute ______ Shopping ______ Every month ____ Medical ______ Rarely ____ Recreational ______ Commercial Aviation _____ & Destination _________________ Other ________________ 9. Where are the principal destinations? St. George ________ Hurricane _________ Kanab ________ Flagstaff _________ Phoenix ________ Las Vegas ________ 10. Is there anything else you think we should know or be aware of? Page ________ Other _____________ Thank you for your time! Page 115 Final Report Day: Monday Date: October 4, 2010 Time: 8:00 am MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Carol Timpson, Principal, Colorado City Unified School District Raymond Black, Transportation Director, Colorado City Unified School District The following street/road improvements were identified as priority needs for the community and the District. 1. Arizona Avenue: Installation of a pedestrian/bicycle underpass of SR 389 at Arizona Avenue. The community had applied for a transportation enhancement grant for such a facility a few years back, but the project was not funded. A grade separated crossing of the highway at Arizona Avenue is one of the top priorities of the School District because of the large amount of students using this route to access the school located at the southwest corner of Arizona Avenue and Cottonwood Street. 2. Redwood Street: Construct a bridge or low water dip crossing of Short Creek at Redwood Street to enable school buses to serve the Centennial Park area without having to use SR 389; felt to be a significant safety enhancement. 3. 3200 South: Need left turn lanes on SR 389 for southbound to eastbound traffic. 4. 3600 South: Need left turn lanes on SR 389 for southbound to eastbound traffic. 5. Airport Avenue: Need a right turn deceleration lane on SR 389 for southbound to westbound traffic. 6. Cane Beds Road / AZ SR 389: Need left turn lanes and right turn lanes on SR 389 in both directions. 7. Central Street: Improve (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) Central Street from Centennial Avenue to Lost Spring Road (a.k.a. County Road 5, Mount Trumbell Road). This segment may need drainage improvements along with surfacing improvements. 8. Redwood Street: Improve (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) Redwood Street from Airport Avenue to Lost Spring Road. 9. Juniper Street: Extend and connect Juniper Street from its current terminus in Centennial Park south to Lost Springs Road; improve the street (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) from Woolley Ave (1900 South) to Lost Springs Road (2400 South). 10. Yellowstone Road: Improve (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) from 3200 South to Cane Beds Road to create an all-weather road. 11. School Boundary Road: Improve (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) from 3200 South to Cane Beds Road to create an all-weather road. 12. 3200 South: Improve (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) from SR 389 to School Boundary Road to create an all-weather road. Also, extend and connect 3200 South through the Cane Beds area where it does not exist between School Boundary Road and 1900 East. Improve (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing) 3200 South the entire length from SR 389 to Yellowstone Road. 13. Cane Beds Road Extension & Rosy Canyon Road: Finish the improvement (base stabilization and chip seal surfacing)of Cane Beds Road from the current termination of the improved surfacing east and northerly to the Utah State line where the road has chip seal surfacing. This road connects the Colorado City area to US 89 in Utah and is a significant time savings over alternate routes. The school district frequently needs to travel to the US 89 area for school functions. Page 116 Final Report 14. Local Roads in Cane Beds: The local roads serving the residential areas of Cane Beds are narrow (one lane) and have a dirt surface. School buses have difficulties when meeting vehicles particularly during inclement weather. Widen the roads to allow for two vehicles to pass each other. Improve the road surface for all weather travel. Will require drainage improvements. Some or all of these roads may be privately owned and may require right of way acquisition to improve. 15. Sight Distance at Intersections: There are areas all over town where bus driver views are obstructed at corners creating a condition where the driver needs to encroach into cross lanes to see on-coming traffic. The obstructions include tree branches, privacy fences, etc. Of particular concern are the intersections of Arizona Avenue, Airport Avenue, and Cane Bed Roads with AZ SR 389. a. Suggest the Town consider (and enforce) an ordinance requiring a clear zone at intersection corners and a minimum vertical clearance for tree pruning considering the height and line of sight of a bus driver. 16. Centennial Park: Some of the streets are narrow and are essentially one-lane as vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. This has caused some issues for bus drivers in this area. a. Suggest the County consider new regulations to allow on-street parking only on one side to maintain two-way travel and/or require sufficient off-street parking to reduce the number of cars parked on the streets. 17. Mohave Avenue / SR 389 Intersection: Need right turn deceleration lanes on SR 389 in both directions. 18. Arizona Avenue / SR 389 Intersection: Need left turn lanes and right turn deceleration lanes on SR 389 in both directions. 19. SR 389 Intersections: Need right turn deceleration lanes at all street intersections with SR 389 in each direction where the lane does not already exist. 20. Arizona Avenue: There are sidewalks along the front of the school on Cottonwood Street, however, the sidewalks end at the edge of school property. The School District would like to see the sidewalks extended along Arizona Avenue from Cottonwood street East to the Dairy at Juniper Street where the current sidewalk ends. 21. Uzona Avenue: Need sidewalks along Uzona Avenue to provide pedestrian access to the public school. 22. Central Street: Encourage the City to continue the incremental improvements being made to Central Street in the Town proper that include sidewalks. 23. Water Canyon Road (in northeastern Hildale area): The road is narrow in places and has lots of recreational use. Parking at the terminus trailhead area is deficient. The District makes field trips to this site on occasion. Would like to see the road widened to enable two-way travel the entire length and additional trailhead parking provided. Additional comments made during the interview discussion include the following: 1. Frequent trips within the study area include the following: a. School bus routes (Charles Hammon provided the school bus routes to WSA prior to the interview). b. To/from Centennial Park area. c. To/from the Cane Beds area. d. To/from the public school campus from all over the area. Page 117 Final Report e. To/from home to various points in the community. f. To the Post Office and Shopping Area around the Central Street and Township Avenue intersection. 2. School buses or a school employee travels out of town for field trips or school business 3 or 4 times a week. A bus run goes daily Monday through Thursday to 6 mile village and Moccasin. 3. Personally, interviewees travel out of town several times a month for shopping and medical purposes most frequently to St. George, Hurricane and Kanab. 4. School business travel is mostly to points in Arizona (Kingman, Phoenix, etc.) while personal travel is mostly to Utah. *** End of Carol Timpson and Raymond Black Interview Notes *** Page 118 Final Report Day: Monday Date: October 4, 2010 Time: 9:00 am MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Freeman Barlow, Building Official, Town of Colorado City Daniel Barlow, Sr., City Council Member, Town of Colorado City The following paragraphs summarize the points of discussion during our interview and conversation related to the new transportation plan for the Town of Colorado City. Of note is that Daniel Barlow, Sr., was the Town’s first Mayor and served in that capacity for 20 years. He was a leading participant in the Town’s previous transportation plan completed in 1993. 1. Drainage: Drainage is an important issue for the street system. The plan and each improvement need a drainage element. Some of the Town’s streets also serve as flood control conduits and outlets. After a heavy rainfall event, runoff washes down many streets in Town and leaves mud on the streets. For example, Township Avenue has 6” of water in the street during and after heavy rains. 2. The flood control dike east of town has helped alleviate flooding in the Town. 3. The objective of the Town has been to try to get water off the streets and into the creek. A lot of the stormwater flows from the north are routed into the creek off of Richard Street. Stormwater flows on Township Avenue run off into Short Creek at its western terminus. 4. Short Creek serves as the major drain for the community. Drainage is primarily from north to south. 5. There is a CDBG in place to improve Arizona Avenue from the Town’s dairy at Juniper Street west to AZ Highway SR 389. 6. The Central Street project to be constructed in October 2010 is also a CBDG funded project and extends improvements to Black Avenue. a. Drainage water on Central Street flows to the Plum Avenue area. This is a major drainageway at the south end of the Town. There is a culvert under the highway for this wash that is located a short distance from Central Street. The large drainage structure required under Central Street is in the Town’s 5-year plan for the Plum Avenue drainageway. 7. The intersection of Central Street and Highway 389 is a critical intersection. There needs to be an acceleration lane at this intersection to provide safer turn movements onto the highway. 8. The intersection of Airport Avenue and SR 389 is a safety concern. This intersection needs to have auxiliary left turn and right turn lanes and other safety improvements as required. 9. Mohave County has a Sheriff’s Office and is building a Court’s facility on a site located on the east side of SR 389 between Airport Avenue and Cane Beds Road. These facilities will add additional traffic and turning movements on the highway. The driveway intersection with SR 389 should be reviewed for proper safety provisions for traffic at this location. 10. Johnson Street used to connect to SR 389 and served as a collector street. There was concern with the location of this intersection as it was in close proximity to the Short Creek SR 389 bridge. It was agreed that the Johnson Avenue intersection would be eliminated and that a new intersection be located at Mohave Avenue. Mohave Avenue now serves as the collector street although the official functional classification designation has not yet been changed. 11. The construction and improvement of Hildale Street on the east side of the Town and the construction and extension of Mohave Avenue from Central Street to Hildale Street form a bypass of sorts to relieve traffic Page 119 Final Report from Central Street and Arizona Avenue in the core area of Town. Hildale Street and Mohave Avenue are in need of further improvement by providing curb, gutter and related drainage improvements. 12. There is a need for a bridge or low flow crossing structure across Short Creek on Redwood Street. 13. Township Avenue needs to be extended across Short Creek to connect Homestead Street to Richard Street. 14. The two most important new facilities are (1) the Township Avenue crossing of Short Creek and (2) the Redwood Street crossing of Short Creek. 15. The roads in front of the school need curb, gutter and sidewalk (Cottonwood Street). 16. There is a private school along Garden Avenue between Lauritzen and Hammon Streets. Garden Avenue needs improvement with curb, gutter and sidewalk. 17. The intersection of Arizona Avenue and SR 389 is a major safety concern. Connecting Township Avenue across Short Creek would relieve the heavy traffic on Arizona Avenue. 18. Heavily traveled routes include Hildale Street, Mohave Avenue, Township Avenue, Richard Street, Arizona Avenue, Uzona Avenue (state line road), Central Street and SR 389. 19. A major concern is providing facilities for safe entrance on and exit off the highway and provision of lighting at the major highway intersections. 20. Future development in the community will likely include areas on the north side of the City of Hildale. 21. A goal of the Town is to have all homes within one block of an all weather street. All weather streets in Colorado City are typically chip seal surfacing on a prepared and stabilized base with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Ultimately, the goal is to chip seal all local streets in the community. 22. The Central Street/Arizona Avenue intersection is an important intersection in town; the intersection needs to be analyzed for improvement. 23. The Central Street/Utah Avenue intersection is an important intersection in Hildale; the intersection needs to be analyzed for improvement with widening, turn lanes, curb and gutter, etc. 24. These important intersections need paving as chip seal surface is insufficient under the heavy traffic. 25. Utah Avenue in Hildale needs to be widened, improved with asphalt, and provided with curb and gutter. 26. Along Uzona Avenue, all intersections are offset; some use Uzona Avenue to access the public school in lieu of Arizona Avenue. 27. The Richard Street crossing of Short Creek can flood out and typically is the first street to do so. Central Street and Hildale Street can also flood out but do so less frequently. If all three Short Creek crossings are inundated, everyone must use the highway to safely cross the creek. 