F IN A L R E P O R T GRAHAM COUNTY ALTERNATEROUTESTUDY TASK ASSIGNMENT TPD O9-O8 Prepared For Ari zona Department ofTransportati on Mul ti modalPl anni ng Di vi si on Prepared By ParsonsBri nckerhof f Ameri cas,I nc. DECEMBER,2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 0.1 Current and Future Conditions ......................................................................................... 2 0.2 Determination of Need and Feasibility ............................................................................. 2 0.3 Preferred Corridor ............................................................................................................ 4 1 Current and Future Conditions................................................................................................................6 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 6 1.1.1 Description of Study .................................................................................... 6 1.1.2 Study Objectives ......................................................................................... 6 1.1.3 Study Area .................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Studies and Source Data ................................................................................................. 9 1.2.1 Completed Studies ...................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Ongoing Studies ......................................................................................... 9 1.2.3 Future Studies ............................................................................................. 9 1.3 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Land Use ................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Socioeconomic Data ................................................................................. 11 1.3.3 Existing Street System .............................................................................. 18 1.3.4 Other Modes of Transportation ................................................................. 26 1.3.5 Traffic Accidents ....................................................................................... 27 1.3.6 Existing Traffic and Operating Conditions ................................................ 31 1.4 Future Conditions ........................................................................................................... 42 1.4.1 Growth Forecasts ...................................................................................... 42 Final Report December 2010 i 1.4.2 Travel Forecasting Model ......................................................................... 50 1.4.3 Travel Forecasts ....................................................................................... 57 1.4.4 Operating Conditions ................................................................................ 58 2 Determination of Need and Feasibility ..................................................................................................68 2.1 Determination of Need for a New Alternate Route Corridor .......................................... 68 2.1.1 Need Criteria ............................................................................................. 68 2.2 Identify Potential Corridor Alternatives........................................................................... 70 2.2.1 Description of Resistance Model .............................................................. 70 2.2.2 Criteria For Resistance Model .................................................................. 73 2.2.3 Evaluation of Resistance Model ............................................................... 82 2.2.4 Proposed Corridor Alternatives ................................................................. 88 2.3 Evaluate Proposed Corridor Alternatives ....................................................................... 89 2.3.1 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................... 89 2.3.2 Alternative Evaluation ............................................................................... 90 2.3.3 Alternative Evaluation Matrix .................................................................. 114 2.3.4 Fatal Flaw Analysis ................................................................................. 118 2.4 Environmental Overview .............................................................................................. 118 2.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 118 2.4.2 Physical and Natural Environment Topography/physiology ................... 118 3 Preferred Corridor ...............................................................................................................................129 3.1 Identification of Preferred Alternative ........................................................................... 129 3.1.1 Selection of preferred Corridor Alternative ............................................. 129 3.1.2 Characteristics of Preferred Corridor ...................................................... 130 Final Report December 2010 ii 3.1.3 Options Available Within the Preferred Corridor ..................................... 132 3.2 Preferred Corridor Analysis Findings ........................................................................... 136 3.2.1 Cost Table ............................................................................................... 136 3.2.2 Findings and Conclusions ....................................................................... 138 3.2.3 Project Phasing and Funding .................................................................. 138 3.2.4 Public Input ............................................................................................. 139 4 Appendix .............................................................................................................................................141 4.1 Appendix 1A: Existing Population ................................................................................ 142 4.2 Appendix 1B: Existing Employment ............................................................................. 144 4.3 Appendix 1C: Area Bicycle and Multiuse Plans ........................................................... 145 4.4 Appendix 2A: Previously Identified Study Corridors .................................................... 148 4.5 Appendix 3: Public Involvement summary reports ....................................................... 151 4.5.1 November 2008 Meeting 1...................................................................... 151 4.5.2 April 2009 Meeting 2 ............................................................................... 158 4.5.3 June 2009 Stakeholder Interviews .......................................................... 164 Final Report December 2010 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 1-2: Study Area Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) ......................................................................... 13 Figure 1-3: Study Area 2008 Population Density by TAZ ................................................................... 14 Figure 1-4: Study Area 2008 Employment by TAZ ............................................................................. 16 Figure 1-5: Study Area Roadway Functional Classification Map ........................................................ 21 Figure 1-6: Safford/Thatcher Area Functional Classification Map ...................................................... 22 Figure 1-7: Study Area Roadways Existing Number of Through Lanes ............................................. 24 Figure 1-8: Safford/Thatcher Area Roadway Existing Number of Through Lanes ............................. 25 Figure 1-9: Study Area Roadway Traffic Crashes 2006 ..................................................................... 28 Figure 1-10: Safford/Thatcher Area Roadway Traffic Crashes 2006 .................................................. 29 Figure 1-11: Crash Severity in Graham County .................................................................................. 30 Figure 1-12: Study Area Roadway Speed Limits ................................................................................ 32 Figure 1-13: Safford/Thatcher Area Roadway Speed Limits 2007 ..................................................... 33 Figure 1-14: Study Area Roadways Existing Traffic Volume 2007 ..................................................... 35 Figure 1-15: Safford/Thatcher Area Roadways Existing Traffic Volume 2007 ................................... 36 Figure 1-16: Study Area Existing Level of Service 2007..................................................................... 40 Figure 1-17: Safford/Thatcher Area Existing Level of Service 2007 ................................................... 41 Figure 1-18: Study Area 2040 Population Density by TAZ ................................................................. 44 Figure 1-19: Study Area 2040 Employment by TAZ ........................................................................... 45 Figure 1-20: Travel Forecasting Modeling Process ............................................................................ 51 Figure 1-21: External Stations ............................................................................................................. 54 Figure 1-22: Screen Lines ................................................................................................................... 56 Final Report December 2010 iv Figure 1-23: Expected Number of Lanes 2040 ................................................................................... 59 Figure 1-24: Safford/Thatcher Area Expected Number of Lanes 2040 .............................................. 60 Figure 1-25: Study Area 2020 Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 62 Figure 1-26: Safford/Thatcher Area 2020 Operating Conditions ........................................................ 63 Figure 1-27: Study Area 2030 Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 64 Figure 1-28: Safford/Thatcher Area 2030 Operating Conditions ........................................................ 65 Figure 1-29: Study Area 2040 Operating Conditions .......................................................................... 66 Figure 1-30: Safford/Thatcher Area 2040 Operating Conditions ........................................................ 67 Figure 2-1: Resistance Model Graphic................................................................................................ 70 Figure 2-2: Terminal Points ................................................................................................................. 72 Figure 2-3: Ground Slope Analysis- Source Values ........................................................................... 76 Figure 2-4: Ground Slope Analysis- Values Used In Model................................................................ 77 Figure 2-5: Hydrology Analysis- Source Values ................................................................................. 78 Figure 2-6: Hydrology Analysis- Values Used In Model...................................................................... 79 Figure 2-7: Land Ownership Analysis- Source Values ....................................................................... 80 Figure 2-8: Land Ownership Analysis- Values Used In Model............................................................ 81 Figure 2-9: Preliminary Resistance Model Results ............................................................................. 83 Figure 2-10: Preliminary Proposed Corridor Alternatives - Second Refinement ................................ 84 Figure 2-11: Preliminary Proposed Corridor Alternatives - Third Refinement .................................... 85 Figure 2-12: Preliminary Proposed Corridor Alternatives – Fourth Refinement ................................. 86 Figure 2-13: Preliminary Proposed Corridor Alternatives- Fifth Refinement....................................... 87 Figure 2-14: Study Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative A .......................................................... 92 Figure 2-15: Safford/Thatcher Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative A ........................................ 93 Final Report December 2010 v Figure 2-16: Study Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative B .......................................................... 94 Figure 2-17: Safford/Thatcher Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative B ........................................ 95 Figure 2-18: Study Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative C1 ....................................................... 96 Figure 2-19: Safford/Thatcher Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative C1 ...................................... 97 Figure 2-20: Study Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative C2 ....................................................... 98 Figure 2-21: Safford/Thatcher Area Level of Service 2040 – Alternative C2 ...................................... 99 Figure 3-1: Preferred Corridor Alternative ......................................................................................... 131 Figure 3-2: West Tie In ...................................................................................................................... 133 Figure 3-3: US Route 191 Connection .............................................................................................. 134 Figure 3-4: East Tie In ....................................................................................................................... 135 Final Report December 2010 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Graham County Population Growth ................................................................................... 11 Table 1-2: Major Employers ................................................................................................................ 15 Table 1-3: Graham County 2000 Racial Demographics ..................................................................... 17 Table 1-4: Graham County 2000 Socioeconomic Data ...................................................................... 18 Table 1-5: Total Crashes in Graham County 1998-2006 .................................................................... 30 Table 1-6: Capacity/LOS Lookup Table .............................................................................................. 39 Table 1-7: Study Area Developments ................................................................................................. 47 Table 1-8: Transportation Improvement Projects ................................................................................ 49 Table 1-9: Trip Generation Rates ........................................................................................................ 52 Table 1-10: Screenline Comparisons Existing Vs. Model ................................................................... 57 Table 2-1: Alternative ADT .................................................................................................................. 91 Table 2-2, A-D: Alternative D LOS Analysis (with proposed improvements to reach LOS D) .......... 101 Table 2-3: Alternative E Traffic Volumes........................................................................................... 104 Table 2-4: Corridor Lengths .............................................................................................................. 105 Table 2-5: Drainage Structures ......................................................................................................... 108 Table 2-6: Preliminary Cost Estimates .............................................................................................. 109 Table 2-7: Preliminary Cost Estimates (Continued) .......................................................................... 110 Table 2-8: Preliminary Cost Estimates (Continued) .......................................................................... 111 Table 2-9: Preliminary Cost Estimates (Continued) .......................................................................... 112 Table 2-10: Preliminary Cost Estimates (Continued) ........................................................................ 113 Table 2-11: Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................................................... 115 Final Report December 2010 vii Table 2-12: Soil in Study Area .......................................................................................................... 119 Table 2-13: USFWS Federally Listed Species .................................................................................. 121 Table 2-14: Arizona Wildlife Special Concern ................................................................................... 123 Table 2-15: USDA FS Forest Sensitive Species ............................................................................... 124 Table 3-1: Summary of Estimated Costs .......................................................................................... 136 Table 3-2: Summary of Estimated Costs (Continued) ...................................................................... 137 Final Report December 2010 viii 0 EX XECUTIV VE SUM MMARY Grah ham County is s located in so outheastern Arizona A and iss serviced by 2 major Arizo ona Departme ent of Transportation (ADOT) managed state route es: US 191 an nd US 70. Th his Graham County C Alterna ate ARS) focusess in the area surrounding s th he municipalities of: Town n of Pima, Cityy of Routte Study (GCA Thatccher and City y of Safford. The T junction of o the two ma ajor state routes, US 191 and US 70 is locatted in the hea art of these co ommunities an nd serve as major m arterialss for local travvelers. Accorrding to exxisting plannin ng/traffic studies commissio oned to exam mine the area,, as well as an nalysis perforrmed in this study, both of these state routes are expected e to exceed e their current c capacity before the year 2040 0. This is mainly due to the e projected grrowth in the area a and a gro owing volume e of regional traffic trave eling “through” the study arrea. Parsons Brinckerhoff has been com mmissioned by b ADOT to perfo orm this prelim minary assesssment for the developmentt of an alterna ate route through the Thatccher/Safford/Pima area. Any impacts i to the e local community’s future viability due to the potentiial developme ent of an alterrnate route e have been seriously s conssidered. In orrder to ensure e that local input and direcction has been n incorrporated into the t study process, the stud dy has been conducted c with guidance from f a Techniical Advissory Committtee (TAC) com mposed of me embers representing the fo ollowing agen ncies: • A Arizona Deparrtment of Tran nsportation Pllanning Division • A Arizona Deparrtment of Tran nsportation Sa afford Districtt • A Arizona State Lands Departtment • C of Safford City • Federal Highw way Administra ation • G Graham Countty • Town of Thatcher • Town of Pima • Southeastern Arizona A Gove ernmental Org ganization (SE EAGO) • O Other Project Stakeholders S : o Arizon na Game and Fish o Bureau u of Land Management The study s process s was perform med in three separate s stag ges, all of whicch built on the e results of th he previious stage. The T stage title es are as follo ows: 1. Study the curre ent and future e conditions of o the area, D the need and fea asibility of a new n alternate route corridor, 2. Determine 3. Id dentify the pre eferred alterna ate route corrridor. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 1 Each h of these stag ges were stud died and docu umented by producing p worrking papers that t were The finalized revie ewed by the TAC T and revissed to addresss the input fro om all of the stakeholders. s d versions of the wo orking paperss are the majo or sections in this study (Se ections 1, 2 and a 3). 0.1 CU URRENT AND FU UTURE CO ONDITIO ONS An evaluation and d documentation of the exissting street ne etwork capaccity (current co onditions) wa as ormed. The proposed p deve elopment info ormation and planned arterrial improvem ments were alsso perfo resea arched and in ncluded in a trraffic forecastt model that was w develope ed to project th he future cond ditions in the study s area. In addition, other land use characteristics c s were review wed, such as, land use, socioeconom mic data, employment, environmental jusstice, alternattive modes off transportatio on, trafficc accidents and proposed developmentt. All off these featurres were combined into the e traffic foreca ast model for the study are ea originally deve eloped for the 2009 Graham m County Sm mall Area Tran nsportation Sttudy (SATS). The forecastt mode el was run forr the following g design yearrs 2020, 2030 0, and 2040. The T model re esults provided trafficc volumes and level of serrvice for each major roadw way in the area a. The traffic forecast mod del was based on the e growth rate forecasts f agre eed upon by the TAC durin ng the develo opment of the ARS and the 2009 2 SATS an nd also includ des the additio onal capacityy gained from the anticipate ed GCA impro ovement proje ects in the cu urrent Transpo ortation Impro ovement Plan n and 1998 Grraham Countyy SATS S recommend ded projects schedule. s Therre are currenttly a number of roadway se egments with hin the study limits that are operating at or over capacity. By y the year 202 20, US 70 and d US 191 will be over capa acity for much h of the city ce enter m segmentss on collectorr and minor arrterial streets within Safford d and Thatch her area. By 2040, most b operating below b the leve el of service goal g of D. Easst of the Saffo ord downtown n area, US 70 0 will be betw ween Bowie Av ve and the US S 70/US 191 Split will expe erience LOS E. LOS F is expected on US 191 almost a the en ntire corridor within w the stud dy area. 0.2 DE ETERMIN NATION OF O NEED D AND FE EASIBILIITY The second s phase e of the studyy evaluates an nd determiness the need an nd feasibility for f an alternate route e corridor in th he study area a. The need for a connecttor corridor ca an be identifie ed when a comp pilation of the characteristics evaluated identify bene efits to the study area due to t the alternate route e corridor. Th he following characteristicss were analyzed within the study area to o determine th he need d for the new connector c corridor: • C Capacity and level of servicce • exxisting interse ection capacitty • en nvironmental concerns Final Report R Decemberr 2010 2 • hiigh truck perc centages • sttate highway access contro ol manageme ent • A safety And The future f level off service anallysis performe ed in Section 1: Current an nd Future Con nditions, show ws that the t existing and a currently planned p infrasstructure will be deficient fo or the expectted traffic volu umes and some s form off relief like an alternate route should be studied. The e intersection of US 70 and d US 191 was w analyzed d for capacity and it shows to be deficient in capacityy as well. Othe er concerns su uch as increa ased air pollution and noise e pollution gen nerated because of the incre eased traffic volume v and co ongestion can n be mitigated d by an altern nate route. Th here are a number of hisstorical prope erties that currrently exist in downtown Safford that resstrict the optio ons to upgrad de the curre ent corridor, th herefore, an alternate a route e corridor can n be identified d as an efficie ent, cost effecctive optio on. Typically there t is a high percentage e of truck traffiic using US 191 that