28. There is a major church facility within the block of University Avenue, Hildale Street, Academy Avenue and Carling Street. On the north side of the church building is a large parking lot. At least twice a week, this lot is full and when services let out, the traffic causes localized traffic jams in the community. 29. At funerals, the procession from the church, south along Hildale Street and into the cemetery entrance aligned with Township Avenue also creates significant traffic jams. In addition, there is a need for sidewalks from the church at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Hildale Street south to the cemetery on the east side of Hildale Street at Township Avenue. 30. There is a need for curb and gutter on Carling Street between Township Avenue and University Avenue. Page 120 Final Report 31. There needs to be sidewalks where not already present around the school located between Township Avenue and University Avenue and between Colvin Street and Carling Street. 32. Bicycle paths, routes or lanes are not an essential feature for the Town of Colorado City. Most people in the community walk significantly more so than biking. Therefore, providing sidewalks is more critical than bike facilities. 33. There is a nature park east of Hildale Street north of Academy Avenue. Provide curb and gutter and sidewalk on Hildale Street to this facility at Short Creek. 34. Any street plan needs to consider drainage and runoff flow. 35. Canyon Street Canal is a major drainage facility on the east side of the community. Drainage from the public lands and mountainous area to the east drains westerly to this flood control canal. A number of years back, the canal failed and water ran down Mohave Avenue and Richard Street to the creek. Drainage runoff in the canal runs south to reservoir located off the south end of Hildale Street. The outlet for the reservoir drains southerly to the Plum Avenue/Central Street area and then flows westerly to the drainage structure under SR 389. Major culverts are needed at Central Street, Plum Avenue and SR 389. 36. Curb and gutter and sidewalks are needed along the entire route of Hildale Street. 37. Schools are located at the northwest corner of Arizona Avenue and Richard Street; at the northwest corner of Township Avenue and Carling Street; and at the northwest corner of Garden Avenue and Hammon Street. 38. Mohave Community College has a large nursing program. 39. The Town is in the midst of a lawsuit regarding land and real property ownership by the trust. The State of Arizona is attempting to disband the community trust. An unfavorable ruling would create many issues in the community that would be complex and difficult to resolve. 40. Hildale City Hall is located at the northeast corner of Hildale Street and Newel Avenue. 41. Mr. Freeman Barlow and Mr. Daniel Barlow, Sr., reported that most trips within the community during the course of a typical week include tips to the: a. b. c. d. Post office nearly every day – located on Central south of Town Hall Public and Private Schools 3 times a day, 5 days a week Church at least twice a week but typically may be 3 to 5 times a week Grocery store located at the northeast corner of Central Street and Township Avenue 42. Trips out of town are typically made twice a week for medical and educational purposes primarily to St. George and Hurricane. 43. The community has lots of construction workers who work outside the community and there are some commuters who live in town but work elsewhere. 44. Major employers in the community include: a. b. c. d. e. Most wanted jeans Mohave Community College Colorado City School District Grocery Store Hardware Store Page 121 Final Report 45. Daniel Barlow, Sr., provided a map of the town identifying various pertinent features. a. Streets that serve as major drainage conduits include Willow Street, Richard Street, Carling Street, Hildale Street, University Avenue, Johnson Avenue, Warren Avenue, and Plum Avenue. b. Major streets include: Utah Avenue, Arizona Avenue, Township Avenue, Mohave Avenue, Airport Avenue, Redwood Street, Richard Street, Central Street, and Hildale Street. c. Important intersections that include all intersections of community streets with SR 389 plus Central Street and Utah Street and Central Street and Arizona Avenue. d. High priority bridges across Short Creek at Redwood Street and at Township Avenue. e. Two segments that are programmed for improvement including Central Street from Warren Avenue to Apple Avenue and Arizona Avenue from Juniper Street to SR 389. A copy of this map is included on the next page. *** End of Freeman Barlow and Daniel Barlow, Sr., Interview Notes *** Page 122 Final Report Page 123 Final Report Day: Monday Date: October 4, 2010 Time: 11:00 am MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: John Barlow, Secretary, Arizona Strip Landfill Commission The following notes summarize the comments made by Mr. John Barlow during the interview discussing the new Town of Colorado City Transportation Plan. Mr. Barlow has worked for the Town for many years in many different positions. 1. As Secretary of the Landfill Commission, John Barlow has oversight over the solid waste collection program as well as the disposal of solid waste in the landfill. a. It takes two days to collect the Town’s solid waste. The waste collection is done weekly. Areas in town north of Short Creek are collected on Thursdays and areas in town south of Short Creek are collected on Fridays. Commercial waste and residential waste are collected concurrently on the same two days. One truck picks up small container (cans) users and a second truck picks up large container (dumpster) users. So each collection day, there are two trucks circulating through that area of Town. Note, residential users can have the larger dumpsters that are collected along with the commercial users. b. The volume of solid waste collected in dumpsters is twice the volume of waste collected in cans. c. The Commission also collects commercial waste (dumpsters) in Centennial Park, but they do not provide the residential solid waste collection in this neighborhood. d. The Commission collects dumpster waste disposal only in Cane Beds, and does not provide can collection. e. On Tuesdays, the “can” truck collects waste in Fredonia, and on Wednesdays, the “dumpster” truck collects waste in Fredonia. f. The Landfill Commission was created in 1997. John Barlow assumed management of the Commission in April of 2003 or 2004. 2. The intersection of Arizona Avenue and SR 389 is dangerous and lots of school children cross the highway at this location going to and from school. The new public school located west of SR 389 was built and opened roughly 8 or 9 years ago. 3. The dirt roads are problematic for the garbage trucks in wet weather. In spite of this, it is somewhat infrequent that the trucks have been unable to do the waste pickup. 4. Another issue is on streets that don’t have a defined edge such as a curb and gutter section. Residents don’t know where to place the solid waste cans, so the locations vary considerably. There have been instances where the cans have been hit by cars traveling the street. A program to install curb and gutter on streets would be beneficial. 5. The Town’s goal is to provide an improved hard surfaced road within two blocks of each residence. Apple Avenue and Barlow Street were recently improved with chip seal surfacing to get residential properties in the area within two blocks of a hard surfaced street. The other streets in the area are still gravel and unimproved. 6. The Town has been successful and effective in getting streets improved using Community Development Block Grant program funds. 7. The busiest intersections in Town are: Central Street/Township Avenue and Richard Street/Arizona Avenue. Page 124 Final Report 8. Major routes in Town include: Richard Street, Central Street, Hildale Street, Mohave Avenue, and Township Avenue. 9. The top priority project for the Town should be to connect Township Avenue at Richard Street to SR 389 by installing a bridge or low water crossing of Short Creek. Desirably this would be a bridge to provide an all weather crossing of the creek in addition to the highway bridge. 10. The second priority project for the Town should be to construct a bridge or low water crossing of Short Creek at Redwood Street. 11. The City shop is located at 520 North Maple Street (northeast corner of Maple Street and Arizona Avenue). The Landfill Commission office is at this location as well. 12. The next CDBG project is slated for improving Arizona Avenue from the Dairy Store at Juniper Street to the highway and includes the installation of curb and gutter. 13. Another priority project for the community is to finish the improvement of Central Street from the current CDBG project southerly to SR 389. This project will include a major drainage structure (box culvert) at Plum Avenue. 14. The Town has utilized Mohave County Flood Control District funds to help improve the streets. For example, the curb and gutter section on Township Avenue was paid for with Flood Control District monies when that street was improved. This funding source has also included drainage culverts and surface drainage crossings. 15. Local funds are used to chip seal surface roads. The Town is now using a cinder pit source for road construction. The cinders are mixed with limestone fines. Water is added. This material is compacted and used to stabilize the road base. The prepared surface is then chip sealed. The cinders and limestone fines are locally available materials and consequently are economical to obtain. The Town has found this construction method to be effective and relatively inexpensive enabling them to stretch their public works budget and get a quality product. 16. The local destinations John Barlow typically travels to during the course of normal week include the: post office, CMC grocery store and adjacent retail area, to and from the schools, and the dairy store and coffee shop on Arizona Avenue. 17. Lots of families in Colorado City home school their children. Some attend the private schools. 18. John and his family typically travel outside the local area more than once a week primarily for shopping and medical purposes to St. George and Hurricane. Occasionally some business is done out of town as well such as some banking services. 19. The Commissions solid waste collection trucks travel out of town to Fredonia for collection as noted above. *** End of John Barlow Interview Notes *** Page 125 Final Report Day: Monday Date: October 4, 2010 Time: 1:00 pm MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: LaDell Bistline, Airport Manager, Town of Colorado City Municipal Airport These notes summarize the comments made by LaDell Bistline, the Airport Manager, during his stakeholder interview to discuss the new Town of Colorado City Transportation Study. 1. The Central Street improvement project is well done and a good example of the nature of the newer street improvements being completed in the Town. 2. The access to the airport is good. Redwood Street is paved and Airport Avenue is paved. This provides a loop access to the airport from Highway SR 389. 3. The road into the airport from the intersection of Redwood Street and Airport Avenue could be improved. 4. The Town has ordinances in place regarding zoning and development to protect the clear zones for the airport and its facilities. They are not working with Mohave County to get the same zoning overlays. 5. The airport has plans in the future to construct T-hangars in the area near the west end of the entrance road (Airport Avenue). The plans include using the street right of way at the west end of Airport Avenue for vehicle parking for the future T-hangars. The project would entail rerouting the airport entrance drive and shortening Airport Avenue to create the area needed vehicle parking for the proposed T-hangars. 6. The visibility safety area goes through the middle of the terminal at this time. There are no plans to relocate the terminal at this time; but there is a terminal area redevelopment plan in place. 7. The Town has a plan in place to construct a parallel taxiway and extend the runway. The environmental assessment was commenced seven years ago but has been held up by environmental groups in opposition to the runway extension. BLM is also involved in the environmental reviews. 8. The immediate need at the airport is for new T-hangars. The Town has a “wait list” for T-hangar space. 9. The current priorities for the airport are as follows: (1) Runway reconstruction (top priority) and (2) perimeter fencing (second priority). 10. Mr. Bistline stated that he would provide and email the airport’s 5-year capital improvement program. 11. There are currently ten (10) fixed base aircraft at the airport. 12. There is an air ambulance service that uses the airport. The air ambulance usually flies to Salt Lake City. 13. Airport Strip BLM and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) also use the airport on occasion. 14. Some local businesses and industries use the airport for business travel. Most of the fixed base aircraft at the Town’s airport are owned by businesses. 15. AP Tech is used for the airport’s pavement management program. 16. For the community, Mr. Bistline would like to see the unimproved section of Rosy Canyon Road improved to provide a continuous hard surfaced route connecting SR 389 at Cane Beds and US 89 in Utah. This is a need for the Town and its residents. 