travells through the e Saffo ord/Thatcher city c area delivvering to copp per mines in the t area. An alternate route corridor furrther outside of the city would provid de an opportunity to mitigatte some of the risk of haza ards associate ed affic through th he downtown area. with high truck tra c ADOT T access man nagement policies create a vision for de eveloping con ntrolled access The current facilitties by develo opment of Acccess Manage ement Plans. This strateg gy allows ADO OT to manage e and main ntain regionally significant highway h facilities rather tha an portions off a local arterrial street systtem. US 70 7 and US 191 currently acct as significa ant arterial stre eets within the Safford-Tha atcher city are ea, with minimal acce ess control characteristics. The develop pment of an alternate a route e corridor with h p an acccess controlle ed facility serrving regional and local trafffic contrrolled access policies will provide and allow a ADOT to t turn back portions p of the e US 70 and US U 191 facilitiies to the loca al agencies. The T addittion of a new facility throug gh undevelope ed lands wou uld provide ne ew developme ent opportunitties at ea ach of the pote ential traffic in ntersections and a along cro ossroad conne ections. An alternate a route e would also drama atically help de ecrease the trraffic delay in the study are ea caused byy the common n etour route be eing establish hed through Safford S when there is a dusst storm closu ure of occurrence of a de b Wilc cox and the Arizona/New A M Mexico borderr. I-10 between Afterr determining that an altern nate route corrridor is neede ed, the feasib bility of the corridor and the e poten ntial alternate e route corrido or alternativess were develo oped using a Resistance Model. M This model m was developed us sing spatial an nalysis tools in a geograph hic information n system (GIS S). The he study area through a collective accou unt of environ nmental Resisstance Model evaluates th chara acteristics. Inputs to the model include land ownersh hip/property co ontrol, ground d slope and hydro ology. Model outputs proviided conceptu ual corridors, which may be suitable forr further studyy as a corrid dor alternative e. Once thesse preliminaryy corridors we ere developed d they were re efined based on Final Report R Decemberr 2010 3 inputt from the TAC C and the pub blic. The fina al iteration is shown s in Figu ure 2-13 and contains c multtiple altern native routes (Alternatives A through E)). The alternate a routte corridor alte ernatives A th hrough E werre evaluated for f feasibility using u qualitattive, as well as quantita ative analysiss based on the e following fa actors and critteria develope ed by the TAC C mem mbers and the public: Traffic Analysis (le evel of service e), safety, acccess, environm mental impaccts, cost, implementattion and supp port. The resu ults of this ana alysis can be seen in Table 2-7(page 114): Evalu uation Matrix.. A preliminary cost analyssis was also performed p forr each alterna ative. Addittional public involvement and a coordinattion with federral, state, and d local agenciies was condu ucted to ob btain information about the environmenttal resources in the genera al study area. Specific inform mation was also a obtained to define the existing socia al, economic, and environm mental chara acteristics of the study are ea and assist the t study team in identifyin ng particular constraints c to o be conssidered in the developmentt and prelimin nary analysis of o alternativess. Future ana alyses will add dress envirronmental con nsiderations in detail, and specific mitigation measurres will be ide entified as parrt of those e analyses an nd documenta ation. Section n 2.4 Environm mental Overview of the rep port summarizzes curre ent information for each en nvironmental issue. 0.3 PR REFERRE ED CORR RIDOR The final f compone ent of the stud dy involved th he identificatio on of the prefferred alternate route corrid dor. ADO OT, with input from the public and the pro oject’s TAC, selected s Alterrnative B as the t Preferred Corriidor Alternativ ve. In selectin ng the preferrred corridor, ADOT A stipulated that this study s presentts a numb ber of options s for the impro ovement of an n alternate ro oute corridor that will be furrther analyzed d and conssidered during g the subsequ uent Design Concept C Repo ort, Environme ental Analysiss, and preliminary desig gn phases of the project de evelopment. The Preferred Corridor Altternative reprresents an appro oximate mile wide corridorr in which the final recomm mended roadw way alignmentt may be deve eloped. The rationale r and justification behind b the se election of Alte ernative B as the preferred d corridor are prese ented in the fo ollowing para agraphs: • A Alternative B balances b the needs n of loca al and regiona al traffic within n the study area. As shown in th he various Alternate Route e alternatives LOS results (Figures ( 2.2-1 1 through 2.2--8), you can see s th hat Alternative es C1 & C2 have a greaterr impact on th he US 191 LO OS than Altern native A doess. This is because of the proxiimity of the ne ew routes to the t trip generration location ns and estinations. Alternatives A C & C2 will operate C1 o more as a part of the local arterrial street systtem de prroviding an allternative or extension e to the local stree et system. While Alternativve A is far eno ough aw way from the city center th hat it would be e used for reg gional trips ratther than loca al trips to the Final Report R Decemberr 2010 4 ne eighborhood businesses. Alternative B maximizes the opportunitty to provide relief r along US 19 91 by being close c enough for local traffic to use, while still providing for regiona al traffic. • A Alternative B provides p oppo ortunity for in-fill developme ent while minimizing the im mpact to the exxisting agricultural lands. By identifying g the preferred d corridor, the e local agenccies will be able to pllan and devellop arterial strreet extensions to connectt to the new fa acility, thus providing acce ess an nd opportunitty for develop pment. In add dition, the proposed alignm ment is located d in the un ndisturbed foothills/desert areas that exxist generally to the south of o the develop ped agriculturral prroperty. By avoiding a the agricultural a pro operties, the impacts to on ne of the majo or economic so ources in the region will be e minimized when w compare ed to some off the other altternatives. • There is suppo ort from the ADOT A District, local agencie es and publicc to pursue the e developmen nt of n Alternate Route R in the arrea. Based on o the stakeho older interview ws, Alternativves A & B werre an prreferred. Alte ernative B wa as the most prreferred of the e two. The sttakeholder inp put suggested d that A Alternative B is s far enough away a from tow wn to provide e for regional traffic, but clo ose enough th hat it co ould still be used for local traffic t and wo ould provide development d a in-fill opp and portunities. The following f findings and concclusions can be made as a function of this t alternate route study: The current c and short s term trafffic issues for US 191 and US 70 within the City of Sa afford and To own of Thatccher can be addressed a by the ongoing US 191 DCR R study and cu urrently progrrammed impro ovements alo ong US 70. These ongoing g improvemen nts have been n identified to reach capaccity in 2025 5, at which tim me the Preferrred Corridor Alternative A should be imple emented to re elieve the cong gestion from th he US 191 an nd US 70. f solution for the implem mentation of the t alternate route corridorr will be arrive ed at during th he The final subssequent phase es of the proje ect developm ment; the Design Concept Report R and En nvironmental Docu ument. a a function of this Alternate Route Stu udy can be ph hased in overr time The improvements suggested as mponent proje ects. This will allow ADOT T, in cooperattion with the City C of Safford d, in inccremental com Town n of Thatcherr, Town of Pim ma and Graha am County, to o plan, design n and have co onstructed pro ojects just ahead a of warrranted traffic volumes v to avvoid undue co ongestion. nt has been conducted thro oughout the course c of this study in the form f of publicc Public involvemen meettings and inte erviews with stakeholders. s The general consensus c w that the alternate route must was be fa ar enough awa ay from the to own center to o provide high her speed faciilities, but still be close eno ough to pro omote develo opment and in n-fill opportunities. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 5 1 CU URRENT T AND FUTURE F E CONDITIONS S 1.1 IN NTRODUC CTION 1.1.1 DESCRIPTIO D ON OF STUD DY Grah ham County is s expected to experience continued c pop pulation and employment e g growth in the next few decades, d prim marily in the in ncorporated cities c of Safforrd, Thatcher and a Pima. Th he current roadw way infrastruc cture in the he eaviest utilize ed segments of o the commu unity need to be evaluated to deterrmine if it will support futurre expected demand. Two o studies were e commission ned to evaluatte transsportation nee eds in the Gra aham County region. The Graham Cou unty Small Are ea Transporta ation Study (SATS), commissioned by b Graham County, C was ta aking place co oncurrently an nd was completed am County Altternate Route e Study, comm missioned by the Arizona Department D of prior to the Graha T research and a analysis completed fo or the 2009 Grraham Countyy SATS was Transportation. The t study as the basis for the traffic mo odeling. incorrporated into this The City C of Safford is at the jun nction of two major m state ro outes, US 191 1 and US 70, both of which h are expe ected to reach h or exceed ca apacity as gro owth continue es in the area a. The Graham County Alternate Route Study S is a preliminary assesssment of the e need for and d feasibility off a new route necting US 19 91 to US 70 th hat would provvide an altern nate route corrridor around the City of conn Saffo ord, Town of Thatcher T and Town of Pim ma, particularlyy the Safford city center arrea and the interssection of US S 191 and US 70. The routte was studied to accommodate a grow wing volume of local traffic which will be disperrsed over a la arger geograp phic area while at the same e time making g t alternate route proviisions for a grrowing volume of regional “through“ trafffic. The devvelopment of the corrid dor addresses the future trraffic congesttion concerns identified alo ong US 191 and US 70 as the regio on continues to t grow throug gh the 2040 horizon h year. 1.1.2 STUDY OBJE ECTIVES The goal g of the study was to evvaluate the ne eed for an alte ernate route corridor c in the e general geog graphic area of o US 191 and d US 70 by do ocumenting current c and fu uture condition ns, determinin ng need d and feasibility of a route, and providing g recommend ded corridor alternatives a th hat would enhance the viability v of the community by b accommod dating traffic demands. d Co ommunity viab bility and impa acts due to t the alternate routes werre seriously co onsidered. The study proccess was con nducted with guida ance from a Technical T Advvisory Committee (TAC) co omposed of members m reprresenting the follow wing agencies s: • A Arizona Deparrtment of Tran nsportation Pllanning Division Final Report R Decemberr 2010 6 • A Arizona Deparrtment of Tran nsportation Sa afford Districtt • A Arizona State Lands Departtment • C of Safford City • Federal Highw way Administra ation • G Graham Countty • Town of Thatcher • Town of Pima • Southeastern Arizona A Gove ernmental Org ganization (SE EAGO) • O Other Project Stakeholders S : o Arizon na Game and Fish o Bureau u of Land Management 1.1.3 STUDY AREA A Grah ham County is s composed of o mostly high h desert plainss surrounded by the Gila, Pinaleno, P Galiuro and Santa S Teresa a Mountains. The three inccorporated co ommunities off Safford, Tha atcher, and Piima repre esent the principal center of o population and economic activity in th he County. While W agricultu ure has traditionally t been a mainstay of the region, it has evo olved into a ce enter for lightt industry as well w as th he retail and service s hub in Southeasterrn Arizona. Recent R popula ation and econ nomic growth can be asssociated with h the expansiion of Freepo ort-McMoRan mines and re egional emerg gence as a shop pping and serv vices center. The study are ea for the Alte ernate Route Study is show wn in Figure 1-1. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 7 Figurre 1-1: Study y Area Final Report R Decemberr 2010 8 1.2 ST TUDIES AND A SOU URCE DA ATA Completed and on n-going studie es relevant to o the region he elped guide the process and provided mation for the e development of the Altern nate Route study. backkground inform 1.2.1 COMPLETED C D STUDIES • 19 998 Graham County Regio onal Transportation Study (December 1998) – The purpose p of thiss sttudy was to update the 199 92 transporta ation plan and to identify an nd prioritize th he next set off prrojects to mee et the growing g demands. • 20 007 City of Sa afford Transp portation Stud dy (Septembe er 2007) – The e purpose of this t study was to esstablish a tran nsportation ba aseline by wh hich impact fe ees for future developmentt can be esstablished. • G Globe-New Me exico Multimo odal Corridor Profile (November 2002) – The purpose e of this studyy was to o establish priiorities and im mprovement strategies s for the t US 70 corridor from Globe to New M Mexico. • U 191 Design US n Concept Re eport, Traffic Projections P an nd Growth An nalysis (August 2007) – Th he pu urpose of this s report was to evaluate the traffic requirements asso ociated with th he US 191 co orridor from SR S 366 to US 70. • G Graham Countty Transit Fea asibility Revie ew (2007) – The T purpose of o this study was w to determ mine if th here was suffiicient need fo or the develop pment of transsit facilities in the area. • C of Safford General Plan City n (2004) – Th his plan provid des informatio on for the land d use and zon ning ch haracteristics of the city. • G Graham Countty Small Area a Transportation Study (SA ATS) (2009) – This study id dentified the re egional transp portation need ds for Graham m County ove er the next 15 year time horizon. 1.2.2 ONGOING O ST TUDIES • U 191 Design US n Concept Re eport– The pu urpose of this report is to provide preliminary design re ecommendations for impro ovements to th he US 191 co orridor from SR 266 to US 70. 1.2.3 FUTURE STU UDIES • N None currently y identified. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 9 1.3 EX XISTING CONDIT TIONS Existting conditions in the studyy area are doccumented to provide p baselline comparissons of the Grah ham County re egion for the study. It provvides a review w of the current operationa al conditions and a creattes a basis fo or projecting fu uture conditio ons. The mea asures of exissting condition ns that have been b seleccted for docum mentation and d analysis incclude: • La and use • Socioeconomic c data • Environmental justice considerations • Street system inventory • O Other modes of o transportatiion • Traffic acciden nt • Existing traffic and operating conditions ent conditions s related to ea ach measure are discusse ed in subsequent sections of o this report. Curre 1.3.1 LAND USE An understanding of land use is important fo or determining g and interpre eting travel ch haracteristics in an nformation in conjunction with w population and employyment data is used to deve elop area. Land use in ng, which are discussed in Section 1.4.2 2. Land use classifications c s include: the trravel modelin • R Residential • C Commercial • In ndustrial • Public ated in the Gila Valley of so outheastern Arizona, A Graham County iss a primarily ru ural county Loca enco ompassing 4,6 630 square miles. m Graham m County land d ownership iss composed of: o • San Carlos Ind dian Reservattion: 34% • In ndividual and corporate ow wnership acco ounts: 10% • U Forest service and Burreau of Land Managementt: 38% U.S. • State of Arizon na 18% Final Report R Decemberr 2010 10 1.3.2 SOCIOECON NOMIC DATA A Popu ulation Mostt recently, pop pulation grow wth in this area a has been prrecipitated byy high growth in the mining indusstry. Accordin ng to “Area in n Focus”, a re eport by Wick Communicattions, it is pred dicted that 7,0 000 peop ple will move into i the Gila Valley V by 2010 to support mine m construcction and peripheral servicces. A sig gnificant incre ease in the number of retire ement commu unities is also o anticipated. In the 2000 Censsus, the population of Grah ham County was w reported to have incre eased 26% sin nce 1990. At that time,, the populatio on growth wa as reported to be relatively flat. Howeve er, with the an nnouncement of the Freeport-McM F MoRan Coppe er and Gold In nc. mine expa ansion, the are ea has experiienced an infllux of workkers and their families. Tab ble 1-1 provid des the popula ation of the th hree incorpora ated towns an nd the unincorporate u d area in Gra aham County. Table e 1-1: Graham County Population P G Growth Arizona Gra aham County y Safford Thatcher Pima Uniincorporated d 199 90 20 000 20 007 Estimatte 3,665,,228 26,5 554 7,35 59 3,76 63 1,72 25 13,7 707 5,130,632 33,,498 9,2 232 4,0 022 1,9 989 18,,246 6,500,194 37,338 9,460 5,235 2,233 20,410 % Increa ase (1990 02000 0) 40% % 26% % 25% % 7% 15% % 33% % % Incre ease (20 000200 07) 27 7% 11 1% 2% % 30 0% 12 2% 12 2% Source e: US Census Bureau and Southe eastern Arizona Governments G Org ganization (SEAG GO) Histo orical growth rates r can be an a indication of future grow wth and, there efore, are imp portant in deve eloping traffic forecasts. Po opulation and d employmentt are direct inputs to the tra avel-forecasting mode el to determin ne the numbe er of trips bein ng made each h day. Specifically, in the traffic t model, popu ulation produc ces trips and employment e a attracts trips. To ta abulate existin ng and future population and employme ent data, a system of trafficc analysis zon nes have e been established for the area. a Traffic Analysis Zon nes (TAZs) are e geographic subdivisions of the study s area tha at are used in the travel forrecasting mod del. Similar la and uses, phyysical barriers, or majo or transportation corridors define d the zon ne boundariess. Based on the t local inforrmation provid ded by th he TAC and th he study of land use patterrn by the proje ect team, the current total population off 34,27 70 within the study area was divided up p and assigne ed to the 76 TAZs. The boundaries of th he TAZ’s are shown in Figure 1-2 and the tabulated populattion data is sh hown in Appendix 1A. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 11 The highest h population densitie es in the study area are at the junction of o US 70 and US 191 withiin the City of o Safford. Most M of the populations in th he study area as are clustere ed around the e two major highw ways, and between the citiies of Safford and Thatche er. Population n density of th he study area a is show wn in Figure 1-3. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 12 Figure 1-2: Study Area Traffic Analysis Zon nes (TAZ) Final Report R Decemberr 2010 13 Figure 1-3 3: Study Area 2008 Popu ulation Density by TAZ Final Report R Decemberr 2010 14 Emp ployment Curre ently, there are approxima ately 10,000 workers w in the labor force in n the study arrea. Most of the t jobs are located within w the jurissdictions of the three incorp porated citiess of Safford, Thatcher T and a; mining, edu ucation, goverrnment and re etail comprise e the majorityy of the emplo oyment. Like the Pima popu ulation distribu ution, the grea atest concenttrations of job bs are in the Safford S and Thatcher area along g US 70 and US 191. The e number of jo obs decreasess as the TAZss are distributted away from m the city center. c The major m employe ers in the area are listed in n Table 1-2; th he geographic distribution is prese ented in Figure 1-4. The Safford S prison n is located in TAZ 58, whicch accounts for f its high emplloyment coun nt. The detaile ed employme ent distribution n is shown in Appendix B. Table 1--2: Major Em mployers Emplo oyer Comm munity Freeport-McMoRa an Copper & Gold G Eastern Arizo ona College M Graham Reg Mt gional Medica al Safford Tha atcher Safford Safford Prison Safford Sa afford Unified School Districct Safford Wal-M Mart Safford Graham County y Governmen nt Safford Safford City Government G Safford A Arizona State Government Safford Impressiv ve Labels Safford Federal Prison Safford Thatcher U.S.D. Tha atcher Pima U.S.D. U Pima T Thriftee Food d & Drug-IGA Safford Infinia Att Safford Safford Home Depot Tha atcher Haralson’s Au uto and Tire Safford Bash has’ Tha atcher Bu ureau of Land d Managemen nt Safford Safeway Tha atcher Azz Dept Of Economic Securitty Safford T Thatcher City Government Tha atcher Graham Cou unty Electric Pima US Forest Svcc Warehouse Safford Sourcce: InfoUSA data d and Free eport-McMoRa an, 2008 Number of Employees E 1081 583 520 485 389 290 270 198 189 175 150 150 136 120 105 80 70 65 60 57 50 47 40 19 Employ yment Type e Mining g Companies S Schools H Hospitals Govvernment S Schools Retail Govvernment Govvernment State Government Manufacture Federal Governmentt S Schools S Schools Groccers-Retail Nursing & Convalesce ent Hom me Centers Retail Groccers-Retail Federal Governmentt Groccers-Retail State Government City Government G U Utilities Govvernment Final Report R Decemberr 2010 15 Figure 1-4: Study Area A 2008 Employmentt by TAZ Final Report R Decemberr 2010 16 Environmental Justice o 1964 and re elated statute es assure thatt individuals are a not subjeccted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of to disscrimination on o the basis of o race, color, national origin, age, sex, or o disability. In February 1994, 1 President Clinton signed Execu utive Order 12 2898, “Federa al Actions to Address A Enviironmental Ju ustice in Minority Popula ation and Low w-Income Pop pulation.” The e purpose of the t Executive Order was to o focuss attention on n the “environmental and human health conditions in minority com mmunities and d lowincom me communitties with the goal g of achievving environm mental justice.”” The Executtive Order doe es not supersede s exiisting laws or regulations; rather, it requ uires considerration and incclusion of thesse targe eted populatio ons as manda ated in previous legislation, including: • Title VI of the Civil C Rights Act A of 1964 • N National Enviro onmental Policy Act of 196 69 (NEPA) • Section 309 off the Clean Air Act • Freedom of Infformation Actt ment of Transp portation issu ued its final orrder to implem ment the provisions of Execcutive The U.S. Departm Orde er 12898 on April A 15, 1997. This final orrder requires that information be obtained concerning the race,, color or natio onal origin, and income levvel of populattions served or o affected byy proposed progrrams, policies s, and activitie es. It further requires that steps be take en to avoid diisproportionattely high and adverse impacts on th hese populations. eps in assurin ng environme ental justice iss the identifica ation of those populations One of the first ste speccifically targete ed by the Exe ecutive Orderr – minority an nd low-income e populationss. Acco ording to the 2000 2 Census,, the racial co omposition of the Graham County C studyy area was predo ominantly white, with abou ut 32.9 percen nt minorities. Racial demo ographics for the t study area are show wn in Table 1--3. Table 1-3 3: Graham Co ounty 2000 Racial Dem mographics Area White African American Native American n Asian or Pacific Islander Other Race Alone Two or more races Gra aham County y Safford Thatcher Pima 67.1% 75.2% 84.7% 87.0% 1.9% 1.4% 0.8% 0.2% 14.9% 1.0% 1.8% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.1% 13.3% 18.6% 9.9% 9.9% 2.1% 2.9% 2.2% 2.1% Source: U.S. Census Bu ureau, 2000 Censsus Final Report R Decemberr 2010 17 The Executive Ord der also requires the consideration of persons p older than 60 yearss of age as well w as ncome popula ations. According to the 2000 2 Census, approximately 16% of the e population in n low in Grah ham County is s 60 years or older. Nearlyy 21% of Graham County residents r live below the po overty level. Socioecono omic data for Graham Cou unty and the th hree incorporrated cities arre listed in e 1-4. Table 4: Graham County C 2000 0 Socioecono omic Data Table 1-4 Category Fe emale Ma ale Pe ersons with disability Pe ersons over ag ge 60 Pe ersons living below b the t lCensus l Bureau, Source e: U.S. B 2000 Cen nsus Graham m County y 47% 53% 30% 16% 21% Saffo ord Thatc cher Pima a 52% % 48% % 37% % 21% % 17% % 53% % 47% % 23% % 16% % 19% % 51% % 49% % 43% % 18% % 20% % 1.3.3 EXISTING E ST TREET SYSTEM The existing e stree et system is de escribed in de etail in the following sectio ons. The stud dy area is currrently serve ed by an arterial street sysstem, collectors, and local streets. s ADO OT controls four highways in i the studyy area: US 70 0, US 191, SR R 366, and SR R 266. These highways se erve as the ma ajor roadwayss in the street s network k within the study area and d distribute loccal and region nal traffic. All of these high hways are fu unctionally op perating as prrincipal arteria als. US 70 7 US 70 7 is an east-w west highwayy that connectts the study area a to New Mexico M in the east and Glob be to the west. w It is the main route th hrough the Graham Countty area and is used by visittors and recre eational users s to access Mt. Graham, San Carlos Lake, and otherr area attractio ons. There are a appro oximately 29 miles of US 70 7 in the study area. Acco ording to the State S Highwayy Log System m, it is curre ently classified d as a princip pal arterial in the t Safford an nd Thatcher urbanized u are ea, and as a rural mino or arterial outs side the urban n area. US 191 s the major regional vehicu ular link within n the Safford region r and co onnects Safford US 191 serves as ate Highway Log L System, itt is currently classified c as a rural minor with I-10. According to the Sta erial within the Safford urb banized area. The highwa ay is arterrial south of Safford and ass principal arte desig gnated as a scenic s route and a provides access a to the Graham Cou unty Park, fairrgrounds, and d Rope er Lake State Park. Appro oximately 15 miles m of the highway is with hin the study area. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 18 SR 366 3 SR 366 3 departs frrom US 191 approximately a y eight miles south s of Saffo ord and headss westward to o the top of o Mount Grah ham. The roa adway provide es access to the t Safford Federal Correcctional Facilityy as well as a the Univerrsity of Arizon na Binocular Telescope T Facility. It is cla assified as a rural r minor collector in the Sta ate Highway Log System. 2 SR 266 SR 266 2 heads we est from US 19 91 to Bonita and a Fort Gran nt, where it en nds at the Forrt Grant Corre ectional Institution. It is cla assified as a rural r minor co ollector in the State Highwa ay Log System m. Another importantt arterial in the e network is 20th 2 Ave, whiich is a north--south route that t connects the overy Park Bllvd to US 70. Disco The street s system m inventory forr the roadwayys within the study s area inccludes: • Functional Classification • N Number of Thrrough Lanes Func ctional Class sification Funcctional classifiication, the grrouping of roa adways by the e character off service theyy provide, wass deve eloped for tran nsportation planning purpo oses. Accordiing to “Arizon na Functional Classification n Guidelines”, urban n and rural arreas have fundamentally different chara acteristics as to t density and d typess of land use, density of street and highway networkss, nature of trravel patternss, and the wayy in which h all these ele ements are re elated in the definitions d of highway h funcction. An “urban area” is defin ned as an urba an cluster and d/or urbanize ed area. Within the study boundary, b the e urban area includes the Saffo ord-Thatcher-Pima metropo olitan area. The T rural area a of the study area consistss of e of the urban n boundaries. The followin ng paragraphss describe the e characteristtics of all territory outside b functional systems fo or both rural and a urban areas as defined d in the “Arizo ona Functiona al the basic Classsification Guid delines” publiished by the Arizona A Depa artment of Tra ansportation. Rura al Principal Arterial A Highw ways: Serve e high volume, long distancce trips; provid de high speed d trave el and minima al interference e to through movement. m Rura al Minor Arte erial Road: Serve S most off the larger co ommunities no ot served by the t principal arterrial system, prrovide trip len ngth and trave el density grea ater than thosse served by collector systtems, and provide p relativ vely high travvel speeds, wiith minimum interference to o-through mo ovement. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 19 Rura al Collector System: S Serrve travel of in ntracounty and regional importance, rath her than state ewide impo ortance. Serv ve shorter tripss and provide e more moderrate speed tha an arterial rou utes. All rural state highw ways that are e not arterial highways h will be on the rura al collector syystem as either major or minor m rural collectors. Rural R minor co ollectors tend to have lowe er traffic volum me than rural major collectors, ance than a major m collector, or carry trafffic on trips to o less importa ant carryy traffic over a shorter dista intraccounty traffic generators. Rura al Local Road ds: Serve prrimarily to provide access to t land uses adjacent a to co ollector and arterial roadw ways. Tend to o have lower traffic speed limits and low wer traffic volu umes. Urba an Principal Arterials: A Ca arry trips of lo onger length; provide the greatest g mobillity and highe est spee ed for through movement. Serve S the highest traffic vo olume genera ators and the major m centerss of activity of a metro opolitan area. an Minor Arte erial: Provide e trips of mod derate length.. Provide low wer travel mob bility and lowe er Urba spee ed limit than urban principa al arterials. Urba an Collectors s: Distribute traffic t from arrterials and co ollect traffic frrom local streets into the arterial syste em. Urba an Local Stre eets: Provide e direct accesss to the adjaccent land. Prrovide the low west travel mo obility and lowest l posted d speed limitss. The current c functional classifica ation system for the Graha am County stu udy area is sh hown in Figurre 1-5. A clo oser view of Safford/Thatch S her area is sh hown in Figure e 1-6. These two maps illustrrate existing systems s as currently desig gnated and do o not reflect changes c which h may take pllace in futture years as land uses evvolve and pop pulation increa ases. As illusstrated on the map, the stu udy area is primarily served by US 70 and US 19 91. These tw wo routes gen nerally serve as a urban princcipal e Safford/Tha atcher city limiits and as Rural Minor Arte erials outside of city limits. arterrials within the Final Report R Decemberr 2010 20 Fig gure 1-5: Sttudy Area Ro oadway Fun nctional Clas ssification Map M Final Report R Decemberr 2010 21 Figure 1-6: Saffford/Thatch her Area Functional Cla assification Map M Final Report R Decemberr 2010 22 Num mber of Through Lanes Altho ough there are e other factorrs such as acccess and trafffic control devvices, the num mber of through laness is the most significant facctor that affeccts the capaciity of a street.. The number of lanes for all of the arterials a and collectors c with hin the study area a was inve entoried for th he capacity ca alculation. The existing number of o through lane es is shown in Figure 1-7 and a Figure 1--8 for the Saffford/Thatcherr ctively. Most of the roads in the area ha ave two throu ugh lanes with h the exceptio on of studyy area, respec US 70 7 and US 191, which have e five lanes frrom the easte ern boundary of the City of Safford to the e cente er of the Town of Pima. Th he US 191 DC CR study is currently c evalu uating the nee ed to expand US 191 south s of Disco overy Park Blvd from two to t five lanes. It should be noted that fivve-lane roadw ways comp prises four thrrough lanes plus p a continu uous center le eft-turn lane. Similarly, S thre ee-lane roadw ways have e two through lanes and a continuous c ce enter two-wayy left-turn lane e. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 23 Figure e 1-7: Study y Area Road dways Existing Number of Through Lanes Final Report R Decemberr 2010 24 Figure 1-8:: Safford/Th hatcher Area a Roadway Existing Num mber of Thrrough Lanes s Final Report R Decemberr 2010 25 1.3.4 OTHER O MOD DES OF TRA ANSPORTA ATION Since e the area is currently c in a state of transsition due to the t expected influx of jobs and people in n the next few decades, it is critical that land use design and in nfrastructure support s multim modal alterna atives e street and highway h syste em. While the ere may be litttle funding fo or these altern natives curren ntly, to the roadw ways and new w development designed to t support botth vehicular and a alternative e modes without comp promising stre eet capacity should s be enccouraged. Tran nsit Curre ently, the only y public transit service ava ailable in the Graham G Coun nty study area a is provided by SouthEastern Ariz zona Community Action Prrogram, Inc. (SEACAP) ( ussing one vehiccle. A feasibility studyy was conduc cted in 2007 to o determine the t transit nee eds of the com mmunity. Thiis study’s objecctives were to o identify transsit dependentt populations,, the need forr connections between majjor comm munity activity y centers, and d funding alte ernatives. The e results of th he feasibility study s indicate ed that there t is substtantial deman nd for public trransit services and recomm mended operating various fixed route es. Investmen nt in transit in nfrastructure and a pedestria an access can n be an alternative to roadw ways by alleviating cong gestion along g high density employmentt and residenttial corridors. Community leade ers continue to t address the e complexity of funding an nd manageme ent issues. Bicy ycle System Grah ham County, the t City of Sa afford, and To own of Thatch her have comp pleted a multii-use path and d/or bicyccle route syste em plans. Th hese are inclu uded as refere ence in Appen ndix 1C. Opp portunities to enha ance, facilitate e, or incorpora ate the comm munity’s bicyclle and multiusse plans will be b evaluated as part of o the Alterna ate Route Study. All bike fa acilities in the e area are divvided into the following fourr categ gories: • Shared-use Pa aths –a paved d pathway designated for the t exclusive use of pedesstrians, bicycle es nd other non--motorized ve ehicles in scen nic recreation nal areas. an • Bike Lanes – a bike lane loccated on the paved area of o a roadway shoulder s for preferential p usse by biicyclists. • Bike Routes – a roadway id dentified as a bicycle facilityy by guide sig gnage only without speciall lane m markings. Bicy ycle traffic shares the road dway with motor vehicles. • W Wide Curb Lan nes – not officcially designa ated as bikewa ays with at lea ast 14 feet wiide to acccommodate cyclists. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 26 b if ade equately planned for and utilized, u can play an important role in the e transportatio on The bicycle, syste em to enhanc ce mobility and d recreationa al riding. Pede estrian Syste em The two t types of pedestrian p faccilities are sid dewalks and multi-use m path hs. Sidewalkss are an impo ortant elem ment along urb ban roadwayss and near loccal activity centers such ass schools, com mmercial centters and public p recreattion areas tha at attract significant pedesttrian travel. In n developing a pedestrian syste em, priority sh hould be given to segmentts that would provide p safe school s routess or to enhancce continuity of the system. Since the need to cross c major streets s often discourages d w walking, alization or other protection n of pedestria an crossings at a these locattions should be b considered d signa wherre warranted. 1.3.5 TRAFFIC T AC CCIDENTS The historical h trafffic accident data (1998 to 2006) 2 for Gra aham County as shown in Table T 1-5, wa as obtaiined from the ADOT Motorr Vehicle Dep partment, whicch includes all city and cou unty accident recorrds. The thre ee incorporate ed cities account for about 50 percent of total crashes in the countty. The data d also sho owed that State Rural Road ds have more e accidents th han Other Rurral Roads. The highest h conce entration of trraffic accidentts were generrally within the e study area along US 191 1. This is not unexpe ected given th he high traffic volume along g this roadwa ay segment. In 2006, there e were e no crashes with w fatalities within the cityy, only outside and at the edge e of city boundaries. b T Traffic crash hes in the study area are shown s in Figu ure 1-9 and Figure 1-10. Alcoh hol-related crrashes accoun nt for more th han 10 percen nt of total crasshes and about 50 percentt of fatal crashes. Fig gure 1-11 show ws the severiity of crashess over the lastt five years. d identifies s the areas off concern with hin the study area to be alo ong the state highway systtem The data throu ugh Safford and Thatcher. By reviewing g the data, we e can determiine the potenttial benefits th hat local improvements and/or an alternate a routte corridor ma ay provide. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 27 Figure 1-9 9: Study Are ea Roadway y Traffic Crashes 2006 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 28 Figure 1-10: Saffford/Thatch her Area Ro oadway Trafffic Crashes 2006 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 29 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Oth her Rural Ro oads 1999 Gra aham Countty Pim ma Saffford Tha atcher Sta ate Rural Ro oads 1998 Table 1-5:: Total Crash hes in Graha am County 1998-2006 1 395 23 103 55 135 76 35 56 12 2 85 5 51 10 06 67 7 376 14 113 48 117 79 336 3 70 50 131 82 318 0 80 70 102 66 340 3 115 64 98 60 28 85 3 9 93 6 63 6 67 5 59 300 4 111 63 77 45 310 9 90 58 93 60 Source: Arizo ona Departmen nt of Motor Veh hicles Crash Faccts Summary 1998-2006 1 Figure e 1-11: Cras sh Severity in i Graham County C PDO – Prop perty Damage Only Source: Ariizona Department of Motor Vehicles V Crash Facts F Summaryy 1998-2006 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 30 1.3.6 EXISTING E TR RAFFIC AN ND OPERAT TING CONDIITIONS This section prese ents the existing traffic and d roadway cha aracteristics and a defines th he methodolo ogies ed in the analysis of netwo ork performan nce. Included d is a discussiion of the exissting operatin ng utilize cond ditions of the street s system in the study area. a Spee ed Limits The speed s limits within w the stud dy area generally range fro om 25 miles per p hour on th he local streetts, to 35 to o 45 miles perr hour on the collectors and d arterials in the t urban are ea. In the rura al area, the sp peed limitss on US 70 an nd US 191 inccreases to 55 5 or 65 miles per p hour. Figu ure 1-12 show ws the Graham m Coun nty study area a speed limitss. A closer loo ok at the Saffo ord/Thatcher area is shown in Figure 1--13. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 31 Figure e 1-12: Stud dy Area Road dway Speed d Limits Final Report R Decemberr 2010 32 Figure e 1-13: Saffford/Thatcher Area Roa adway Speed d Limits 200 07 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 33 Existing Traffic n the street syystem in the study s area arre shown in Figure 1-14 an nd Existting daily trafffic volumes on Figurre 1-15. The volumes on US U 70 and US S 191 were obtained from ADOT 2007 state s highwayy trafficc count. Othe ers were obta ained from HP PMS annual average a daily traffic countss (2006) and the t 2007 7 City of Saffo ord Transporta ation Study. As sh hown in the figure, the high hest daily trafffic volumes are a on the two o principal artterials: US 70 and US 191. US 70 ca arries nearly 20,000 vehicles on an ave erage daily ba asis inside the e Safford city area. US 191 also has near n 10,000 average a daily traffic south of o the Safford d area. Other high volume locattions include 20th 2 Ave, 8th Ave and 8th St in the Saffford city vicinity. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 34 Figure 1-14: Sttudy Area Roadways R Ex xisting Trafffic Volume 2007 2 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 35 Figure 1-15 5: Safford/T Thatcher Are ea Roadway ys Existing Traffic Volum me 2007 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 36 Operrating Conditions A revview of existin ng traffic cond ditions include es an analysiss of road segment traffic operations. Th he resullts of the anallysis are exprressed in term ms of Level off Service (LOS S). Level of service s is the term used d to describe the t degree off traffic congestion. The various v levels s of service ra ange from A to F, with A be eing the best operating con nditions and F being g the worst op perating cond ditions. LOS is i generally defined as follows: • LO OS A: Best, free f flow operations (on un ninterrupted flow f facilities) and very low w delay (on in nterrupted flow w facilities). Freedom F to se elect desired speeds and to t maneuver within traffic is i exxtremely high h. • LO OS B: Flow is stable, but presence of other o users iss noticeable. Freedom to select s desired d sp peeds is relattively unaffectted, but there e is a slight de ecline in the frreedom to ma aneuver within n traffic. • LO OS C: Flow is i stable, but the operation n of users is becoming b affe ected by the presence p of otther ussers. Maneuvering within traffic require es substantial vigilance on the part of th he user. • LO OS D: High density d but stable flow. Sp peed and free edom to mane euver are sevverely restricte ed. The driver is ex xperiencing a generally po oor level of co omfort and convenience. • LO OS E: Flow is at or near capacity. c All speeds s are re educed to a lo ow, but relativvely uniform value. v Freedom to ma aneuver within traffic is exttremely difficu ult. Comfort and a convenie ence levels are exxtremely poorr. • LO OS F: Worst, facility has failed, f or a bre eakdown hass occurred. Road dway segmen nt level of servvice is based on the numb ber of lanes, th he functional classification of the ro oadway, max ximum desired d level of servvice capacity, roadway geo ometrics, and d the existing or foreccasted averag ge daily trafficc volume. Roadway LOS iss used to desscribe the deg gree of traffic cong gestion. Road dways having a level of service in the D, D E or F range e are conside ered congeste ed and warrant w furthe er review for possible p imprrovements. In n rural areas, LOS C is the e general stan ndard for accceptable roa adway perform mance, and LOS L D is gene erally conside ered acceptab ble for roadwa ays in areass transitioning g from rural to o urban. With the coordination of TAC members m and ADOT Regio onal Traffic, th he project team updated th he el of Service (LOS)/ Capacity lookup tab ble. The updated lookup table was deve eloped by usin ng Leve Highw way Capacity y Software+, HighPlan H Mod dule. The Hig ghPlan Module e takes into account a local traffic param meters. It pro ovides a more e detailed LOS S criterion forr various typess of rural and d urban facilities. The existing e and future f year forecasted trafffic volumes were w compared with the updated capacitty thresshold volumes s shown in Ta able 1-6 to ob btain the operating conditio on and LOS of the roadwayys. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 37 Figurres 1-16 and 1-17 present the updated LOS for the existing e and fu uture years fo or Graham Co ounty road system. Traffic projection ns are based on o standard traffic t projection techniques without orig gindestination studies. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 38 Ta able 1-6: Ca apacity/LOS Lookup Tab ble Ro oadway Rural Principal Arterial M Arterial Rural Minor Rural Majorr Collector Rural Minorr Collector Rural Local Street Urban Princ cipal Arterial Urban Minor M Arterial Urban Colle ector Urban Loca al Street Functional Code 1 Speed Limit Two Way # of Lanes 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 45 MPH 45 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 50 MPH 55 MPH 55 MPH 55 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH 65 MPH 65 MPH 65 MPH 25 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH 50 MPH 55 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH 5 lanes 7 lanes 3 lanes 2 5 lanes 2 5 lanes 2 2 lanes 2 lanes 3 lanes 2 4 lane divided 5 lanes 2 2 lanes 3 lanes 2 4 lane divided 5 lanes 2 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 3 lanes 2 2 lanes 8 8 8 8 8 25 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH 9 9 9 Capacity Capa C acity Capacity y Capacity Capacity C LOS B LOS C LOS A LOS D LOS E 15,200 22,800 24,400 36,600 35,300 52,900 46,700 70,000 54,300 81,400 13,400 15,200 2,000 2,000 2,500 15,200 18,000 2,000 2,500 17,900 21,200 2,300 14,100 2,300 2,300 2,900 2,200 100 3,1 22,200 24,400 200 4,2 4,2 200 5,2 200 24,800 29,400 200 4,2 5,2 200 29,400 35,000 100 3,1 3,1 100 5,9 900 22,700 400 6,4 7,0 000 8,8 800 4,7 700 7,600 32,000 35,300 6,900 6,900 8,600 35,400 42,000 6,900 8,600 39,900 47,500 7,700 7,700 9,700 32,800 10,700 11,600 14,500 7,800 12,200 42,300 46,700 11,000 11,000 13,700 45,500 54,000 11,000 13,700 47,300 56,200 10,500 10,500 13,100 43,400 14,400 15,700 19,700 12,400 22,200 51,600 54,300 17,700 17,700 22,200 50,500 60,000 17,700 22,200 52,600 62,400 13,200 13,200 16,500 50,400 18,100 19,800 24,700 20,000 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 1,400 1,400 2,0 000 2,0 000 1,8 800 3,0 000 3,0 000 4,900 4,900 4,400 5,000 5,000 6,700 6,700 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,500 8,500 12,900 12,900 12,900 45 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH 2 lanes 3 lanes 4 lanes 15,900 2,8 800 3,5 500 26,000 6,900 8,600 37,100 10,900 13,700 47,700 19,900 24,900 53,000 14 14 14 14 35 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 55 MPH 3 lanes 2 5 lanes 2 5 lanes 2 5 lanes 2 13,400 15,200 17,900 800 1,8 22,200 24,400 29,300 6,900 32,000 35,300 41,800 11,000 42,300 46,700 53,700 14,400 51,600 54,300 59,700 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 25 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH 45 MPH 55 MPH 55 MPH 5 lanes 2 2 lanes 3 lanes 2 4 lanes 5 lanes 2 2 lanes 3 lanes 2 5 lanes 2 2 lanes 5 lanes 13,400 10,600 13,400 1,100 1,400 15,200 1,300 17,900 22,200 500 1,5 1,8 800 17,500 22,200 600 3,6 4,5 500 24,400 300 5,3 29,300 32,000 5,500 6,900 25,200 32,000 7,900 9,900 35,300 10,100 41,800 42,300 8,800 11,000 33,400 42,300 11,500 14,400 46,700 14,000 53,700 51,600 11,500 14,400 40,700 51,600 14,700 18,400 54,300 17,900 59,700 17 17 17 17 17 17 19 19 25 MPH 25 MPH 25 MPH 35 MPH 35 MPH 45 MPH 25 MPH 35 MPH 2 lanes 3 lanes 4 lanes 2 lanes 3 lanes 2 2 Lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 10,600 1,300 - 1,8 800 2,2 200 17,500 800 1,8 2,2 200 4,2 200 2,0 000 2,0 000 6,400 8,000 25,200 6,400 8,100 9,300 6,500 6,500 10,300 12,800 33,400 10,300 12,900 13,600 10,600 10,600 13,500 16,900 40,700 13,600 17,000 17,400 14,300 14,300 Source: AAD DT based Level of o Service Criteriia from Highway Capacity Softwa are (HCS+) Version 5.21, HIGHP PLAN Module 1. 