17. When Short Creek floods, all the local roads are closed and the only dry crossing is the US 389 bridge crossing. Page 126 Final Report 18. LaDell Bistline reported the following principal destinations within the community when he travels during the course of a normal week: a. Daily to the airport of course b. Family trips twice a day to the school c. To the post office d. To the shopping area in the vicinity of Township Avenue and Central Street e. Trips to the business located along SR 389 near the state line f. To the Dairy Store located on Arizona Avenue at Juniper Street 19. Travel out of town is typically once a week, usually for shopping or less frequently for medical reasons, and generally to St. George or Las Vegas. *** End of LaDell Bistline Interview Notes *** Page 127 Final Report Day: Monday Date: October 4, 2010 Time: 2:00 pm MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Carolyn Hamblin, Dean, Mohave Community College These notes summarize the comments made by Carolyn Hamblin, Dean of the Colorado City campus of Mohave Community College. 1. The community college campus has five buildings on the property located on Central Street near Mohave Avenue. There is also one college building in Centennial Park. Other campuses of the community college are located in Kingman, Bullhead City and Lake Havasu City. 2. The community college used to occupy the old high school building but moved to the current location 20 to 25 years ago. 3. There are 21 staff members who make daily trips from home to the campus for work and back. In addition, many make a trip out and back at lunch time as well. 4. There are 350 students who physically travel to the campus for classes. In addition, there are a number of on-line students who make perhaps two trips per year to the campus. Approximately 1/3 of the 350 students travel to campus four times a week. The other 2/3 of the students travel to campus two times per week. The classes start at 4 pm and continue into the evening. 5. The college saw 20% growth in the student population from 2009 to 2010. The student population has leveled off this year at the 350 student level. 6. A concern expressed was regarding excessive traffic speeds on Utah Avenue between Central Street and Highway SR 389. 7. Another entrance to the college campus off of Central Street is planned in the future when warranted. 8. There is congestion in Centennial Park in the area of the schools. There are a number of schools in Centennial Park to the west of Centennial Avenue and Hammon Street including the Masada Elementary Charter School and a private charter high school known as the Colorado City Academy. 9. Pedestrian access to the MCC campus is good and the sidewalks in the area are in good condition. 10. Ms. Hamblin occasionally uses Rosy Canyon Road to travel to her home in Kanab; and cited the improvement of the unimproved section of this road as a need. 11. Trips made around the community during the course of a typical week include the following areas: a. b. c. d. e. Arizona Avenue corridor The downtown corner (Central Street and Township Avenue) From MCC to the High School and to the Academy in Centennial Park Occasionally to the dam/reservoir site just east of the campus for lunch and exercise The Merry Wives Café located at the northwest corner of Uzona and UT 59 12. Trips out of town are typically made daily for commuting purposes to and from Kanab, Utah. In addition, out of town travel is made on a monthly basis to the Beaver Dam Center and to the Kingman and Bullhead City campuses for business purposes. 13. There is a need for a right-turn lane from Eastbound (south) 389 onto Airport Avenue. *** End of Carolyn Hamblin Interview Notes *** Page 128 Final Report Day: Monday Date: October 4, 2010 Time: 3:00 pm MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Warren Barlow, Supervisor, 911 Dispatch - Town of Colorado City & City of Hildale These notes summarize the comments made by Warren Barlow regarding his input to the Colorado City Transportation Plan. 1. Public safety vehicles have gotten stuck on School Boundary Road; this dirt road needs to be improved to all weather status. 2. Township Avenue needs to connect to SR389 with a new bridge or low water crossing of Short Creek; there are some ground water wells in the path of the road that would need to be dealt with and there is a metal building that would need to be relocated as well. 3. Yellowstone Road is an existing dirt surface road that needs to be improved to an all weather road between 3200 South and Cane Beds Road. 4. The street names east of Canyon Street are jogged from the streets with the same names west of Canyon Street; 911 Dispatch would prefer the streets have a different name since they do not align and are offset by ½ block; public safety response would know that those street names are east of Canyon Street. 5. Extend and connect 3200 South in Cane Beds between School Boundary Road and 1960 East so that 3200 South is a continuous street from SR 389 to Yellowstone Road. 6. The entire community needs traffic control and informational signage where warranted including stop signs, yield signs, street name signs, etc. In addition, there may need to be traffic signals on SR 389. 7. The street surfaces on Richard Street, Central Street and Arizona Avenues need preventative maintenance to preserve the streets and extend their lives with the objective of preventing further deterioration. Note: Warren Barlow’s time was limited due to demands of his position. He recommended that Frank Barlow be interviewed. In addition, he stated that Frank Barlow has good GIS mapping for the community. *** End of Warren Barlow Interview Notes *** Page 129 Final Report Day: Monday Date: October 4, 2010 Time: 3:30 pm MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Frank Barlow, 911 Dispatch - Town of Colorado City & City of Hildale These notes summarize the information provided by and the comments made by Frank Barlow, an employee in the 911 Dispatch Center. Frank Barlow maintains the GIS mapping and database for the 911 Dispatch Center. In addition, he is a paramedic and a fireman. 1. There have been accidents at the intersection of Central Street and SR 389. 2. There have been accidents at the intersection of Airport Avenue and SR 389. 3. There have been accidents at Uzona Avenue and AZ SR 389 / UT SR 59. 4. There is a hill crest on SR 389 between the Airport Avenue and Central Street intersections that limits sight distance somewhat and may be a contributing factor to some accidents. 5. Mohave Avenue to Hildale Street to Utah Avenue create a loop beltway for the community off of SR 389. 6. Major/principle routes in the Town include Mohave Avenue, Central Street, Arizona Avenue, Mohave Avenue, Redwood Street, and Highway SR 389. 7. Arizona Avenue provides direct access to the schools located on the west side of the highway. The crossing of SR 389 at Arizona Avenue is a school route crossing. 8. Township Avenue intersection with SR 389 is low volume as it primarily serves a residential area to the east of the highway and terminates at Short Creek. 9. There have been accidents at the intersection of Richard Street and Arizona Avenue. 10. Arizona Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street has seen accidents as there are entrances (drives) onto Arizona Avenue in those blocks. The street narrows in this segment creating a safety concern. 11. Southbound Central Street approach to Arizona Avenue is on a downhill slope to the intersection. This approach is dangerous in icy winter conditions. 12. Richard Street south of Arizona Avenue – there has been a history of drivers hitting vehicles and objects along the edge of the road for some reason. 13. Sight distance is poor at the intersection of Richard Street and Township Avenue due to fencing at the northeast corner of the intersection. 14. The highway narrows for the bridge over Short Creek on SR 389. The bridge crosses the Short Creek floodway. This route is also Edson Avenue which crosses under the highway bridge in the Short Creek bed. 15. Sidewalks are needed around the Church located along Hildale between University Avenue and Academy Avenue. Tie the Church area to the existing Town sidewalks. Need sidewalks along Academy Avenue. Look at the entire area for sidewalk needs to provide sidewalk connectively. 16. Look at sidewalk situation along Central Street in the vicinity of the Community College at Mohave Avenue. Address any lack of sidewalks in this area so the college has good sidewalk connectivity. Page 130 Final Report 17. There is an unofficial/undocumented access route connecting Homestead Street southward onto Mohave Avenue at the highway creating an unsafe intersection. 18. Need unique street names for streets east of the canal (Canyon Street) so public safety knows specifically where these streets are. These streets extend to the wilderness boundary, so further development is not likely in this area. 19. The drainage control facility (valley drain pan) at Central Street and Airport Road is a dip in the road creating a safety concern for vehicles. 20. Sight lines and visibility at Richard Street and Airport Road is limited due to walls in this area. 21. Township Avenue and Central Street is the central point for street numbering and addressing. 22. Utahmap@utah.gov was used by the Town as the base map for their 911 Dispatch Center GIS system. The Town uses ArcMap 9.1. 23. The access drive onto SR 389 for the liquor store is a safety concern. This drive is located south of Cane Beds Road. 24. The mailboxes located along the highway, as well as the local access drives onto the highway, presents a safety concern at each location. 25. There was a fatal ATV/car accident where an ATV attempted to cross the highway. 26. There is a proposed Mohave County Courts building along the east side of SR 389 between Cane Beds Road and Airport Avenue. This access point also presents a safety concern. 27. The low water street crossings of Short Creek at Hildale Street, Central Street, and Richard Street present a public safety rescue concern as they serve as low head dams with an eddy effect upstream that can trap people. These dams create a churn where drowning can occur. 28. A bridge crossing of Short Creek at Redwood Street is needed. 29. Connect park areas to the community with sidewalks where walks may be missing. 30. There is a high density residential area located west of Central Street south of Township Avenue. 31. Richard Street surface is a flood overflow area where drainage runoff flows on the street downhill from the north into Short Creek. 32. Water runs across Arizona Avenue at the Willow Street and Homestead Street area near the Dairy store. 33. There is drainage across Central Street at Plum Avenue just north of the highway intersection. 34. There is a drainageway across SR 389 near the new Court facility. 35. There is a large drainageway crossing Cane Beds Road east of SR 389 located just west of School Boundary Road. 36. Need jurisdictional (traffic control) signage all over study area including the Town, County and BLM. Page 131 Final Report 37. Frank Barlow makes most of his trips during the course of a typical week to the following locations: the Produce Store located at Richard Street and Township Avenue; the Dairy Store at Arizona Avenue and Juniper Street; the shopping area and fuel station at Central Street and Township Avenue; the Church house along Hildale Street (usually walks to Church); and to work at Town Hall. 38. Frank Barlow commutes for work two to three days a week to St. George. In addition to work, some trips are made to St. George for medical purposes. 39. Frank Barlow identified on a map some land uses in town: a. BLM recreational area to the north of Town on Water Canyon Road for hiking, etc. b. Park located northeast of Maxwell Parkway north of Hildale. c. Medical clinic located at the north end of Hildale Street in Hildale. d. Fire station located at the northeast corner of Hildale Street and Newell Avenue by the Hildale City Hall. e. Fuel station at the northwest corner of UT 59 and Uzona Avenue. f. A zoo and park located along Short Creek east of Central Street extending to the east of Hildale Street. g. Park located along Arizona Avenue between Hammon Street and Central Street. h. Fuel station located at the northwest corner of Central Street and Township Avenue. i. Fire station located south of Township Avenue between Pioneer Street and Pioneer Lane. j. School located on the north side of Township Avenue between Colvin Street and Carling Street. k. Fire station located northeast of the intersection of Township Avenue and Carling Street. l. Medical clinic located at the southeast corner of Township Avenue and Colvin Street. m. Medical clinic located along Central Street between Airport Avenue and Cane Beds Road. n. Three schools located along the south side of Cannon Avenue west of Hammon Street. *** End of Frank Barlow Interview Notes *** Page 132 Final Report Day: Tuesday Date: October 5, 2010 Time: 9:00 am MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Vance Barlow, Town Clerk, Town of Colorado City These notes summarize the comments made and input to the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study by Mr. Vance Barlow, Town Clerk. 1. Improve operational and safety of ingress and egress on and off of SR 389. Add right turn decal and accel lanes where needed. Add left turn lanes where needed. Central Street has a right turn deceleration lane, but Arizona Avenue and Mohave Avenue do not. Right turn lanes are critical to safety on SR 389 to get slowing turning vehicles out of the higher speed through lane. Needed at all intersections with SR 389. 2. The most dangerous intersection is Uzona Avenue at the state line with AZ SR 389 / UT SR 59. There are a number of businesses at this intersection and the Uzona Avenue crossing is skewed to the highway. There is a left turn lane for southbound UT SR 59 traffic onto eastbound Uzona that does not have an opposing left turn lane for northbound to westbound traffic movements. The northbound approach to the intersection is directly at the left turn lane for southbound traffic on the highway which is unsettling. The highway needs to have a center dual left turn lane southerly through Arizona Avenue like there is north of the state line. There are numerous drives onto the highway north of Uzona Avenue and limited drives onto the highway to the south. 3. There is a need for a bridge or a low water crossing over Short Creek for Redwood Street west of the highway. This will become increasingly important as more development occurs west of the highway. The priority of this crossing to the school district is recognized. 4. The improvement of Arizona Avenue between SR 389 and Juniper Street using CDBG funds will complete this critical street improvement. 5. A big drainage culvert is needed at Central Street in the vicinity of Plum Avenue to enable the final segment of Central Street to be completed to the intersection with SR 389. This improvement project is in the WACOG 5-year plan to get the drainage improvement project completed. 6. The curve in Hildale Street between Academy Avenue and Uzona Avenue is to avoid a large archaeological site – an Anasazi Corn Grower’s site along the banks of Short Creek. The City owns a lease on the site. Future development is to make this a public park that is open to the public. 7. The dip street crossings at Hildale Street, Central Street, and Richard Street will likely stay as they are due to the high cost of bridged crossings. 8. The extension of Township Avenue across Short Creek would be nice, but there is a question as to its feasibility due to (1) its high cost, (2) the SR 389 intersection’s proximity to the Highway’s Short Creek Bridge, and (3) the well that would need to be relocated or addressed. 9. CMC, the cooperative grocery store, wants to build a new store. The new store would be located between Maple Street and Highway 389 and between Arizona Avenue and Uzona Avenue. If and when this happens, it would change traffic flows and patterns significantly and will have a major impact on Arizona Avenue and Uzona Avenue. 10. Colorado City’s industrial park area is bounded on the Arizona side by Uzona Avenue on the north, Academy Avenue on the south, Juniper Street on the east and SR 389 on the west. Hildale’s Industrial park area is bounded by Uzona Avenue on the south, Utah Avenue on the north, Maple Street on the East and Mulberry Street on the west. There is potential area for an industrial park on the land around the airport. Page 133 Final Report 11. The corridor around Central Street in Centennial Park is also a business park and its location is along the west side of Central Street between Airport Avenue and Centennial Avenue. 12. Vance Barlow does not see residential development filling in the area on the west side of the highway between Airport Avenue and Short Creek within the 20 year planning period. He sees infill of vacant residential areas in the existing community will occur first followed by infill of vacant residential areas to the north of Utah Avenue in Hildale to occur next; both before vacant tracts are developed outside the existing developed areas of the community. 13. Along South Central Street, the area to the south and east of Mohave Community College may develop residentially. 14. The ownership of most of the real property in the community is held by a land holding trust. The trust overlaps into Hildale. There is another trust (Black Trust) that holds property in the southern area of the community. There are generally eight houses constructed in a typical block. The properties in Centennial Park and Cane Beds are not known to be in a trust and it is believed that most are privately owned parcels and lots. 15. The Black Trust also owns land on the west side of SR 389 that could develop into a business/industrial park. This land is generally located between Airport Avenue on the south, Mohave Avenue on the north and east of Redwood Street. 16. The census bureau reported average household size of approximately 9 per dwelling unit. Vance Barlow felt that this household size might be a little low and could be an underestimate. He indicated the household sizes are large in the community and are more like small extended family/multifamily units. 17. A major flood event occurred in 1982 when 3 inches of rain fell in a 24 hour period. 18. Most accidents are on the highway versus on local Town streets. The Central Street intersection used to be a problem area for crashes to occur, but ADOT improved the intersection with auxiliary turn lanes and that alleviated the accident problem for the most part. The hill crest on the highway to the south of the Central Street intersection still is a bit of an safety issues as it limits sight distance. 19. Priority needs for the community are: a. Improvement of the Uzona Avenue intersection with AZ 389 / UT 59. b. Improvement of the Arizona Avenue intersection with AZ 389 by adding turn lanes. c. Improvement of the Mohave Avenue intersection with AZ 389 to provide for safer on and off turns. 20. Improvement of Township Avenue with a bridge or low water crossing of Short Creek is likely a long ways off and thus its intersection with AZ SR 389 is a lower priority than the three top priorities mentioned above. 21. Arizona Avenue seems like the busiest street in Town to Vance Barlow. 22. Central Street is closed for improvements and is slated to reopen mid-October. 23. Hildale Street could be upgraded by adding curb and gutter. 24. Decisions need to be made to decide the priorities of unimproved surface streets that should be chip sealed. Methods need to be refined to make the hard surfacing improvements as affordable as possible to maximize the streets that can be improved. Chip seal surfaces provide dust abatement and afford less vehicle maintenance due to smoother street surfaces. Page 134 Final Report 25. Uzona Avenue both east and west of AZ 389 / UT 59 is very busy and at times congested. There is a new parts store being built at this intersection that will result in even more traffic on Uzona Avenue and through its intersection with the highway. 26. Vance Barlow makes most of his trips within the community during the course of a normal week to the following locations: a. Commute from home at Uzona Avenue and Willow Street to Colorado City Town Hall. b. Automotive shop in Hildale west of the highway along Uzona Avenue. c. Post office and shopping area in the vicinity of Central Street and Township Avenue. d. Church meeting house at Hildale Street and Academy Avenue. 27. Vance Barlow travels outside the community perhaps 3 to 4 times a week; typically to St George and Hurricane for shopping and medical purposes. They travel to Flagstaff or Phoenix 3 times per month for specialty medical care (insurance requirements cause travel to Arizona locations versus Utah locations). *** End of Vance Barlow Interview Notes *** Page 135 Final Report Day: Tuesday Date: October 5, 2010 Time: 10:00 am MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Brian Zitting, Canaan Peaks Engineering, Hurricane, UT These notes summarize the discussion with and input of Brian Zitting with respect to the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study. Brian owns an engineering firm located in Hurricane, UT and lives in Hildale. He and his firm have completed a number of projects for the Colorado City/Hildale community. 1. There are lots of dirt streets in the community that need to be improved. Economic conditions in Hildale and Colorado City limit the number and timing of streets that can be improved. 2. The community’s dirt road improvement program is based on an inventory of streets. The improvement of unimproved streets in the community generally follows the process outlined: a. The design is completed for the street setting the horizontal and vertical alignments and the geometrics of the street when improved. b. The street surface is then prepared, the base constructed and a double layer of chip seal applied to create a hard surfaced, all-weather street. c. At some point, curb and gutter is then constructed on each side of the chip seal surfacing to control drainage. d. Chip seal surfaced streets typically have a new chip seal application approximately every five years after the original construction. e. The final step includes placing a 2 to 3 inch thick layer of hot mix asphalt between the curb and gutter sections to create a “finished” street. 3. The community does not have typical developers and developments; therefore, street construction and improvement is undertaken by the Town of Colorado City and the City of Hildale on a pay as you go basis. 4. The recent poor economic conditions have stymied growth the past few years. This has given both municipalities a reprieve in terms of the need for new street improvements to keep up with developing areas. 5. Central Street terminates at Utah Avenue with a “Tee” intersection on a curve in Utah Avenue. The intersection has sight distance issues and left turns at this location can be hazardous. A roundabout was proposed at this intersection, but it was determined that this was not the favored solution. Canaan Peaks Engineering has a concept design for reconstruction of the intersection that includes raised islands. Brian Zitting indicated he would provide this conceptual design to the study team for reference in the plan. 6. There is very little traffic control striping in the Town. This Town has limited funds to maintain extensive traffic control markings and striping. However, striping would be a positive safety improvement. 7. There is also minimal street lighting and where it exists, it is low wattage fixtures to keep the operation and maintenance costs low. There is a need for street lights to provide better illumination of key street areas to enhance safety. 8. It would be good to have an overall pedestrian and bicycle route and trail plan to show connectivity to recreational destination points. Page 136 Final Report 9. Central Street has a wide expanse of street surface for pedestrians to walk across. This presents a safety concern due to the width of the street surface as it can take a long time for pedestrians to cross. Curb bulbouts and/or a refuge island in the middle of the street would help. 10. Suggest that center dual left turn lanes be eliminated to improve safety of travel. 11. Mohave Avenue has a wide right of way as does Johnson Avenue. 12. The canal area along the east side of Town would be a good setting for a multiuse trail. 13. Short Creek corridor may also be another good candidate for a multiuse trail. 14. The Town has used transportation enhancement funds in the past to construct sidewalks along the west side of Central Street with benches. 15. The Town applied for a pedestrian underpass of SR 389 at Arizona Avenue but was not awarded a grant to construct it through the Transportation Enhancement Program. Arizona Avenue is the primary route for school children living east of the highway to access the school located on the west side of the highway. School children crossing the highway presents a major safety issue for the community. 16. Bike use in Town has historically used the sidewalks versus the streets. 17. A bike path in the highway right of way would be beneficial, but the community has been told that ADOT does not allow bike paths in state highway right of way. SR 389 has 200 feet of right of way, so there would be room for a multiuse path adjacent to the right of way line. 18. Priority projects for the community include: a. Chip sealing of dirt streets. b. Adding curb and gutter where needed to help control drainage. c. Adding hot mix asphalt to upgrade chip seal surfaces to asphalt surfaces (following curb and gutter installation). d. Adding signage and striping traffic control improvement to enhance safety of travel. 19. Brian Zitting mentioned a concept promoted a number of years ago known as the “Southern Corridor” that would connect St. George / I-15 to US 89 and points east. The segment connecting to Hurricane is the most viable piece of the original concept. There was also a concept proposal for a Lake Powell pipeline that would provide water to the St. George, Hurricane and Cedar City areas. 20. Uzona Avenue goes west to the Town’s sewage lagoons. 21. A bridge is needed over Short Creek on the Redwood Street alignment. 22. Brian Zitting lives in Hildale. Trips made during the course of a typical week include the following destinations: Post Office, grocery store, Hildale City Hall and Colorado City Town Hall, and the Maxwell Parkway and Canyon Street areas for recreational purposes. 23. Since Brian Zitting lives in Hildale, he makes daily trips to his business located in Hurricane. Other travel outside the local community includes monthly trips to St. George and Cedar City for shopping and medical reasons. *** End of Brian Zitting Interview Notes *** Page 137 Final Report Day: Tuesday Date: October 5, 2010 Time: 11:00 am MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Jonathan Roundy, Town Marshall, Town of Colorado City, AZ These notes summarize the comments made and information provided by Mr. Jonathan Roundy, Town Marshall, as input on the development of the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study. 1. The intersection of Uzona Avenue and SR 389/UT 59 is a location that has had major accidents. Utah improved SR 59 by adding a left turn lane for southbound to eastbound traffic, but Arizona did not improve the south side of the intersection to match. The highway is on a diagonal creating a skewed intersection. The number one top priority of the Town Marshall’s office is to improve the intersection to eliminate accidents at this location. 2. Most serious accidents in the community are located on the highway (versus on local streets). 3. The intersection of Town streets with the highway are safety concern areas. There have been fatalities at some of these intersections. At some intersections, there are no right turn lanes on the highway so that vehicles can slow for a right turn outside the high speed travel lane. These intersections need to have right turn lanes installed. 