2 2. 3 3. Functional classification c code from ADOT HP PMS database A five-lane segment s and a th hree-lane segme ent include a two--way left-turn lan ne. Assumptionss: PHF 0.88 for rural r area; 0.90 for f urban area; 10 0% Heavy Vehiccle percentage; 0.90 0 Local Adjusttment Factor; K-ffactor and D-factorrs are generalize ed from ADOT HP PMS database. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 39 Figure 1-1 16: Study Arrea Existing Level of Se ervice 2007 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 40 Figu ure 1-17: Saffford/Thatc cher Area Ex xisting Levell of Service 2007 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 41 1.4 FU UTURE CONDITIO C ONS The Graham G County area popu ulation and em mployment ha as steadily inccreased over the past ten yearss. The impactt of this growtth on the transportation sysstem needs to o be quantifie ed so that nece essary improv vements can be b identified and a programm med for implementation. Th he future horizon yearss for this alterrnate route study are 2020 0, 2030, and 2040. 2 The future f conditio ons projection ns discussed in the following section ha ave been dete ermined and base ed on the mod del developed d for the Graham County SATs. S The SA ATs study included all plan nned resid dential and em mployment de evelopments, as well as an ny currently identified roadw way impro ovements, inc cluding the TIIP, 1998 Grah ham County SATs S and the e US 191 DCR R. 1.4.1 GROWTH G FO ORECASTS The primary p meas sures of grow wth used in this study were population an nd employme ent. The curre ent popu ulation in the study s area is 34,270 and th here are 10,132 employee es. The population and emplloyment in the e study area is i tabulated by b 76 Traffic Analysis A Zone es (TAZs) for use in the tra avel foreccast model. Base ed on the Ariz zona Departm ment of Econo omic Security Demographicc Cohort-Com mponent Popu ulation Model, the populatio on for Graham m County will grow at an average a annual rate of 0.78 88% betw ween year 202 23 and year 2030; and 0.66 69% between n year 2030 and year 2040 0. These ratess were e applied to th he study area to form a basseline projection. Based on n the future growth trends along the US U 191 corridor, base popu ulation and la and availabilityy, the southerrn portion of the t study area a is expe ected to experrience higher growth rates, with the high hest in the are eas where the e Sierra Del Sol S deve elopment is planned. The north-western n n boundaries of the study area, a around Klondyke Road will also a experienc ce slightly hig gher than base eline growth projections p du ue to the plan nned developm ment of a new n subdivisiion. Farm communities in the study reg gion are proje ected to experrience very litttle or no po opulation grow wth in the futu ure. The employment e projection asssumes that th he future emp ployment grow wth will keep about a the sam me ratio as the popula ation growth in i the majorityy of the studyy area. There efore, the 0.78 88% and 0.66 69% wth rates were e applied to ge et the baselin ne employmen nt projection for f all the TAZ Zs. Based on the grow trafficc projection done d by the CK C Group in 20 007, the annu ual growth in most of Grah ham County iss anticcipated to be 2.3%, 2 and slig ghtly higher along a the US 191 corridor where w it is antticipated to be e 3%. Furth her adjustmen nts were made in areas wh here high devvelopments arre planned an nd have been appro oved. Higherr growth ratess are applied in the southern boundariess of the studyy area since th he Sierrra Del Sol dev velopment is expected e to create c high re esidential deve elopment easst of US 191 and a Final Report R Decemberr 2010 42 comm mercial development west of US 191. Farm F employm ment is expeccted to experiience very litttle or no in ncrease in the e future. Overrall, as shown n in Figure 1-1 18, population n density is exxpected to be e the highest in i the southerrn sections of the inc corporated City of Safford and a Town of Thatcher. Th he highest density is expeccted in the e city center areas a in the TAZs T adjacent to and south h of US 70. Also, A high population denssity is expe ected along US 191 at the south s end of the study are ea; this is expe ected to be primarily driven n by the Sierra S Del Sol development. High employment corridors are e projected to be on the ma ajor highwayss along US 70 0 and US 191 as wn in Figure 1-19. The tota al employmen nt by TAZ num mbers decrea ase as the TA AZs are distrib buted show furthe er away from the city cente er, with the exxception of grrowth in the th hree major em mployment locattions in the arrea. New min nes will be loccated in TAZ 16 1 and TAZ 54 5 and the Sa afford Prison is locatted at TAZ 58 8. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 43 Figure 1-18 8: Study Are ea 2040 Pop pulation Den nsity by TAZ Z Final Report R Decemberr 2010 44 Figure 1 1-19: Study Area 2040 Employmen nt by TAZ Final Report R Decemberr 2010 45 posed Develo opments Prop Acco ording to an ADOT A Traffic Projections P an nd Growth An nalysis report prepared by The CK Grou up in Augu ust 2007 and additional info ormation from m the cities in the study are ea, a list of exxisting and propo osed land use e developmen nt projects within the studyy area has be een developed d, shown in Table T 1-7. Additional pla anned projects which were e included in the t existing and a future pop pulation and es are: emplloyment figure • W Welker Farm in n TAZ 48, 40 acre industria al and 760 accre residential • The Safford Mall in TAZ 68,, 200 acre commercial, to be completed d by 2018 • Bear Creek Re esort in TAZ 15, 1 700 room hotel, 20,000 0 sf commercial, 300 townh homes and 50 00 e completed by b 2018. siingle family homes. To be • H Holiday Inn Ex xpress in TAZ Z 68, 100 room ms • M Motel 6 in TAZ Z 68, 67 rooms. • H Hampton Inn Express E in TA AZ 46, 64 room ms. • N Napa Car Care e in TAZ 43, 12,524 1 sq ft. • Blasias Family y Steak House e in TAZ 47, 4,376 4 sq ft. elopments in the t study area a will be Sierrra Del Sol loccated along US U One of the major planned deve b Qua ail Trail & P Ra anch Road. This T developm ment is plann ned for build-o out by year 20 025 191 between and is i expected to o contain 5,54 45 single family housing un nits. Base ed on the size e, status and locations l of th he proposed projects p and additional a discussion with the TAC, the populatio on increase based b on thesse developme ent projects was w projected for each TAZ Z for uture analysis s years. the fu Final Report R Decemberr 2010 46 Table 1-7: Study S Area Dev velopments TAZ Name Address # of Units Sta atus 15 Bear Creek Resort 47 Blasiias Family Steak Hou use 4,376 sq ft 24 Casa C Blanca Condos Stadium Ave e and the Highline Ca anal 192 Under Co onstruction 25 Comfort Inn Hwy 70 and Allred Ln 88 Com mpleted 47 Copper Canyon East of US 70 0 South of E Hollywoo od Dr 380 Com mpleted 18 Cota Ranches 1stt St & Porter Ln 129 Homes Unde er Construction 25 Diamond Springs Churrch St & Allred Ln 14 Homes Unde er Construction 25 Double D Ranch 8th h St & Railroad 24 Homes Unde er Construction 39 E & C homes (Cota Ranch hes) 23rd St betw ween 8th Ave & 2nd Ave A 81 Com mpleted 24 EA AC Cota Town Homes s Reay Ln L and Ball Park Rd 175 Under Co onstruction 23 Eagle Meadows 1st Ave & Eagle Dr 35 Homes Unde er Construction 11 Elmer Estates Centra al Rd & Webster Rd 29 Homes Unde er Construction Hot Springs Rd 92 700 3 Fred Web Park 15 Frye Mesa 27 Golf Course RV Park I N North of Golf Course Rd R between 20th Ave e & S 1st Ave 49 Final Plat Approved 28 Go olf Course RV Park II S South of Golf Course Rd between 20th Ave e & S 1st Ave 92 Com mpleted 21 Goodman Apartments Colle ege Ave & 4th St 40 Constructio on Completed 42 Greenberg I Relation St bettween 14th Ave & 20tth Ave 83 Final Plat Approved 27 Greenberg II N North of Golf Course Rd R between 20th Ave e & S 1st Ave 140 Final Plat Approved 46 Hampton Inn Express 64 68 Holiday H Inn Express 100 20 Howard H Apartments High School S Ave & 1st St 48 Under Co onstruction 46 Kreigs Comfort Inn 450 Entertainment E Ave 88 Com mplete Final Report Dec cember 2010 47 Table 1-7: Study Area A Developm ments (continue ed) TAZ Name Address # of Units Status 22 Marriot Hote el C Church St and Hwy 70 0 70 Comple eted 39 Mesa Vista Subd division West Discovery Park P Blvd between 8th h Ave & 14th Ave 70 Comple eted 49 ontana Vista Estates, Eldon Angle Mo n Subdivision US 191 1 between 24th St & 26th 2 St 220 Comple eted 68 Motel 6 15 Mountain Vista estates e Valley Vie ew Dr & Pinaleno Mou untain Rd 43 Napa Car Ca are 12,524 sq ft 42 Palomino Ran nch Relation St between 14th Ave & 20th Ave 54 Phelps Dodge Mining M 38 Pinaleno Foothills 67 192 Final Plat Approved A 40 Final Plat P Bowie to Miami Going Parallel to US S 191 & US 70 0 Conceptua al Phase 26th St between b 17th Ave & 20th 2 Ave 62 Comple eted 27 Quail Ridge Pha ase II Firs st Ave & Quail Ridge Dr 120 Homes Under Construction C 52 Ranch at River Vie ew LTD East of US U 70 North of E Holly ywood Dr 227 Rezon ning 46 River View Develo opment Sunflower Canall between 8th Ave & Graveyard G wash 231 Conceptua al Phase 27 Safford Hills Town nhomes 20tth Ave South of Hospital 104 Pending Appro oval of Plans 68 Safford Mall 31 Sierra Del Sol Deve elopment US 191 bettween Quail Trail & P Ranch Rd 2133 Conceptua al Phase 25 Spring Canyon Estates E 1st Ave & Union Cana al 148 Final Plat Approved A 42 Stone Willow w 8th St between 20th Ave & 14 4th Ave 64 Under Cons struction Pre-Applicatiion Phase 200 29 Swift Trail US 191 & Swift Trail 90 8 Tempe View w Near southwe est corner of Websterr Rd & US 70 64 27 The Village e 39 Tierra Bonita a II 49 Township 48 Welker Farm m 11 Homes Under Construction C 24th St between 8th Ave & 14 4th Ave 30 Under Cons struction S 1st Av ve between 27th St & 24th St 150 Final Plat P 760 Final Report Dec cember 2010 48 Planned street sy ystem der to perform m an analysiss of future trafffic operationss for the final horizon year 2040, a future In ord base e street system m must be esstablished. Th he future base e network wa as obtained byy updating the e existing street sys stem with the schedule of all a the confirm med projects listed in the cu urrent Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 1998 Grraham Countyy SATS recom mmended pro ojects. The transportation t n improvemen nt projects tha at were incorp porated in the e future based d network are e listed d in Table 1-10. Table 1-8: 1 Transpo ortation Imp provement Projects P Rou ute Location Fund Source S Type off Work Program Year Disco overy Pa ark Safford ENHNCMNT Enhance ements 2008 8th Ave A Brid dge 8thh Ave – Gila River R Bridge, Safford H HPP/BR Bridge Con nstruction 2008 8th Ave A Brid dge 8thh Ave – Gila River R Bridge, Safford BR R/SEC 115 Bridge Design D 2008 Peterson ash Wa afford-Bryce Road R Sa HES Widen to o 4 lanes 2008 20th Ave walks Sidew 20th Ave from US 70 to Relation St TE Sidewalk, Mu ultiuse Path, and Stree et Lights Constru uction 2010 US 191 Te en Ranch to Owl O Canyon C (SEG III) I STP Constructt Parallel Roadway 2008 US 191 W to Ten Ranch Dial Wash (SEG II) STP Constructt Parallel Roadway 2011 US 191 I-10 0 to Jct US 70 0 (SEG IV – 8th St) State Widening to o four-lane NP US 191 8th St – US 70 7 State Upgrade to four lanes NP US 70 Hollywood H Dr to Solomon State Widening to o four-lanes with a continuous center left-turn lane 2011 Sourcce: ADOT and SouthEastern Arizona Goverrnments Organization (SEAGO) Final Report R Decemberr 2010 49 1.4.2 TRAVEL T FOR RECASTING G MODEL The transportation t n modeling prrocedure invo olves a numbe er of steps. Land L use data a and trip gene eration rates for f the study area a are complied and then used to calcculate trip pro oductions and d attracctions for eac ch zone. Con ncurrently, the e street system m to be includ ded in the mo odel and the deve elopment of th he highway ne etwork to reprresent the stre eet system ne eed to be identified. The netw work data inclu udes the Trafffic Analysis Zones Z (TAZs),, street segme ent lengths, speed, s and capa acity. Using th he street segm ment lengths and a speeds in n the networkk, the minimum m time paths betw ween zones arre determined d. The productions p and a attractions for each zone and the minimum m pathss between zones are used d as the in nputs to the th hird set of tassks, the trip diistribution and d assignmentt process. Trip p distribution is acco omplished usin ng a mathematical model. The most co ommonly used d distribution model is the graviity model whic ch assumes that t the attracction of trips between b zone es is inverselyy proportional to the distance d between zones. The T result of the t gravity mo odel is a trip table t matrix re epresenting all a trips distributed to o/from each zo one. These trips t are then assigned to the t street system, via the minim mum paths (b based on time e) to produce traffic forecassts for the nettwork. A grap phical illustrattion of the e modeling prrocess is show wn in Figure 1-20. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 50 Figure 1-20: Travel Forecastin ng Modeling Process Final Report R Decemberr 2010 51 Model Calibration d models were crea ated using Tra ansportation Planning P Pluss (TP+) program, which iss an The demand integ grated computter package for f traffic foreccasting proce ess developed d by Citilabs. TP+ provides a gene eral frameworrk for impleme enting a wide variety of travvel demand fo orecasting prrocesses enco ompassing sim mple 4-step models m of trip generation, trrip distribution n, mode choicce, and trip assig gnment for bo oth highway and a transit sysstems. In thiss study, the co onventional fo our-step demand foreccasting metho odology was applied a withou ut the mode choice c consideration. Before the transpo ortation mode el can be used d to forecast traffic volume es, the model's representation c mu ust be validate ed. The first step s was to build b the highw way network into i of exxisting traffic conditions TP+ and to develo op the existing land use da ata for each zone. z Then, trrip generation n, distribution and gnment are pe erformed usin ng the modeling software. The result is a loaded highway networkk with assig comp puter-simulate ed volumes. Trip generation g ra ates develope ed for the stud dy model, pressented in Tab ble 1-11, were e initially derivved from Graham Cou unty 1998 SAT TS with the adjustments a m made based on o the small community acteristics and travel patte ern as determined from the e new model. Using those rates, the total chara numb ber of trips ge enerated in ea ach internal zone z calculate ed to identify the t relative trip intensity off each of the e zones. Table 1-9: Trip Genera ation Rates Trip Rates Dwelling Unit Retaiil Office e Gene eral Ho ome Ba ased W Work Hom me Based Office NonHome e Based d 1.48 1 5 5.2 2 2.73 2 2.03 3.8 85 16.1 12 2.9 93 4.0 06 1.09 4.68 2.34 0.91 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 52 In ad ddition to evaluating interna al trips, trips generated g by the external zones z are esttimated. Exte ernal zone es represent trraffic entering g and exiting the t model are ea from outsid de the plannin ng area. Trafffic from external zone es is distributted as through h traffic to ano other externa al zone or as internal i trips to t an r trafficc, locations off major emplo oyment center exterrnal TAZ. Based on the distribution of regional (espe ecially mining g locations) arround the are ea and previou us studies, se even external zones were identtified for this study. s These e external stattions are located on west US U 70, east US U 70, US 191 1 south h of Artesia Rd, R US 191 ea ast of the US 70/US191 sp plit, SR 366 west w of US 191 1, San Jose Sancchez Rd and Cluff C Ranch Rd R as shown in Figure 1-21. The traffic t assignm ment was acccomplished ussing a capacity restrained process. The e capacity restra ained assignm ment is an efffort to replicatte the actual traffic t conditio on based on the t capacity of o the stree ets. If the volu ume on a road reaches capacity, the pa ath times are re-calculated and the traffiic is then re-assigned to t the shortesst time path. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 53 Figure 1--21: Externa al Stations Final Report R Decemberr 2010 54 Calib bration Facto ors The computer c sim mulated volum mes were com mpared to the existing trafficc to determine how well the existing conditions s were being simulated. A number of model parametters and facto ors can be ve the simula ation. This adjustment proccess is the callibration of the e model. The adjussted to improv facto ors which can be adjusted include the sttreet segmentt speed and capacity, c frictiion factors, an nd intrazzonal trip time es. The frictio on factors are used to defin ne the effect that t the distan nce between zone es has on the relative attracctiveness of trips between zones. The intrazonal trip times add tim me to the trrip within a zo one so that a certain perce entage of tripss must leave a zone to be satisfied. s Initially, coarse ad djustments we ere made to the model to shift s traffic and d replicate tra avel patterns. An addittional check was w made of the t overall tra affic in the are ea using scree enlines. Scre eenlines Another means off analyzing tra affic movement in an area is by examining volumes across a enlines. A sc creenline is an n imaginary lin ne across which all the traffic flows can be counted and a scree summ med. This tec chnique proviides a conven nient means for f examining g major travel trends and remo oves the discrrepancies tha at are inherentt in model generated volum mes on individ dual street segm ments. The sc creenlines ussed for this an nalysis are sho own in Figure e 1-22. In the e calibration process, p scre eenlines are used to verify the total amo ount of traffic on o area streets. If the to otal simulated d traffic volum me across a sccreenline is lo ower (or highe er) than the existing e traffic volum mes, then a percentage p ad djustment is made m to the co omputer simu ulated volume es across the scree enline. This percentage p iss then applied to adjust the e individual forrecasts. The comparison betw ween existing and a simulated d volumes ind dicates that th he model resu ults are reaso onable and tha at existing volumes are a being rep plicated well. As shown in Table 1-12, th he simulation n volumes acrross nes are within n 10 percent of o existing trafffic counts. all off the screenlin Final Report R Decemberr 2010 55 Figure 1-22: Scree en Lines Final Report R Decemberr 2010 56 Table 1-10 0: Screenline Compariso ons Existing g Vs. Model Screenlline Gila Riv ver E-W 1 E-W 2 E-W 3 E-W 4 E-W 5 N-S 1 N-S 2 Existing Daily Volumes 5,567 4,632 9,812 21,288 28,174 2,919 10,337 21,810 Mod del Daily Vo olumes 5,421 4,285 9,494 2 22,319 2 28,626 2,876 9,685 2 23,179 Model/ /Existing 0.97 0.93 0.97 1.05 1.02 0.99 0.94 1.06 1.4.3 TRAVEL T FOR RECASTS With the travel forrecasting mod del properly calibrated, trafffic forecasts can be develo oped for the future f b analyzed. The T early horrizon year 202 20 and final horizon year of o 2040 were both b horizzon years to be mode eled for this study, s and the e interim year 2030 was intterpolated based on the re esults for the early e and final f horizon years. y The model m inputs fo or the future conditions c we ere based on the projected d popu ulation and em mployment da ata, and the planned streett system as previously desscribed. In addittion, traffic at the external zones z was inccreased to acccount for gro owth outside the t study area a. The volumes v at th he external zo ones were gen nerally increa ased by 27% by b the year 2020 and 88% % by the year y 2040 in accordance a w the historical traffic gro with owth from the Arizona Depa artment of Transportation at those areas. d forecastt volumes for the horizon years y of 2020, 2030, and 2040 2 are show wn in Figure 1-25 1 The daily throu ugh Figure 1-3 30. The foreccasts were de erived from th he model outp puts and adjussted where appro opriate. The adjustments were made to o account for known estimation errors in n the model and a remo ove discontinu uities in mode el-generated numbers. n The most m heavily utilized roadw ways in the sttudy area are along US 70 within Safforrd and Thatch her, and along a US 191 1 leading up to o Safford. In the year 202 20, daily trafficc volume alon ng US 70 and US 191 within w incorpo orated areas will w be near 30,000. 3 By the e year 2030, daily traffic vo olumes along g US 191 will w exceed 30 0,000 extending past SR 366 3 and 20,00 00 outside of city limits. While W 2040 will not see growth g as dra amatic as the previous deccade, the sam me high traffic volume segm ments will con ntinue to se ee increases. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 57 1.4.4 OPERATING O G CONDITIO ONS A revview of future traffic conditions involved the analysis of projected roadway r segm ments traffic opera ations. The results r of the analysis are expressed e in terms of Leve el of Service (LOS) as previiously describ bed in Section n 1.3.6. To exxamine the operating cond ditions of arterial street seg gments, the daily traffic vollumes are comp pared to LOS D threshold volumes for various v types of roadway. The Level off Service is depe endent on roa adway classificcations, with urban roads reaching r capa acity at lowerr volumes than rural roadways. Based B on roa adway classification standa ards, if capaciity is exceede ed on a roadw way, trave el speed will be b greatly reduced and the e ability to passs will be restricted. The current c Level of o Service standards s are based on o current classsifications, which w may become obsolette as the area a beco omes more de eveloped and employment and populatio on increases. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 58 Figure 1-23: Expec cted Numberr of Lanes 2040 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 59 Figure 1-24: Safforrd/Thatcherr Area Expec cted Number of Lanes 2040 2 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 60 Figurre 1-25 throug gh Figure 1-3 30, illustrates the Level of Service S on the e planned stre eet system fo or the future e horizon yea ars. The exissting LOS ressults show tha at most of the study area ro oadways are opera ating at accep ptable levels of services in n the current year y 2007. Th he following street s segmen nts are currently c operrating at or ovver capacity: • 8tth St between n 20th Avenue e and 14th Avve • 8tth Ave between 10th Stree et and 8th Strreet • U Route 191 between 11th US h Street and US Route 70 • U Route 70 between US b Barn ney Lane and Bowie Avenu ue Until 2014, the roa adway numbe er of lanes in the study are ea remains the e same as the e existing dition. In 2014 4 or 2015, it iss anticipated by b the traffic model m that US S Route 70 be etween Hollyw wood cond Road d and Lone Star Road will be widened to a 4-lane roa adway with a center left turn lane. By year y 2020 0, it is anticipa ated by the tra affic model that US Route 191 south of Armory Road d to SR 266 will w be widened to a four lane divided highway, alth hough the actual northern terminus t of im mprovements will b determined d until comple etion of the US S 191 Design n Concept Report and the Graham G Coun nty not be Alternate Route Study. S he year 2020, the principal arterial roadss in Safford and a Thatcher, which US 70 0 and US 191 By th opera ate as, will be e over capacitty in much of the city cente er area. US 191, 1 at the inttersection of US U 70 will w also be ove er capacity. The T widened US191 on the e south of Arm mory Road will w provide addittional capacity y for the incre eased traffic. Other segme ents expected d to be at cap pacity include Relations St, 20th h Ave, and 8th h St. With the almost fullyy completion of o the Sierra Del D Sol deve elopment, Arte esia Road wo ould experiencce LOS E. In 20 030, the segm ment of US 70 0 is anticipated d to be at LOS E between Bowie Ave and San Jose Road d. Although th he model assu umes that US S 191 south of Armory Roa ad to SR 266 has been wid dened to a 4-lane 4 divided d highway, the increased capacity c seem ms inadequate e for most seg gments north of Artessia Rd. More segments on n the previouss congested arterials a and urban u collecto ors would be at LOS E or F. Stock kton Road will share the tra affic from US191 to the south, which will expect LOS S E or T and Arte esia Rd. F bettween Quail Trail The assumed a imp provements th hat will be com mpleted by 20 040 are show wn in the numb ber of lanes as a show wn in Figure 1-23 & 1-24. By B 2040, mosst segments on o collector and minor arte erial streets within w Saffo ord will be ope erating at LOS S E or F. Easst of Safford downtown d are ea, US 70 betw ween Bowie Ave A and US U 70/US 191 Split will exxperience LOS S E. LOS F iss expected on n US 191 alm most the entire e corrid dor within the e study area. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 61 Figure 1-25: Study Area A 2020 Operating Co onditions Final Report R Decemberr 2010 62 Figurre 1-26: Saffford/Thatch her Area 202 20 Operatin ng Condition ns Final Report R Decemberr 2010 63 Figure 1-27: Study Area A 2030 Operating Co onditions Final Report R Decemberr 2010 64 Fig gure 1-28: S Safford/Thattcher Area 2030 Operatting Conditio ons Final Report R Decemberr 2010 65 Figure 1-29: Study Area A 2040 Operating Co onditions Final Report R Decemberr 2010 66 Figurre 1-30: Saffford/Thatch her Area 204 40 Operatin ng Condition ns Final Report R Decemberr 2010 67 2 DE ETERMIN NATION N OF NE EED AND FEAS SIBILITY Y 2.1 DE ETERMIN NATION OF O NEED D FOR A NEW ALTERNAT TE ROUTE CO ORRIDOR R 2.1.1 NEED N CRITE ERIA In ord der to determ mine the need for a new alte ernate route corridor c within n the project study s area, a numb ber of criteria must be evaluated for currrent and future conditions. The need fo or a connecto or corrid dor can be ide entified when n a compilation of the chara acteristics eva aluated identiify benefits to o the studyy area due to the corridor. The following characteristics have bee en analyzed within w the stud dy area to determine e the need for the new conn nector corrido or: capacity and level of se ervice, existing g city, environm mental concerns, high truckk percentagess, state highw way access co ontrol interssection capac mana agement, and d safety. Eacch of these characteristics are a generallyy described an nd evaluated in the follow wing sections s. Capa acity and Lev vel of Servic ce The existing e and future f level off service analysis complete ed in Section 1 identified segments of US U 70 and US U 191 opera ating at a LOS S of E, which is worse than n the LOS D goal. g The devvelopment off this analyysis was for th he No Build condition, c assuming that an n alternate route corridor was w not developed within n the study area. Based on o standard engineering prractices a LOS of E or F is considered deficcient. This cre eates a need for providing congestion re elief for severral segments of US 70 and d US 191, possibly in th he form of an alternate route corridor. Existing Intersec ction Capacitty Using g the future trraffic model and a turning mo ovement counts previouslyy collected, th he existing US S 70/US 191 interse ection level off service was analyzed for capacity. It was w determined that this w along US 70 7 and US 191 due to interssection in Saffford is a consstriction pointt for traffic flow inade equate capac city available to t handle futu ure traffic volu umes. Capaccity analysis fo or this interse ection with future f traffic volumes v has identified the need for dive erting the high h northbound to eastbound d trafficc and the eas stbound to southbound trafffic. Environmental Concerns C s prope erties and cha aracteristics th hat can be rellated as Within the city limits there are several ncerns. Incre easing traffic volume v create es environme ental concernss, such as noise envirronmental con Final Report R Decemberr 2010 68 and air a pollution. Other concerrns are related to the proximity of historrical properties and the consstraints they place p on the existing e roadw way facilities. These historical propertiess are located near the US U 70/US 191 1 intersection in downtown Safford. By developing an a alternate ro oute corridor, some e of these con ncerns can be e mitigated. High h Truck Perce entages Therre is a large portion of truckk traffic that trravels through h the Safford--Thatcher are ea servicing th he copp per mines in th he area. Thiss traffic can be e considered inconsistent with downtow wn characterisstics of the e area and is hazardous in n nature due to t the size of vehicles and types of load ds they carry. The deve elopment of an n alternate ro oute corridor would w generally provide a bypass b opporrtunity for the truck trafficc, and particu ularly for the truck traffic co ontinuing to th he Clifton/Morrenci area from I-10. State e Highway Access A Manag gement The ADOT A access s management policies cre eate a vision for f developing g controlled access a facilitie es by deve elopment of Access Manag gement Plans. This strate egy allows AD DOT to manag ge and mainta ain regio onally significa ant highway facilities f rathe er than portion ns of a local arterial a street system. US 70 and US U 191 curre ently act as sig gnificant arterrial streets witthin the Saffo ord-Thatcher city c area, with h minim mal access co ontrol charactteristics. The e developmen nt of an alternate route corrridor with contrrolled access policies will provide p an acccess controlle ed facility serrving regional traffic and allow ADO OT to turn back portions of the US 70 an nd US 191 faccilities to the lo ocal agenciess. Prov vide Develop pment Opporrtunity The addition a of a new facility th hrough the currently undevveloped landss will provide new n developm ment oppo ortunities at ea ach of the pottential traffic intersections i or interchang ges along the proposed corrid dor. There will w also be an opportunity to o develop alo ong the crossrroad connections as the existing local stree et system is extended e to th he new alternate route corridor. our Route forr I-10 Deto Histo orically once or o twice a yea ar, a significan nt dust storm forces the clo osure of I-10 between Willcox and the t Stateline. When these e closures occcur, the intersstate traffic is detoured thro ough Safford along US 191 and US 70. By develo oping the alterrnate route co orridor as a co ontrolled acce ess facility, the w not have e to affect the e Safford and Thatcher dow wntown areass, as well as intersstate traffic would decre ease the trave el time throug gh the study area. a Final Report R Decemberr 2010 69 Safe ety Curre ently, there are numerous intersections, driveways and a conflict po oints existing along the US S 70 and US U 191. The ese conflict po oints increase e the potential for accidentss and by deve eloping an altern nate route corridor with controlled accesss characterisstics, the gen neral safety off the region ca an be impro oved. 2.2 ID DENTIFY POTENT TIAL COR RRIDOR ALTERN A NATIVES 2.2.1 DESCRIPTIO D ON OF RESIISTANCE MODEL Pote ential corridorr alternatives have been de eveloped usin ng a resistancce model deve eloped using spatial analysis to ools in a geographic inform mation system (GIS). The resistance r mo odel evaluates the e account of environmental e characteristics. Inputs to the t model incclude studyy area through a collective land ownership/prroperty contro ol, ground slope and hydro ology. Model outputs o provid de conceptual dors, which may m be suitable for further study s as a co orridor alterna ative. corrid The specifics s of how the resista ance model works w can besst be describe ed by assumin ng that the study area is split into th housands of pixels. p For ea ach criteria se elected the pixxels are assig gned a weightt. nstance, pixe els in a steep slope area ca an be given a higher weigh hting (on a scale of 1 to 10) For in than pixels in flat areas. a The weighting w proccess is repeatted for all of the t criteria disscussed in Se ection 2. 2.2.2 Figure 2-1: Resistance R M Model Graph hic Modell Inputs Reesistance Values Least Resistan nt Path End 0 - 5% Slope 3 6 3 3 7 3 2 27 27 24 21 25 21 6 3 3 7 3 3 3 30 24 21 22 18 18 6 7 7 3 3 3 3 35 30 25 18 15 15 7 3 5 6 6 3 3 33 29 23 18 15 12 3 3 5 6 9 6 2 29 26 23 18 12 9 3 3 5 6 9 3 2 29 26 23 18 12 3 Start Terrminal Points 5 -10% Slope End point ope > 15% Slo Start point Unnamed water feature ater feature Named wa Final Report R Decemberr 2010 70 In ad ddition to weig ghting the pixe els, the terminal points for the corridor alternative a mu ust be identified along g the existing state routes. These pointts represent lo ocations alon ng the existing g roads that may m be co onducive for connecting c the corridor alte ernatives to th he existing syystem. The te erminal pointss seleccted are show wn in Figure 2-2. 2 Once e all of the pix xels are weigh hted and the terminal t pointts are identifie ed, total pointts are calcula ated as th he corridor alte ernative trave erses from on ne terminal po oint to another terminal point. The mode el softw ware connects s the terminal points selectted by linking the pixels with the lowest values, or lea ast resisstance. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 71 Figure 2-2: 2 Termina al Points Final Report R Decemberr 2010 72 2.2.2 CRITERIA C FO OR RESISTANCE MOD DEL Three primary critteria have bee en selected to o be included in the Resisttance Model evaluation; e they L Ownersh hip/Property Control, C Grou und Slope and d Hydrology. Primary P criterria impose the e are Land greattest constrain nts to construcctability. A sccale factor on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being b low resisstance (minimal conflict/cosst) and 10 being high resisstance (high conflict/cost) c h been has prelim minarily selec cted for the initial runs of th he model. Seccondary criterria included in n the model include earthen da ams and exissting bridges. These secon ndary criteria allow a the mod del to conside er avoid ding conflicts with dams an nd selecting existing e Gila River R crossing gs when optim mal. Inputt from the TAC C members has h been soliccited to confirrm and/or adju ust the weigh hting of the criiteria curre ently selected, as well as th he addition off any other criteria that may be considerred importantt to the study s team. Grou und Slope The existing e topog graphy within the study are ea ranges from the steep slopes s of the Mount Graha am footh hills, to the flat agricultural areas of the valley v floor. As sh hown in the Source S Valuess exhibit on Figure F 2-3, the e existing slop pes vary from m flat at 0% to steep p at 26%. As a function off the Resistan nce Model devvelopment, th he following ra anges and weightings have been b assumed d: • G Greater than 10% slope = 9 points • 5% % to 10% slo ope = 6 pointss • Le ess than 5% slope = 3 points The graphical g representation of o these pointss is shown in the Analysis Values exhibit on Figure 2-4. 2 By evvaluating the ground slope e criteria, the corridor altern natives can be b developed to avoid the extre eme slopes, which w increase e construction n costs and decrease the development d potential along gside the corrridor. The criteria will also help to prese erve public intterest by presserving natura al footh hills and chara acter within th he study area. Hydrrology The existing e water and hydrolo ogy features within w the stud dy area consisst of rivers, sttreams, creekks, wash hes, canals, water w bodies and a wetland areas. a Final Report R Decemberr 2010 73 As sh hown in the Source S Valuess exhibit on Figure F 2-5, the e existing hydrologic featurres can be categ gorized into wetland w areass, lakes and re eservoirs, and d named and unnamed rivers, streams, wash hes, canals, ditches, d and pipelines. p As a function of the Resistancce Model devvelopment, the e follow wing ranges and a weighting gs have been assumed: • W Water body pro otection = 5 points p – this category c has been b subdivid ded by the sizze of the wate er bo ody in an atte empt to create e a variable buffer b and protection area. o Less s than 2 acress = 100 ft bufffer dimension n o 2-5 acres a = 200 ftt buffer dimen nsion o Grea ater than 5 accres = 500 ft buffer b dimenssion • W Wetlands area a protection = 5 points • N Named River/S Stream/Wash h/Canal/Ditch//Pipeline = 4 points p • U Unnamed Rive er/Stream/Wa ash/Canal/Ditcch/Pipeline = 2 points The graphical g representation of o these pointss is shown in the Analysis Values exhibit on Figure 2-6. 2 By evvaluating the hydrology criiteria, the corridor alternatives can be developed to avoid a the wate er bodie es and riparia an areas, as well w as minimize the numbe er of river, strream, creek, wash, w canal, and ditch crossings alo ong a corridor. The criteria a will help to minimize envvironmental co oncerns by ding areas co ommonly know wn as areas of o concern, ass well as provviding an oppo ortunity for co ost avoid savin ngs by minimiizing drainage e crossings. Land d Ownership p/Property Co ontrol The type t of existin ng land ownership and age encies respon nsible for the property conttrol varies throu ughout the stu udy area. Sig gnificant prope erty is manag ged by agenciies, such as State S Trust La and, Bure eau of Land Management, M Coronado Na ational Forestt, Arizona Gam me and Fish, and Military Rese ervation, with the remaining g lands being g privately ow wned. As a no ote, the militarry reservation n show wn on the exhibits has been provided byy the State La ands, based on o Executive Order O 4786 frrom President Calvin Coolidge C on December D 17, 1927 declarring the prope erty for use off the National ge. Guarrd of Arizona as a rifle rang As sh hown in the Source S Valuess exhibit on Figure F 2-7, the e existing land d ownership and a property contrrol limits are shown. s As a function of the Resistance e Model development, the following f rang ges and weightings w ha ave been assumed: • A Arizona Game and Fish Are eas = 10 points • M Military Reserv vation = 10 po oints • C Coronado Natiional Forest Property P = 10 points Final Report R Decemberr 2010 74 • C Currently Deve eloped Private e Lands = 10 points • Planned Devellopment of Prrivate Lands = 5 points • U Undeveloped Private P Landss = 1 points • State Trust Lan nd = 1 points • Bureau of Land d Manageme ent Land = 1 points p g representation of o these pointss is shown in the Analysis Values exhibit on Figure 2-8. 2 The graphical By evvaluating the land ownersh hip and prope erty control, th he corridor altternatives can n be develope ed to seekk the more cos st effective rig ght-of-way co orridors when evaluating the cost of purcchasing the riightof-wa ay. The evalu uation of this ownership infformation will also help to identify areass along the corrid dor alternative es, which can n provide the best opportun nities for futurre developme ent of the age ency landss without dram matically affeccting the existing developm ment areas. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 75 Figure 2-3: Ground d Slope Anallysis- Source e Values Final Report R Decemberr 2010 76 Figure 2-4: Ground Slo ope Analysis s- Values Used In Modell Final Report R Decemberr 2010 77 Figure e 2-5: Hydro ology Analys sis- Source Values Final Report R Decemberr 2010 78 Figure 2-6 6: Hydrology Analysis- Values Used d In Model Final Report R Decemberr 2010 79 Figure 2--7: Land Ow wnership Ana alysis- Sourrce Values Final Report R Decemberr 2010 80 Figure 2-8: Land Ownerrship Analysis- Values Used In Model Final Report R Decemberr 2010 81 2.2.3 EVALUATIO E ON OF RESIS STANCE MO ODEL Base ed on the term minal points and point criteria discussed d above, the Resistance R Mo odel was run on the computer c and provided the e results show wn in Figure 2-9. Compute er generated results r provided gene eral guidance for potential corridors c thatt warranted fu urther evaluattion. With the resistanc ce model resu ults, prelimina ary corridor altternatives havve been identtified with the e F 2-10. Then T based on o input from the TAC and public, the co orridor alterna atives resullts shown in Figure have e continued to o be refined ass shown in Figure 2-11 thrrough Figure 2-13. 2 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 82 Figure 2-9: Pre eliminary Re esistance Mo odel Results s Final R Report Decemberr 2010 83 Figure e 2-10: Preliiminary Proposed Corrid dor Alternattives - Second Refinement Final R Report Decemberr 2010 84 Figurre 2-11: Pre eliminary Pro oposed Corrridor Alterna atives - Thirrd Refineme ent Final R Report Decemberr 2010 85 Figure e 2-12: Preliiminary Proposed Corridor Alternattives – Fourrth Refineme ent Final R Report Decemberr 2010 86 Figu ure 2-13: Pre eliminary Prroposed Corrridor Altern natives- Fifth h Refinemen nt Final R Report Decemberr 2010 87 2.2.4 PROPOSED P CORRIDOR R ALTERNA ATIVES Figurre 2-13 shows s the final refinements of the preliminarry alternate ro oute corridors and connection pointts to US Routte 70 and US Route 191. Alterrnative A: This alternative connects US S Route 191 with w US Route e 70, west of the t Town of Pima P nd east of the City of Safford. It navigattes to the wesst from Swift Trail T (8) and runs r an alo ong the edge of Mount Gra aham and the en north wherre it connects to US Route 70 (1). To the easst, the corridor travels along g Swift Trail, then crosses BLM propertty to co onnect at the existing e US 70 7 / US 191 in nterchange (6). Alterrnative B: This alternative connects US S Route 191 with w US Route e 70, west of the t Town of Pima P nd east of the City of Safford. It navigattes to the wesst from Powerrline Road (7)) and an runs along the edge e of Moun nt Graham an nd then north where it conn nects to US Route R 0 (1). To the east e the corrid dor runs alon ng Powerline Road R turning northeast as it 70 cro osses the Arizzona Eastern n Railroad and d San Simon River, connecting to US Route R 70 0 at the US 70 0 / US 191 intterchange (6). Alterrnative C: This alternative has two road dway compon nents that can n be built sepa arately. The C1 C nects US Rou ute 191 from Powerline P Ro oad (7) travelss to the west, and altternative conn the en traverses to t the north and a west to co onnect with US Route 70 at a Webster Ro oad (3). The C2 alternative conn nects with US S Route 191 fu urther south at a Swift Trail (8) ( nd connects with w the C1 altternative. an Alterrnative D: Ra ather than devveloping a new w alternate ro oute corridor, this alternativve involves ma aking significa ant improvem ments to existing US Route e 191, US Rou ute 70 and loccal strreet system within w the com mmunities of Safford, S Thatccher and Grah ham County, in ad ddition to incre easing the sp peed limits in various v sectio ons. The loca al street im mprovements include: i • Constructio on of the road dway and intersection recommendationss provided in the 2009 Graha am County Sm mall Area Tra ansportation Study S (SATs); • Extend Stockton Road as a a 4 lane roadway to Solomon Road; • Widen Rela ation Street to o 4 lanes betw ween US 191 and 14th Ave e; • Extend and d widen 20th Ave A as a 2 lan ne roadway between b Disco overy Park Blvd and Artesia a Road. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 88 Alterrnative E: This alternative involves the realignment of o US 191 to the t existing Stockton S Road d esia Road to Powerline P Road, where it will w reconnectt with alignment from south of Arte US S 191. SR 366 will be exte ended along Swift S Trail to connect c to the e new US 191 1. With the implementation of anyy of Alternativves A, B, C1, C2 or E, there e is an opporttunity to turn the existing US 70 and US191 road dways back to t the local ag gencies to be used as city streets. With h the highw way traffic rem moved from th he existing ro oadways, a ‘C Complete Stre eets’ approach h can be used d to enha ance the multii-modal chara acteristics and d circulation through and around a the downtown areas. The ‘Complete ‘ Strreets’ movem ment is a conte ext sensitive design, d which h focuses on creating multimoda al transportation conditionss through the inclusion of facilities f for bicyclist and pedestrians. ‘Com mplete Streets s’ integrates in nfrastructure improvementts and provide es bicycle- an nd pedestrianscale ed environme ents. Typicallyy, these stree et improvements offer physsical separatio on to minimizze conflicts. ‘Comple ete Streets’ also offer community benefits such as tra affic calming through t stree et gn, and minim mizing environ nmental impaccts through more m compreh hensive design processes. desig Retro ofitting existin ng streets into o ‘Complete Streets’ S can im mprove condittions for existting business and can also a attract ne ew businesse es within the corridor. c Ofte en property va alues increase e, since land owne ers are willing g to pay a premium to live in i ‘walkable’ communities. c Communitie es throughoutt the natio on are finding that creating human-scale ed environments allows pe eople to safelyy connect and d can lead to revitalizatio on of a comm munity. 2.3 EV VALUATE E PROPO OSED CO ORRIDOR R ALTERN NATIVES S 2.3.1 EVALUATIO E ON CRITERIIA The listing l below sets s forth the criteria used to evaluate alternatives a and to fairly co ompare and contrrast the choic ces. The obje ective of the alternatives a an nalysis is to develop sufficiient informatio on so that the t TAC, ADO OT and the prroject team ca an determine a recommen nded solution. That solutio on may be a hybrid of o the alternatives presente ed in this pape er. • Traffic analysis s (Level of Se ervice) • Safety • A Access • Environmental Impacts • C Cost • Im mplementation n • Support Final Report R Decemberr 2010 89 2.3.2 ALTERNATI A IVE EVALUA ATION The alternatives a developed d and d shown in Figure 2-9 thro ough 2-13 werre evaluated based b on the evalu uation criteria a presented ab bove. The evvaluation proccess to identiffy the preferre ed alternative e was base ed on qualitative, as well ass quantitative analysis of th he alternative es based on th he above crite eria by th he TAC memb bers as well as a the public. Trafffic analysis (Level ( of Serrvice) Each h of the alternatives were first evaluated d based on the e traffic analyysis criteria an nd developme ent oppo ortunities to id dentify alterna atives that pro ovided greatesst improveme ents to level of o service, interssection opera ation, and devvelopment opportunity. Th he highest Ave erage Daily Traffic T (ADT) proje ections on the e roadway seg gments for ea ach alternative e were compa ared in Table 2-1 to ascerttain which h alternatives s yield the gre eatest reductio on in traffic on n US 70 and US 191 throu ugh the develo oped areass, and which alternatives yield y the highe est ADT on th he alternate ro oute roadwayy. Decreased d trafficc on the existting routes insside the altern nate route are ea is taken to represent im mprovement in n level of se ervice and inte ersection ope eration. Highe er traffic proje ections on the e alternative ro oute are taken to repre esent greater opportunitiess for developm ment along the new route. To evvaluate the im mpacts of the alternate route corridor on n the existing US 191 and US 70 corrido ors, 2 of the e highest ADT T segments along a these tw wo existing co orridors were identified for the No-Build cond dition. These segments we ere on US 191 between Discovery Parkk Blvd and Arm mory Road (N NoBuild d = 80,700 vpd) and on US S 70 between 8th Ave and US U 191(No-Build = 46, 500 0 vpd). By isolating and evaluating the seg gments with the t highest ADT on the existing roadwa ays, the amou unt of ble 2-1, the relieff provided by the alternate route was tabulated. For example, as shown in Tab Alternative A has a maximum volume v of 5,5 500 vpd along its length wh hile only decre easing the mes on US 70 0 and US191 only slightly (over segmen nts identified ‘above). In contrast, for volum Alternative C2, the e alternate ro oute has a ma aximum volum me of 31,400 vpd v while sign nificantly easing the vo olumes on the e US 70 and US U 191 segments. decre Base ed on informa ation in the tab ble, Alternativves A, B, C1, C2, D and E are found to reduce r signifiicant trafficc on US 191 and a US 70. Alternatives A A, B, C1, C2 and E are foun nd to attract th he highest tra affic volum me to the new w route. Fourr alternatives (A, B, C1, and C2) are ide entified as satisfying both trraffic and development d criteria. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 90 Table 2-1: 2 Alternattive ADT Year 2040 2 Highest ADT on Roadway Segme ent Alt. Routes EXISTING G ALT TERNATIVE ROUTES ROUTES S US191 U US70 A A 75,900 46 6,400 5,500 B 67,000 45 5,200 C1 53,500 40 0,700 C2 49,200 39 9,000 D 71,600 N/A E 67,700 45 5,300 No-Build 80,700 46 6,500 B C1 C2 E 13,50 00 27,100 31,400 24,200 * Note: The existing e routes ADT A are at: US19 91 – Discovery Pa ark to Armory Ro oad & US70 – 8th Ave to US191 howing the im mpacts each alternate a route e corridor alte ernative has on o the existing g The LOS maps sh et system with hin the study area a for the design d year 20 040 are show wn in the follow wing Figures 2-14 stree throu ugh 2-21. As you can see in the figuress, the US 191 corridor is prrojected to exxperience the greattest congestio on particularlyy when compared to the No Build graph hics shown in Section 1, Figurres 1-29 and 1-30. A significant increasse in US 191 traffic is base ed on the com mpletion of the e Sierrra del Sol dev velopment sou uth of town. As yo ou review the e LOS for the various Altern nate route corridor alternattives, you can n see that Alternatives C1 & C2 have a grreater impactt on the US 19 91 LOS than Alternative A does. This iss ause of the pro oximity of the e new routes to t the trip gen neration locations and desttinations. beca Alternatives C1 & C2 will opera ate more as a part of the lo ocal arterial sttreet system providing p an native to the local l street syystem. While e Alternative A is far enoug gh away from the city cente er that altern it would be used for f regional triips rather than local trips to o the neighbo orhood busine esses. Altern native aximizes the opportunity o to o provide relie ef along US 19 91 by being close c enough for local trafffic to B ma use, while still pro oviding for reg gional traffic. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 91 Figure 2-14: S Study Area Level of Serrvice 2040 – Alternative eA Final Report R Decemberr 2010 92 Figure 2-1 15: Safford/ /Thatcher Arrea Level off Service 204 40 – Alterna ative A Final Report R Decemberr 2010 93 Figure 2-16: Study Area Level of Serrvice 2040 – Alternative eB Final Report R Decemberr 2010 94 Figure 2-17: Safforrd/Thatcher Area Level of Service 2040 – Alterrnative B Final Report R Decemberr 2010 95 Fig gure 2-18: S Study Area Level L of Serv vice 2040 – Alternative e C1 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 96 Figure 2-19: Safford d/Thatcher Area A Level of Service 20 040 – Altern native C1 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 97 Fig gure 2-20: S Study Area Level L of Serv vice 2040 – Alternative e C2 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 98 Figure 2-21: Safford d/Thatcher Area A Level of Service 20 040 – Altern native C2 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 99 The following f Tab bles 2-2, a-d, show s the LOS S associated with the Alterrnative D improvements to o US 191. The improve ements are ba ased on adjaccent arterial and a intersectio on improveme ents, then incre easing the num mber of laness and speed liimit, as shown in the highliighted portion ns of the table es, along g the US 191 corridor until the LOS ratin ng along the segment s reacches a LOS of o D. The ana alysis was done purely from f a traffic analysis a stand d point. The practicality p of implementing g the suggestted f widenings may or may not be feasible. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 100 Table 2--2, A-D: Alterna ative D LOS Ana alysis (with proposed improvements to reach h LOS D) NO BUILD US 191 (2040) From To ADT Functional Cla assification Speed Limit # lanes LOS US 70 8th St 45,700 Urban Princip pal Arterial 35 5 E 8 St Relation St 58,500 Urban Princip pal Arterial 35 5 F Re elation St 20th St 59,500 Urban Princip pal Arterial 35 5 F th 20 St D Discovery Park Blvd 63,400 Urban Princip pal Arterial 35/45 5 F Discov very Park Blvd Armory Rd 80,700 Rural Princip pal Arterial 45 5 F Armory Rd Powerline Rd 58,300 Rural Mino or Arterial 45/55 5/2 E/F Pow werline Rd Swift Trail 61,600 Rural Mino or Arterial 55 2 F Swift S Trail Artesia Rd 56,600 Rural Mino or Arterial 55/65 2 F/F Artesia Rd Study Limit 10,500 Rural Mino or Arterial 65 2 D th US 191 (2040) WITH MAJOR SATS IM MPROVEMENTS From To ADT Functional Classification Speed Limit # lane es LOS US 70 8th St 38,000 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 D 8th St Relation St 47,600 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 E Relation St 20th St Discovery Park Blvd 39,600 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 D 42,100 Urban Principal Arterial 35//45 5 D 20th St US191 Improve ements to meet LOS D Increase speed d limit to 45 mph + widen to 7 lanes Discovery Park Blvd Armory Rd Armory Rd 79,400 Rural Principal Arterial A 45 5 5 F Powerline Rd d 33,450 Rural Minor Arrterial 45//55 5/2 2 C/F Increase speed d limit to 55 mph + widen to 7 lanes Widen to 4 lanes Powerline Rd Swift Trail 21,600 Rural Minor Arrterial 55 5 2 F Widen to 4 lanes Swift Trail Artesia Rd 18,600 Rural Minor Arrterial 55//65 2 F Widen to 4 lanes Artesia Rd Study Limit 7,400 Rural Minor Arrterial 65 5 2 D Final Report December 2010 101 US 19 91 (2040) WITH MAJOR M SATS IMPROVEMENTS + EXTEN ND STOCKTON RD R AS 4 LANES TO T SOLOMON RD R From To ADT Functional Classification Speed Limit # lane es LOS US 70 8th St 38,800 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 D 8th St Relation St 48,300 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 E Relation St 20th St Discovery Park Blvd 40,700 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 D 42,000 Urban Principal Arterial 35//45 5 D th 20 St US191 Improve ements to meet LOS D Increase speed d limit to 45 mph + widen to 7 lanes Discovery Park Blvd Armory Rd Armory Rd 53,400 Rural Principal Arterial A 45 5 5 E Powerline Rd d 30,200 Rural Minor Arrterial 45//55 5/2 2 C/F Increase speed d limit to 55 mph Widen to 4 lanes Powerline Rd Swift Trail 21,400 Rural Minor Arrterial 55 5 2 F Widen to 4 lanes Swift Trail Artesia Rd 17,900 Rural Minor Arrterial 55//65 2 E Widen to 4 lanes Artesia Rd Study Limit 7,400 Rural Minor Arrterial 65 5 2 D Final Report December 2010 102 US 19 91 (2040) WITH MAJOR M SATS IMPROVEMENTS + EXTEND D STOCKTON RD D AS 4 LANES TO T SOLOMON RD D+ T WIDEN RELA ATION ST TO 4 LA ANE BETWEEN US 191 AND 14TH AVE + EXTE END 20TH AVE AS A 2 LANES BETW WEEN DISCOVE ERY PARK BLVD D AND ARTESIA US191 Improve ements to meet LOS D From To ADT Functional Classification Speed Limit # lane es LOS US 70 8th St 35,400 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 D 8th St Relation St 45,000 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 E Relation St 20th St 34,800 Urban Principal Arterial 35 5 5 D 20th St Discovery Park Blvd 34,700 Urban Principal Arterial 35//45 5 D Discovery Park Blvd Armory Rd 47,600 Rural Principal Arterial A 45 5 5 E Increase speed d limit to 55 mph Armory Rd Powerline Rd d 26,400 Rural Minor Arrterial 45//55 5/2 2 C/F Widen to 4 lanes Powerline Rd Swift Trail 25,000 Rural Minor Arrterial 55 5 2 F Widen to 4 lanes Swift Trail Artesia Rd 16,400 Rural Minor Arrterial 55//65 2 E Widen to 4 lanes Artesia Rd Study Limit 7,400 Rural Minor Arrterial 65 5 2 D Increase speed d limit to 45 mph Final Report December 2010 103 The Alternative A D improvements suggested above can be e developed to t address so ome of the loccal trafficc LOS concerrns along the existing US 191 1 roadway.. But with con ncerns about the feasibilityy of imple ementing the improvementts, as well as the lack of ad ddressing reg gional traffic, Alternative A D was remo oved from the discussion. The Alternative A E improvementts have a sign nificant impacct on the existting US 191 alignment. a Ass show wn in the follow wing table 2-3 3, the realignment to the Stockton S Road d alignment along a with consstructing a con ntrolled accesss 4-lane divid ded facility de ecreases the traffic t volume e remaining on the old US U 191 alignm ment. With the construction of the new US 191 alignment, the old US191 alignment can be b turned bac ck to the locall agencies forr use as an arrterial street. Table 2-3: Alte ernative E Traffic T Volum mes Se egment Term minals P Ran nch Roa ad Artesia Roa ad Qua ail Tra ail Swiift Tra ail Rop per Lak ke Roa ad Artesia Road Quail Trail Swift Trail Roper Lake Road Powerlin P e Road Old US 191 (improved to 4-lane divided) 2040 Projected P Trraffic Volum mes Old US 191 (with US U Stoc ckton New US 191 1 191 Ro oad (Stockto on Realigne ed (No US U 191 Road to Stocktton realign nment) Alignment) Road)) 8,300 5,60 00 N/A 12,400 0 47,300 17,8 800 1 15,200 44,300 0 61,700 17,0 000 1 16,000 44,200 0 39,300 23,5 500 1 17,000 55,100 0 49,000 30,2 200 1 17,100 55,100 0 The corridor c lengtths for each alternative a are e shown in Ta able 2-4. Sho orter corridor lengths typica ally equa ate to shorter travel time, but b other adva antages of lon nger length su uch as increasses in potentiial for econ nomic develop pment should be considere ed. A useful comparison c to o evaluate the ese alternativves in this type t of situatio on is to look at a the corridor length comp pared to the le ength traversed on existing g route es to reach the same points, as shown in Table 2-4. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 104 Table 2--4: Corridor Lengths No N Bu uild Alt Alt Alt Alt Altt A B C1 C2 E 22.7 3 30.2 22.7 Corridor Length L (miless) 26.5 9.4 9 9.0 12.4 11.3 8.5 8 9.2 2 Safe ety In ge eneral, the saffety increasess as the numb ber of conflictt points, such as intersectio on and drivew ways, decre ease. By identifying the allternate route e corridor to be e a 4 lane divvided facility with w controlled d acce ess and intersections space ed at a minim mum of 2 miless, alternativess A, B, C1, C2 2 & E will all be b deve eloped as a sa afer facility. In n addition to the t increase in safety alon ng the new alignment, existting US 191 and US 70 roadways will w experience e an increase e in safety beccause of a de ecrease in trafffic mes. By com mbining the turrn back of existing US 191 and US 70 to o the local ag gencies and volum deve eloping a ‘Com mplete Street’’ approach to its redevelop pment, the downtown area streets can beco ome a safer ro oadway for all of its users, including bicyycle and pede estrians. Acce ess The Alternate A routte corridor typ pical section has h been iden ntified to be a 4 lane divide ed highway with w contrrolled access and intersecttions/intercha anges spaced d at a minimum m of 2 miles. By controllin ng the acce ess points alon ng the corrido or, the potentiial developme ent opportunitties will be foccused at the major m interssection points s. Criteria forr selecting pottential interch hange location ns include adjjacent ground d slope e for developm ment potentia al, existing roa adways in the e vicinity, and spacing of att least two miles betw ween interchan nges. Alternative A offerrs limited opp portunities for interchange locations l beccause of a sub bstantial portion of a cros ssing BLM lan nds and limite ed developme ent of the exissting roadwayy network. the alignment Potential interchange locationss for Alternativve A include: ¾ U 70 (northw US west origin) ¾ Tripp Canyon Road ¾ C Cluff Ranch Ro oad ¾ Frye Mesa Roa ad ¾ U 191 at Swifft Trail Junctio US on Final Report R Decemberr 2010 105 ¾ Stockton Road d ¾ U 70 (northea US ast terminus) Poten ntial interchan nge locations for Alternativve B include: ¾ US 70 (northw west origin) ¾ Tripp Canyon Road R ¾ Cluff Ranch Ro oad ¾ ad Frrye Mesa Roa ¾ Hoopes Ave (e extended) ¾ 0th Ave (exten nded) 20 ¾ US 191 at Pow werline Road ¾ Sttockton Road ¾ Ba arney Lane ¾ D Condados Road Dos ¾ US 70 (northea ast terminus) ntial interchan nge locations for Alternativve C1 include: Poten ¾ US 70 (northw west origin) ¾ ad Frrye Mesa Roa ¾ Hoopes Avenue (extended) ¾ 0th Ave (exten nded) 20 ¾ US 191 (southe ern terminus)) ntial interchan nge locations for Alternativve C2 include: Poten ¾ US 70 (northw west origin) ¾ ad Frrye Mesa Roa ¾ Hoopes Avenue (extended) ¾ 0th Ave (exten nded) 20 ¾ Le ebanon Road (extended) ¾ US 191 (southe ern terminus)) unity for new interchange locations. l Alternative D offers no opportu Final Report R Decemberr 2010 106 ntial interchan nge locations for Alternativve E include: Poten ¾ US 191 (southe ern Terminuss) ¾ Artesia Road ¾ wift Trail (SR 366 extensio on) Sw ¾ R Roper Lake Ro oad ¾ US 191 (northe ern terminus)) e the intersec ction/interchan nge locations are identified d, then the loccal agencies can c begin to plan p Once for th he extension of o the local sttreet system to t tie into thesse locations. The extensio on of the locall stree ets to the new w alternate rou ute corridor will w provide an opportunity for f developme ent at the interssections, as well w as promo ote in-fill deve elopment alon ng the arterial extensions. Alternatives A & B proviide the best opportunity o to create the in-fill developm ment, but depe ending on the e magnitude of o the econ nomic growth in the area ovver the horizo on, Alternative e A may be to oo far away frrom the city ce enter to co ompletely in-fill. Environmental Im mpacts A pre eliminary revie ew of environ nmental docum mentation ava ailable within the study are ea has been comp pleted and is included in Section S 2.4. Thus T far, there e is an absence of highly sensitive s areas identtified to poten ntially be in co onflict with the e possible corrridor alternattives. Costt Costs estimates fo or each of the e alternatives are based on n planning-levvel cost estim mating techniq ques. ulated data fro om similar pro ojects and pre e-established budgetary co ost ranges forr roadway Tabu classsification types provided byy ADOT were e used for priccing. This leve el of estimate lacks the ben nefit of de etailed design information. The alternattives were bro oken down intto line items that t could be unit price ed. They were e then adjuste ed for local site conditions based on agency discussions and site visitss. While this is i a suitable approach a to use u for compa aring alternativves at this sta age of a plann ning studyy, the costs are based on a number of assumptions a a and, by naturre, may not re eflect current markket conditions s. The right-of-way costs are a the most speculative s an nd should be considered as a prelim minary numbe ers that have a large marg gin of uncertaiinty related to o them. The preliminary p co ost estim mates are sho own in Table 2-6 2 thru 2-10. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 107 For cost c estimatin ng purposes, the t roadway configuration c is based on a two-lane se ection constructed with at-grade interrsections with h existing road dways along with appropriate turn laness at the interssections. Cos sts are based d on constructtion of a railro oad grade sep paration at the Arizona Eastern Railw way (AZER) fo or Alternative A and B, with the highwayy carried overr the rail line. The drainage d estimate has bee en developed based on US SGS topograp phic mapping. The estimated numb ber and type of drainage structures s nee eded for each alternative iss presented in n Table 2-5. Deta ailed hydrologic analysis wiill be needed to size waterrway structure es during design developm ment. One of the bridges s for Alternatiive A and B are a needed for a grade sep paration with the t Arizona ern Railway (AZER). ( Easte Table 2-5 5: Drainage Structures S ALTERNA ATIVE PIPE CULVERTS CONC CRETE BOX CU ULVERTS BRID DGES A 35 1 2 B 31 1 1 C1 1 16 0 0 C2 2 22 0 0 E 14 2 0 ased on acquisition of sufficcient right of way w for a futu ure four lane The Right of way needs are ba ed access fac cility with grad de separated interchanges at major inte ersecting road dways. For co ost limite estim mating purpos ses, the right of o way corrido or is assumed d to be 310’ wide w with an additional a 45 acres a per in nterchange. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 108 Ta able 2-6: Prreliminary C Cost Estimates Final Report R Decemberr 2010 109 Table 2--7: Preliminary Cost Esttimates (Continued) Final Report R Decemberr 2010 110 Table 2--8: Preliminary Cost Esttimates (Continued) Final Report R Decemberr 2010 111 Table 2--9: Preliminary Cost Esttimates (Continued) Final Report R Decemberr 2010 112 Table 2-10: Prelimin nary Cost Es stimates (Co ontinued) Implementation f strategy for f implementing the seleccted alternate route corrido or is to develo op the alignme ent The first enou ugh to be able e to begin the right-of-way acquisition prrocess. Base ed on a stakeholder interview with BLM, the preferred corrido or alignment should s be pro ovided so thatt it can be inclluded in their ated land man nagement plan, which is exxpected to be e completed in n the next 5 to o 10 years. upda Once e the right-of-way acquisitio on process iss underway, th hen a constru uction implem mentation plan n shou uld be develop ped to divide the corridor in nto feasible segments. To o begin with, half h of the ultimate 4 lan ne divided facility should be e constructed. The initial ro oadway would d therefore be e 1 lane in ea ach direcction construc cted offset with hin a right of way w width tha at is sufficientt for a future four-lane f contrrolled access facility. The phasing p of the e segments should s begin with w a focus on o implementting the US 19 91 improveme ents first, and then beg gin the extenssions to the west w and finallyy, the extensiions to the ea ast. It would be b Final Report R Decemberr 2010 113 bene eficial to have the route exttend far enough so that it ties t in with an n arterial temp porarily to maximize the use of the route and a minimize e the dead end d situations. The preferred d direction co ould be ad djusted based d on the timin ng of the right--of-way acquisition processs. The construction c of o the alternate route will occur o mostly offline o of any existing facilitties. There will w be some e traffic impac cts in the loca ations where the t corridor ties into the exxisting US 70 and US 191 alignments and th he arterials. Supp port Therre is support from f the ADO OT District, loccal agencies and a public to pursue the de evelopment of o an Alternate route co orridor in the area. a Based on o the stakeh holder intervie ews, Alternativves A & B we ere erred. Alterna ative B was th he most prefe erred of the tw wo. The stake eholder input suggested that prefe Alternative B is far enough awa ay from town to provide forr regional trafffic, but close enough that it d still be used d for local trafffic and would provide deve elopment and d in-fill opportu unities. could 2.3.3 ALTERNATI A IVE EVALUA ATION MAT TRIX Base ed on the crite eria described d above, the following f matrrix, Table 2-7, has been de eveloped to summ marize the top pics. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 114 Table 2--11: Evaluation n Matrix EVALUATION CRITERIA Tra affic Analysis (Le evel of Service) NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE E ALTERNATIVE ALTERN NATIVE ALTE ERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A B C1 1 C2 D E • Travel Time: N/A minutes • Travel Time: 26 minutes • Travel Time: 23 2 minutes • Travel Time: 8 minutes • Travel Time: 10 minute es • Travel Time: N/A min nutes • Travel Time: 9 minutes • Distance: N/A miles • Distance:30.2 milles 5 miles • Distance: 26.5 • Distance: 9.0 9 miles • Distancce: 11.3 miles • Disttance: N/A miles • Distance: 9.2 miles • Lowest Projected LOS S • Lowest Projected LOS • Lowest Projeccted LOS • Lowest Pro ojected LOS • Lowestt Projected LOS • Low west Projected LOS S • Lowest Projected LOS (on US70): F (on US70): E (on US70): E (on US70): E (on US191): F (on US191): F (on US191): F (on US191): D (on US70): E (on US70)): E (on US191): F (* - ADT along US 191 1 from Discovery Park to Armory Rd & US 70 from 8th Ave to US 191) Saffety • Greatest Volume on Alternate Route: N/A AADT • Greatest Volume on US70*: 46,500 AADT T US191*: 81,600 AADT • Maintains high regional and local traffic volumes in cityy center • Driveway and intersection conflicts remain • Conflicts with multimodal traffic (on US70): N/A (on US191): F • Greatest Volume on Alternate Route: 16,200 AADT • Greatest Volum me on Alternate Routte: 22,700 AADT • Greatest Volume on US70*: 43,500 AA ADT US191*: 61,200 AADT • Access control po olicy eliminates drivew ways and intersection conflicts like on th he existing US70 and d US191 • Minimizes conflictts with pedestrians by moving out of cityy center • Decreases traffic volume traveling through the US 70 7 / US 191 traffic signal • Greatest Volum me on US70*: 42,200 0 AADT US191*: 48,00 00 AADT • Access control policy eliminates drivveways and intersectio on conflicts like on o the existing US70 and US191 • Minimizes con nflicts with pedestria ans by moving out off city center • Decreases trafffic volume traveliing through the US U 70 / US 191 traffic signal • Greatest Volume on Alternate Route: R 27,100 AAD DT • Greatest Volume on US70*: 39,,000 AADT US191*: 54 4,500 AADT • Access con ntrol policy eliminates driveways and interse ection conflicts likke on the existing US S70 and US191 • Decreases traffic volume tra aveling through the US 70 / US 191 traffic signal (on US191): F • Greate est Volume on Alterna ate Route: 31,400 0 AADT eatest Volume on • Gre Alte ernate Route: 22,700 AADT • Greate est Volume on US70*: 37,400 AADT US191*: 50,100 AADT • Accesss control policy elimina ates driveways and inttersection conflictts like on the existing g US70 and US191 • Decrea ases traffic volume e traveling through the US 70 / 1 traffic signal US 191 • Gre eatest Volume on US7 70*: N/A US1 191*: 53,800 AAD DT • Poo or: Requires an incrrease in speed limiit along segments • Maiintains high regional and local trafffic volumes in cityy center • Drivveway and inte ersection conflicts rem main • Con nflicts with multimod dal traffic • Greatest Volume on Alternate Route: 55,100 AADT • Access control policy eliminates driveways and intersection conflicts like on the existing US70 and US191 • Minimizes conflicts with pedestrians by moving out of city center • In combination with Alternative B, there is a decrease in traffic volume traveling through the US 70 / US 191 traffic signal Final Report December 2010 115 Acc cess Env vironmental Impacts Cos st (Assumed ann nual inflation rate of 