4. Visibility is poor at night at many intersections. There is a need for street lights at major intersections. Note that this would improve safety but is not considered to be a cause of accidents. 5. There is very little traffic control striping and marking on the streets in the community. This would help improve the safety of the streets, but is also not considered to be a cause of accidents. 6. In the winter under slick road conditions, the intersection of Central Street and Arizona Avenue is problematic due to the grades of the intersection approaches. 7. During flooding events, the only all weather crossing of Short Creek is the bridge on highway SR 389. The Richard Street crossing has more capacity than the crossings at Central Street and Hildale Street, so it remains free of flooding longer than the other two locations. 8. There needs to be a bridge crossing of Short Creek at Central Street to provide an all weather crossing to supplement the bridged crossing on SR 389. This would solve the public safety concern of having an alternate crossing during flooding and would minimize the slopes mitigating the vehicle sliding problems. 9. Priorities: (1) Improve the intersection of Central Street and Arizona Avenue including a bridge over Short Creek; (2) Improve the intersection of Uzona Avenue and SR 389/UT 59 by providing all needed turn lanes; and (3) Improve the safety of intersections along SR 389 by adding right turn lanes where needed. 10. There needs to be a pedestrian crossing of the highway at Arizona Avenue due to the school located west of the highway and many of the students living on the east side of the highway. 11. There is a need for a bridge over Short Creek at Redwood Street. 12. Hildale Street on the east side of Town was constructed and opened 5 to 6 years ago. 13. The streets in Hildale, UT are generally in worse condition than the streets in Colorado City, AZ. 14. The accident records of the Town Marshall show the following: a. 2007 46 accidents b. 2008 58 accidents Page 138 Final Report c. 2009 37 accidents d. 2010 43 accidents 15. The Town is in need of a traffic control device inventory that shows the location and nature all signs, pavement markings, speed limits, etc. 16. Improvements needed include turn lanes, street lights at intersections, lane markings, striping, cross walk markings, painting, etc. 17. Mr. Jonathan Roundy provided his notes on the questionnaire form that are summarized below: a. High accident locations are at UT 59 & Uzona Avenue and at SR 389 & Central Street. b. School crossing of the highway needed at Arizona Avenue. c. Priority transportation projects include providing adequate east-west and north-south major streets and mitigating street flooding. 18. Trips made within the community during the course of a typical week include commuting from home on the south side of the community to Town Hall for work; trips to the northwest side of Town to the school; to the Dairy Store on Arizona Avenue at Juniper Street; trips to the grocery store at the northeast corner of Central Street and Township Avenue; and to the north side of town into Hildale usually via Richard Street. 19. Travel outside of the local community occurs around once a week, usually to St. George and Hurricane primarily for shopping and medical purposes. *** End of Jonathan Roundy Interview Notes *** Page 139 Final Report Day: Tuesday Date: October 5, 2010 Time: 12:00 pm MST Location: Town Hall, Colorado City, AZ Person Interviewed: Jake Barlow, Fire Chief, Town of Colorado City Fire Department, AZ These notes summarize the comments made and information provided by Mr. Jake Barlow, Fire Chief, regarding the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study. 1. The layout of the street system (grid), traffic patterns, and the street widths are generally good. 2. The Town has a program in place to make all the streets all-weather. 3. Provide sidewalks where missing and include planter strips between the sidewalks and edge of street. The objective is to get pedestrians (and bicycles) separated from traffic and to provide appropriate safety measures where pedestrians and cars interface. 4. Some of the roads need delineation of road edges. The fire department has large trucks with low undercarriages and these vehicles need good roadway surfaces to drive on. 5. The design of waterways across streets and handling of drainage runoff on streets is very important. 6. Good design of access drive connections to properties is also important. 7. In the transportation master plan, if a street carries lots of water or if it has grade differentials, how wide does the street need to be to carry the water and what is needed for good transition to access properties? 8. Fire station locations: a. At Pioneer Street and Township Avenue. b. At Hildale Street and Newel Avenue just East of the Hildale City Hall. c. Training station on Township Avenue at Carling Street. 9. The Colorado City Fire District is approximately 15 miles by 15 miles and extends 7 miles to the west to BLM lands. 10. The fire department needs a fire station on the west side of SR 389 between Airport Avenue and Cane Beds Road in the vicinity of Wilkins Avenue. 11. The fire department is all volunteer firefighters with no full time staff at this time. 12. In Centennial Park, would like to see Wilkins Avenue extended east to the highway to provide direct access from Centennial Park to the highway. 13. There is a need for a future fire station in the Hildale Industrial Park area located in the vicinity of UT 59 north of the state line. 14. Bike/pedestrian facilities are needed at Arizona Avenue and SR 389 since this is a route to the school on the west side of the highway. There needs to be a walkway crossing over or under the highway. 15. There have been pedestrian and vehicle accidents at Uzona Avenue and the highway. Since this is the Arizona-Utah state line, people stop to take pictures. There needs to be a place (turnouts) for people/tourists to pull off the road to take pictures. 16. The intersection of Mohave Avenue and SR 389 is a busy intersection. Page 140 Final Report 17. There is a need for a bridge or low water crossing of Short Creek for Township Avenue. This would make improved access into Town. 18. Improve the roads to a safer condition where needed. 19. There was a fatality recently where a person was thrown from the bed of a pickup when the driver swerved to avoid an obstruction in the roadway. The obstruction was a manhole top that was higher than the adjacent street surface presenting a bump. Valley drains and raised manholes are safety hazards present in the streets in certain areas. Would like to see a program (road safety audit) to identify obstructions and obstacles and a plan to eliminate or mitigate these road hazards. 20. Priority projects are needed to alleviate traffic at all intersections with SR 389 and to provide a crossing of Short Creek at Redwood Street; the latter would improve access to the airport and to the Arizona Strip. 21. Would like to see Mohave County improve and chip seal Rosy Canyon Road – this is important to the Fire Department since it is in their response area. 22. Would like to see Mohave County improve Lost Springs Road between SR 389 and Redwood Street. 23. 3200 South needs to be connected between School Boundary Road and 1900 East so it is continuous between SR 389 and Yellowstone Road. 24. Factors that affect the number and severity (serious and fatal) crashes include the traffic volume. There is considerably more traffic on UT 59 north of the state line versus SR 389 in Arizona. UT 59 also has more crown and when it gets icy, vehicles can slide off the road. ADOT uses rumble strips on the road edges and in the center of the road and that saves lives. The roads construction, design and the volume of traffic all seem to correlate to the number and severity of accidents. 25. Most of the trips made by Jake Barlow during the course of a typical week is the commute from home to work and on the major routes in the community including Richard Street, Arizona Avenue, and Hildale Street. His job as Fire Chief requires him to travel all over the community on a regular basis. 26. Travel outside the local community occurs typically more than once a week usually for business related activities to Phoenix, St. George and to Kingman via St. George. *** End of Jake Barlow Interview Notes *** Page 141 Final Report Day: Tuesday Date: October 5, 2010 Time: 2:00 pm MST Person Interviewed: Charles Hammon, Excel Engineering Location: via email Charles Hammon is the principal and owner of a local engineering firm based in Centennial Park. He has provided professional services to the Town and the School District and is familiar with the community and its transportation system. Mr. Hammon was unable to attend the interview meeting, but did provide comments and information in response to the interview questions posed. His responses are as follows: 1. Are there any specific areas of the street system that you feel should be improved? If so, what type of improvements do you feel are needed. It will greatly benefit the residents of Centennial Park and especially the school if Redwood Road crossed the Creek. Airport Avenue connects to SR 389. The highway desperately needs turn lanes at this location. 2. Are you aware of any locations where accidents or lots of near misses have occurred? Airport Avenue connects to SR 389 and is the main entrance to Centennial Park. I have seen many near misses as cars attempt to turn right into Centennial and a line of cars blast past them in the other lane. There is no right turn lane to safely get out of traffic and have time to slow down in time to make the turn. Redwood Road runs north and eventually makes a sweeping bend to the east. That sweeping bend is a location of many near misses. People travel at high speeds around that turn and have limited visibility to the oncoming traffic. If Redwood crossed the creek this area would become a 3-way intersection. 3. Are there any new streets, pedestrian ways, bike ways or transit services you feel are needed? Bike and pedestrian ways haven’t been explored much in our community. I feel ATV traffic is more prevalent than bike and pedestrian ways. ATV routes would be a great way to get people safely to the Creek and other popular ATV destinations. 4. What do you believe should be the top priority transportation projects for the community? 1- Highway 389 needs turn lanes at the entrance to Centennial Park. Highway traffic has increased and Centennial Park is continually growing. 2- Redwood Road needs a Creek Crossing. 3- Utah Avenue needs rehabilitated and possible shoulder improvements. 5. Do you have any suggestions for new funding sources for transportation improvements? I don’t know, but perhaps Rural Development has funding for community development. 6. Where do you make most of your trips during the course of a typical week? My trips are primarily from Centennial Park, via Airport Avenue, to SR 389 and then to Hildale where I work. Another frequent trip is from Centennial Park, SR 389, and then Central Street to the grocery and hardware store. 7. How often do you travel outside the Colorado City / Hildale Area? >_1/week ____ 1/week _X___ Every 2 weeks ____ Every month ____ Rarely ____ Page 142 Final Report 8. What are the primary reasons for this travel? Work Commute ______ Shopping __X____ Medical ______ Commercial Aviation _____ & Destination _________________ Recreational __X____ Other ________________ 9. Where are the principal destinations? St. George ___X_____ Flagstaff _________ Hurricane ____X_____ Phoenix ________ Kanab ________ Las Vegas ________ Page _________ Other _____________ 10. Is there anything else you think we should know or be aware of? Cane Beds Road follows the south section line of section 17 and 18, just south of Centennial Park. It amazes me how much traffic uses that road. *** End of Charles Hammon Interview Notes *** Page 143 Final Report Day: Wednesday Date: October 6, 2010 Time: 10:00 am MDT Person Interviewed: Laurie Ford & Lorraine Christian, BLM Location: BLM Offices, St. George, UT These notes summarize the comments made and information provided as input to the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study during our meeting at the Arizona Strip Field Office of BLM in St. George, UT. 1. It was requested that we add Shered Mullins, Realty Specialist, BLM, St. George Field Office, to our stakeholder list. His email address is: shered_mullins@blm.gov. This individual is in addition to Laurie Ford (who is also on the study’s TAC) and Lorraine Christian. 2. Laurie Ford provided three maps denoting BLM property in the vicinity of the study area for the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study. The yellow highlighted tracts represent BLM land. 3. One half of Rosy Canyon Road is on BLM land is situated on BLM land. Mohave County has right of way for Rosy Canyon Road and is responsible for maintenance of the public road on the BLM land. Mohave County right of way for Rosy Canyon Road is reported to be 84 feet in width. 4. On BLM land, if there is any proposed widening, straightening or improvements proposed to the roadway outside of the existing traveled surface area, BLM requires an environmental survey (both cultural and biological) to be done and provided to BLM as a first step towards possible BLM permitting of the proposed improvements. 5. No cultural inventory of the Rosy Canyon Road right of way has been done by Mohave County, although there are lots of cultural resources known to be in the area. Any proposed project to improve Rosy Canyon Road on BLM land (or any other road on BLM land) must include the cost to conduct an environmental survey for cultural and biological resources as it will be a mandatory requirement of BLM. 6. BLM is in the process of doing a road survey and inventory for their property in the Arizona Strip. Many of the locally used roads and trails will be closed to vehicular use. None of the roads that may be closed are legal roads for public access. They are locally used trails and roads that exist by usage only. 7. If the Town would like to see some of the locally used roads remain available to the public for access to resources on BLM property for recreational use, the Town can identify such roads and make a request to BLM. If approved, BLM can grant a right of way for a multiuse trail or a road. 8. As noted for Rosy Canyon Road, any road that is requested to become a legal access road by BLM granted right of way must have an associated cultural and biological survey completed and provided as part of the process to acquire the desired road (or trail) right of way. The contracting of the environmental assessment (EA) to a consultant and the cost of the EA is borne be the applicant. 9. The Town’s water tank is located on BLM property. 10. A current issue is an area that is being used as a shooting range by local area residents. This is not a permitted use. BLM requires authorization of recreational and related uses of BLM land. 11. Lost Spring Road is shown as Mt. Trumbull (Mohave County Road) 5 on the BLM map and is the extension of Cane Beds Road to the west of SR 389. Some of this road is located either half or entirely on BLM land in the area south of the airport. The west half of Redwood Street to the east of the airport is also located on BLM land. The County and/or Town would need to verify if they hold legal right of way for the roads or if legal right of way is needed prior to undertaking any plans to improve these roads. The requirement for an environmental assessment applies to these roads as well. Page 144 Final Report 12. There are some popular camping and recreational areas used by the local community in the Cottonwood Canyon and Rosy Canyon areas. If these locations are important to the local community, the Town and/or the County should apply for legal access rights to preserve the areas for recreational use with the BLM. BLM could then grant an easement or right of way for such access and use. 13. The BLM, as part of this study, may want to see a few roads providing access to BLM land opened as a public road legal right of way if no such right of way already exists. Several locations that may be candidates are circled on the first map providing a connection from SR 347 to BLM land to the east. *** End of BLM Interview Notes *** Page 145 Final Report Page 146 Final Report Page 147 Final Report Page 148 Final Report Day: Wednesday Date: October 6, 2010 Time: 3:00 pm MST Location: Mohave County, Kingman, AZ Person Interviewed: Steven P. Latoski, PE/PTOE, Public Works Director, Mohave County Public Works These notes summarize the comments made and information provided as related to the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study. 1. Rosy Canyon Road is not in Mohave County’s five year program for any improvements. Mohave maintains the road status quo (as is). 2. Roads and streets in Mohave County can be found on the County’s web site in the interactive GIS mapping area. County maintained roads are shown in the GIS mapping in orange. 3. An entity or a group of landowners can make a request for Mohave County to maintain a roadway by petition to the Mohave County Board of Supervisors. 4. For the County to approve a petition to accept a roadway for maintenance through the petition process, it will need to be improved to County road standards and right-of-way perfected to County standards. When improved and accepted by the County, the County then assumes maintenance of the road and right of way. 5. A site plan was provided for the Mohave County Sheriff’s substation and Court facility located on the east side of SR 389 between Cane Beds Road and Airport Avenue. A copy of this site plan is included on the page following these interview notes. 6. Mohave County has been made aware of the “Southern Corridor”. The Southern Corridor is a concept, but to the knowledge of the County, the corridor has not progressed any further than that. 7. Regarding the proposal to extend 3200 south to connect between School Boundary Road and 1900 East; there are two ways that this can occur. a. The private land owners of the proposed road right of way can offer to dedicate the proposed right of way per County standards to the County. The County Board of Supervisors would then need to accept the right of way. The land owners would then need to petition the County and improve the road to County standards for the county to accept the road and its maintenance. The road could be improved through an improvement district with the cost of improvement assessed to the abutting properties. b. The second method is to request the County to acquire the road. The Board of Supervisors would need to designate the road as a County highway. Then the County would need to acquire the right of way and improve the road. Note, since this method involves the County improving the road, a good case justifying a regional need and County thoroughfare would need to be made to justify the action. 8. Mohave County is interested in seeing the current traffic volumes and the forecasted travel demand and traffic volumes for roads that are under County jurisdiction. 9. For the County to decide to improve a county road (e.g. Rosy Canyon Road and/or Lost Spring Road), the County will look at : a. Whether the road serves a regional need versus a local need, b. The accident history as it may relate to roadway surfacing and conditions, c. The cost of maintaining an improved road compared to the unimproved road, d. A minimum threshold of traffic volume, e. And other significant criteria that may be applicable to the roadway being considered. Page 149 Final Report 10. County roadway design standards are available for review on the County’s web site. 11. Mohave County is focused at this time on maintaining county roads in and around the Colorado City area. Generally, they are not in a position to build capacity improvements. Of primary importance is the cost effectiveness of maintaining the existing road surfacing. If a less expensive option is available, they will consider this on its merits. *** End of Steven Latoski Interview Notes *** Page 150 Final Report Page 151 Final Report Day: Wednesday Date: October 6, 2010 Time: 4:00 pm MST Location: Mohave County, Kingman, AZ Person Interviewed: Nicholas Hont, Karl Taylor & Christine Ballard, Mohave County Development Services These notes document and summarize the comments and information provided by representatives of Mohave County Development Services regarding their input on the Town of Colorado City Transportation Study. 1. It is highly recommended that the study team visit with Steven Latoski, Public Works Director, Mohave County, since Public Works has direct charge of the county road system. It was confirmed that a meeting with Mr. Latoski was complete immediately prior to this meeting. 2. Engineering is currently being conducted regarding floodplain mapping in the Colorado City vicinity. Surveys are being conducted to better delineate the floodplains. The Town has issues with the floodplain mapping and wants better mapping to define the limits of floodplains. DFIRM maps are available on-line. 3. Refer to the on-line County GIS mapping to view parcel maps in the area that show county road rights of way. There are TIF map files contained in the options area that may be of use as well (Assessor’s Office cartography). These maps also show lot split activities and right of way access to properties. 4. The County’s land use map/plan is also available for viewing and download on-line. This map is current. 5. Documents the study team should obtain and review include: a. DFIRM maps b. General Plan c. Zoning Maps d. TIF Maps showing county road rights of way e. Land Use Maps (contained in the General Plan) 6. Karl Taylor, Planning Manager, provided a printed copy of the Mohave County General Plan. A copy of the document cover is contained on the next page for reference purposes. *** End of Mohave County Development Services Interview Notes *** Page 152 Final Report Page 153 Final Report November 4, 2010 Dale E. Miller, PE, RLS Associate in Charge - Arizona Wilbur Smith Associates 1475 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 480 Scottsdale, AZ 85257 RE: Stakeholder Interview Notes Dear Mr. Miller: Instead of duplicating a lot of the questionnaires, I thought I would clarify or expand on some of the other stakeholder discussions for my viewpoint: Carole Timpson: Note 7 & 9: As we discussed already, the Lost Springs Road (2400 South) referred to by Carole Timpson as the Mount Trumbull Road is supposed to be Cane Beds Road. The road east of SR-389 has always been called Cane Beds Road and west of SR-389 in the past it was called Lost Springs Road, however, our 9-1-1 dispatch center and emergency responders had frequent mis-communications due to the “west side” versus “east side” and in conjunction with the Mohave County addressing coordinator, the road is now being called Cane Beds Road, east and west – in place of Lost Springs Road. Note 15: The Town does have a fence height ordinance for intersections that is enforced. The code is as follows: § 150.37 CORNER LOT HEIGHT RESTRICTION. (A) No solid fences or walls above 4 feet shall be built on any corner lot within a triangular area formed by the street property lines and a connecting line at points 25 feet from the intersection. Page 154 Final Report (B) The Building Official may require additional height restrictions or modifications demonstrated to be in the best interest of public safety. (Ord. 2007-4, passed 7-16-2007) Dan Barlow, Sr: Note 5: The planned CDBG street improvement project is tentatively scheduled for construction in August. Note 6: I would characterize the “major drainageway” as a “secondary wash”. Note 12: The potential Redwood Street crossing warrants a field visit as to analyze bridge versus low flow crossing. The costs associated with each should also be evaluated. Note 16: The private school on Garden Avenue is between Barlow Street (300 West) and Hammon Street (200 West). Note that north of Arizona Avenue 300 West is Lauritzen Street and south of Arizona Avenue it is Barlow Street. Note 17: Extend Township Avenue from Richard Street (400 West) to Homestead Street (500 West) through Short Creek. This would require a low flow crossing. This would enable commercial traffic from SR 389 direct access into downtown Colorado City which would reduce commercial traffic in residential areas. Note 20: Future development is also expected west of SR-389 along Mohave Avenue and Arizona Avenue. Note 23: The Utah Avenue/Central Street Intersection has some very unique problems including angled right-of-ways which create sight problems, very steep rocky outcropping and Federal BLM land encroaching. Note 28: Options to facilitate traffic entering onto Hildale Street from Academy Avenue and from the adjacent parking lots would be valuable, such as widening Hildale Street to two lanes heading north to Utah Avenue, or maybe just an acceleration lane that merges? Note 29: Sidewalks from the LSJ Meeting House at Hildale Street and University Avenue south along Hildale Street to the Isaac Carling Memorial Cemetery to accommodate foot traffic. Other areas of focus for sidewalks include Edson Avenue south of the Post Office from Central Street to Richard Street and Cooke Avenue from Central Street east to the Zoo. (of course many more) Note 31: All four sides of the school facilities already have sidewalks. Note 45 (d): The Township Avenue crossing would be a higher priority than the Redwood Street crossing. Page 155 Final Report John Barlow: Note 8: I would have to add Arizona Avenue and Utah Avenue. Note 14: Flood control improvements should continue along Willow Street south from Arizona Avenue and Warren Avenue west from Central Street. Also note that Carling Street (200 East) from 100 North in Hildale to 500 North in Colorado City collects significant storm water drainage and should also be identified as a high priority for improvements. Frank Barlow: Note 15: Hildale Street from university Avenue north to Utah Avenue has a lot of pedestrian traffic and sidewalks would be a significant safety and accessibility consideration. Note 39n: There is not a Canyon Avenue west of Hammon Street. Canyon Street is 500 East. Vance Barlow: Note 2: The intersection at Uzona Avenue and SR-389 at the state line is in a commercial area with expanding development and greater highway traffic entering and exiting at the intersection. The intersection is designed with off-angle approaches which creates a safety hazard. A mitigating factor could be the installation of traffic lights and turn lanes. Note 9: See note 2 above. Note 21: The Township crossing to connect to SR 389 would directly relieve significant Arizona Avenue traffic through residential areas. Note 25: See note 2 above. Brian Zitting: Note 3: There have been some offers to Subdivide with development, but not any that have come to fruition. There has also been mini-development such as commercial sites and larger residential homes where private individuals have funded the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Both cities have relatively new subdivision ordinances that would require street improvements for new subdivisions. Note 6: The Town has been awarded safety grants totaling $75,000 for signage and striping to focus on the major streets such as Central Street, Arizona Avenue and Richard Street. The projects are planned to be completed by mid 2011. Also, due to the large