3%) • Access controlled d with intersectionss identified at minimum 2 mile spacing • Access controlled with intersectiions identified at minimum 2 mile spacing • Opportunity for future property development at intersection locations • Opportunity fo or future propertty development at a intersection lo ocations • Greater distance from city center may m minimize in-fill development opportunities alon ng arterial extension ns • Reasonable distance from city centter to promote in-filll development opportunities along arterial extenssions • Moderate: New roadway across previously undeveloped land d • Moderate: New w roadway acrosss previously undeveloped land l • Native American cultural sites in th he area • Native Americcan cultural sites in the area • 2-bridges, 1concrete box culvvert & 35-pipe culvertts construction acro oss existing washes • 1-bridges, 1concrete box culvert c & 31-pipe culvverts construction across a existing washe es • Current: $ 0 • Current: $ 212 M • Current: $ 191 1M • Current: $ 66 M • Future (2040): $ 0 • Future (2040): $ 516 M • Future (2040): $ 465 M • Future (2040): $ 159 M • No change in existing g access policy • None • Access con ntrolled with intersections identified at a minimum 2 mile spaccing • Opportunitty for future prop perty developme ent at intersection n locations • Closest disstance from city center to promote in n-fill developme ent opportunitiies along arterial exttensions • Accesss controlled with in ntersections identifiied at minimu um 2 mile spacing g • No change in exissting access poliicy • Opportunity for future property development at intersection locations • Opporttunity for future property development at interse ection locations • Reasonable distance from city center to promote in-fill development opportunities along arterial extensions • Closestt distance from city center to promotte in-fill development opporttunities along arterial extensions • Minimal: New roadway accross agricultural property al: New • Minima roadwa ay across agricultural property • 0-bridges, 0-concrete box culvertt & 16-pipe culverts co onstruction across exissting washes • 0-bridg ges, 0concre ete box culvert & 22-p pipe culverts constru uction across existing g washes • Access controlled with intersections identified at minimum 2 mile spacing • Mod derate: Imp provements could con nflict with historic pro operties • Moderate: New roadway across previously undeveloped land • Increased air/noise imp pacts by maintaining regional trafffic through city cen nter • Native American cultural sites in the area • Curren nt: $ 82 M • Currrent: $ N/A • Current: $ 69 M • Future (2040): $ 199 M • Futture (2040): $ N/A • Future (2040): $ 166 M • 0-bridges, 2-concrete box culvert & 14-pipe culverts construction across existing washes Final Report December 2010 116 Implementation Sup pport • None • Maintains status quo • Right-of-way acquisition can sttart • Right-of-way n start acquisition can • Right-of-way acquisition can start • Right-o of-way acquisiition can start provements can • Imp be done in segments • Right-of-way acquisition can start • Roadway can be built in phases to o the west, then east • Roadway can be built in phasess to the west, then easst • Roadw way can be built in n phases to the west, then t east • Req quired increase in spe eed limits may be fata al flaw • Can build in segments with temporary termin nal points at existing arterials • Can build in segments with h temporary terminal points at existting arterials • May be too o close to city center,, thus conflicting with local agency artterial improveme ents • Can bu uild in segme ents with temporary terminal points at existing arterials • Ressidential right-ofwayy acquisition nee eded • Can build in segments with temporary terminal points at existing arterials • Would be longestt distance for arterrial street extension to t new alignment • Would be mod derate distance for arrterial street extensio on to new alignmen nt • Provides most regional traffic benefit, by avoidiing city center • Provides good d regional trafficc benefit, by avo oiding city center ood local • Provides go traffic bene efit, by being close er to city center • Provide es good local traffic benefit, by being closer c to city center • Avoids US 70 / US S 191 intersection capacity issues • Provides some e local traffic benefit by o city being closer to center • Provides le ess regional traffic bene efit by being close e to city center • Provide es less regiona al traffic benefitt by being close to t city center • Avoids US 70 / US 191 intersectio on capacity issues • Avoids US 70 / US 191 interse ection capacity isssues • Avoids US 70 / US 191 inttersection capacitty issues • Avoids some agricultural prroperty, using the footthills instead • May effect already developed property and residents • May efffect already developed property and residents • Avoids the most agricultural prope erty, using the foothillss instead • Can build in segments with w temporary terminal points at existing e arterials • Would be shortest s distance fo or arterial street exte ension to new alignm ment • Would be moderate distance for arterial street extension to new alignment • Would be shortest distancce for arterial street extension to new alignment anges the size • Cha and d speed of the exissting US 70 & US 191 1, conflicting with cityy center feel • Pro ovides little regional traffic ben nefit by remaining in tthe city center • Faills to avoid US 70 / US S 191 intersection cap pacity issues • Provides good opportunity to secure access control • Provides some local traffic benefit by being closer to city center • Avoids US 70 / US 191 intersection capacity issues • Effe ects already devveloped property and d residents Final Report December 2010 117 2.3.4 FATAL FLAW W ANALYSIIS A fatal flaw w analysis ha as been comp pleted on the identified alte ernatives priorr to the final selection s of th he preferred alternative. The T design te eam is not currrently aware of fatal flaws for the advan nced alternatiives. 2.4 EN NVIRONM MENTAL OVERVIIEW 2.4.1 IN NTRODUCT TION The Graham County Alternate A Routte Study is a preliminary p asssessment off the need for and feasibilitty of a e connecting US U 191 to US S 70 that would provide an alternate rou ute corridor arround the Cityy of new route Safford an nd Town of Thatcher, particularly the Sa afford city cen nter area and the intersecttion of US 191 1 and US 70. d local agencies and the public was con nducted to obtain information Coordinattion with federal, state, and about the environmental resources in the genera al study area. Specific inforrmation was also a obtained to e existing social, economicc, and environ nmental chara acteristics of the t study area a and assist the define the study team m in identifyin ng particular constraints c to be considere ed in the deve elopment and preliminary analysis of o alternatives s. Future analyses will address environm mental consid derations in de etail, and spe ecific mitigation measures will be identifie ed as part of th hose analyse es and docum mentation. The e following o this Environ nmental Overrview summarrize current in nformation forr each environ nmental issue e. sections of 2.4.2 PHYSICAL P AND A NATUR RAL ENVIRO ONMENT TOPOGRAPH T HY/PHYSIO OLOGY The Graham County Alternate A Routte study area is located in the t north porttion of the Sa afford District, nd Cochise co ounties and portions of Pin nal, Pima and Gila which enccompasses alll of Graham, Greenlee, an Counties. The public la ands managed by the Distrrict lie within the t Basin and d Range Physsiographic s of the Colorado C Platteau. The area’s northwestterly trending mountain ran nges reach Province south elevationss of almost 11 1,000 feet. Se eparating thesse mountain ranges r are brroad, flat or ge ently sloping basins. Pu ublic lands ra ange in elevattion from abou ut 1,900 feet to t 7,500 feet.. The study arrea is mostly in 0 to 5 perce ent slope and thus erosion is less likely to be a proble em. Howeverr, some soils may m cause po oor drainage, which leads to erosion; therefore, speccific soil chara acteristics sho ould also be taken into ation. considera The studyy area crosses s numerous drainages d including Ash Crreek, Big Spring Wash, Big gler Wash, Cottonwood Creek, Gilla River, Grah ham Canal, Highline H Canal, Holyoke Wa ash, Hunsackker Wash, Ma arijilda arkham Wash h, Patterson Wash, W San Jo ose Wash, Sto ockton Wash,, Sunflower Canal, C Swift Creek, Ma Canyon Wash, W and Yuma Wash. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 118 Following are the slope e types that are a commonlyy found in the study area: ent, non-bedro ock – A relatively continuo ous and steep p slope or clifff, which generrally is producced Escarpme by erosion n but can be produced p by faulting, f that breaks the co ontinuity of mo ore gently slo oping land surfaces. Exposed earthy material is non-soil or very shallow w soil. el with steep sides s cut by running r waterr through whicch water ordin narily runs only Gully – A small channe e or snow melts. It generallly is an obsta acle to wheele ed vehicles an nd is too deep p to after a rain, or after ice ated by ordina ary tillage. be oblitera Short, ste eep slope – Na arrow soil are ea that has slo opes that are at least two slope s classess steeper than n the slope classs of the surro ounding map unit. Table 2-8 presents the e soils that are e commonly fo ound in the sttudy area. Table 2-1 12: Soil in Sttudy Area Soill on Flood Pllains and Allluvial Fans Guesst-Gila-Glenda ale Deep, well drrained, nearlyy level to genttly sloping, clayey, silty, an nd loamy soils; on o flood plain ns and alluvial fans Soils ls on Fan Terrraces and Hillsides H Haplargids- Deep, well drrained, moderately sloping g to very steep, loamy to clayey Calciiorthids- soils; on high hly dissected hills Torriiorthents Tres Hermanos- Deep, well drrained, gentlyy sloping to moderately m ste eep, very gravvelly k Pinalleno-Whitlock and loamy so oils; on fan te erraces and hiillsides Pelon ncillo-Tapco- Very shallow to moderatelly deep, well drained, genttly sloping to Artessia s loamy, very gravellyy, and clayey soils; s on fan moderately steep, terraces Warrm Soils on Mountains M Limp pia-Graham- Very shallow and deep, well drained, moderately m slo oping to very Atasccosa ountains steep, clayeyy, loamy, and very gravellyy soils; on mo Sourcce: U.S. Department of Agriculture e Soil Conservattion Service Final Report R Decemberr 2010 119 Vegetatio on Much of th he study area a lies within th he Arizona Up pland division n Sonoran dessertscrub cha aracterized byy leguminou us trees such as foothills paloverde p (Pa arkinsonia miccrophylla), ironwood (Olneyya tesota), an nd mesquitess (Prosopis sp pp.). Cacti are e abundant and include the saguaro cactus (Carnegia gigantea), cholla (Cyylindropuntia spp.), s barrel cactus c (Feroccactus spp.), and a pincushio on cactus (Ma ammillaria spp.). Annual prrecipitation ge enerally range es between 12 2 and 17 inch hes, with sum mmer rainfall accounting a forr 30 to 60 perccent of the annual total. Ele evations rang ge from appro oximately 980 to above 3,280 feet (Brow wn 1994). Biology ered and sensitive specie es Threatened, endange F and Wildlife Service (U USFWS) list of o federally en ndangered, threatened, pro oposed, and The US Fish candidate e species for Graham G Coun nty (USFWS 2008) 2 is pressented in Tab ble 2-9. Table 2-9 includes the USFWS liist of federally y listed specie es for Graham m County thatt may occur in n the study arrea and also includes their potential habitat requirements. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 120 Table 2-13: USF FWS Federally Listed Sp pecies Name Apach he (Arizona) trout Arizon na cliffrose Scientific Name Oncorhynchus apache Purshia subintegra Status Threatened ndangered En Ba ald eagle Haliaeettus leucoceph halus Threatened Califo ornia Brown P Pelican Pelecan nus occidenttalis californiccus Proposed P Delisted Ch hiricahua leop pard frog Dese ert pupfish Giila chub Gila topminnow t Lessser longno osed Bat Loacch minnow Mexxican gray wolf Mexiccan spotted owl Moun nt Graham red d Squirrel Lithobates [Rana] [ chiricahue ensis Threa atened Cyprinod don macularrius Gila interm media Poeciliop psis occidenttalis occidenttalis Leptonyctteris curasoa ae yerbabue enae Tiaroga co obitis Canis lupus baileyi En ndangered ndangered En En ndangered En ndangered Threatened ndangered En Strix occide entalis lucida a Threatened Tamiasciu urus hudsoniccus grahame ensis En ndangered Habitatt Presently restricted r to cold c mountain n streams with w many low w gradient meadow re eaches. Elevation >5,000 > ft White lime estone soils de erived from teritiary lakebed deposiits Elevation < 4,000 ft Large tree es or cliffs nea ar water (reservoirss, rivers, and streams) with h abundant prey. V Elevation Varies Coastal lan nd and islands; species found arou und many Arizona lakes an nd rivers. V Elevation Varies Streams, rivers, r backwa aters, ponds, and stock tanks that are mostly free e duced fish, crrayfish, and from introd bullfrogs. 3 f ft Elevation 3,300-8,900 Shallow sp prings, small streams, s and marshes. Tolerates T saline and warm water. Elevation < 5,000 ft Pools, springs, cienegass, and stream ms. 2 - 5,500 0 ft Elevation 2,000 Small strea ams, springs, and cienegass vegetated shallows. Elevation < 4,500 ft Desert scrub habitat with agave and d c present as food plantts. columnar cacti Elevation < 6,000 ft Benthic sp pecies of smalll to large perennial streams s with swift shallow w water overr cobble and gravel. Recurrent flooding and natural ph important. hydrograp Elevation <8,000 < ft Chapparal,, woodland, and a forested areas. Mayy cross desertt areas. Elevation 4,000 4 -12,000 0 ft Nests in ca anyons and dense forests with multillayered foliag ge structure. Elevation 4,100-9,000 4 f ft Montane upper u elevatio on matures to o old-growth h conifer foresst. Elevation > 8,000 ft Final Report R Decemberr 2010 121 Razorb back sucker Xyrauch hen texanu us En ndangered Soutthwestern willow w flycatcher Empidonaxx traillii extimu us En ndangered Sp pikedace Headw water chub Yellow-billed c cuckoo Wett Canyon talussnail Meda fulg gida Gila nig gra Coccyzu us american nus Sonorella allus macropha Threatened C Candidate C Candidate Co onservation A Agreement Riverine an nd lacustrine areas, generally not n in fast mo oving water and may use u backwaters. Elevation < 6,000 ft Cottonwoo od/willow and d tamarisk vegetation n communitiess along riverss and stream ms. Elevation <8,500 < ft Moderate to t large peren nnial streamss with grave el cobble subsstrates and moderate to swift veloccities over san nd R and gravel substrates. Recurrent nd natural hyydrograph flooding an important.. Elevation < 6,000 ft Small to medium-sized m streams, ofte en associated d with deep po ools and cove er such as bo oulders or veg getation. Elevation 3,000 3 - 6,700 0 ft Large bloccks of riparian n woodlandss (cottonwood d, willow, or tamarisk galleries). Elevation < 6,500 ft Talus slope es in heavily vegetated area of Wet Canyon (Pinaleno Mountains). 6 Elevation 6,050 Sourcce: USFWS 20 008 Arizona Wildlife W of Sp pecial Conce ern Within the e state, the Arrizona Game and Fish Dep partment (AG GFD) recognizze many speccies as sensitive and desig gnated them as a Wildlife of Special S Conccern (WSC) in n Arizona. WS SC species arre suspected to occur in th he study area a are shown in n Table 2-10. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 122 Table e 2-14: Arizo ona Wildlife e Special Concern Common C Nam me Scie entific Name e Lowland Leop pard Frog Lith hobates yavap paiensis Common Blacck-Hawk Bute teogallus anth hracinus Western yellow w-billed Cuckoo o Cocccyzus american nus occidentaliss Southwestern n Willow Flyca atcher Emp pidonax trailliii extimus A American Perregrine Falcon n Falcco peregrinuss anatum Mexican Spottted Owl Strix ix occidentaliss lucida Desert Pupfissh Cyp prinodon macu ularius Gila Chub Gilaa intermedia Gila Topminn now Poeeciliopsis occid dentalis occide dentalis Loach Minnow w Tiarroga cobitis California Lea af-nosed Bat Maccrotus californ nicus Pima Indian Mallow M Abu utilon parishii (salvage ( resttricted) Narrow-headed Garter Sna ake Thaamnophis rufip ipunctatus Y Yuma Myotis Myo otis yumanenssis Greater Westtern Mastiff Bat Eum mops perotis californicus c ervice Sensittive Species Forest Se The USDA A Forest Serv vice (USDA FS) F recognizes many speciies as sensitivve and design nates them ass Forest Se ensitive Species. Several of o these species are known n or are suspe ected to occur within the sttudy area, show wn in Table 2-11. 2 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 123 Table e 2-15: USDA A FS Forest Sensitive Sp pecies Common C Nam me Scie entific Name e Lowland Leop pard Frog Lith hobates yavap paiensis Common Blacck-Hawk Bute teogallus anth hracinus Western yellow w-billed Cuckoo o Cocccyzus american nus occidentaliss Southwestern n Willow Flyca atcher Emp pidonax trailliii extimus A American Perregrine Falcon n Falcco peregrinuss anatum Mexican Spottted Owl Strix ix occidentaliss lucida Gila Chub Gilaa intermedia Loach Minnow w Tiarroga cobitis California Lea af-nosed Bat Maccrotus californ nicus Obsolete Vice eroy Butterflyy Lime menitis archipp pus obsoleta Pima Indian Mallow M Abu utilon parishii A Sedge Care rex chihuahueensis A Arizona Alum m Root Heu uchera glomer erulata Branching Pe enstemon Pen nstemon ramo osus Superb Beard dtongue Pen nstemon super erbus Giant Spotted d Whiptail Asp pidoscelis burtti stictogramm mus Narrow-headed Garter Sna ake Thaamnophis rufip ipunctatus Western Burrrowing Owl Athe hene cunicularria hypugaea Gila Longfin Dace D Ago osia chrysogasster chrysogaaster Sonora Sucke er Cato tostomus “Pan ntosteus” insig ignis Speckled Dacce Rhin nichthys oscu ulus Desert Sucke er Cato tostomus “Pan ntosteus” clark rki Cave Myotis Myo otis velifer Sourcce: USDA FS, 2008 2 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 124 Wildlife movement m co orridors Arizona’s wildlife linkag ges assessme ent project co onducted by th he Arizona Department of Transportatio on dentified wildlife linkage zo ones that are important to maintaining m w wildlife habitatt connectivity and (ADOT) id biodiversity in the state e. The study area a belongs to a fracture zone z that are e areas of reduced permea ability h blocks s. Most fracture zones nee ed significant restoration r to function as reliable r linkag ges. between habitat Portions of o the fracture e zone are designated as potential p linka age zones (PL LZ) i.e. an are ea critical to wildlife mo ovement. Non ne of the fractture zones in the study are ea are design nated as PLZ. Hydrolog gy Floodplains A review of o the Federa al Emergency Management Agency (FE EMA) Flood In nsurance Rate e Maps for the e study area a indicated th hat several flo oodplains are in the study area; a Cottonw wood Wash, Cactus C Flat, Marijilda Wash, W and Fo oote Draw. Th he floodplainss in the study area are designated unde er Zone X, deffined as “Areass of 0.2% annual chance flo ood; areas of 1% annual flood with averrage depths of o less than 1 foot or with dra ainage area le ess than 1 sq quare mile; an nd areas prote ected by levees from 1% annual a chance e flood”. The following FE EMA maps co over the studyy area: ND0A 04009CIN 04009C15 550D 04009C150 03D 04009C15 501D 04009CIND D0A 04009C1515D 04009C15 503D 04009C1483D D0A 04009CIND 04009C15 504D 04009C1484D 04009C123 39D 04009C15 508D 04009C1491D 04009C125 50D 04009C15 509D 04009C1492D 04009C150 00D 04009C1510D 04009C1500D 515D 04009C15 04009C1501D Impacts to t floodplains will need to be b addressed d in the enviro onmental docu ument for thiss study. Water Qu uality A prelimin nary evaluatio on for the pressence of pote ential jurisdictiional waters (as ( defined un nder the Clea an Water Actt of 1977) was s conducted in i the project in the study area a limits thrrough a review w of USGS topograph hy maps. Nam med washes in the project area include Talley Wash,, Cottonwood Wash, Peterrson Final Report R Decemberr 2010 125 Wash, Wilson Wash, Lone L Star Wassh, Tidwell Wash, W Bennettt Wash, Centrral Wash, Fre eeman Wash, d Wash, Cacttus Flat, Marijjilda Wash, and Foote Dra aw. These dra ainages typica ally exhibit the e Graveyard characteristics of jurisd dictional Wate ers of the Unitted States, ass regulated byy the U.S. Arm my Corps of urisdictional determination d of Waters wiill need to be conducted in n conjunction with w Engineerss (Corps). A ju the preparation of the study’s s enviro onmental document. In add dition to a Cle ean Water Act Section 401 of nd an Arizona a Pollutant Disscharge Elimination System permit per Section 402((p) of the Clean Water Act an d during final design d from the Arizona Department of Environmenttal the Clean Water act wiill be required Quality. s Wetlands Under the e Clean Water Act, the term m wetlands means m “those areas a that are e inundated or o saturated by b surface orr ground wate er at a frequency and duration sufficientt to support, and a that unde er normal circumsta ances do supp port, a prevale ence of vegettation typicallyy adapted forr life in saturated soil condiitions. Wetlands generally inc clude swampss, marshes, bogs, and similar areas”. Ad dditional investigations will n the study arrea during devvelopment of the environm mental docume ent need to occcur to identiffy wetlands in for this stu udy. Noise oject involvess the construcction of new th hrough traffic lanes, the project will need to Since the proposed pro ated in accord dance with AD DOT’s Noise Abatement A Po olicy, Decemb ber 5, 2005. The T policy wa as be evalua written to conform to th he federal policy and guide elines as state ed in Title 23 of the Code of o Federal olled in accord dance to the Arizona A Regulations (CFR) Parrt 772. Constrruction noise will be contro ent of Transpo ortation Stand dard Specifica ations for Roa ad and Bridge e Construction n. Departme Air Qualitty The federral Clean Air Act A of 1970 esstablished Na ational Ambie ent Air Qualityy Standards (N NAAQS) for six s pollutantss. These pollutants, referred to as the “C Criteria Polluta ants”, include e carbon mono oxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide d (NO2)), ozone (O3), particulate matter m (PM), sulfur s dioxide (SO2), and le ead (Pb). The e State of Arizona A standa ards are identical to the NA AAQS. An air qua ality assessment will be ne eeded to determine if this project p will have any notable impact to air a quality in the area. Som me temporaryy deterioration n of air qualityy may be expected due to the operation n of wever, this will be a localized condition that t will be discontinued when w the proje ect is construction zone. How d. Fugitive du ust generated from construction activitie es must be controlled in accordance with h the completed Arizona Department D off Transportatio on Standard Specificationss for Road an nd Bridge Con nstruction, special provisionss, and local ru ules or ordina ances. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 126 Hazardou us Materials The prima ary hazardous s material con ncerns for the e project area involve forme er and ongoin ng mining activities throughout t the project vicin nity. No specific mining rellated hazardo ous materials concerns were identified within the stu udy area; how wever, all alterrnatives unde er consideratio on may interssect unidentified tunnels asssociated with h former mine es or mineral explorations. Such tunnelss could poten ntially create a construction hazard or contain conta aminated watters. ardous Waste Inspections and a Enforcem ment Report, 2002 2 prepare ed by the Arizona Department The Haza of Environ nmental Quality listed Imprressive Labelss Inc facility in n Safford; how wever reporte ed no violation n. The naturre of contamin nation associa ated with this facility was high h arsenic le evel in the soil. The facilityy is closed and is unlikely to t affect construction activiities in the stu udy area. ural resource es, parks, rec creation, refu uges) 4(f) (cultu Section 4(f) of the Dep partment of Trransportation Act of 1966 (49 ( USC 303)) stipulates that the Federa al A n (FHWA) ma ay not approvve the use of land l from a significant pub blicly-owned part, p Highway Administratio recreation n area, or wild dlife and wate erfowl refuge, or any signifiicant historic site that is eitther listed, or eligible for listing, in the e National Re egister of Histtoric Places (N NRHP) underr Criteria A, B, B or C. Publicc schools are designated d as Section 4 (f) resource es if public acccess to and/o or use of sportts facilities (e.g. baseball diamonds, d tra acks) is permitted. There are e no wildlife orr waterfowl re efuge areas within w the stud dy area. There e are multiple e historic sitess that are listed,, or eligible fo or listing, in the e NRHP unde er Criteria A, B, or C. Therre are severall public schoo ols in the study area that wou uld be protectted by Section 4(f) becausse they have sports s facilitie es open to the e public whe en school is not n in session n. Thus, a Secction 4(f) analysis will be in ncluded in the e developmen nt of the enviro onmental docu ument. Socioeco onomic Envirronment Land Use e Jurisdiction and Own nership e study area much m of the la and is privately owned in th he City of Saffford, Thatche er, and Pima. The Within the adjacent lands are adm ministered by the State Tru ust, US Forest Service, and d Bureau of Land L Management M). land (BLM Final Report R Decemberr 2010 127 Socioeco onomic/Title VI Title VI off the Civil Righ hts Act of 196 64 and related d statutes enssure that indivviduals are no ot excluded frrom o or subjecte ed to discrimin nation under any a program or activity participating in, denied the benefit of, cial assistancce on the basiis of race, color, national origin, o age, se ex, and disability. receiving federal financ e Order 12890 0 Federal Actions to Addre ess Environme ental Justice in Minority Po opulations and Executive Low-Incom me Populations directs tha at programs, policies, p and activities a iden ntify and address as appropriate, disproporttionately high and adverse e human healtth and environ nmental effeccts on minorityy and me populations. low-incom The data used for the environmenta e al justice analyysis were takken from Summary File 3 of o the 2000 Census. Consideration C n was given in n this analysiss to the City of o Safford, Tha atcher, and Pima P and to th he county ass a whole. Tab ble 1-3 and 1--4 summarize e the demogra aphic data ob btained from the 2000 Census for the citiies. Demogra aphic data for racial and eth hnic groups, persons p age 60 and older,, disabled perrsons, persons living below th he poverty levvel, and the nu umber of hou useholds with a female hea ad of the household ds with childre en under the age of 18 are e included. Th he Departmen nt of Transporrtation Order on Environmental Justice defines low in ncome as a median m house ehold income at or below th he UD Department S pove erty guideline, which was $16.700 $ for a family of fourr in 1999. of Health and Human Services According g to the 2000 Census, the racial compossition of the Graham G Coun nty study area a was predomina antly white, with w about 32.9 percent min norities. Raciial and socioe economic dem mographics fo or the study area a are shown in i Table 1-3 and a 1-4. There is no n general clu ustering of Hisspanic popula ation in the study area, with h some excep ption in the arreas on the easst and west boundaries b of the study are ea. These are e generally lo ow density cen nsus blocks with w population n densities off fewer than 100 persons per p square mile. There is a general clusstering of non nwhite pop pulation in the city centers along a US 70; however, the e percentage generally doe es not exceed d 25 percent. The T percenta age of female head of houssehold is gene erally below county c averag ge with no discernab ble clustering. The percenttage of popula ation over 65 years of age e is around co ounty average e, and with no discernable clu ustering. There is no gene eral geographic clustering of o environmen ntal justice n based on Census C 2000 information fo or this study area. a population Final Report R Decemberr 2010 128 3 PR REFERRED COR RRIDOR R 3.1 ID DENTIFIC CATION OF O PREFERRED ALTERNA A ATIVE 3.1.1 SELECTION OF PREFER RRED CORR RIDOR ALT TERNATIVE E ADO OT, with input from the public and the pro oject’s TAC, has h selected Alternative B as the Preferred Corriidor Alternativ ve. In selectin ng the preferrred corridor, ADOT A stipulated that this study s presentts a numb ber of options s for the impro ovement of an n alternate ro oute corridor that will be furrther analyzed d and conssidered during g the subsequ uent Design Concept C Repo ort, Environme ental Analysiss, and preliminary desig gn phases of the project de evelopment. The Preferred Corridor Altternative reprresents an appro oximate mile wide corridorr in which the final recomm mended roadw way alignmentt may be deve eloped. The rationale r and justification behind b the se election of Alte ernative B as the preferred d corridor are prese ented in the fo ollowing para agraphs: • A Alternative B balances b the needs n of loca al and regiona al traffic within n the study area. As shown in th he various alte ernate route corridor c altern natives LOS results r (Figure es 2-14 through 2-21), you u can se ee that Altern natives C1 & C2 C have a gre eater impact on o the US 191 LOS than Alternative A A does. d This is because of the proxiimity of the ne ew routes to the t trip generration location ns and estinations. Alternatives A C & C2 will operate C1 o more as a part of the local arterrial street systtem de prroviding an allternative or extension e to the local stree et system. While Alternativve A is far eno ough aw way from the city center th hat it would be e used for reg gional trips ratther than loca al trips to the ne eighborhood businesses. Alternative B compromise es to provide relief r along US 191 by bein ng cllose enough for f local trafficc to use, while e still providin ng for regiona al traffic. • A Alternative B provides p oppo ortunity for in-fill developme ent while minimizing the im mpact to the exxisting agricultural lands. By identifying g the preferred d corridor, the e local agenccies will be able to pllan and devellop arterial strreet extensions to connectt to the new fa acility, thus providing acce ess an nd opportunitty for develop pment. In add dition, the proposed alignm ment is located d in the un ndisturbed foothills/desert areas that exxist generally to the south of o the develop ped agriculturral prroperty. By avoiding a the agricultural a pro operties, the impacts to on ne of the majo or economic so ources in the region will be e minimized when w compare ed to some off the other altternatives. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 129 • There is suppo ort from the ADOT A District, local agencie es and publicc to pursue the e developmen nt of n Alternate ro oute corridor in the area. Based B on the stakeholder interviews, i Alternatives A & B an w were preferred d. Alternative B was the most preferred of the two. The T stakehold der input su uggested thatt Alternative B is far enoug gh away from town to provide for region nal traffic, but close en nough that it could still be used for loca al traffic and would w provide developmentt and in-fill op pportunities. 3.1.2 CHARACTER C RISTICS OF F PREFERRE ED CORRID DOR Alternative B focuses on the de evelopment of o a corridor co ontaining a ne ew 4 lane divvided highwayy olled access right-of-way corridor. c Intersections/inte erchanges will be facilitty within a 310’ wide contro spacced a minimum m of 2 miles apart. a Figure 3-1 shows th he Alternative B corridor lim mits (apprroximately 1 mile m wide) as well as a few w of the poten ntial alignment alternatives that can be studied in a Desig gn Concept Report. 91 with US Ro oute 70, westt of the Town of The Preferred Corridor alternattive connects US Route 19 a and east of the City of Sa afford. It navigates to the west w from Pow werline Road d and runs alo ong Pima the edge e of Mount Graham foo othills and then north where e it connects to US Route 70. To the ea ast the corridor c runs along a Powerline Road turn ning northeastt as it crossess the Arizona Eastern Railrroad and San S Simon River, R connecting to US Route 70 to the east of the San Jose Road d. The goal g for this alternative a is to t provide for maximum tra affic volumes as a reliever to US 70 and d US 191 through t the downtown areas, while provviding a safe, high speed facility f for regional traffic. This T corrid dor is anticipa ated to carry between b 3,90 00 and 33,300 0 vehicles perr day by the year y 2040, wh hile remo oving between n 8,200 and 38,000 3 vehicle es from the US U 191 segme ent from Powe erline Road to o the US 191/US 70 inte ersection and d between 2,5 500 and 7,400 0 vehicles from the US 70 segment from m 7 intersection n. Reayy Lane to the US 191/US 70 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 130 Figure 3-1:: Preferred Corridor C Alte ernative Final R Report Decemberr 2010 131 3.1.3 OPTIONS O AV VAILABLE WITHIN W TH HE PREFER RRED CORR RIDOR West Tie-in As sh hown in Figurre 3-2, the Altternative B co orridor tie-in to o the US 70 iss anticipated to occur betw ween the Town T of Pima and Klondykke Road. The e Alternative B alignment will w become th he continuatio on of the US U 70 mainlin ne alignment and a the accesss to the Old US 70 can be e provided byy developing a new tee in ntersection. Additional A con nsideration will need to be made to crea ate horizontall space betwe een the new n alignment and the exissting Arizona Eastern RailR Road. It is asssumed that the t tie-in shou uld acco ommodate a grade g separatted crossing of o the railroad d, with the highway going over. o US Route R 191 Co onnection As sh hown in Figurre 3-3, the Altternative B co orridor tie-in with w US 191 iss anticipated to t occur in the e area between Rop per Lake Roa ad and ~1/2 mile m north of Powerline P Roa ad. Special consideration uld be taken to o evaluate the e feasibility off maintaining access contrrol when placiing the alignm ment shou on exxisting section nal arterials (Powerline Ro oad or Lebano on Road). Th he number of homes and utilitie es impacted should s be stu udied. The prreferred alignm ments may be e a ¼ mile no orth or south of o the existing arterials. Also in this area, a the US 191 1 DCR projject is currenttly evaluating the possibilitty of 91 alignment to t either the Stockton S Road d or 20th Ave e alignments. The final shifting the US 19 interssection locatio on of the Alte ernative B alig gnment and th he relocated US U 191 alignm ment will be deterrmined prelim minarily as a fu unction of the e US 191 DCR R, then finalizzed as a part of o a future Alternate Route DCR. D The ultimate concept will be for th he US 191 alig gnment to tee e into the new w Alternative B align nment, with US U 191 and US S 70 using the same alignment from thiis intersection n to U 70 / US 19 91 intersection east of the study area. the US Eastt Tie-in As sh hown in Figurre 3-4, the Altternative B co orridor tie-in to o the US 70 iss anticipated to occur in th he area of San Jose Road. The Alternative A B alignment a will become the continuation of the US 70 nline alignmen nt and the acccess to the Old US 70 can be provided by developing g a new tee main interssection. Additional consideration will ne eed to be mad de to tie-in to the existing vertical v grade e, as the US U 70 rises fro om the valleyy floor up onto o the mesa ass it continues to the east. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 132 Fiigure 3-2: West W Tie In Final R Report Decemberr 2010 133 Figure 3--3: US Route e 191 Conne ection Final R Report Decemberr 2010 134 Figure 3-4: East E Tie In Final R Report Decemberr 2010 135 3.2 PR REFERRE ED CORR RIDOR AN NALYSIS S FINDIN NGS 3.2.1 COST C TABLE E Ta able 3-1: Sum mmary of Es stimated Co osts Final Report R Decemberr 2010 136 Table 3-2 2: Summary y of Estimate ed Costs (Co ontinued) Basis of Cost Es stimate ‘ le evel’ costs givven in this rep port were com mpiled from tyypical similar project p costs and The ‘conceptual pre-e established bu udgetary costt ranges for ro oadway classsification typess provided byy ADOT. Unitt price es were adjusted for local site s conditionss based on insight gained through site visits. v The rig ghtof-wa ay costs are the t most specculative and should s be con nsidered to ha ave the widesst variability beca ause of the va arying land ow wnerships succh as BLM, Azz State Trust Land and Priivate. The inten ntion of the rig ght-of-way acq quisition proccess is to limitt access to ap pproximately 2 mile interva als which h will be acco omplished by purchase of access a rights from underlyying property owners allow wing Final Report R Decemberr 2010 137 for th he developme ent of a contro olled access facility. f The co ost data shou uld be conside ered very prelim minary and un nderstood to have a large margin of unccertainty. As the conceptss and designss are refine ed in future project phasess, the cost datta will be improved and reffined accordin ngly. 3.2.2 FINDINGS AND A CONCLU USIONS The following f findings and concclusions can be made as a function of this t Alternate Route Study: 1. The current an nd short term traffic issues for US 191 and a US 70 witthin the City of o Safford and d ddressed by the t ongoing US U 191 DCR study s and currrently Town of Thatcher can be ad prrogrammed im mprovementss along US 70 0. These ongoing improve ements have been b identified to re each capacity y in 2025, at which w time the e Preferred Corridor Alternative should be implementted to re elieve the con ngestion from the US 191 and a US 70. 2. There are a nu umber of diffe erent and viab ble alternative es that can be e implemented d to address the t onal and locall traffic volum mes anticipated for this area a. prrojected regio 3. The final solutiion will be arrrived at during g the subsequ uent phases of o the project developmentt; the D Design Concep pt Report and d Environmen ntal Document. 3.2.3 PROJECT P PH HASING AND FUNDING G The improvements suggested as a a function of this Alternate Route Stu udy can be ph hased in overr time mponent proje ects. This will allow ADOT T, in cooperattion with the City C of Safford d, in inccremental com Town n of Thatcherr, Town of Pim ma and Graha am County, to o plan, design n and have co onstructed pro ojects just ahead a of warrranted traffic volumes v to avvoid undue co ongestion. The following f list identifies i a wa ay to phase in n the corridorr: 1. With W significan nt portions of the t preferred corridor being on BLM or Arizona State e Land properrty, an n early appro oach to right-o of-way acquisition will help to avoid confflict with proposed develop pment in n the area and d possibly seccure dedicate ed right-of-wayy at a discoun nted price. As A soon as the e D DCR and envirronmental pro ocess identifie es the preferrred alignmentt then right-off-way should be b accquired. 2. The proposed 4 lane divided improveme ents can be im mplemented in n phases, beg ginning with th he onstruction off 2 lanes (1 la ane in each diirection) with simple stop controlled c inte ersections at the t co ke ey crossroads s. Then as trraffic volumess warrant the other o 2 lanes can be consttructed with po ossible signal controlled in ntersections, and a then finallly grade sepa arated traffic interchanges. 3. In n order to dev velop segmen nts that can be e used as the e corridor is co ompleted; the e improved arrterial crrossroads can n be used as detours, avoiding tempora ary dead end situations. Cu urrently, the co orridor constrruction will be e most effectivve beginning at a the US 191 1 / Powerline Road area Final Report R Decemberr 2010 138 m moving to the west w to the 20 0th Ave arteriial extension and to the ea ast to the US 70 7 east tie-in. A After the comp pletion of the eastern e leg, then completio on of the wesstern leg shou uld be the prio ority. This project has not n been programmed yet, therefore it iss not on a prio ority funding program. p As the gestion increa ases as projeccted along the e US 70 and US U 191, this corridor c will become a cong significant priority for the region n as future ca apacity improvvements to th he US 70 and US 191 gh town will no ot be econom mically or environmentally feasible. f alignments throug c to advancing g some of the proposed improvements of o the preferre ed Therre should be consideration corrid dor in the US 191 tie-in are ea near Powe erline Road where w the ultim mate US 191 alignment willl tee in to the preferred d corridor align nment. For continuance c o the state hig of ghway system m, the ultimate e US a will need to be reconnected r t the existing to g US 191 alignment until th he rest of the 191 alignment prefe erred corridor alignment ca an be completted. Therre can be som me consideration to making g the new corridor a tolled facility or man naged lane fa acility. Posssibly a public-private partne ership could be b used to finance the infra astructure. However, H due to the destinations, d routes r to the destinations, d al traffic, this and the distriibution of regiional and loca optio on does not ap ppear to be fe easible. Therre is not a significant travel time and exp pense saving gs with any of the alternatives to attract a users to t pay a toll and provide a revenue strea am to retire th he ds needed to build the imprrovements. bond Beca ause the need d is not immed diate, traditional programm ming and fund ding will be required for the e propo osed facility. The funding sources will be b revisited and a examined d more closelyy during the DCR R/EA phase off the project. One such so ource may be local develop pment fees co ollected in asso ociation with th he planned de evelopments in the study area. a 3.2.4 PUBLIC P INPUT An in nitial open hou use was held for the Altern nate Route Sttudy on August 7th, 2008, to present an n overvview of the study and summary of the existing e and fu uture roads le evel of service e. Alternate ro oute focuss area, future work tasks and a the projecct schedule were w also pressented. The meeting m was inten nded to be info ormative while gathering public p input on n issues and opportunities o ered to be conside durin ng the study. The T comments from the meeting m sugge ested the alterrnate route fo or the state routes US 70 7 and US 191 be located in mainly thre ee specific are eas i.e. to the e north along Gila River, to the east of Artesia Ro oad, or to the west on Bure eau of Land management m ( (BLM) land. o house was w held April 29th, 2009 to o present the determination n of need for the A seccond public open altern nate route corridor and sho ow the prelim minary corridorr alternatives. The meeting was intende ed to be in nformative while gathering public input on o issues and d opportunitiess to be consid dered during the t Final Report R Decemberr 2010 139 studyy. The comme ents from the meeting suggested the alternate route corridor for US U 70 and US S 191 follow w either the alternative a AE2 or C1D3 aliignment as sh hown on Figu ure 2.1.8 Preliiminary Corrid dor Alternatives – 3rd Refinement. This would provide p an op pportunity to decrease d the traffic on US 70 U 191 while e providing an opportunity to t develop in the infill area. and US The final f public input solicitatio on was a serie es of individua al stakeholder interviews with w the local comm munity memb bers and local agency managers, exclussive of the Technical Advissory Committe ee (TAC C) members, held h on June 9 & 10, 2009 9. The formatt of the interviiews was intro oductions, follow wed by a brief presentation n of the projecct and the currrent alternate e route corridor alternative es, then a series of 8 questions we ere discussed d with each interview group p. The general consensuss of nterviews werre that the alternate route corridor c mustt be far enoug gh away from the town cen nter to the in proviide higher spe eed facilities, but still be close enough to t promote de evelopment and in-fill oppo ortunities. Final Report R Decemberr 2010 140 4 AP PPENDIX X Final Report R Decemberr 2010 141 4.1 AP PPENDIX X 1A: EXIISTING POPULAT P TION Final Report R Decemberr 2010 142 TAZ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Existing Population P 112 462 132 125 299 1,258 526 133 548 57 55 69 713 285 2,527 309 247 205 95 814 913 60 906 528 181 683 738 1,846 1,232 1,225 112 111 796 131 60 961 30 850 2,429 TAZ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Total Existing Population 1,057 1,094 9 942 1,024 2 210 3 334 7 785 3 392 2 281 3 316 32 2 286 8 882 3 385 8 68 95 4 429 1,250 8 2 234 39 1 115 4 432 71 2 275 42 44 1 127 50 0 0 0 20 1 155 0 25 34 4,270 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 143 4.2 AP PPENDIX X 1B: EXIISTING EMPLOYM E MENT TAZ T 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 Existing Employment 58 158 72 59 93 167 161 19 56 16 16 45 17 22 9 94 74 70 182 149 246 49 24 612 891 107 629 182 57 13 8 0 15 15 160 107 5 149 44 TAZ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Total Exiisting Emplo oyment 1 129 1 113 2 250 7 762 1,,110 1 155 5 586 62 1 134 33 55 26 72 61 50 55 1 144 50 4 490 45 1 160 31 72 72 58 1 120 2 3 5 528 4 0 4 1 71 11 0 0 10 0,132 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 144 4.3 AP PPENDIX X 1C: ARE EA BICY YCLE AND D MULTIUSE PLA ANS Final Report R Decemberr 2010 145 Final Report R Decemberr 2010 146 Final Report Dec cember 2010 147 4.4 AP PPENDIX X 2A: PRE EVIOUSL LY IDENT TIFIED STUDY CORRIDORS Final Report R Decemberr 2010 148 Final Report Dec cember 2010 14 49 Final Report Dec cember 2010 15 50 4.5 AP PPENDIX X 3: PUBL LIC INVO OLVEMEN NT SUMM MARY RE EPORTS 4.5.1 NOVEMBER N R 2008 MEE ETING 1 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 151 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 152 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 153 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 154 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 155 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 156 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 157 4.5.2 A APRIL 2009 9 MEETING 2 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 158 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 159 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 160 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 161 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 162 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 163 4.5.3 JU UNE 2009 STAKEHOL S LDER INTER RVIEWS Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 164 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 165 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 166 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 167 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 168 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 169 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 170 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 171 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 172 Final Re eport Decemberr 2010 173