amount of blowing sand, painted striping does not last very long on the street surfaces. Town staff usually re-paints crosswalks and center striping on major intersections on an annual basis. Page 156 Final Report Note 8: A potential bicycle/pedestrian route would be along the north side of Short Creek along a low flood control dike from Utah Avenue at Canyon Street, then crosses Hildale Street just north of the creek crossing heading west along the south side of the ZOO to a pedestrian bridge that connects the Zoo on the north side of the creek to the Cottonwood Park on the south side of the creek. From the park, the installed sidewalk system ties directly into the down-town services. The route could be expanded to the north to access the Maxwell Park and Water Canyon areas, and to the east to connect to the flood control dike near the reservoirs. Jake Barlow Note 19: I was unable to see an obstruction in the roadway. The manhole cover appeared flush with the asphalt to me. This was near Arizona Avenue and Homestead Street. The Town is implementing a pavement preservation program that also includes assessments of each street that is recorded and inventoried. These assessments include identifying safety hazards. Note 22: Note that Lost Springs Road is really Cane Beds Road. Charles Hammon: Note 10: Cane Beds Road south of Centennial Park heading west is an access for the entire Arizona Strip. Clayhole Road (also known as Mount Trumbull Road) intersects Cane Beds Road (formerly Lost Springs) heading south to Mount Trumbull and the Grand Canyon Toroweep overlook, as well as other connecting roads to other points of interest. Many cattle ranchers, recreationalists and tourists use this access. Laurie Ford, BLM: Note 7: The Town is interested in identifying roads and trails that are used locally to request that public access remain open. Note 10: The Town Manager has no knowledge of the referenced shooting range. Note 11: It would be beneficial to accurately identify the ownership. The Town is interested in identifying the exact property that Redwood Street is located on south of Airport Avenue as this is a regionally important connector street. Note 12: The Town is interested in maintaining the public access to some of the identified points of interest, such as the Little Sand Dunes and adjacent spring in Cottonwood Canyon. Page 157 Final Report Also refer to my notes from the June 11, 2010 email which included the following: What are the top three outcomes you would like to see come from this study? 1. The Town would like to be able to update functional classification of roads. 2. Project the needs for traffic impacts such as main access from state highway, collector streets, etc for the local region. 3. Maps, street details, cross sections and data would be helpful after the study is complete to assist with ongoing planning and future general plan updates. *** End of David Darger Provided Notes *** Page 158 Final Report Appendix 2 – Reference Documents 1. Colorado City Transportation Study, Town of Colorado City, 1993 2. Colorado City General Plan, Town of Colorado City, 2002 3. Colorado City Airport Master Plan, Town of Colorado City, 2008 4. Mohave County General Plan, Mohave County, Az, 2005 5. Eastern Washington County Transportation Study, UDOT, 2008 6. 2007-2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2007 7. Wilderness Management Plan for Cottonwood Point Wilderness, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1991 8. Old Spanish Trail Map and Information, Bureau of Land Management, no date given 9. California Condor Reintroduction and Status, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2009 10. Road Safety Assessment, SR 389, Milepost 30 to 31, ADOT, 2010 11. ALISS Database Crash Data for Town of Colorado City and surrounding area, ADOT, 2005-2010 12. SR 389 bridge sufficiency ratings, ADOT, 2010 13. Traffic Projections for 2028 for SR 389, ADOT, 2008 14. Population Projections for Study Area, States of Arizona and Utah, 2008 15. Population Projections for Hildale, Utah, Five County Association of Governments, 2009 16. Community Profile for Colorado City, Arizona Department of Commerce, 2009 17. Economy of Colorado City, Arizona Department of Commerce, 2008 18. 2000 Census Data, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 19. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009 Page 159 Final Report Appendix 3 – FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Page 160 Final Report Page 161 Final Report Page 162 Final Report Page 163 Final Report Page 164 Final Report Page 165 Final Report Appendix 4 –Public Open House 1 Summary Page 166 Final Report Page 167 Final Report Page 168 Final Report Page 169 Final Report Page 170 Final Report Appendix 5 Public Open House 2 Summary Meeting date: Monday, April 4, 2011 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. (MDT) Meeting Location: Colorado City Town Hall, 25 S. Central Street, Colorado City AZ 86021 Participants: 13 community members signed in at the meeting Project Overview The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is working with the Town of Colorado City to develop a transportation plan. The plan will recommend improvements to the existing transportation system, identify new infrastructure needs, and propose new multimodal facilities. Multimodal facilities incorporate various modes of transportation into one system; such as driving vehicles, bicycling, walking, and riding public transportation. With a Plan in place, the town and regional planners will have a tool to meet future transportation needs. The community’s input is essential to the study results to help refine the recommended improvement projects. The first of two public open houses was held on Monday, December 20, at the Town of Colorado City Town Hall. Project team members presented information on existing transportation issues, projected and existing traffic volumes, historical crash locations, and projected growth within and surrounding Colorado City. Participants were asked to provide comments on transportation issues and suggested solutions. The second and final public open house for the study was held Monday, April 4, 2011. Project team members presented recommended projects produced from the study to date. Participants were informed that funding had not yet been identified to implement the projects and that available funding, if any, is limited. Following the presentation, attendees were asked to participate in an activity to prioritize projects into short- (5 year), mid- (10 year), or long-term (20 year) time frames. The study team will use the comments provided from the community to help develop improvement projects. A second open house will be scheduled to present these projects. Public Meeting Notification Efforts were made to notify residents within the communities of Colorado City, Hildale, Cane Beds, and Centennial. Study team members developed a notification postcard which was mailed to approximately 4,000 to residents and businesses. Additionally, a poster was developed and provided to the Town to post in highly visible locations. Notification materials can be found in Appendix A: Publicity Public Meeting Overview ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Project Manager, Justin Feek welcomed and thanked participants for attending, provided a brief overview of the Planning Assistance for Rural Areas (PARA) program, and explained the study objectives and timeline. Randy Overmyer, Project Manager with Wilbur Smith continued the presentation by providing an overview of the Study’s progress to date, explained functionally classified roadways, and presented recommended improvement projects. At the conclusion of the presentation, the floor was opened for discussion and participant asked the project team questions which are summarized on page 2. Materials from the meeting can be found in Appendix B: Meeting Materials. Page 171 Final Report Following the meeting, participants were asked to partake in an activity to prioritize the improvement projects identified through this draft plan. Participants were provided colored dots and asked to place their dot next to a project in one of the three timeframes, short-, medium- or long-range. A summary of the activity can be found on pages 3 through 5. Open Discussion Questions and Answers: Q: What if the community opposes the proposed projects? A: The community is encouraged to provide their comments in writing to be included in the study documentation, including their opinions on improvement projects. At this time there is no funding identified for the recommended improvement projects. This is a transportation plan that will allow the Town to pursue future funding opportunities. There is no timeline for construction for any of the improvement projects presented. Q: Why is Cane Beds included in the study? A: The Town of Colorado City included Cane Beds, Hildale, and Centennial Park in the study because all affect the traffic traveling to and from the Town. It was essential to include the surrounding areas to develop a more accurate transportation plan. It also is a benefit to the surrounding communities because they would not need to conduct another study. Q: Will these projects increase taxes? A: Taxes would be assessed by Mohave County (not represented at the meeting). No tax increases are anticipated at this time. This study will develop a transportation plan to allow the Town to pursue funding opportunities that may not include tax increases. Q: What if someone is opposed to a roadway through 3200 to Yellowstone? A: The most logical place for this project would be on a section line, which would not require right-of-way from the property owner. Q: Does a new road on 3200 to Yellowstone address a functional purpose? A: This project was recommended by both emergency services and the school district. However, the project is located within Mohave County and they would be the ones who would need to pursue it. They do not need to follow the recommendation made here; however, if they choose to do so they would need to conduct environmental and design studies and acquire any necessary right-of-way. Q: What percentage would the federal government provide for these improvement projects? A: The amount of federal funding varies between states and is based on a formula used which calculates the percentage of federal land within the state. Arizona is 83% federal land, therefore the federal government typically provides 94% funding for surface transportation projects. Q: What is an improvement district? Page 172 Final Report A: An improvement district is a method in which property owners share the cost of infrastructure improvements. The property owners would need to vote for or against the improvement district. In order for the improvement district to pass, it would need 60% approval from property owners. Prioritization Activity Summary The following summarizes the prioritization activity following the open house presentation. The projects identified below had the highest number of participant selections within the respective category (short-, medium-, or long-range). There were several projects in which there were one or less prioritization selections. A complete matrix showing all projects can be found in Appendix C: Prioritization Summary. Prioritization Project Number 21 Short-Range Prioritization 2 31 9 Medium-Range Prioritization 23 30 4 Long-Range Prioritization 11 16 18 20 Location (Description) Hildale Street from Mohave Avenue to Uzona Avenue (Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Projects) Township Avenue at Short Creek (Bridge) Widening of SR 389 from Uzona Avenue to Arizona Avenue (Roadway Widening) Uzona Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street (Paving) Uzona Avenue from Redwood Street to Richard Street (Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk) Widening of SR 389 from Uzona Avenue to Airport Avenue (Roadway Widening) Central Street at Short Creek (Bridge) Arizona Avenue from SR 389 to Elm Street (Paving and Widening) Cane Beds Road from Redwood Street to Rosy Canyon Road (Paving) School Boundary Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South (Paving) Rosy Canyon Road from Number of Dots 4 3 3 4 2 Page 173 Final Report Cane Beds Road to Utah State Line (Paving) Comments Received in Writing on Comment Forms Participants were given a comment form as they signed in. Below are comments received on the comment forms. 1. What are the top transportation problems/needs in the community that you think need to be addressed? • I feel the roadways are adequate as current form to meet the needs of its citizenry. With the exception of the highway to highway 89 through the Coral Pink Sand Dune-Utah State Park. However, that is Utah’s need not Arizona’s. 2. Do you think the proposed improvement projects address the transportation problems/needs of the community? If not, what improvement projects should be added or removed to better address the problems/needs? • I believe we should allow the community members to address the needs of their own roads by their own sources of funding, without the taxation of others and without the aid of any federal funding. 3. Do you have any additional comments? • I appreciate the ability for us to contact and work with those who are overseeing projects such as these so that we have an input of our concerns that affect our surroundings. Thank you. Page 174 Final Report Prioritization Summary Project Location Project No. Project Description ShortRange (5 years) Priority MediumRange (10 Years) LongRange (25 Years) Structural Projects 1 Redwood Street at Short Creek Bridge 1 1 0 2 Township Avenue at Short Creek Bridge 3 2 0 3 Academy Avenue at Short Creek Bridge 2 1 0 4 Central Street at Short Creek Box Culvert 0 0 2 0 0 1 6 Redwood Street from Mohave Avenue to Township Avenue Paving 0 0 0 7 Redwood Street from Airport Avenue to Cane Beds Road Paving 0 1 1 8 Township Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street New Roadway 2 2 0 9 Uzona Avenue from SR 389 to Richard Street Paving 0 3 1 10 Central Street from Cherry Avenue to SR 389 Paving and Drainage Improvements 2 0 0 11 Arizona Avenue from SR 389 to Elm Street Paving and Widening 1 0 2 Hildale Street at Short Creek 5 Box Culvert Roadway and Intersection Improvements Roadway Improvement Projects Page 175 Final Report 12 Edson Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Paving 1 1 1 13 Cooke Avenue from Central Street to Hildale Street Paving 0 2 0 14 Uzona Avenue to SR 389 Realignment to Highway 0 1 0 15 Water Canyon Road Widening and Chip Seal 0 0 0 16 Cane Beds Road from Redwood Street to Rosy Canyon Road Paving 0 1 2 17 3200 South from SR 389 to Yellowstone Road Paving 1 0 0 18 School Boundary Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Paving 0 0 2 19 Yellowstone Road from Cane Beds Road to 3200 South Paving and Extension 2 0 0 2 2 2 Rosy Canyon Road from Cane Beds Road to Utah State Line Paving Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Projects 20 21 Hildale Street from Mohave Avenue to Uzona Avenue Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 4 0 0 22 Arizona Avenue from Cottonwood Street to Juniper Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 0 0 0 23 Uzona Avenue from Redwood Street to Richard Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 0 3 1 24 School Area (University, Academy, Colvin and Carling) Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 2 0 0 25 Church Area (University, Academy, Carling and Hildale) 2 0 0 Page 176 Final Report Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 26 Edson Avenue from Richard Street to Central Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 1 0 0 27 Cooke Avenue from Central Street to Hildale Street Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk 1 2 0 0 1 0 Redwood Street from Uzona Avenue to Arizona Avenue Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk State Highway Projects 28 29 Widening of SR 50 from Utah Avenue to Uzona Avenue Roadway Widening 0 0 1 30 Widening of SR 389 from Uzona Avenue to Airport Avenue Roadway Widening 0 0 4 31 SR 389 Intersection from Utah Avenue to Yellowstone Road Intersection Improvements (left and right turn lanes) 3 0 0 32 SR 389 near Arizona Avenue Grade Separated Pedestrian Crossing 0 0 0 Page 177 Final Report Appendix 6 Application Drafts for Revised Functional Classification for Submittal to WACOG Page 178 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Academy Avenue, Town of Colorado City, AZ Length: .83 mile Limits (termini): Richard Street to Hildale Street Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): 1500 (estimate from model) 11/17/2010____ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. Academy Avenue traverses the community in an east/west direction connecting Hildale Street to Richard Street and ultimately to Arizona Avenue (functionally classified as a major collector) and SR 389. Academy Avenue serves a major local church as well as the Mohave County Health office. Academy Avenue also crosses Short Creek and is an important alternative route during flooding events. Due to larger than average household size in the area, streets through residential areas have higher than usual number of home based trips, and significant pedestrian and bicycle activity. Page 179 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Airport Avenue, Town of Colorado City AZ Length: 1.85 miles Limits (termini): Redwood Street to SR 389 Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): _1600__________11/17/2010__________ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This is the only access to the airport from SR 389. The airport provides general aviation services as well and emergency services and medical transport. The roadway is also the primary access to the Centennial Park neighborhood, Masada Charter School, and a small business complex with medical offices along Central Street to the south. The school enrollment is 402 students, plus staff. There is no bus service to this school, increasing bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Page 180 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Arizona Avenue, Town of Colorado City AZ Length: .3 mile Limits (termini): SR 389 to Redwood Street Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): _670_____11/17/2010_____ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. Arizona Avenue is currently classified as a Major Collector east of SR 389. This segment west of SR 389 connects to the Colorado City Unified School District K-12 El Capitan School. The school has over 450 students and is served by school buses bringing in students from more remote locations. While the volumes are low, they are clustered in the a.m. peak period, sometimes resulting in conflicts between school traffic on Arizona Avenue and through traffic on SR 389. Page 181 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Cane Beds Road, Mohave County, AZ Length: 7 miles Limits (termini): Redwood Street to Rosy Canyon Road Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Roadway Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): ___640_________11/17/2010________________ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This roadway extends to the west to the Mt. Trumball Road, connecting to a large portion of the Arizona Strip. Although the volumes are low, it provides one of the few access corridors to a vast area to the west. East of SR 389, it extends to Rosy Canyon Road, which crosses into Utah and connects to US 89 near Kanab. This is used as a regional bypass route. Also east of SR 389, it connects to Yellowstone Road, a north/south route providing access into the Cane Beds Community and south to SR 389. Page 182 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Central Street, Town of Colorado City, AZ Length: .25 mile Limits (termini): Uzona Avenue (state border) to Arizona Avenue Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): __1860_____________11/17/2010___ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. Central Street from Arizona Avenue to SR 389 is currently classified as a major collector. It serves the central business district and Town Hall. This extension of that functional classification is to match recommended classifications in adjacent Hildale, Utah, where it connects to a major collector east/west route and to assure roadway continuity. Page 183 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Hildale Street, Town of Colorado City, AZ Length: 1.2 miles Limits (termini): Uzona Avenue (state border) to Mohave Avenue Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): __1770______________11/17/2010___ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. Hildale Street connects Colorado City to adjacent Hildale Utah and is one of three routes crossing Short Creek. This roadway also provides access to BLM trailheads for the Cottonwood Point Wilderness. The roadway serves a large church that is a major activity center for the community, and also functions as an east-side alternative to SR 389 for local traffic, connecting to a number of east/west routes. Due to larger than average household size in the area, streets through residential areas have higher than usual number of home based trips, and significant pedestrian and bicycle activity. Page 184 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Johnson Avenue, Town of Colorado City AZ Length: .8 mile Limits (termini):Redwood SR 389 to Central Street to Current Functional Classification: Major Collector Proposed Functional Classification: Rural Local Roadway Most recent traffic count (ADT): __200______11/17/2010__(estimated from model)_ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This request is to delete the collector classification for Johnson Avenue. Johnson Avenue formerly connected to SR 389. Due to the skewed intersection and site distance concerns, it was agreed between the Town of Colorado City and ADOT to close this intersection. Primary access to the highway near here is now at Mohave Avenue, with an attached proposal to reclassify that roadway to a major collector in lieu of Johnson Avenue. Page 185 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Mohave Avenue, Town of Colorado City AZ Length: 1.94 miles Limits (termini):Redwood Street to Hildale Street Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Roadway Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): __1560_________11/17/2010________________ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This roadway has assumed the SR 389 access from Johnson Avenue. This is one of the few east/west roadways that completely bisects the community, also providing access to the BLM Cottonwood Point Wilderness Area. Mohave Avenue serves as a primary entrance to the community and a reliever route for Centennial Park. Due to larger than average household size in the area, streets through residential areas have higher than usual number of home based trips, and significant pedestrian and bicycle activity. Page 186 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Redwood Street, Town of Colorado City, AZ Length: 3.65 miles Limits (termini): Uzona Avenue (state border) to Cane Beds Road Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Roadway Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): _180__________11/17/2010________________ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This long north south route is proposed for improvement as a west side bypass to move local traffic off SR 389. It serves the Colorado City Airport, the Colorado City Unified School District campus, and provides a connection to Hildale Utah as well. While volumes are currently low, when improvements are made, the function as a west side bypass for SR 389 between Colorado City and Centennial Park will increase volumes. Page 187 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Richard Street, Town of Colorado City AZ Length: 1.2 miles Limits (termini): Uzona Avenue (state border) to Mohave Avenue Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Most recent traffic count (ADT): _2780___________11/17/2010_____ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This is one of three north south routes crossing Short Creek and providing access to the north side of the community as well as to Hildale Utah. It provides a connection for community traffic to avoid the highway, and has some of the highest traffic volumes in the town. Due to larger household size in the area, streets through residential areas have higher than usual number of home based trips, and significant pedestrian and bicycle activity. Page 188 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Rosy Canyon Road, Mohave County, AZ Length: 4 miles Limits (termini): Cane Beds Road to Utah Border Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Roadway Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): _500 (estimate from model) 11/17/2010__________ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. Rosy Canyon Road crosses into Utah and connects to US 89 near Kanab. This is used as a regional bypass route to Kanab in lieu of SR 389, which is a much longer route. It is important for regional recreational and economic development functions. From the state border north, it is a maintained Utah county route. Page 189 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Township Avenue, Town of Colorado City AZ Length: 1.3 miles Limits (termini): SR 389 to Hildale Street Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Minor Arterial Most recent traffic count (ADT): _2250___________11/17/2010_____ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This route connects to the central business district as well as the Town Hall and public safety offices. It connects to SR 389, as well as Central Street, currently functionally classified as a major collector. Due to larger than average household size in the area, streets through residential areas have higher than usual number of home based trips, and significant pedestrian and bicycle activity. Page 190 Final Report Functional Classification Worksheet Road Name: Uzona Avenue, Town of Colorado City AZ Length: .9 mile Limits (termini): Richard Street to SR 389 Current Functional Classification: Rural Local Road Proposed Functional Classification: Major Collector Most recent traffic count (ADT): _530________11/17/2010_____ If this is a future road will construction begin within 4 years? Yes No Has the local agency (owner) committed to funding any construction projects on this route (i.e. new construction, improvements, etc), excluding or outside of any Federal funds? Yes No If yes, attach a copy of any documentation to this request. Has the regional planning body approved this request? X Yes No If yes, attach a copy of either a) an adopted resolution passed by the regional planning body; or b) an approved motion shown in the minutes from an official meeting of the regional planning body. This route runs along the border with Utah. This segment is in Arizona. It connects to SR 389, as well as Central Street, currently functionally classified as a major collector. Topography restricts the number of east/west corridors in adjacent Hildale Utah, so this roadway is critical support for Utah Avenue further north. It also connects to commercial and industrial businesses. Page 191 Final Report Appendix 7 Town of Colorado City Executive Order 2010-01 Mohave County Flood Declaration, December, 2010 Page 192 Final Report Page 193 Final Report Page 194 Final Report Page 195 Technical Memorandum #1 Study Work Plan [This page left intentionally blank for double side printing] Technical Memorandum #1 Study Work Plan